by Claude Thibaut

Mankind face to the machine and to its own reflection: corollary of the
new technologies' boom. Jean Baudrillard deals with the universe of
virtuality,the consequences of which are not so virtua l...
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: (rom your )oint of view, what )otential do the new
technologies offer*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: ' don't know much about this sub-ect. ' haven't
gone beyond the fa. and the automatic answering machine. ' have a very
hard time getting down to work on the screen because all ' see there is a
te.t in the form of an image which ' have a hard time entering. /ith my
ty)ewriter, the te.t is at a distance0 it is visible and ' can work with it. /ith
the screen, it's different0 one has to be inside0 it is )ossible to )lay with it
but only if one is on the other side, and immerses oneself in it. %hat
scares me a little, and Cybers)ace is not of great use to me )ersonally.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: 'n what domains can these new technologies be
used: communication, education, simulation* !re they likely to modify
the attitudes and behavior of those who use them*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: ' think that it will no doubt e.)lode in all
directions, because this is a s)rawling medium, and it will grow in all of
the domains. But do the ends remain the same0 that is doubtless the
main )roblem. et1s take )edagogy for e.am)le: doesn't information kill
education* ' have friends who are e.)eriencing this in the domain of
writing, and for my )art ' find that their behavior changes in a way. %he
)ossibility of indefinitely ad-usting the correct version creates a sort of
fantasy of )erfection of the te.t which gives the latter another allure,
another construction than those which their earlier writing )ossessed.
%he result of this quest for )erfection remains )roblematic. /e have the
im)ression that the machine o)erated beyond the ends of the writing.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: 's there a distortion of the )ersonality*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: 2erha)s there is a distortion, not necessarily one
that will consume one's )ersonality. 't is )ossible that the machine can
metaboli3e the mind.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: 'sn't interactive communication on the 'nternet in
)articular a big novelty in the world of media*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: %here is a considerable e.)ansion of all of the
)ossibilities, but is it a good thing in the absolute to follow through with
these* 'sn't there a sort of wall or overkill* Communication seems to
e.haust itself in the )ractical function of contact, and the content seems
to retreat: the network, rather than the network's )rotagonists, is given
)riority. %his last becomes an end in itself.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: 4ome )eo)le seem to be e.cited about
videoconferencing. &ow can this desire to see each other to
communicate be e.)lained*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: 'n a real face to face encounter, there is a com)le.
relation, in which each )erson is an actor at once both )resent and
absent. 'n on5screen discussion, there is only an alternating )resence of
one and the other. $.)ression is more targeted, more functional and
com)letely disembodied. 't is doubtless suitable for )rofessional kinds of
conferences. +o doubt, the videoconference offers the attraction of
fighting against this disembodiment. 't's a way of adding to the
)resence..
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: #o you think, as Monsieur 6irilio does, that there are
very great risks in develo)ing the 'nternet*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: Monsieur 6irilio is right that there is a risk of the
sub-ect being taken hostage, in a way, by his own tool. &owever, ' do not
see a doom5laden )henomenon there. ' would side more with eo 4cheer,
when he says that virtuality, being itself virtual, does not really ha))en.
%o make the network o)erate for the network by a machine whose end is
to o)erate at all costs, is not to give it a will. 7ne lives in the very
,ousseauistic idea that there is in nature a good use for things that can
and must be tried. ' don't think that it is )ossible to find a )olitics of
virtuality, a code of ethics of virtuality because virtuality virtuali3es
)olitics as well: there will be no )olitics of virtuality, because )olitics has
become virtual0 there will be no code of ethics of virtuality, because the
code of ethics has become virtual, that is, there are no more references
to a value system. ' am not making a nostalgic note there: 6irtuality
retranscribes everything in its s)ace0 in a way, human ends vanish into
thin air in virtuality. 't is not a doom5laden danger in the sense of an
e.)losion, but rather a )assage through an indefinable s)ace. ! kind of
radical uncertainty. 7ne communicates, but as far as what is said, one
does not know what becomes of it. %his will become so obvious that
there will no longer even be any )roblems concerning liberty or identity.
%here will no longer be any way for them to arise0 those )roblems will
disa))ear a little below the hori3on. %he media neutrali3es everything,
including, in a way, )ower, and virtuality itself is not able to turn itself into
a )olitical )ower..
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: /hat do you think about the notion that Bill 8ates
does not have any real )ower*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: 7ne could not contest that Bill 8ates has materiel
strength and a )ower, which a))ear as a form of mythology in the sense
that it has no relation whatsoever with the )olitical relation, and that it
abolishes traditional structures . (urthermore, this thing is quite ca)able
of destroying itself. %he s)rawling monster can develo) linearly in an
e.)onential way, then fall into a chaotic 3one of turbulence leading to
accident, a sort of )revention and )recaution against the omni)otence of
the system which turns the meanings of things u)side down. !ccident
can a))ear as silent resistance, a sort of negative self5regulation of the
machine. 'n fact, virtuality is )erha)s not a universal form of life, but a
singularity.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: 'sn't this radical uncertainty brought about by virtual
reality likely to challenge man's vision of himself and the world*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: Certainly, because it is the system of
re)resentation that is at issue. %he image that he has of himself is
virtuali3ed. 7ne is no longer in front of the mirror0 one is in the screen,
which is entirely different. 7ne finds himself in a )roblematic universe,
one hides in the network, that is, one is no longer anywhere. /hat is
fascinating and e.ercises such an attraction is )erha)s less the search
for information or the thirst for knowledge than the desire to disa))ear,
the )ossibility of dissolving and disa))earing into the network.
C!"#$ %&'B!"%: !fter all that has -ust been said, what about
ha))iness*
J$!+ B!"#,'!,#: &a))iness is essential for both the individual and
the grou). %he )ossibility of having available all the means to attain it
creates a kind of electronic 9high9, a kind of ha))iness so evident that it
ends u) having no more raison d1$tre. %here, there is a general )roblem
of critical mass of the means which )uts an end to ends. /hat ha))ens
when everything has been reali3ed in modernity, when everything is
virtually given* %he question is crucial: where does one go from there*
%hat is the )roblem: from the moment the sub-ect is )erfectly reali3ed, it
automatically becomes the ob-ect, and there is )anic. ' am not sure that
with the virtual world we are moving closer still to ha))iness, because
virtuality only gives )ossibilities virtually, while taking back the reference
and the density of things, their meaning. 't gives you everything, and
subtly, surre)titiously it takes everything away at the same time. 't is a
game of which one does not know the rule:s;. 7ne loses what one wins
and vice versa. !ll that one can do is refuse to )lay, but it's not easy in
our times. Books and writing will subsist in a kind of )arallel e.istence0
they will only be more )recious for it because they will serve as a
reference. 't is difficult to o))ose the virtual world because it harnesses
all the )olarity of the system, the )ositive and negative )oles0 it absorbs
everything. 7ne can ho)e that there is in each of us something singular
that will allow the develo)ment of a reverted, reverting defense refle..