Someone suggested to me (not an academic) Baudrillard is saying:
the means of communication and meaning become increasing self centred, i.e. communication about communication, simulation, hyper reality, all... become so saturated with images and meaning they become meaningless... his phrase 'an ecstasy of communication'.
Is he saying that communication is meaningless, and if so how is he able to communicate that?
Is he able to communicate because every communication is only potentially an ecstasy, that with the commodity form there is no message, only a universal equivalence, but we can still talk about the substance of the object? If so, is he able to communicate because his discourse is not a system ("there is no longer any system of objects").
But then how does he characterize his own meaningful communication, and others like it? If it is not "cold" and aleatoric, ecstatic, as what he critiques, what is it? If it is a critique of the subject via the unreality of the object, and is, like anything, potentially "cold", what is it if it is not read as "pornographic"?
Two possibilities from the SEP article are 'aristocratic critique' and 'symbolic exchange'. How are these linked?