Simulacra and Simulation

[herrnimrod]

Broudillard is definitely in on it. He didn't predict anything any more than Orwell or Huxley did. They were just lucky enough to be privy to the plans and promoted it like good dogs.

It makes me wonder too about characters such as Pythagoras and Archimedes. People involved in concepts that our society has just begun to grasp. How can this happen when there's no proper societal infrastructure to produce the science? You hear stories of Egyptians chartering the stars for 50.000 years before the Pyramids. Why? Who are guys like Mohammad and why do millions follow them? What's his marriage to a catholic princess all about?

You have might heard sayings like "Does a tree falling in the forest with nobody around make a sound?" and "Consciousness is the Universe experiencing itself". For long these carried no meaning to me. Of course the tree would make a sound regardless. But now science has a new discovery providing remedy. Apparently our atoms are made up of chaos particles that always knows what the other particle is doing, have no predictable behavior and reacts to observation. Meaning if there was no conscious life in the Universe, there wouldn't be any Universe. The reason it feels like a simulation is because it is.

The bible speaks of angles of light. The birth of the sun (being the prime symbol for light). The holy from helios, meaning light. The symbol for Islam is a star covered in a half moon. And their public relations department are working very hard to conceal this fact. Rome persecuted Christians for 200 years before they made it into a state religion. Was it perhaps to get rid of the real religion and co opt it as their own?

Is that why government means governance of the mind? Because if they control the minds of the population they control reality, create it.

What would the realistic prospects of education and knowledge for a bavarian hill farmer in 1047 be? I find it ironic that it's the very presence of our hierarchical and tyrannical civilization that enables us to expose lies and discover truths not before thought.

[brianv]

Would the tree indeed fall, if there were no-one to observe it? Would there really be a sound, if there were no brain to process the tree's collapse as sound? And wouldn't their unnecessary inclusion greatly reduce on processing power in the Simulation?

[fbenario]

Would the tree indeed fall, if there were no-one to observe it? Would there really be a sound, if there were no brain to process the tree's collapse as sound? And wouldn't their unnecessary inclusion greatly reduce on processing power in the Simulation?

Brian, I can't tell if you are tongue-in-cheek with this. For the rest of you, of course there would be a sound. Obviously there is a difference between the sound waves produced by a tree falling, and the perception of those sound waves, which require the presence of either human ears or recording devices.

[pdgalles]

Not to repeat myself, but I have to agree with fbenario (up until the "morons") that this alleged irony is really not meant and cannot be meant for Delillo's readers. Not just, or rather not at all, in my opinion, because irony is lost on some people -- but because I believe that that irony is really not there, at least as a general purpose.

In the examples you bring forward, pdgalles, I simply see that some characters or situations in a work of fiction can be ironic; they can deal with irony issues that others take seriously, and make that irony very visible and enjoyable for the reader too, since a lively, ironic, original character or situation is often enjoyable.
Irony embedded in characters or situations is undoubtedly a chief ingredient in fiction since it helps the writer from becoming too passionate or too involved in the issues the characters are involved in and passionate about.

But this doesn't mean the intentions of the whole book are ironic.

Nobody could deny that Franz Kafka used irony a lot in his books, and created a number of situations that are fantastically ironic -- but to define Kafka's works as "ironic" would be incredibly limiting, unjust and ultimately deceiving. Is "The Trial" describing something serious really meaning that it isn't serious? Or is it rather a deadly serious book that sustain itself thanks to the injection of some useful irony here and there?

And also, once again i don't think we are agreeing on what irony is. If DeLillo or Baudrillard or Godard really want to tell us that the news are simulated and that many tragic events including 9/11 are fictional, don't you think they, with all their artful techniques and brilliant minds, would make this message a little more transparent? A little more readable? Why "irony" should mean "not making things clear"?

One last example. An italian writer like Leonardo Sciascia has used in his books plenty of irony. For example he loved to describe the hypocrisy, the rule of denial in the secluded worlds of rural, sicilian towns with euphemisms that were meant as a mockery of the euphemisms used by his characters, usually to hide and at the same time reveal things from one another. This is a form of irony, but it would go rarely missed by the reader. When Sciascia, first among the italian writers after WWII, dared to write a novel about the crude, real face of mafia hidden from the general public ("Il giorno della civetta"), nobody had a doubt in Italy what that novel was about.

As I said, I firmly believe that there is not one reader of "Falling Man" out there who, by reading that book, had the revelation that the whole thing was fake. Not one.

Today, after I had that idea of Kubrick being linked with the Apollo "landings" in order to add another layer of confusion*, rather than Kubrick representing any revealing of media fakery, I now can place DeLillo and Baudrillard in this same category in my mind. So your points are valid and my ideas are incorrect.

I am currently reading Babylon by Russian author Victor Pelevin. Chapter 7 is so good that I think I will share it in the future here. At this point I have not placed Pelevin in any category...

*see here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&p=2367407#p2367404

[whatsgoingon]

David Howes:

If we do not 'come to our senses' soon, we will have permanently forfeited the chance of constructing any meaningful alternatives to the pseudo-existence which passes for life in our current 'Civilization of the Image.'

Seems others have noticed the current mode of civilization is based on image.

I hope we come to our senses soon.

[Samiam-ish]

Tonight I remembered something:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g41BBLryUsk

by the Dutch Theatre Company Hotel Modern
http://www.hotelmodern.nl/


I saw this before I ever saw September Clues. I now 'read' it in a completely different way.

[LightCone]

§

A selection of quotes that I find relevant:

To seek new blood in its own death, to renew the cycle through the mirror of crisis, negativity, and antipower: this is the only solution - alibi of every power, of every institution attempting to break the vicious circle of its irresponsibility and of its fundamental nonexistence, of its already seen and of its already dead.

Power can stage its own murder to rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitimacy.

Bergson felt the event of the First World War this way. Before it broke out, it appeared both possible and impossible (the similarity with the suspense surrounding the Iraq war is total), and at the same time he experienced a sense of stupefaction at the ease with which such a fearful eventuality could pass from the abstract to the concrete, from the virtual to the real.

We see the same paradox again in the mix of jubilation and terror that characterized, in a more or less unspoken way, the event of 11 September. It is the feeling that seizes us when faced with the occurrence of something that happens without having been possible.

[bostonterrierowner]

We are for sure rapidly approaching a point in time where we are completely hypnothized and lost of the grip on surrounding occurences but the pain to make a living and meet our ends is unfortunately real

Reality check arrives with every bill...

I didnt have a chance to follow this thread before . I enjoyed the disussion a lot .

[CitronBleu]

We discuss the fakery though signs and symbols and as fascinating as this subject is, it seems to miss a crucial dimension: that of the deep mythical experience rooted within each and every one of us.

For me the paradox we live in is clear: we are living in the ultimate age of fakery, and Man claims today to have achieved the millennia-old dream of reaching the stars.

The stars, or the Heavens, full of mythogical names, Apollo, Jupiter, Mars.

We have made true the dream of countless men of knowledge, scientists, leaders, since the dawn of time.

Yet this dream has been achieved, in the past few, so very short, fifty years. Within our own lives. How privileged we are! What joy! What ecstasy to belong, to live, to breathe in such an astounding age!

We now live among the gods. Zeus, Jupiter, are no longer to be feared, since we are now their equals. Perhaps, even, more?

I try to imagine what one of these men of knowledge from, say, Greek antiquity, were to think were he transported to our epoch and presented with our amazing technological feats in outer-Space.

Would he disassociate his own mythological beliefs with our own? I dare say no.

[nonhocapito]

I try to imagine what one of these men of knowledge from, say, Greek antiquity, were to think were he transported to our epoch and presented with our amazing technological feats in outer-Space.

Would he disassociate his own mythological beliefs with our own? I dare say no.

I see what you mean, yet the scientific advance is unequivocal. The desire to keep this new reality connected to mythology could have to do with something else: a polemic, active refusal of Christianity and other current beliefs that are seen as anti-scientific.
It is not about belief in ancient myths, rather about toying with them to push today's myths out of the window. As I look back at it, the whole experience of NASA seems to be rooted in a strong, definitive anti-christian stance, whatever its reason and goal (methinks, the ultimate goal being a new, improved control over humanity).
Not accidentally the picture you posted comes from the Russian context, a place where, I think, this anti-Christian energy has lost part of its collective force following the collapse of the Soviet system. It does not do justice to the actual mythological/pagan system of values the whole "Space race" has been immersed in.

[CitronBleu]

I see what you mean, yet the scientific advance is unequivocal. The desire to keep this new reality connected to mythology could have to do with something else: a polemic, active refusal of Christianity and other current beliefs that are seen as anti-scientific.
It is not about belief in ancient myths, rather about toying with them to push today's myths out of the window. As I look back at it, the whole experience of NASA seems to be rooted in a strong, definitive anti-christian stance, whatever its reason and goal (methinks, the ultimate goal being a new, improved control over humanity).
Not accidentally the picture you posted comes from the Russian context, a place where, I think, this anti-Christian energy has lost part of its collective force following the collapse of the Soviet system. It does not do justice to the actual mythological/pagan system of values the whole "Space race" has been immersed in.

Hi nonhocapito,

What do you mean by "new reality"?

The whole space age appears as a new modern mythology. I don't see mythology and christianity as in opposition. Christianity is a form of of mythology.

My point is that our beliefs do not change. The space age is simply a myth. It's the same old eternal human myths, only now they exist through science fiction.

If we had good old Xenophanes here in our time and started talking to him about our astronauts and spaceships and probes traveling to distant Pluto, would he think what an amazing technological feat, or would he just think we were talking about our gods? Our beliefs? Beliefs to him would be necessarily true.

I think many of the astronauts actually had deep Christian beliefs, and if they had to make some lies in order to beat godless communism then so what?

Here is more space and religion/mythology mixed together:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rVpxyx8z3g

Apollo 8 astronauts reading Genesis:

http://soundcloud.com/theatlantictech/apollo-8-genesis-reading-1

[nonhocapito]

What do you mean by "new reality"?

I just mean the reality in which everything changes and evolves ever so fast. The whole rethorical idea of progress that the 20th century defined.

The whole space age appears as a new modern mythology. I don't see mythology and christianity as in opposition. Christianity is a form of of mythology.

That's just one part of the story. The difference among the two is or at least was enormous. Christianity was a living religion that, for better or worse, furnished moral values and ethics for most of human experience.
I know that nobody wants to hear this today, but Christianity was radically different from any previous religion, and certainly even more from the ancient myths.
The attitude towards victims and sacrifice, mainly; a certain idea of right and wrong, a theoretical drive towards the overcoming of social injustice and hierarchies.
No need to lecture me on the fact that all of this ever remained mostly unfulfilled. These are the moral ambitions that glued our society together for centuries, and even when they did not work, it was not all bad like it is today usual to think. And I am not saying this as a "believer", personally I think that discussing belief in God or similar entities is a complete waste of time. The only thing that counts is if and when something works to move even slightly human society towards a more peaceful and just society, rather than working in a different direction (toward a more unjust, hierarchical, violent society).

I think many of the astronauts actually had deep Christian beliefs, and if they had to make some lies in order to beat godless communism then so what?

I think they had at most satanic, masonic or pagan beliefs, just like Von Braun, Parson or Hubbard did. Their dabbling with Christianity was just a requirement of those days. But their beliefs are irrelevant, what counts is the effect their projects participated to create. And deliberately, it can be added, at least if we listen to Parson and Hubbard and their take on the space/scientific revolution of their times.

[Alfie]

*

[ElSushi]

I came across that other interesting excerpt from Jean Baudrillard taken out of his "Cool Memories - I ", and did a rough English translation from the original text.

"We have now entered an era in which the only acceptable form of imagery is obtained through both alteration and manipulation.We now expect very little from the core-substance of the photograph / image itself as we now expect almost everything from the digital manipulation of the image "

Another interesting one...

[hoi.polloi]

There are some crude psychological reasons for the American love of image. Let me explain from the advertising world perspective. It has to do with the commodification of visual art from mythological propaganda to industrial product proofs.

Often the "entrepreneurial" business selling a piece of shit in America is just trying to make a buck quicker. There is a bell curve in American products right around the gap between the rich and poor. "Mom and Pop" are often selling a worthy product for too much money, and don't have the power to advertise. The very top surviving products survive because they actually did something popular, even if the popularity is caused by the product's addictive properties, which they communicate through the most exorbitant hyperactive sound and visuals which promise the product's drug-like (or magic-potion-like) quality. A toilet bowl cleaner can't just get rid of shit particles at the consequence of utterly destroying the ecosystem, it has to fly into your face in CGI, sing a song to you and resemble the direction of an action movie. This ridiculous display is like peacock feathers. If you can't afford to hire creative people to sell their soul to you to outfit a squirt of industrial fluid as God's Greatest Gift, you clearly haven't made any money and so - in the American mindset - you are holding out money on your improvement of the product. As a product manufacturer, you must appear to be dedicating all your craft, blood, sweat and tears to improving lives. If you can't improve lives, you must - like a psychopath - prove that your product thinks it is improving lives, even if you know damn well it makes the world a much much worse place to live.

The effort of the product to be good is a myth, as any major industrial product can tell you. The real hard work is done by the average people, who work too hard for not enough pay, and then trade their lifeforce to fill their house with all that bull.

The media criticism, style and fashion of a product, and the need for the American to religiously believe in this fad as an indication of the moral direction of the company, is kind of a survival mechanism in overdrive. Although the same bell curve does not apply to food in America, Americans are too ignorant and optimistic to want to understand the complex and deteriorating food system and so they apply their toy-purchasing intelligence to food. That's one of the ways it came to be that if a food product has a cartoon character on it, it must be better. The subconscious association of money and success (displayed through the endorsement of creative audiovisual expression) with a product that millions are endorsing with their dollar -- is just a hold over from the days that buying a new product actually had something to do with survival.

Ergo, anything you could ever want exists at the bottom and top of the "free market" with the useful, practical products typically at the 'bottom' and the high-tech military leaks as consumer gadgets typically at the 'top'. Of course, American politics focuses on the artificial importance of the latter - the fad - because it keeps a perpetually inflated economic bubble going, one that they can siphon off.

All the garbage in the "middle", which makes up a great deal of the festering illusion that the economy is anything but a parasitic joke on the American mentality, cannot afford to pay for the most ridiculous imagery, and they can usually skirt by - for a while - if they sell themselves as the "successful underdog" or if their product genuinely is addicting or habit-forming.

All of this is completely besides the point of which products are actually scams and which are not. The point is the perception of all products as part of the visual religious experience of the myth: heavily advertised products have 'good intentions', cause 'convenience', create 'ease', offer 'instant improvement', and even 'experience' itself -- and they have earned your hard-won cash. All lies.

Sorry if that is only tangentially related to the deep discussion here, but sometimes I think it's useful to inject a bit of practical subject matter. This happens to be something I know too much about because I have been immersed in the morally bankrupted ad industry.