Day[V] made me do it.

"Holidays are for doing whatever you think you've missed out on"

So, I'm prepping for HSC and whatnot and I find in my Mod C folder [yes I do keep stuff reasonably organised into folders for subject and whatever] and I come across an article on simulacra all the way back from year 11, when we were doing Dorian Gray.

It's quite dense stuff, but it's absolutely genius.

Some teachers hate it though.

SummarY:

Excerpt from Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulations - I. The Precession of Simulacra" (1983):

Translated from French [Cause all the cool philosophers and stuff are 'croutons']

He talks firstly about the 'cartographers of the Empire [who] drew up a map so detailed that it ends up covering the territory exactly', and calls this 'the most beautiful allegory of simulation'.

What Baudrillard then postulates [but he does it as though it were common knowledge] that because this map is now so perfectly accurate, what stops other maps from using this map as a reference?

Does that mean that 'reality', 'real' geography is now obsolete?

And if so, does that mean that this perfect map is now the 'reality'?

Of course, he does this with more beautiful language than I could ever dream of mustering.

Ie; "The sovereign difference", "constituted the charm of abstraction", "ideal coextensivity of map and territory" .

After this, the conclusion is that because this map can now be replicated, it no longer has to make any sense.

What he means is that this map no longer obeys the physical laws of nature and 'reality', it's just a map. It's a copy, but it has become reality itself.

[ISN'T THAT COOL?!]

Also: Vicissitudes.

[To: SilverDragon

Why did Cowgill give us this in year 11 if it's quite dense and hard to understand for me now? O.O]

Next paragraph:

"THE DIVINE IRREFERENCE OF IMAGES"

I wish I could copy paste this, because I love it too.

But the summary is that if someone can simulate or dissimulate illness, or some kind of status, then 

"objectively one cannot treat him as being either ill or not ill. Psychology and medicine stop at this point ... 

For if any symptom can be 'produced', and can no longer be taken as a fact of nature, then every illness can 

be considered as simulatable and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning". 

[Double spaced so it takes less time for you to understand exactly what he's saying]

Basically, he's telling me that doctors are useless.

[Lolj/k, not really. He's actually just pointing out flaws in our current medical practices from a philosophical, turned realistic point of view. This is all just conjecture though. But he might be right. Then again, so might 2012EndofWorld.]

Then he goes on to talk about psychoanalysis and psychology in terms I can't clearly understand. So I skipped it.

[Also, this reminds me. You know how in chem/phys we use models? Models are a simulation. Does that mean that they then can become a form of truth in themselves? And if they are a form of truth, then what happens to 'real' truth? Or rather, the 'true' model of the atom, bonds, linkages?]

[Of course, any scientist will just say "Bah! Humbug!" and continue tinkering with !!SCIENCE!!]

[Yes, I'm trying to cover as many bases as I can. I want people to read this damnit!]

Even cooler bit:

You know how the army traditionally weeds out gay people, mentally unstable and unfit?

What if they're just pretending?

"What can the army do about simulators?  Traditionally it unmasks them and punishes them, according to a clear principle of identification"

His conclusion isn't nearly as effective:

"It is against this lack of distinction [about simulators and 'real' people with ailments] that classical reason 

armed itself in all its categories. But it is what today again outflanks them, submerging the principle of truth"

And then there's a paragraph on Christianity, and it's rather cynical, so I'm a little hesitant to write about it, but here goes.

 "Beyond medicine and the army.... the question returns to religion and the simulacrum of divinity"

"I forbade that there be any simulacra in the temples because the divinity that animates nature can never be represented."

[Or rather, that the divinity of 'false' gods must never be heralded as true divinity]

Baudrillard proposes that there are always simulacra of nature, and other things of worship, even if it was not intentional.

[Joanne Burns, microwave god anyone?]

He then goes on to talk about the actual existence of God:

"deep down God never existed, that only the simulacrum ever existed, even that God himself was never anything but his own simulacrum"

Which again, I find really cool, [bear with me, religious people :O]

"Because if there were no God, we would have to invent it."

See how philosophers steal ideas?!

[Appropriation. Writers are the best thieves.]

 He's a bit scathing. I like his ideas, but I guess they don't afford any social points.

Then again, he's explaining exactly why that commandment exists.

"But their metaphysical despair [the problem with idols] came from the idea that the image didn't conceal 

anything at all, and that these images were in essence not images ... but perfect simulacra [and therefore, are 

in themselves, 'real' gods]"

"Thus this death of the divine referential [idols of nature, etc.] must be exorcised at all costs"

[I wonder if I'm just more 'angsty' when I'm doing English. Either way, it's really fun :O]

Warning: Eminence grise of politics.
Warning: Evanescence of God
Warning: Dialectical power [Hegel's Bagel: +5 strength]

Then he talks very briefly about representation:

"Representation stems from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and real"

[Ie; he's saying that his theory that representation is truth is in itself a 'fundamental axiom', when in fact, he could be lying. See how slippery 'truth' is? And this is what my essay is based around. Isn't it sexy?]

Next two paragraphs are almost irrelevant.

He explores how Disneyland is a perfect simulacrum.

And after that:

"THE END OF THE PANOPTICON" 

[If you don't know what that is, it's essentially a jail where the jailer can watch all of the inmates without being seen]

He talks about 'reality tv', in really dense language that I'm too tired by this point to translate, so there's no highlighting on my page.

But, he does make an excellent point about the tagline of reality tv, and how paradoxical it is.

"They lived as if we were not there." <---- Seems to make sense.

Think about it.
















Thought about it enough?















[If you still don't get it, here's the explanation:

How can you know that they lived exactly as though you weren't there, if you have never observed them? And if you have, then of course, they lived as though you were there.

Does that make sense? Yes? Moving on.

*wipes whiteboard before you can copy anything down*]

[On an aside, he shoehorns the word 'porno' and says, "Pleasure in the miroscopic simulation that allows the real to pass into the hyperreal. (The is also somewhat the case in porno, which is fasinating more on a metaphysical than a sexual level.) {I think he slipped it in just to make sure you were paying attention}]

And... ok I'm going to highlight, cause I understand it now.

.....

.........

Basically he's combining Schadenfreude, semiotics and the degradation of meaning.

.... Aren't I glad I'm a 4U English student.... god.

I'm not sure.... ah, I'll see if I can explain better.

He's saying that there is a "pleasure in the excess of meaning, when the bar of the sign falls below the usual

 waterline of meaning [I have no idea what he's trying to reference here]", and "In the "verite" experience [I 

assume this is a French etymological root of "voyeur"] it is not a question of secrecy... but of a sort of frisson

  [what?] of the real, or of an aesthetics of the hyperreal, a frisson of vertiginous and phony exactitude, a

 frisson of simultaneous distancing and magnification..."

BRING OUT YOUR FRISSONS!

fris·son/frēˈsôN/

Noun:

A sudden strong feeling of excitement or fear; a thrill: "a frisson of excitement".

............

Ok, well. Now I know. And knowing's half the battle.

Music break.

Actually, if you don't like piano...


[You know how hard it is to find an English song I like? Damn.]

[Also, I thought it was Kiatsuki. Apparently, it's Kiatzuki]

[Way to go Japanese... >.>]

[When I stream TF2, I'm going to have to find English songs, won't I?]

[Also Kael, did you treat your throat yet? It's killing me.]

[Must. Heal. EVERYTHING.]

[Except myself]

Moving on and back to Jean.

Then he says something silly about "You no longer watch TV, it is TV that watches you (live)"

I think his meaning just degraded. Either that, or I'm not following anymore.

Just smile and nod like it's the Doctor.

I actually don't understand this last bit.

You try:

"We are witnessing the end of the perspectival and panoptic space (which remains a moral hypothesis bound up with all the classical analyses on the "objective" essense of power), and thus to the very abolition of the spectacular."

............

I give up.


(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻


And that was my morning.

What about yours?

Also, something that happened last night:

THE POWER OF THREE.

Renee, Silverdrago-n, watch it!

It is the most beautiful episode ever.

Not in terms of plot, but visuals.

The plot is great up until the 20th minute mark.

I think they ran out of time, they should have made it a double ep :(

Also, I hate the new Amy Pond voiceover. It's quite disgusting, I get it, but...still.

It's a new season, etc, etc. BUT STILL.

Yea, the ending's absolute bullshit.

But the middle and beginning is excellent.

At least the voiceover isn't intrusive until the end.

Ok.

That's it from me for now.

Hoping you guys have had lots of stuff done this holidays!

[PS. Day[V] made me do this post.]

[PPS. If you still don't really get it, say it out loud. I'm sure you do get it though.]