3 ms·

Yeah agreed. This conversation itself is in cyberspace. But it's just degrees of abstraction. I prefer being more mentally tethered to "the territory" rather th

Yeah agreed. This conversation itself is in cyberspace. But it's just degrees of abstraction. I prefer being more mentally tethered to "the territory" rather than "the map". The territory is what it is (the laws of physics being unchanging). The map is constantly changing based on things that only matter to those who prefer the hyperreal. I supposed I have my "private map" of the world which rules my behavior -- I tend to refer to that rather than let an outside map (The Internet) guide my actions. I work in hyperreality, I make my living in hyperreality. I remind myself that I do this in order to live better in the real world around me. My house, the land around me, the people I know in person, are far more important to me (and worth worrying about) than the symbols I endlessly encounter during my workday. Articles like this are just nonsense as they have no practical use to me (and I suspect most living along side me) in the territory that I inhabit/value.

bowsamic 3y ago
No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal, even your grandma who has never used a computer is living entirely in the hyperreal and has no access to anything other than simulacra. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the sky she looks at, etc. Even the "laws of physics" are simulacra. There is no such thing as "the real world around you" according to Baudrillard. I don't think you quite understood the book you recommended
- lordfrito 3y ago
  I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not included in the set of things considered to be real. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal. It seems the only difference between us is that I value a map that more closely resembles the territory, and your opinion is that it doesn't matter, they're all of equal importance?? sigh
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    "I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not included in the set of things considered to be real. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal." Let's ignore all that. I moved on to interrogating your (mis)understanding of Baudrillard. According to the book you recommended, there is no "real" that you can retreat to. You seem to talk about how your life outside of the internet is the real, but Baudrillard wrote the book before the internet was even a thing. He was talking about your normal life, not the internet. It's not about what I think, it's that you recommended to me a book that you quite strongly disagree with...
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  > After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it thus.” —James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

bowsamic 3y ago

No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal, even your grandma who has never used a computer is living entirely in the hyperreal and has no access to anything other than simulacra. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the sky she looks at, etc. Even the "laws of physics" are simulacra. There is no such thing as "the real world around you" according to Baudrillard. I don't think you quite understood the book you recommended

lordfrito 3y ago
I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not included in the set of things considered to be real. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal. It seems the only difference between us is that I value a map that more closely resembles the territory, and your opinion is that it doesn't matter, they're all of equal importance?? sigh
- bowsamic 3y ago
  "I definitely don't understand the point you're arguing at all. At first you say: > I'm a little confused at what makes you think that the internet is not included in the set of things considered to be real. Which suggests to me that you believe (and are trying to convince me) that The Internet is more real (not hyperreal) than I think it is. But then you say: > No, again, there is no territory, it is gone, we are living entirely in the hyperreal. Which would seem to agree with the original point I was making, The Internet is hyperreal." Let's ignore all that. I moved on to interrogating your (mis)understanding of Baudrillard. According to the book you recommended, there is no "real" that you can retreat to. You seem to talk about how your life outside of the internet is the real, but Baudrillard wrote the book before the internet was even a thing. He was talking about your normal life, not the internet. It's not about what I think, it's that you recommended to me a book that you quite strongly disagree with...
erik_seaberg 3y ago
> After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it thus.” —James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson