20 ms·
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 incl
by 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...