(Untitled)

[caspervonb]

I think part of the reason why I find it difficult to wrap my head around is that it seems to be geared around end results (seemingly a common theme for post modern/post structuralist thinking) whereas I am more interested in the begining of the road. The destination is marked with inevitability, so why should I care? It doesn't matter if it is

Comments

[markeris]

"Because, as I see it, if there was at any point a reference to reality then it should be possible to go back and find it."

This requires an intent to do so, and indeed an acceptance of ones realtionship with reality as in fact hyper-reality. An intent and acceptance I generally imagine to be lacking in the average Daily Mail / Fox News subscriber. Who ironically probably influence events in the real based on their hyper-reality more than those who do. Which causes an acceleration of the convergence between the real and hyper-reality.

The hyper-real WMDs seem to have caused a lot of real world shit for instance. I daresay that arabic men with beards and ruckpacks have had some interesting train experiences with other peoples hyper-reality in the last few years as well.

Thats why it`s important to have alternative hyper-realities being virulently propagated.

So, bring it on bitch.

[mr_sharkey]

"I think part of the reason why I find it difficult to wrap my head around is that"

Around what? Or, are you just commenting on the inflexibility of bone?

M.

[kest]

I am not entirely sure I am clear on what you are talking about, or rather the context and background that you are bringing to the subject, but there are two potential things that come to mind. Option 1 is that reality is not actually ever directly perceivable. In some sense we understand the territory only through the map. We can apply labels and categories and connections and experiences, but the symbol is never actually the thing. Option 2 is the observer effect. We cannot map reality without changing it.