"Why would the simulacrum with three dimensions be closer to the real than the one with two dimensions? It claims to be, but paradoxically, it has the opposite effect: to render us sensitive to the fourth dimension as a hidden truth, a secret dimension of everything, which suddenly takes on all the force of evidence. The closer one gets to the perfection of the simulacrum, the more evident it becomes how everything escapes representation, escapes its own double and its resemblance. IN SHORT, THERE IS NO REAL: THE THIRD DIMENSION OF ONLY THE IMAGINARY OF A TWO DIMENSIONAL WORLD, the fourth that of a three-dimensional universe... Escalation in the production of a real that is more and more real through the addition of successive dimensions. But on the other hand, exaltation of the opposite movement: only what plays with one dimension is true, is truly seductive."
Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, 1981, page 107
So /a/ why haven't you embraced poststructuralism and made your waifu into reality yet?
>the third dimension is only*
>So /a/ why haven't you embraced poststructuralism
Because nobody knows wtf they are talking about
Don't worry, OP just finished watching the Matrix again.
Correction, she's 1-and-a-HALF-D now.
>Having two waifus
You disgust me, scum
>not having hyperbolic waifu
It's like you don't even respect space.
>captcha: author oeaogod
>not having a polyvalent, multidimensional waifu
So is he saying that all reality is actually a hallucination?
Yeah, a shared hallucination. It's one of the influential books that the whole Matrix script was written around. It even shows up in the opening scenes inside Neo's room.
The fourth dimension is overrated.
"Flip it over plug it in" and all that.
>and made your waifu into reality yet?
Following that your statement and considering that question, wouldn't you have to say that the issue here is that it's a hallucination you don't have any willing influence on?
You can't even chance reality itself with just influencing yourself, you need actually do something outside of yourself.
See solipsism and objectivism in that your world is defined entirely through your own experiences of such via your senses. The waifu part is solved in a few different manners. If you've been on /a/ long enough, you've probably run across a guide or two on how to make a tulpa, which is how these threads usually end and circlejerk.
Is she real or not?
>So /a/ why haven't you embraced poststructuralism and made your waifu into reality yet?
Mai waifu is perfectly happy in 2d with her OTP
What's your definition of real?
Those dimensions he was talking about were not referring to 2D and 3D in the sense that /a/ usually refers to them... it was actually rather confusing until I saw that you were quoting from a book.. In fact, I still kind of feel like you haven't really shown what needs to go with the quote to properly understand the 'dimensions' of the object/concept.
Is it that adding more and more facets to a simulacrum creates a greater divide from the original, creating something that has more value than what it represents? Or (the more likely) am I way the fuck off point and just sound like a total retard?
You're on to a point of the rest of the book. It toys with ideas about copies without an original, and how sometimes the strength and value of a copy is greater than the original. I'm guessing OP either is reading the book for class or just cherrypicked a quote to start the conversation.
>sometimes the strength and value of a copy is greater than the original
Because in the end no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that these concepts are true you'll never actually believe them. You will never experience your waifu the way you want and the world will go on all the same.
I suppose you could say that a waifu represents the desired aspects of a woman/relationship, and that by not creating a more complex representation, people become enamored with a more restricted representation that likely cannot exist in 'reality' as most people see it..?
By focusing only on good/neutral(flavor) aspects, the original is devalued and overtaken by its simpler simulation?
Still thinking I might just be full of shit..
You're suppose to be dead Kaiki
You're on to some points, full of shit on others. It's late and I'm not going to bother engaging in anything deeper than rote explanation since I'm about to go to sleep.
inb4 400 post thread full of engineering and compsci students talking like they know a shit about physics
Should I just read the book OP quoted?
It's worth reading the whole thing to see his examples, though his translated prose is a bit byzantine if you're reading in English.
I don't know if I'd rather deal with Alan Sokal or Jacques Derrida. Philosophy after May '68 is a joke.
Alright. I'm a filthy American, so I don't know anything other than English.
Engineers can know plenty about physics! O-or do you mean subatomic...
Useless hypotheticals for people with too much time on their hands. Quit wasting time thinking and go watch more anime.
I own it in English and read it as such. Honestly it became part of a cliche in its positions of questioning reality after the Matrix. It's in the same tone and vein of some of the post-Evangelion anime that came out during that time period if you're looking to watch something. Serial Experiments Lain tops my list of immediately related series.
What about money? Fiat money? The first often was a representation of something, and the second works on trust in national backing. I don't think the topic is useless.
Personally, I think it's pretty related. At least >>100588231 reminds me a lot of some things in anime.
For example >The fourth stage is pure simulation, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever.
reminds me a lot of female character archetypes like tsundere, which ultimately aren't really part of reality anymore and nothing more than a wishful construct.
OP here, I did liberally interpret this quote for the purpose of this thread, since in its original context it is referring to a specific act of cultural consumption--the holographic copy--which has to do with the wholeness of the individual as constituted by Lacan (Lacan is important to Baudrillard because of his semiotic interpretation of Freud and his development of the subject as a function of lack mediated by a symbolic order. Also note the terminology in the OP quote of "the imaginary," which stems from Lacan's three orders (imaginary, symbolic, real)).
Anyways, I don't want to get into a big discussion specifically on baudrillard, but it is important to keep in mind that when he describes the simulation, and the hyperreal, he is not suggesting that we are divorced from the phenomenological or material level of reality, that we are on the wrong side of a metaphysical divide, that there is a division between the objectively true and the false--but rather that there is no longer any common metric by which to measure the veracity of representations, no means by which to judge them real or false, so in that sense EVERYTHING is "real," it possesses the quality of the reality-effect. This is not because of some a priori simulation or masking of the "real object world," but because through the growth and mutation of capitalism and the political economy, the systems of relations that put objects in the world into position and circulation have come to develop a sort of hermetic, autopoietic action and no longer drawn on the "real object world" for their causality. Thus, although the results (objects in the world) are the same as what used to be "real," the cause, the operation, the system, that creates the results, is one of simulation. And THAT is where baudrillard's thesis is important for critical/cultural theorists, marxists, etc. Of course I haven't done justice to it but that's as best as I can do in a minute.
probably the best you're going to get outside of /lit/ once in a blue moon. On the other hand it is a great book to hit you in the face with the fact that you know nothing about formal philosophy if it's your first real philosophy book. I jumped into that stuff in high school thinking I was a hotshot, realized I didn't understand half of it because of references alone.
Also, if you want to be quite strict with your interpretation, when he is talking about dimensions in the OP he isn't talking specifically about perspectival, optical dimensions but about the reification of the "subjectless" imaginary as an implication of holographic technology and cloning.
Also his prose is ridiculous to read in english but that was sort of the fashionable way to write back in the day. At least it's not as bad as Deleuze or Virillo.
I'm definitely not grasping the entire concept.. time to bored-NEET and start hopping around wikipedia until I feel inadequate enough to actually read the source material..
>tfw holographic waifus are a reality in your lifetime
>only in Japan
Go watch the Matrix, Dark City, and Serial Experiments Lain.
Oh and the original Ghost in the Shell movie, with the whole Puppet Master shit.
You could say that. The book is a very hard read, possibly the hardest, especially through translation.
First, understand Jean speaks about 2 things, Simulacra and Simulation(hence the name of the book). Simulacra is the representation of the real, and simulation is imitation of the real.
What he is saying, if I may paraphrase per sentence: Why would a representation of reality, one with 3 dimensions, be more real than a representation of reality with only 2 dimensions? It claims to be, but it creates a paradox. It brings into question that of a 4th dimension. The closer one gets to a perfect representation, the less of a representation it becomes, escaping having a "resemblance" of it's double.(This can probably be discussed/debated on what exactly it means). IN SHORT, THERE IS NO REAL: THE THIRD DIMENSION OF ONLY THE IMAGINARY OF A TWO DIMENSIONAL WORLD(tying back the the previous sentence, our interpretation of this 3 dimensional world is largely based off of a 2 dimensional perception), the fourth is also imaginary, though based off of our simulacrum(representation) of the 3rd dimension. With the creation/thought of a 4th dimension, this feeds the undeniability of the 3rd dimension. which in turn solidifies the 2nd dimension(the opposite movement to imagining the 4th dimension, would be degrading back to recognizing a 2nd dimension, from our position at the 3rd; hope that makes sense).
Only what Is based from 1 dimension is true, this statement is "truly" seductive(from our reasoning).