Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Ed Brenegar
Thank you Ed. I could have highlighted the whole essay there is so much here worthy of further discussion.
JB:
"But the Perfect Crime no longer involves God, but reality, and it is not a symbolic murder but an extermination. … Extermination means that nothing is left, no trace, not even a corpse."
I'll quibble a bit here with Baudrillard, and say that whatever reality is, that is God, and so encapsulates everything real; they can't teased apart. Still I think I get his point - in the perfect crime no one realizes there has been a crime. Still just as the murder of God can only be a simulation, the same is true for reality. You can't actual kill God/Reality, the substratum of existence itself. Rather you can cover it over with a copy - multi-layered copy at that.
"This does not actually mean there is nothing that is true, but rather the culture of simulation that has taken hold of modern society has eradicated the ground upon which society can ultimately come to an agreement about anything.In other words, under the current media hegemony, there is only going to be more disagreement, and the question of power will lead to greater expressions of authoritarianism in the future"
Short term, likely, more disagreement, greater attempts at control. But the simulation is also not holding, fewer can not invest and believe it in, so all bets off as these fake layers comes off. (In the world and in ourselves) Then it may not be authoritarianism we need to be concerned about, but rather humans facing their own freedom.
"The culture of simulation does not simply replace reality with an alternative one. It severs the necessary relationship that each of us have as persons with the natural world."
Here I think there is no rule that applies to everyone. It's negotiable, how we - as differentiated individuals - navigate the simulated terrain. Obviously some of us can feel/see/intuit this imposter-reality. The natural world becomes. for those who do, more and more essential. (And I think when embraced, speeds up the shedding of the false, it assists in dismantling the simulation. I think this is available to us now because frequencies are increasing throughout the cosmos.)
"We are not conscious that the simulation actually reveals the absence of that which we desire." Painful ironies abound in the simulation. So, true.
"I do not believe that reality is actually dead. Rather, it is ignored as an inconvenient reminder of our humanity. The greater we act as if reality exists, the more reality shows itself." Yes, completely agree here.
Question - maybe you've addressed this and I've missed it - What is behind the simulation from Baudrillard's POV, and/or yours? Who or what created the copy?
Baudrillard, from my perspective, is a guy, born and raised in the French Marxist climate, who at the same time can see its weaknesses. He received a lot of criticism for his critical attack on Foucault. The explanation was that he was separating himself from him so that he could establish his own persona. I like Baudrillard, not because I agree with him, but because I think his criticism of postmodernist thought is accurate. It is my conclusion that postmodernist thought was focused on liberating the individual from all moral and traditional constraints. And to do this require accommodation to an authoritarian power structure. I believe this is what we see unfolding globally right now.
"It is my conclusion that postmodernist thought was focused on liberating the individual from all moral and traditional constraints. And to do this require accommodation to an authoritarian power structure. I believe this is what we see unfolding globally right now."
Okay, I can see that. I guess I'm asking what's behind the impulse to untether humans from moral constraints? Those strands of philosophy that would limit rather than expand, that would devalue rather than value human qualities? Where did they originate?
Was that an organically occurring, human phenomena? Or an expression of a kind of thought-infiltration? What strikes me about the simulation-world is its limitations, the replication aspect to it. It has no depth, can only copy and distort. Whereas humans, who emerged out of a Creator-force, are creative by design. We don't just copy, we invent, we create. For me, some kind of non-human, artificial like force, interfered. Humans who are accessing their Source-connection, do not seek to limit themselves or others, they seek to expand and elevate the creative-impulse and nature. They flourish in the substance and content of their being.
The notion of following an 'authority' is repulsive to innate freedom and Self-sovereignty. Authority is Self-referential - assuming we identity ourselves as aligned to the Creator as an extension and part of it.
Where we are in the world now, is so antithetical to our nature, I can only explain it via a hijacking.
Thank you, David. Ed offers a lot to consider. Very few writers are willing (and perhaps able) to get at the 'underbelly' of our world. I always learn from his posts.
This maybe the best articulation of Jung's thought that I have ever heard. I studied him a lot in the '80s. The evil opposite I have always found to be the opposite of what it claims to be. It isn't liberated, but rather confined. In modern culture, that evil side is built upon lies, and every lie requires another lie in order to maintain its sense of preeminence. His description of modern man is spot on. This is why when I asked my political preferences, I say, with tough-in-cheek, "I'm a premodern, post-Marxist." In essence, I've reject the philosophical outlook of the modern age and its twin-opposite postmodernism. Baudrillard isn't anti-modern even as a critic. He doesn't have any place to go. I suspect that if he had lived another twenty years that he would have ended up something like a Jungian Christian. Thanks for sharing it. I'm passing it along to my sons. They will enjoy it as well.
We talk about this stuff. One son is a historian and novelist. The other is a psychotherapist. Each of us have our own definitive view of the world. Our Venn diagram would be interesting to plot.
The financialization of advanced capitalism is the critical instrument for the making society being subordinate to the spectacle. Debord noted that the degradation of western societies began somewhere in the 1920's - that's when the FEDERAL RESERVE opaque bureaucracy was born, and the US$ currency became part of the spectacle.
Certainly is a facet of the spectacle, but it doesn't explain why the spectacle nature of society came about. An almost religious belief in progress as a vehicle for human perfection had the effect of creating a utopian class of elite power brokers. They were smart enough to understand how to use emerging technology to facilitate their plans. Financialization is one of their strategies.
The spectacle is closed and insulated loop that traps and enslaves the society inside it.
This loop is everlasting, provided that there's a mechanism to provide a POSITIVE FEEDBACK on itself. Financialization is the core of this positive feedback.
"In the spectacle - the visual reflection of the ruling economic order -
goals are nothing, development is everything.
The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. "
I agree to a point with this characterization. If it is a closed loop system, then there is an assumption that something exists outside or apart from it. The perception that financialization is the center is a reflection of its simulated reality. It certainly is reflected in the elite’s philosophy. I see failure and collapse baked into the simulation. Too many moving parts. Too little accountability. The social isolationism and corruption. To see these characteristics is to recognized that this closed loop system doesn’t encompass all of reality. Jean Baudrillard saw this culture unfolding. His answer was what he called reversal. This is something that each person can do within the context of their lives. The Spectacle is built upon lies, that require more lies to sustain. This is how it all unfolds. If people believe that there is no reality outside the Spectacle, then the lies are true. I’m not sure too many people are prepared to live a lie that no benefit to them.
Reminiscent nowadays, this is an example of how a spectacle in closed loop looks like, and no wonder it is named 'banality of evil':
The NATIONAL-SOCIALIST party and it's leader's demagoguery - were part of a spectacle; The nihilistic massage rendered from a 5000 years old grievance was spectacular.
The "peaceful" image fabricated by "ANTIWAR" mouthpieces (who happened to also sell cars and motors) - was a part of a spectacle.
The FINANCIAL success from BIS through BOE to Morgan, - was the inevitable part of a spectacle, keeping the perpetual motion going on and on.
Unfortunately, the past 100 years have taught that far too many people are prepared to live a lie that no benefit to them.
Jean Baudrillard is critical especially in this day and age.
Anyone who detects the intellectual messages of the movie “The Matrix” would find it appealing; especially since the movie is based on his “Simulacra and Simulation.”
It is rather a simple problem. If there is no reality, no basis for morality, no standard by which to define anything, then we are free to choose whatever we want. of course, if that is so, then none of our choices have any meaning. This is why being able to distinguish between saying Yes and No is essential to a meaningful human life. The problem is that the power centers of the world understand this and use it to seduce us into a kind of false consciousness that that we want what they offer, and are willing to be control as long as they gives us what we think we desire.
Thank you Ed. I could have highlighted the whole essay there is so much here worthy of further discussion.
JB:
"But the Perfect Crime no longer involves God, but reality, and it is not a symbolic murder but an extermination. … Extermination means that nothing is left, no trace, not even a corpse."
I'll quibble a bit here with Baudrillard, and say that whatever reality is, that is God, and so encapsulates everything real; they can't teased apart. Still I think I get his point - in the perfect crime no one realizes there has been a crime. Still just as the murder of God can only be a simulation, the same is true for reality. You can't actual kill God/Reality, the substratum of existence itself. Rather you can cover it over with a copy - multi-layered copy at that.
"This does not actually mean there is nothing that is true, but rather the culture of simulation that has taken hold of modern society has eradicated the ground upon which society can ultimately come to an agreement about anything.In other words, under the current media hegemony, there is only going to be more disagreement, and the question of power will lead to greater expressions of authoritarianism in the future"
Short term, likely, more disagreement, greater attempts at control. But the simulation is also not holding, fewer can not invest and believe it in, so all bets off as these fake layers comes off. (In the world and in ourselves) Then it may not be authoritarianism we need to be concerned about, but rather humans facing their own freedom.
"The culture of simulation does not simply replace reality with an alternative one. It severs the necessary relationship that each of us have as persons with the natural world."
Here I think there is no rule that applies to everyone. It's negotiable, how we - as differentiated individuals - navigate the simulated terrain. Obviously some of us can feel/see/intuit this imposter-reality. The natural world becomes. for those who do, more and more essential. (And I think when embraced, speeds up the shedding of the false, it assists in dismantling the simulation. I think this is available to us now because frequencies are increasing throughout the cosmos.)
"We are not conscious that the simulation actually reveals the absence of that which we desire." Painful ironies abound in the simulation. So, true.
"I do not believe that reality is actually dead. Rather, it is ignored as an inconvenient reminder of our humanity. The greater we act as if reality exists, the more reality shows itself." Yes, completely agree here.
Question - maybe you've addressed this and I've missed it - What is behind the simulation from Baudrillard's POV, and/or yours? Who or what created the copy?
Thanks so much.
Baudrillard, from my perspective, is a guy, born and raised in the French Marxist climate, who at the same time can see its weaknesses. He received a lot of criticism for his critical attack on Foucault. The explanation was that he was separating himself from him so that he could establish his own persona. I like Baudrillard, not because I agree with him, but because I think his criticism of postmodernist thought is accurate. It is my conclusion that postmodernist thought was focused on liberating the individual from all moral and traditional constraints. And to do this require accommodation to an authoritarian power structure. I believe this is what we see unfolding globally right now.
Thanks, Ed.
"It is my conclusion that postmodernist thought was focused on liberating the individual from all moral and traditional constraints. And to do this require accommodation to an authoritarian power structure. I believe this is what we see unfolding globally right now."
Okay, I can see that. I guess I'm asking what's behind the impulse to untether humans from moral constraints? Those strands of philosophy that would limit rather than expand, that would devalue rather than value human qualities? Where did they originate?
Was that an organically occurring, human phenomena? Or an expression of a kind of thought-infiltration? What strikes me about the simulation-world is its limitations, the replication aspect to it. It has no depth, can only copy and distort. Whereas humans, who emerged out of a Creator-force, are creative by design. We don't just copy, we invent, we create. For me, some kind of non-human, artificial like force, interfered. Humans who are accessing their Source-connection, do not seek to limit themselves or others, they seek to expand and elevate the creative-impulse and nature. They flourish in the substance and content of their being.
The notion of following an 'authority' is repulsive to innate freedom and Self-sovereignty. Authority is Self-referential - assuming we identity ourselves as aligned to the Creator as an extension and part of it.
Where we are in the world now, is so antithetical to our nature, I can only explain it via a hijacking.
I believe it is philosophical in origin. I wrote about early last year as Transcendence, immanence and materiality. See if this helps. https://open.substack.com/pub/edbrenegar/p/transcendence-immanence-and-materiality?r=b9jmp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you, David. Ed offers a lot to consider. Very few writers are willing (and perhaps able) to get at the 'underbelly' of our world. I always learn from his posts.
This maybe the best articulation of Jung's thought that I have ever heard. I studied him a lot in the '80s. The evil opposite I have always found to be the opposite of what it claims to be. It isn't liberated, but rather confined. In modern culture, that evil side is built upon lies, and every lie requires another lie in order to maintain its sense of preeminence. His description of modern man is spot on. This is why when I asked my political preferences, I say, with tough-in-cheek, "I'm a premodern, post-Marxist." In essence, I've reject the philosophical outlook of the modern age and its twin-opposite postmodernism. Baudrillard isn't anti-modern even as a critic. He doesn't have any place to go. I suspect that if he had lived another twenty years that he would have ended up something like a Jungian Christian. Thanks for sharing it. I'm passing it along to my sons. They will enjoy it as well.
We talk about this stuff. One son is a historian and novelist. The other is a psychotherapist. Each of us have our own definitive view of the world. Our Venn diagram would be interesting to plot.
Thanks, I always started listening while making breakfast!
The financialization of advanced capitalism is the critical instrument for the making society being subordinate to the spectacle. Debord noted that the degradation of western societies began somewhere in the 1920's - that's when the FEDERAL RESERVE opaque bureaucracy was born, and the US$ currency became part of the spectacle.
Certainly is a facet of the spectacle, but it doesn't explain why the spectacle nature of society came about. An almost religious belief in progress as a vehicle for human perfection had the effect of creating a utopian class of elite power brokers. They were smart enough to understand how to use emerging technology to facilitate their plans. Financialization is one of their strategies.
The spectacle is closed and insulated loop that traps and enslaves the society inside it.
This loop is everlasting, provided that there's a mechanism to provide a POSITIVE FEEDBACK on itself. Financialization is the core of this positive feedback.
"In the spectacle - the visual reflection of the ruling economic order -
goals are nothing, development is everything.
The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. "
I agree to a point with this characterization. If it is a closed loop system, then there is an assumption that something exists outside or apart from it. The perception that financialization is the center is a reflection of its simulated reality. It certainly is reflected in the elite’s philosophy. I see failure and collapse baked into the simulation. Too many moving parts. Too little accountability. The social isolationism and corruption. To see these characteristics is to recognized that this closed loop system doesn’t encompass all of reality. Jean Baudrillard saw this culture unfolding. His answer was what he called reversal. This is something that each person can do within the context of their lives. The Spectacle is built upon lies, that require more lies to sustain. This is how it all unfolds. If people believe that there is no reality outside the Spectacle, then the lies are true. I’m not sure too many people are prepared to live a lie that no benefit to them.
Reminiscent nowadays, this is an example of how a spectacle in closed loop looks like, and no wonder it is named 'banality of evil':
The NATIONAL-SOCIALIST party and it's leader's demagoguery - were part of a spectacle; The nihilistic massage rendered from a 5000 years old grievance was spectacular.
The "peaceful" image fabricated by "ANTIWAR" mouthpieces (who happened to also sell cars and motors) - was a part of a spectacle.
The FINANCIAL success from BIS through BOE to Morgan, - was the inevitable part of a spectacle, keeping the perpetual motion going on and on.
Unfortunately, the past 100 years have taught that far too many people are prepared to live a lie that no benefit to them.
Jean Baudrillard is critical especially in this day and age.
Anyone who detects the intellectual messages of the movie “The Matrix” would find it appealing; especially since the movie is based on his “Simulacra and Simulation.”
It is rather a simple problem. If there is no reality, no basis for morality, no standard by which to define anything, then we are free to choose whatever we want. of course, if that is so, then none of our choices have any meaning. This is why being able to distinguish between saying Yes and No is essential to a meaningful human life. The problem is that the power centers of the world understand this and use it to seduce us into a kind of false consciousness that that we want what they offer, and are willing to be control as long as they gives us what we think we desire.