The Power of Hyperrealism

[Sinister]

Jorge Luis Borges once told a myth of the mapmakers of the Roman Empire. The cartographers were commissioned to create the perfect map. They drew a life-sized map, that actually covered, inch for inch, the territory. Exact to the most perfect detail. By the time they had finished the map, the territory had changed and most of the old pieces of the map were rotting.

Jean Baudrillard changed this myth and explained that the most analogous situation to present-day life would be that the territory is actually rotting away underneath the map. That people are confusing map with territory, food with the menu, simulacra and simulation. That people are now taking models of simulated reality of a reality that never existed and blending it with concepts of classical reality. We gamers should experience this as much as anyone.

I've wondered through this concept for many a year, watching. Jean seemed downright pessimistic about such a mixing of real and hyperreal. I must confess that I don't expect great things from it, but I'm not worried yet. In fact, I may be so bold as to characterize this as being one of the most fascinating things to ever happen. I feel lucky it happened in my lifetime, to witness it. To witness a change in conceptual reality, is just amazing. It's a pity but many people don't seem to even realize it's happening. Too close to the problem, perhaps. They don't know what they're missing, it's all quite extraordinary.

Does anyone have any further opinions on this? Is it a good or a bad thing?

-Sin

[Alpha]

Allow me to be the first to admit that I'm still trying to comprehend what this is. I think I'm starting to understand it, but I had to read it five times. Can you please give an example? I want to understand this, I feel it's very interesting.

What is the difference between real and hyper-real? Shouldn't 'real' be both?

Is this suggesting that we take visions of reality (hyper-reality) too strongly, and neglect reality? Trusting a map, when it can never actually represent the land? Isn't this just post-modernism? There can never be a positivist analysis because nothing can/should be accurately analysed? The kind of stuff one of my lecturers once quipped "would make you retreat into your basement with only your six cats for company"?

Or, I'm completely missing the point. Which wouldn't surprise me; I'm just stabbing in the dark because nobody had bothered replying yet.

[Jin]

Indeed, I think this requires further elaboration. I pretty much understood it the way Alpha described it, as post-modernism, but I've never heard this term "hyperrealism" before (at least not in this context), so maybe I'm also way off. At any rate, a discussion about post-modernism (or anything that can be mistaken for it) is good in theory, but there'd only be maybe 5 people who'd understand it and I'm not necessarily including myself in that. I've read some Derrida, but I've understood only less than some.


Edit: I took my own advice and googled it and lo and behold, Wikipedia actually helped.

In semiotics and postmodern philosophy, the term hyperreality characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures. Hyperreality is a means to characterise the way consciousness defines what is actually "real" in a world where a multitude of media can radically shape and filter the original event or experience being depicted. Some famous theorists of hyperreality include Jean Baudrillard, Albert Borgmann, Daniel Boorstin, and Umberto Eco.

Most aspects of hyperreality can be thought of as "reality by proxy." For example, a viewer watching pornography begins to live in the non-existent world of the pornography, and even though pornography is not an accurate depiction of sex, for the viewer, the reality of "sex" becomes something non-existent. Some examples are simpler: the McDonald's "M" arches create a world with the promise of endless amounts of identical food, when in "reality" the "M" represents nothing, and the food produced is neither identical nor infinite.[1]

Baudrillard in particular suggests that the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more. Baudrillard borrows, from Jorge Luis Borges (who already borrowed from Lewis Carroll), the example of a society whose cartographers create a map so detailed that it covers the very things it was designed to represent. When the empire declines, the map fades into the landscape and there is neither the representation nor the real remaining – just the hyperreal. Baudrillard's idea of hyperreality was heavily influenced by phenomenology, semiotics, and Marshall McLuhan.

So Alpha and I weren't far off the mark. Of course, some post-modernist theory (and epistemological theory in general) would argue either that there is no "real" world aside from hyper-reality or that, if there is, we cannot know it. I'm really only familiar with its application onto history in the form of post-structuralism. And, I'll say again, not anywhere near the point to which I'd be bold enough to say I understand it. I find it rather interesting though. Whenever I'm able to get past the inaccessibility of post-structuralist writers (Spivak?), I find them quite fascinating.

[RamesesII]

Jorge Luis Borges once told a myth of the mapmakers of the Roman Empire. The cartographers were commissioned to create the perfect map. They drew a life-sized map, that actually covered, inch for inch, the territory. Exact to the most perfect detail. By the time they had finished the map, the territory had changed and most of the old pieces of the map were rotting.

I too had to read it bit by bit to try and understand it, now don't count me as an intellect because I don't even come close I don't even try and comprehend half the things Alpha and Rags go on about but this topic did interest me quite some bit so I will throw out my conveyance of what is said.

The way I interpret this is that we ie humans try and percieve and or analyse our reality or our environment but by the time we fully comprehend the reality everything has reformed and what we perceived is no longer reality and has entirely changed therefore what we believe is reality is no longer just that.

Baudrillard in particular suggests that the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more. Baudrillard borrows, from Jorge Luis Borges (who already borrowed from Lewis Carroll), the example of a society whose cartographers create a map so detailed that it covers the very things it was designed to represent. When the empire declines, the map fades into the landscape and there is neither the representation nor the real remaining – just the hyperreal. Baudrillard's idea of hyperreality was heavily influenced by phenomenology, semiotics, and Marshall McLuhan.

The way this explains it, it makes it sound like everything we see once we see it it becomes a copy therefore as it says we create a double so detailed that we lose the real concept of what it is we just saw.

Most aspects of hyperreality can be thought of as "reality by proxy." For example, a viewer watching pornography begins to live in the non-existent world of the pornography, and even though pornography is not an accurate depiction of sex, for the viewer, the reality of "sex" becomes something non-existent. Some examples are simpler: the McDonald's "M" arches create a world with the promise of endless amounts of identical food, when in "reality" the "M" represents nothing, and the food produced is neither identical nor infinite.[1]

Something just came to me when I read this out aloud to myself, your in a room just a square simple room and a mirror on each wall covering the whole wall and of course the mirrors reflect what is on the other side of the mirror which is another mirror and the opposite reflects that, well I am sure most people have seen this effect. Anyway what I am trying to say is that the reality is the four original mirrors on the walls and what we perceive is the reflections and copies of those mirrors so in a sense losing the original reality because we can not or will not focus on the true reality but the copies or hyper reality.

[Che]

Sounds like The Matrix to me. Watch this 4 minute clip.

YouTube - You are being Mind Controlled - Matrix scene explains all

You are being mind controlled. Sometimes in my life I wish this were true. I want it to be that easy.

[Sinister]

Alpha, you're really close on this, but you don't have it yet. You too, Jin. Actually, you're all fairly close. Unfortunate for you all, I'm not great at explaining...but... Post-Modernism is the point of departure, merely an era, a beginning(or really, a worsening). The actual distancing is caused by and called by Hyperreality. Hyperreality has gone on longer than the post-modern era, but it was then it began to really snowball.

You see, a brain is a great thing, but it can never comprehend something greater than itself. That's why people create models to understand things. These models aren't often mistaken for the genuine article. And they're really not the problem. I believe these models were labeled by Baudrillard's work as first order Simulacra. Items like maps, globes and star charts.

In the industrial revolution, machines were able to reproduce with such exactness that the reality of the image of the original was in absolute peril. There you have your second order. Nancy's doll looks just like Natalie's!? But Nancy's was the "original" because she got her's first. ect...

The next and by far the most dangerous is the third order of Simulacra is also the hardest to explain... They occur in our post-modern age. These simulacra precede the original and shatter any concept of representation, sign and symbol. It's so hard to put into words...

A boy goes to a market with his mother. There they happen upon a package of blue raspberry bubblegum. The gum is bought and consequently devoured. Later when asked what his favorite fruit is...the boy responds with a grin. "Blue Raspberry, of course." A copy without an original...

This is only an oversimplified example of what is occurring in large-scale, everywhere. Baudrillard also lists a long line of possible causes and perpetuators, but it's not necessary to get into those. You could just read his book Simulacra and Simulation. (a good buy)

ANYway, what does everyone think? Good thing, bad thing? Neither and unimportant?

-Sin

[RamesesII]

The fact that we don't notice it means that it isn't truly a bad thing because we don't notice it going on as you said we just keep creating simplified copies so that we understand it and we will never be able to grasp the greatness of it because by the time we are advanced enough to be able to understand the original is gone and covered by all the representations of the original therefore we continue to comprehend the copies.

[Sinister]

You can also not notice a car merging into your lane at speed; doesn't mean it's necessarily an okay thing. The general consensus of the problem is that children are being raised in this atmosphere and are not understanding these things. They take them at face value and a whole plethora of social symptoms and mental divergence is the end result.

I look upon this whole affair as kind of like a Fallout 3 perk. (how's that for a third-stage simulacra?! Hmm?) It's an adaptation that allows us to accept and cope and become mentally dependent on the world as it exists today. That comes with certain detrimental and problematic repercussions, particularly if the world ever drastically changes. Btw, did you see what I just did there? I used Fallout 3 as a model for you to understand a certain situation. Fallout 3 doesn't exist in a way, and the way that it truly exists isn't the way that I necessarily understand it.

Hell, just look at "Reality" TV shows. OMG, Baudrillard must've had a fit when he saw these.

I'm not saying you're wrong and this is all horrible and will doom us all, Baudrillard's saying that. I simply say that it's fascinating. The real worry is how exponentially ****ed up are things going to get? The growth rate of this phenomena is pretty exponential and it's on the rise. It's like a cancer, it starts small and then you have a Post-Modern era and then all of a sudden, bam. I feel like Hojo at the end of FF7, I just want to see it happen. (he peppers his post with yet another example...)

-Sin

[Jin]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to the post-modernist "age". Are you using it as a chronological category or are you simply referring to the age in which post-modernist discourse has become popularized as a school of thought (ie from about the mid 80s)? Because I'm not using it as a chronological category. This hyper-reality seems to fit into post-modernist discourse superbly and as I have no idea which came first, it is entirely likely that post-modernism was influenced by hyper-reality as it certainly uses some of the same core principles.

At any rate, I don't think one can consider it a good or bad thing. It simply is. I'm trying to remember now whether it was Plato or Aristotle who proposed that there are things as they are and then ideals that we view in our head. So, for example, there is a specific tree with all its characteristics, but then there's "a tree" as we view it in our head as an ideal category of description. "A tree" does not actually exist. All that does are objects which are similar enough to be categorized as "a tree", but never perfectly meet the idea in our heads of what "a tree" is supposed to be.

Now it's been a long time since I've read any Greek philosophy, so I may be completely incorrect about who said that or how it was meant to be said, but at any rate, I think the concept of hyper-reality, assuming I'm now understanding it correctly, is not something one can avoid.

[Sinister]

By post-modern age I mean the era of the advent of postmodernism(the late 20th and early 21st centuries) as a marker for when this hyperreality started it's main spike of growth. It was the postmodern world in which such distrust gave rise to the idea that we may be raising ourselves in a world of non-real objects. But the ideas were more vague and general than expressed by Hyperreality. Delineating the difference between postmodernism from hyperrealism should be as simple as realizing that without mathematics we would've never discovered cohomology. You couldn't simply shrug at hyperrealism as Postmodernism repackaged because it has a creed, ethos, specific terminology and even...if you will pardon me for being melodramatic, an eschatology. Postmodernism has a dozen of associated ideals and philosophies with the same general skepticism and mistrust, I'm referring to one.

To put it simply, calling it postmodernism is painting with far too broad a brush. In this context we're using the time of it's arrival to give you a kind of depth perception and timeline as to where all this degradation took place. But this thread isn't really for the discussion of something like postmodernism. Because then we'd get into artwork and ideal ect... I'm keeping it all about the philosophy that deals with the particulars of semiotics as pertaining to this current world and how we perceive it.

And I don't think it could've been avoided. It's necessary and indeed a bi-product of our brains in perfect working order. But problems are arising because of it. Kind of like bugs in a system. Little glitches and ghosts in our current frame of mind. The problem with them is that they keep growing. Suffice to say that Hyperreality isn't really the problem. It's our inability to handle it and it's rate of distancing itself from classical reality.

-Sin

[Jin]

I wasn't really attempting to say that hyper-reality is post-modernism in the sense that they are synonyms. I was attempting to determine whether hyper-reality was a subset, for lack of a better word, of post-modernism. And now you've answered my question.

I don't think it is a problem, in all honesty. If classical reality exists, then I would argue that it is impossible to know as it is impossible to step outside our own perceptions. All we have is hyper-reality. All we've ever had was hyper-reality. I don't think that these "glitches" (I wouldn't call them that), are growing in the sense that we are less connected with classical reality now than we used to be (if that's what you were saying). I don't think we've ever been connected with an objective reality.

I hate when I'm not sure if I'm answering your question.

[Sinister]

You answered it. And yes, subset, definitely.

You see things are knowable in terms of their opposites. So long as there is an opposite, than something exists. The problem with reality these days is that there is less of an opposing force. So things are becoming equally real and unreal. It's predicted that this fissure will simply widen in the end until it won't matter. I abstain from giving my opinion on whether this will happen, because it is still being developed.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

This is fun to think about.

But doesn't this all come down to what you define as real and what you define as the original and the imitation? The only reason we can even draw a comparison between the two is because we claim to have knowledge of a lifestyle that precedes the elements of hyperrealism. Yet I doubt any human currently living can claim to have witnessed it, or lived it. We only have works who's words are framed by a small, literate subsect of a population who's general mindset in turn may be radically different given the conventions and styles of the day.

To me it feels like humans have always taken what they've abstracted about the world and proceeded to build entire societies around these ideals. Then people living in these societies would in turn abstract the dynamics that take place as a result of these laws abstracted from the world and abstract new conventions from them. This sort of thing would snowball as far as technology would allow. We just have the necessaries to take it one step further. It doesn't feel like something exclusive to our modern society.

I'm trying to remember now whether it was Plato or Aristotle who proposed that there are things as they are and then ideals that we view in our head.

Both of them did something like that. Plato said that we have Forms, definitions of just about anything (trees, humans, dogs, chairs, etc.) that took up no space and were eternal. Aristotle, openly counter to the idea that we even had the ability to interact with the non-physical, said that both the Forms and matter were inseparable. He approached it from a more scientific perspective and also made categories for the sciences, though I'm under the impression that he believed that these categories were very real. Either way, you're dead on by saying that hyperreality was more or less unavoidable when looking at it from that perspective.

Interestingly enough, Plato did not like some of the effects that poets (and other artists) had on society. He liked art, but felt that it was the "lowest form" of reality (for lack of a better term on my end) and that it more or less distracted people from true reality. Sort of similar.

[Alpha]

To me it feels like humans have always taken what they've abstracted about the world and proceeded to build entire societies around these ideals. Then people living in these societies would in turn abstract the dynamics that take place as a result of these laws abstracted from the world and abstract new conventions from them. This sort of thing would snowball as far as technology would allow. We just have the necessaries to take it one step further. It doesn't feel like something exclusive to our modern society...

...and something that we needn't be concerned about.

Interestingly enough, Plato did not like some of the effects that poets (and other artists) had on society. He liked art, but felt that it was the "lowest form" of reality (for lack of a better term on my end) and that it more or less distracted people from true reality. Sort of similar.

This is how I interpret Sin's view on hyper-reality (in no way is this offensive; I'm comparing you to Plato). Poetry is borne from it's environment. If a poem was written about a tree, it would never be able to accurately represent every tree, and indeed postmodernists would argue it would never be able to represent the whole tree (that the poet was looking at when he/she was writing the poem). No matter how much of a skilled poet one is, the poet could never see the tree from every angle, from inside the tree, the roots of the tree, etc. You could approach reality by chipping the tree into millions of pieces, and describe each of them, but that would be a very long poem, and you'd no longer be describing a tree (thus, hyper-reality).

It appears, however, that we don't have a choice. Postmodernists (and I know you said you don't want to use the broad brush, but I am not versed enough to not do so) would say we should just enjoy the tree in it's various forms, without attempting a description. When asked to draw a tree, they would say it's impossible. When asking a child to draw a tree, they would draw a broad trunk, two branches, a big green 'cloud' at the top, and a hole in the trunk with the eyes of an owl peering out. No, this child's drawing of a tree cannot possibly represent every tree. Indeed, it cannot represent a single living tree, as it is literally two-dimensional.

The question is, is it harmful to view trees in this manner? The answer, I feel, is absolutely not. How else can we view them? You can draw as many maps as you want, but unless you attempt (the impossible) reality, then they are of no use. We must trust these maps; we must choose hyper-reality. As such, I see no reason to be concerned.

Still not sure if I'm on the boat. Feel free to say if I'm not.

[SOLDIER #819]

...and something that we needn't be concerned about.

The concept of hyperreality could be very important, depending on the purpose one would study its various parts (or things similar to it, since I'm using the term loosely). If you take it for "truth", it would no doubt play a role in society, epistemology, realism, etc. Though that's going off topic.

[Pete]

This sounds exactly like Plato's allegory of the cave. In short, it goes as follow:

From birth, we are shackled facing a wall, with our heads forced straight ahead. Behind us is a fire, producing light. People put objects in front of the fire so that we can see the shadow on the cave wall. These people also tell us what the objects are. There may be a book behind held up, but all we ever see is the shadow. When we finally leave the cave (not described how) and actually see the real objects, we have no clue was to what they are.

I feel like I can relate this much more to experience, rather than concepts of trees and the like. Take any action that requires some amount of skill. A person could read any number of manuals on this subject and know every facet about doing this skill, but when they are called to actually do it, then it becomes a whole new world.


I think that main problem with modern society stems largely from these concepts. People today are more willing to stay inside and essentially sit at their computers and play fantasy football, rather than get some friends together and toss a real one around.

It's also the guys sitting on their couches yelling at the TV because someone misses a free throw in basketball. They understand the concept of the free throw, but will never really experience the pressure of making one, since they're just sitting on their ass and not experiencing it.

It's also the people playing Second Life online. THEY'RE LIVING AN ALTERNATE LIFE TO THEIR OWN. I don't understand this one bit.

People are willing to stare at Plato's wall for hours on end, when all of the reality they could ever ask for is right outside

[Sinister]

No, you're right, Alpha, I have that take on it. Art and poetry are a problem. It's a copy or a model but without an original(third order simulacra). They're not necessarily used to understand something exactly. They can be, but they could still fail. But they fill a need generated by the artist/poet, blurring the line between goods which fill a need and goods which create a need to be filled. I love art and poetry, but it's possible that that is where the departure became unnecessary.

Taoism will tell us(and believe it or not they do have a stance on hyperrealism, to a degree) that all these things enjoy a reality of their own sort, in much the way that each celestial object has it's own level of gravity. But jumping from reality to reality, at the very least, costs you an ounce of perspective.

I like the analogy, Pete. I hadn't heard it before.
I hope everyone is enjoying this, I positively never get to discuss these things.

-Sin

[Andromeda]

I believe I understand what you're trying to explain, however it still leaves me with a question. You are asking is this good or bad. As though perception, since a lot of this just sounds like how we perceive and label things, is going to have a physical or mental impact on the world or humans. While you aren't really coming out and saying it, it seems like you're implying this is going to create a type of apocalypse. However, I don't understand how this is going to be negatively or positively affecting us. You're asking is it good or bad, but it seems like a point of view. Everything is all abstract. But you say the abstract is going to affect the physical. In what way are you considering this is to affect the world? Whether you believe it could happen or not, what are you thinking would happen as a result of hyperreal taking over?

Without knowing what you're thinking is going to become of this. It all just seems like a mind game to see if you wrap your head around abstraction that sounds like almost like quantum mechanics.

[Sinister]

I don't say that it isn't. I wouldn't call myself a bald-faced liar but... To be honest, I'm not sure how it has any effect at all. Some people could assign effect to it, but trying to establish cause and effect is horribly difficult. Some will believe that the actual distance from denotata(object representing) to the designata(object represented) will become so seamless that at heart there is no difference. Imagine the matrix, life is life but it becomes ultimately meaningless when it is faced with that level of exact simulation. It may not seem that there's a difference to us, but in reality a huge blow has been dealt. We aren't exactly the benefactor nor the victim of such an attack. So it may not even be noticed when it happens.

The apocalypse may be one of meaning. Or it could be...just another bi-product that really doesn't figure into the equation. In the end, I can't imagine what actual harm could come of it. I really don't know.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

I guess this sort of boils down to what you can do to escape hyperreality, if you so desire. Does it begin and end with outputs of our society, or is society itself involved? And what's really beyond that? As Jin has already said, "we" don't really know of a so-called classical reality. Man may have (inadvertantly or not) created all of this to escape that reality, and with good reason.

[Pete]

Well, S, I think it'd be kind of like being in an endless loop. If we were to try and escape our own hyper reality, we would have to immerse ourselves in reality. Reality can be subjective to everyone though. If we get up off the couch and stop watching football to go out and play football, we escape one hyper reality, but then by going and playing football with our friends, we could be entering another hyper reality in order to take our minds off of our stresses at work. Our work stresses may involve trying to be more productive so we can keep our jobs, because we need money in order to pay for the TV and football videogame we bought in the first place.

Essentially, we're all trying to escape from something, no matter how you look at it. It's not until we are truly satisfied that we can begin to live in reality as we see it.

[Sinister]

I've been thinking and rethinking Andro's question. Whereas I doubt I can prove a downward trend that will inevitably lead to semiotic apocalypse. I can at least force hyperreality to cast a shadow for you people who are paying attention. The reason why hyperreality's shenanigans hide behind reasonable doubt is because it is so impossible to establish cause and effect in these cases... Or at least that's what I think. You can't blame hyperreality because causality is so vague.

But if you consider modern terms of physical beauty, an interesting thing will happen. Lately it has become fashionable for women to be of a very slender physical make-up. This seems to directly opposes any sort of Darwinian mating, as skinny is usually an indicator of poor health. We can assume Hyperreality's involvement here. Because we see it's shadow (i.e. Something that's going against the grain and that is perpetuated by media). Think of a Barbie doll. Let me follow suit here and quote Wikipedia:

One of the most common criticisms of Barbie is that she promotes an unrealistic idea of body image for a young woman, leading to a risk that girls who attempt to emulate her will become anorexic. A standard Barbie doll is 11.5 inches tall, giving a height of 5 feet 9 inches at 1/6 scale. Barbie's vital statistics have been estimated at 36 inches (chest), 18 inches (waist) and 33 inches (hips). According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the 17 to 22 percent body fat required for a woman to menstruate.[11] In 1965 Slumber Party Barbie came with a book entitled How to Lose Weight which advised: "Don't eat." The doll also came with pink bathroom scales reading 110 lbs., which would be around 35 lbs. underweight for a woman 5 feet 9 inches tall. [12] In 1997 Barbie's body mold was redesigned and given a wider waist, with Mattel saying that this would make the doll better suited to contemporary fashion designs.

Do you see how reality is damaged? No? Let me provide another example... To simulate is to enact a situation that does not exist. To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. What's the chief difference between these two? Simulating is not pretending... If one has the flu and one pretends not to have it, then one still shows symptoms. High temperature. Sweating. Vomiting. But if one is simulating the flu and produces the symptoms. Gags oneself to vomit. Puts heating blankets around one's face. Dabs oneself with a wet towel. Uses make-up to produce pallor. How will anyone know? If someone was in the army of yesteryear and pretended to be crazy or homosexual(both of which were charges for dismissal back then) how could the army tell if they were or weren't?

Wasn't there an old saying that anyone who says he is crazy or tries to be crazy, is crazy? Because that's where reality tags out and hyperreality makes it's seamless transition. A doctor, when treating a patient, has to assume the patient is sick or no treatment can be provided. Even if a patient is obviously simulating their symptoms and the doctor knows it. They're still sick due to their audacity to challenge reality(ala hypochondriac). And if they're truly skilled and the doctor is fooled. A patient complaining of pain, pain(an unobservable sensation of unpleasantness) and needs pain medication. But they simply wish to score Oxycodone or ect... Who is aware of the deception? Only the perpetrator. Even if they are found out, they're still sick(addiction). But if it succeeds then reality has been cheated/altered.

I can go into Transcendental Idealism and factoring noumenon against human perception, but it isn't necessary. Everyone knows that when you see a pale man, sweating, walking hunched over and holding his stomach. That he is sick. It's only confirmed if you ask the man and he replies that he is very sick. But the simple fact is, that scenario cannot describe reality. Only your perception of it. This doesn't cause a semiotic apocalypse, but it is the basis for which to provide one. Be assured that anything developing along the lines of hyperreality will eventually threaten classical reality...sometimes in innocent and unavoidable ways. Sometimes in dangerous and mutilating ways. Because that is what hyperreality is... The mutilation of reality.

If you still need convincing how this can be harmful... Let me make a proposal. Let's talk about pedophilia. Psychologists are hard at work at determining cause and cure for this 'deviant' behavior. Here's my proposal. Just give them an exact simulation of a child(a robot analogue with frantic crying, a hymen, blood, a heartbeat and breathing) and let them **** it as much as they want. What do you think of my proposal; like it? If not, why do you think it's a bad idea? Does it sound in anyway similar to the controversy connected with the barbie doll?

-Sin

[Alpha]

If you still need convincing how this can be harmful... Let me make a proposal. Let's talk about pedophilia. Psychologists are hard at work at determining cause and cure for this 'deviant' behavior. Here's my proposal. Just give them an exact simulation of a child(a robot analogue with frantic crying, a hymen, blood, a heartbeat and breathing) and let them **** it as much as they want. What do you think of my proposal; like it? If not, why do you think it's a bad idea? Does it sound in anyway similar to the controversy connected with the barbie doll?

Example of the year.

I am beginning to understand your concern. The barbie doll issue is a lot larger than just barbie dolls. Idealistic visions of what should be, are not what 'is', and this is dangerous on many dimensions. But don't we know this? Don't we understand that most people don't and shouldn't look like a barbie doll? As your excerpt stated, barbie would be too thin to even menstruate. So no one will ever really imitate the hyper-reality contained within barbie, so what's the danger? Your proposal to solve the issue of paedophilia would never be accepted, and I doubt that even paedophiliacs would even accept the substitute. Frankly, I think that the examples you can attribute to hyper-reality are absurd. One can level the traditional postmodernist concerns about objectivity, but I still believe we have no choice in the matter. You can replace barbie with anything, but anything will never represent everything, so we are 'doomed' to hyper-reality whether we like it or not. I understand the concern (particularly acute with an anorexic barbie), but there is no choice, and these 'issues' (which, I believe, don't permeate all that much) will always exist.

[Sinister]

As I said, I cannot and would not try to prove to you it is harmful, damning or the eventual downfall of mankind. I have no opinions on it and the ones I've expressed here were largely borrowed from people, I trust, that know far more about it than I do. I have nothing to sell. In this context, I'm simply an entertainer. The fact remains, reality gets damaged and sometimes simply replaced, for good, or bad or neither and in-between. But it is something for you to ponder on about and I urge you not to dismiss it too easily.

-Sin

[CincyJim]

Either an item is factual/reality or not. Any such "hyper-reality" is just a thought, not a fact/reality.

The question I have is; Are "they" making money off of this (selling books to the gullible), or are "they" gaining power/control over the gullible, or both?