The death of God sets one free to pursue ones reality or potentialities outside of stifling, hypocritical middle-ages monkish church morality which can be a very effective way to learn what to do and what not to do.
The true centre of power exists as an electrical potential inside ones self, like the electrical bolts beam in the photo but applied to man. In plasma physics it's called a Birkeland current. In humans it is referred to in yoga as 'yoking up to the true Self'. In Freemasonry it's the chrism or spine's oil hitting the 33rd degree or vertebra, lighting the pineal, "All Seeing Eye", or Eternal Self.
Every person born in to the human state has the potential to realise this but one must be able to sacrifice themselves for others. Things are set up to make this rather difficult, but it's certainly not impossible.
"Any reading of Baudrillard’s prose ... must find pathways through his labyrinthine complications, and it’s unwise to take anything literally." Taking things literally is the greatest source of confusion our pious orchestrators counted on to create this glorious, deadly chaos.
"One would expect the process to accelerate over time, at a certain point it would become exponential." Pretty sure by April 2029-2033 there will be a Gordian knot of profound proportions and 'time will cease to exist'. Time (meaning Time, or the Great God Saturn/Shiva/Kali etc.) only gets bested by what the Mesopotamian's called An (or Uranus) in Taurus (the sacred Bull), so the return of the idea of eternity should be making a comeback around then if not before. Time is the greatest god on Earth, only Eternity beats Time. Pretty subtle difference between them... exciting times.
Like most others, I tend to think of the simulacrum as some sort of AI-constructed reality.
But reading this article, I realized that we've been living in a kind of simulacrum for decades - if not more than a century.
A "reality" has to be constructed for us every time our overlords convince us to do something that is against our best interests, but in favour of theirs.
When we were goaded into WWI and WWII, they had to use propaganda to get the best of our young men to go out and kill each other.
And then they continued to propagandize us to make us believe it was all worth it, and that the fallen were "heroes" instead of dupes.
So we don't really need AI to create a new reality. As long as we're not in charge of our own minds, we are vulnerable to whatever illusions are dressed up to tempt us into the simulacrum.
And by the way I think that usage of 'simulacrum' is in line with what Baudrillard does with it, and usage is evolving that way -- if only because the polysyllabic word suggests something complex, something you can enter, an over-arching simulation.
I think that's pretty much right, and I think (always hard to be sure) that Baudrillard saw it that way too which is why he didn't like the technological literalisation of the idea in The Matrix. His 'hyperreality' is a mental/cognitive state, not a computer simulation. But at the same time, the sophistication of these technologies of simulation has now reached such a level that they do have a increasingly powerful part to play in creating 'the simulacrum'.
reality always is what it is, eh? unavoidably, each of us has our own relationship to it. since all of us human beings have free will, each of us chooses, moment by moment, the nature of this relationship. let me take a stab at a relationship metaphor and see if it makes any sense with regard to this Baudrillard cat's point of view:
imagine reality is "woman" and human beings are "man". what are we doing by creating "simulation" or "simulacra"? are we making a blow-up doll? or, in a more high-tech sense, are we making a sexy(er) android robot? one who can't say "no"? if yes, why? we make blow up dolls for ourselves (or other guys), who, for whatever reason, are not able to relate to a real woman such that she comes to feel moved toward an affection for us and offer up her physical body. apparently, our advances have left Mother Nature unimpressed and she remains distant and aloof.
at this point, a man can either go full psycho and just rape her by force, or, he can manufacture a simulated woman, or, he can choose to examine himself and work out the reason why he is not successful at attracting her charms.
this metaphor, of course, assumes that reality is a conscious entity with a mind and will of its' own who is able to respond and make choices of its' own as to how it feels about the way we are relating to it. is this even true? so maybe we should first ask: is reality "alive and aware" in the sense that we are? or is it "dead and inert" like a machine? or somewhere in between? as men, we can talk to a woman and she can talk back to us in response. by her words and actions, we are informed as to where we stand with her. does this happen with reality? not that I can see-- unless we take into account obvious things like lung cancer from smoking too much. stand in a field and say "hello" to it all and not much comes back at you, does it? more likely you get bit by an insect or step in animal shit. could be this metaphor sucks. could be it works all too well.
if it works, here we have "us"-- human beings, obviously part of the natural biological realm of reality, born of it no less than are plants & animals, and yet it remains silent-- by all indications entirely indifferent to our existence. we are like baby Moses, born and abandoned, set adrift upon the river of living existence with absolutely no caring, guiding hand. what the hell? we just have to, like, figure it out? wtf is this nonsense?
we've all heard the stories of fathers who've tossed their young children into bodies of water in order to "teach" them how to swim. who among us is not appalled by this cruelty? what child, having experienced this, would not grow to fear, resent, and despise a father like that? what child would not dream of an attendant, loving father who held them while they learned to swim?
if such fathers do not exist, then let us make them. if we cannot make them, then let us curl up inside our heads and imagine them. reality is a bitch and a motherfucker too. let's just make our own. all we really have is each other, so, why not take the best of what we are, stuff it all into a digital matrix and do away with this biological shit altogether?
yeah, that last bit for sure was me getting inside the mind of the transhumanist, people like Kurzweil or Harari. my intent is to illuminate, with due empathy and understanding, the dark emotional subtext that seeds what I find to be horrifying, self-defeating behavior: unconscious anger expressed in a very childlike form. I see the transhumanist mind addressing reality itself, stomping its feet and saying "I hate you! If i can't have my way, I'm going to hold my breath and die!"
that is, if I am not off-base here equating creation of simulation/simulacra with transhumanism. are not both born of a desire to escape the bounds of our natural human circumstances (reality)? deep down, in the face of reality we feel mistreated, rejected, "cast out of heaven" at and all that. destroying ourselves as natural beings and turning ourselves into artificial beings shall be our revenge. the way I see it, denying reality is matricidal intent with suicidal results. simulation/mental substitution of reality is only the first step, the loading of the gun, so to speak.
A model of a 'pandemic' provides justification for global lockdown...
A model of 'climate change' provides justification for wrecking national economies...
The death of God sets one free to pursue ones reality or potentialities outside of stifling, hypocritical middle-ages monkish church morality which can be a very effective way to learn what to do and what not to do.
The true centre of power exists as an electrical potential inside ones self, like the electrical bolts beam in the photo but applied to man. In plasma physics it's called a Birkeland current. In humans it is referred to in yoga as 'yoking up to the true Self'. In Freemasonry it's the chrism or spine's oil hitting the 33rd degree or vertebra, lighting the pineal, "All Seeing Eye", or Eternal Self.
Every person born in to the human state has the potential to realise this but one must be able to sacrifice themselves for others. Things are set up to make this rather difficult, but it's certainly not impossible.
"Any reading of Baudrillard’s prose ... must find pathways through his labyrinthine complications, and it’s unwise to take anything literally." Taking things literally is the greatest source of confusion our pious orchestrators counted on to create this glorious, deadly chaos.
"One would expect the process to accelerate over time, at a certain point it would become exponential." Pretty sure by April 2029-2033 there will be a Gordian knot of profound proportions and 'time will cease to exist'. Time (meaning Time, or the Great God Saturn/Shiva/Kali etc.) only gets bested by what the Mesopotamian's called An (or Uranus) in Taurus (the sacred Bull), so the return of the idea of eternity should be making a comeback around then if not before. Time is the greatest god on Earth, only Eternity beats Time. Pretty subtle difference between them... exciting times.
It is a pleasure for me to give you the inspiration to write such a thing.
How uncanny I post my essay to Iaini Davisis & days later here you are with this & no thanks.
Now I will enjoy you either ignoring this comment or trying to lie about it all.
Of course if you upset me then I will curse you with inevitable consequences! 😄😆😄
Or you can behave as decent human being & I will consider your actions complimentary & constructive?
Like most others, I tend to think of the simulacrum as some sort of AI-constructed reality.
But reading this article, I realized that we've been living in a kind of simulacrum for decades - if not more than a century.
A "reality" has to be constructed for us every time our overlords convince us to do something that is against our best interests, but in favour of theirs.
When we were goaded into WWI and WWII, they had to use propaganda to get the best of our young men to go out and kill each other.
And then they continued to propagandize us to make us believe it was all worth it, and that the fallen were "heroes" instead of dupes.
So we don't really need AI to create a new reality. As long as we're not in charge of our own minds, we are vulnerable to whatever illusions are dressed up to tempt us into the simulacrum.
And by the way I think that usage of 'simulacrum' is in line with what Baudrillard does with it, and usage is evolving that way -- if only because the polysyllabic word suggests something complex, something you can enter, an over-arching simulation.
I think that's pretty much right, and I think (always hard to be sure) that Baudrillard saw it that way too which is why he didn't like the technological literalisation of the idea in The Matrix. His 'hyperreality' is a mental/cognitive state, not a computer simulation. But at the same time, the sophistication of these technologies of simulation has now reached such a level that they do have a increasingly powerful part to play in creating 'the simulacrum'.
reality always is what it is, eh? unavoidably, each of us has our own relationship to it. since all of us human beings have free will, each of us chooses, moment by moment, the nature of this relationship. let me take a stab at a relationship metaphor and see if it makes any sense with regard to this Baudrillard cat's point of view:
imagine reality is "woman" and human beings are "man". what are we doing by creating "simulation" or "simulacra"? are we making a blow-up doll? or, in a more high-tech sense, are we making a sexy(er) android robot? one who can't say "no"? if yes, why? we make blow up dolls for ourselves (or other guys), who, for whatever reason, are not able to relate to a real woman such that she comes to feel moved toward an affection for us and offer up her physical body. apparently, our advances have left Mother Nature unimpressed and she remains distant and aloof.
at this point, a man can either go full psycho and just rape her by force, or, he can manufacture a simulated woman, or, he can choose to examine himself and work out the reason why he is not successful at attracting her charms.
this metaphor, of course, assumes that reality is a conscious entity with a mind and will of its' own who is able to respond and make choices of its' own as to how it feels about the way we are relating to it. is this even true? so maybe we should first ask: is reality "alive and aware" in the sense that we are? or is it "dead and inert" like a machine? or somewhere in between? as men, we can talk to a woman and she can talk back to us in response. by her words and actions, we are informed as to where we stand with her. does this happen with reality? not that I can see-- unless we take into account obvious things like lung cancer from smoking too much. stand in a field and say "hello" to it all and not much comes back at you, does it? more likely you get bit by an insect or step in animal shit. could be this metaphor sucks. could be it works all too well.
if it works, here we have "us"-- human beings, obviously part of the natural biological realm of reality, born of it no less than are plants & animals, and yet it remains silent-- by all indications entirely indifferent to our existence. we are like baby Moses, born and abandoned, set adrift upon the river of living existence with absolutely no caring, guiding hand. what the hell? we just have to, like, figure it out? wtf is this nonsense?
we've all heard the stories of fathers who've tossed their young children into bodies of water in order to "teach" them how to swim. who among us is not appalled by this cruelty? what child, having experienced this, would not grow to fear, resent, and despise a father like that? what child would not dream of an attendant, loving father who held them while they learned to swim?
if such fathers do not exist, then let us make them. if we cannot make them, then let us curl up inside our heads and imagine them. reality is a bitch and a motherfucker too. let's just make our own. all we really have is each other, so, why not take the best of what we are, stuff it all into a digital matrix and do away with this biological shit altogether?
So then, take the blue pill? But I think you're being ironic...
yeah, that last bit for sure was me getting inside the mind of the transhumanist, people like Kurzweil or Harari. my intent is to illuminate, with due empathy and understanding, the dark emotional subtext that seeds what I find to be horrifying, self-defeating behavior: unconscious anger expressed in a very childlike form. I see the transhumanist mind addressing reality itself, stomping its feet and saying "I hate you! If i can't have my way, I'm going to hold my breath and die!"
that is, if I am not off-base here equating creation of simulation/simulacra with transhumanism. are not both born of a desire to escape the bounds of our natural human circumstances (reality)? deep down, in the face of reality we feel mistreated, rejected, "cast out of heaven" at and all that. destroying ourselves as natural beings and turning ourselves into artificial beings shall be our revenge. the way I see it, denying reality is matricidal intent with suicidal results. simulation/mental substitution of reality is only the first step, the loading of the gun, so to speak.