How do I interact with beaudrillard without going into a psychotic episode?I think it's all really interesting but the more I learn about his perspectives and how they are objectively correct, I feel like locking my self in my room and screaming for 15 hours a day.
>>24840762>everywhere they go they will be survivors.>the ease of dismissal and the terror that the external world induces ensures no one will leave their postmodern shitbox.>to reach the apex of any given school it is necessary to nuke your own shitbox.>for the survivors there is no noticeable difference in radiation levels for completing multiple schools of thought.>to adequately defend a concept at any given stage of development might be the last metric available. >new concepts can't be ruled out but it's likely the time in which these will be born of original venues has long since passed.>establishing a new critique doesn't really mean anything. Only when others use it does it gain this dimension.What is the easiest way to talk someone out of a simulation? Talk to them. Is it possible to do this? Take youtube challenges for instance, consider the following, a YouTube challenge emerges with patently erroneous content. Viewed by multiple people in isolation ensures the challenge will be instantly recognized as trash by some, immediately accepted by others, and gradually embraced by the remaining viewers. Who amongst this group has reality, hyperreality, and a solipsistic rejection? Can the lines on these also blur? >it's alright, scream it out champ.The more crises that are claimed, the less meaning each crisis has. At some point these are mistaken for normal and seen as good, I'm usually the first one to do this and ruin it for everyone. It's alright, the next one usually tries to outdo the rest.
>>24840928>to reach the apex of any given school it is necessary to nuke your own shitbox.He's been dead for quite a while now. I wonder what he would have to say about the state of the world now.I think in your example the entire concept of any one viewer having any kind of basis in reality is naive. No matter where you go or who you interact with, even if you're completely isolated in the woods, the emanations of people completely inured into their simulations are literally transmuting every single part of the world. The physical material world is beginning to become a reflection of the simulation. People have the power to change reality, the inner reality of people doesn't match the outer reality of people, so, with all of the tools people have created over the past 8 millenia, and with the creation of a living simulation that can grow itself without any kind of human input, humans are recreating the world in the image of a machine God, and they don't even know it. Baudrillard said that we have no access to reality but it should basically still be there we're just in a hyperreality (if I'm interpreting or even reading correctly), but now with the evolution of the simulation and the hyperreality, soon there will be no more reality at all. So to answer your question with what I think (which is not what I think, it is my empirical observation of what is currently happening) there is no more erroneous YouTube challenge. The erroneous YouTube challenge has transcended the barriers of YouTube and has become real life, so whether you reject it or not, it's going to affect you. Mr Beast is more real than dirt, and soon there will be no more dirt, and there will only be Mr beast. I find this to be distressing. My shit box has been nuked and my pants have been soiled. >It's alright, scream it out champ.Thank you friend. I will.
>>24840762I'm not usually affected by philosophy to such an emotional degree. Is there something wrong with me? I cried twice while reading Swann's Way, and I even felt physically sick. I got tired and hopeless after reading Life: A User's Manual, and I had constant nightmares about the Austerlitz passages in War and Peace. But that doesn't seem to happen when reading philosophy.
>>24841750Most philosophy is a reflection of an individuals inner truth. Most of the time you can interact with an individuals ideas detached from emotion because it's basically a mythology. It's a bunch of complex stories that people come up with to explain things or illuminate things or just to have fun. Baudrillard is not that. Baudrillard is a man telling a story about the current psychological situation of the entire human race, and that story seems to be more true than any other story or explanation about why things are the way they are right now. That story, though... There are no words I can think of to properly express the dread I experience when I look around at the world, and at myself and consider what he's saying, and apply it to the phenomena I don't understand. It is existentially beyond anything I've ever experienced. I have my own modality to understand divinity and God and the higher dimensions of beings, which is probably how Im still able to function, but the other side of that coin is the realization that we (humanity) are completely alone in this. Humanity has created its own God, and there is nothing else here in the wasteland. Tldr: this isn't philosophy it's a pair of glasses that let you see the apocalypse. There's nothing wrong with you.
>>24841719That's pretty good, a miniature scale hyperreality, I won't start a dialectic and claim it's just reality, hopefully the tubers wind up back underground to develop more or the challenges lose meaning. There are several references throughout Baudrillard's works to French Hegelian dialectics, they're always sort of cloaked and I suspect Baudrillard himself wanted to avoid at least some of this but he himself was also aware of what was being produced. If you thought Hegel was bad then these guys sort of turned him up to full volume. They didn't bother with forming schools, most of them took a theoretical start as the absolute being the pinnacle. There were at least 3 major blobs, including Kojeve but the range of dialectic was staggering. All the way from eerily accurate to just plain stupid. I'll spare you the stupidity about dialectical unfolding and TV program schedules. Some of them applied the dialectic to whole countries, for instance, there is theoretical dialectic wherein a homogenous population like France at the time devours it's entire culture. The definition of culture doesn't even appear until the anti-culture phase. The grainy, intangible unique parts that make something cultural. The only available synthesis is one in which the culture itself is simply sterilized, there is no longer a distinction of notable merit, there is just culture. They theorized that any future anomalies could only occur at an individual level, these would be deemed vulgar if the sterile state was maintained long enough. Think of this as the dialectical predecessor to what we know as politically correct culture. It didn't stop there either, some of them wanted to know what would happen if the dialectic was applied to a country with a less homogenous population like the US. The dialectical outcomes were varied, some could be applied to the unfolding of things like hip hop but the fundamental differentiation was that there is a mainstay culture and at least one minority culture resisting integration. For the US there is no homogenous mainstay culture, so they shortened that part of the process. Some of the outcomes were interesting, they theorized that all parties could reach an agreement to freeze the overall culture and sort of lock it in place in hopes to prevent more dialectical unfolding, while each party secretly tries to outlast the other. The next stage of dialectic is one in which as new domestic participants enter there is no way to transmit the memetic aspects of either and a whole generation of domestic people would feel as though they were foreigners in their own country. It gets even better, they theorized that the system wouldn't tolerate this form of resistance and would seek to introduce new commodities into the environment. The commodity is an immigrant, and by Marxist unfolding it would be treated as more valuable than the people who produce it. Think of this like immigrants coming in and getting preferential treatment, cont.
>>24842097All this really does is cause the natives to put aside their differences and direct this towards the immigrants. The immigrant is now being uploaded with the dialectic. Say sentiment gets to a point where the system rejects them and sends them back. Each one is now a patient zero and starts the unfolding in their native country upon return. The process is repeated indefinitely. They also forwarded some hypotheses about efforts at isolation, there were even a few really good ones on nuclear proliferation. So despite North Korea being an almost entirely isolated nation of nuclear capable socialists they are still in agreement with Hegel. So what is any given commentary to say at this point? Oh yes, that culture is culture and this one is culture. It's easy to see why Baudrillard wanted to distance himself at least partially. Even his hyperreality was in true historical replay misconstrued by some as a sort of religious phenomena and some even thought it could be used as a way to bring religion back to meaning starved people. The problem with this is that upon introduction the outcome is always reached via dialectical unfolding so any given community that went underground is now involved in a sort of ontic split between reversion and progression which they may have been trying to avoid.If he were alive today, I think he would still be making mostly psychological manifestos and if asked he would say societies of the world received what they wanted but of course this isn't what they wanted if you start asking about it.
