Simulacra and Simulations postulates that the simulation has become real but in fact Boulldrard has missed the point and worked himself into a logical knot. Simulations dont exists differnetly than maps do.

Its the same problem for Dawkins when he uses ideas from genetics to come up with memetics. Just because the ideas many ideas form genetics can be applied and thought of in the sphere of thought and ideas does not mean they are more than analagous. Dawkins recognizes this but broullard gets caught up in confusing language which does not illucidate the issue.

To put the criticism in his terms — in a way he is thinking inside of a simulation in which he cannot see the real. That is to say he is so busy coloring in the shapes of his logical construct that he doesnt see that it is a logical construct.

In fact simulations dont supercede or precede the real. They exist inside of the real world and are made up of very small parts. So while he talks of the simulation being the “liquidation of all referentials” as if the simulation existed in a space outside of the real, the truth is the referentials have just been made smaller.

Braullard speaks of mathematics almost as if it is part of the larger system of signs and symbols which is preposterous. He says :

“by their artficial resurrection in systems of signs, which are a more ductile material than meaning, in that they lend themselves to all systems of equivalence, all binary oppositions and all combinatory algebra. It is no longer a question of imitation, nor of reduplication, nor even of parody. It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself;”

He is allowing the tail to wag the dog. It might be argued that symbols and signs are just complex arangements of simple binary oppositions, and algorythms as Wolfram suggests in A_New_Kind_of_Science. And arent simulations of all types arrangements of mathemeatical forumla and logic. Like the popular ‘fractal’ a simple mathematical rule which repeats and evolves recursively and can be displayed and pixalised or simulated using another set of rules. Thats is to say finite human constructs which cant compete with or subvert or parody the ‘real’ as Broullard wants to imagine.

of course he’s talking about more just 3d information which is clearly  is a mathematical in nature.  if you want to draw a sphere in 3d space theres a clear formula for that.  Just as if one is simulating cloth in 3D, the behaviour is defined typically by multiple spring formulas chained together.

As we wave our 3d simulated cloth around or attach it to a running character it does seem to behave independently but in fact it has been created by formulae and modified by user interaction.

Its certainly different than a map in that it is 3 dimensional and dynamic but it is essentially the same thing.  Broullard goes to a lot of lenghts to talk about his map of the world as a new verison of reality.  But he is talkign about an imaginary map.  no such map as he imagines with ALL the infinitesimal atomic detail can or ever will exist except in his mind.

in a way it would be a good idea for theorists in general to come up with their ideas on  smaller scale too.  They try to apply words like ‘simulation’ to many many different areas of thought and i think its maybe sometimes its bit too ambitious and confusing. and they love using complex and confusing pairs and inversions of ideas and rhetoric which while exposing the writer as clever really just make the ideas more difficult to understand as we lisp over the rhythms of the rhetorical flow.

such as

“The divine irreference of images”…

“To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn’t.”

And of course he speaks of simulation not just as a mathematical construct, but the act of simulaiton as a mental construct too

he says

“Today, it can reform an excellent simulator as
though he were equivalent to a “real” homosexual, heart-case or lunatic. Even military
psychology retreats from the Cartesian clarifies and hesitates to draw the distinction between
true and false, between the “produced” symptom and the authentic symptom. “If he acts crazy
so well, then he must be mad.” Nor is it mistaken: in the sense that all lunatics are simulators,
and this lack of distinction is the worst form of subversion.”

Another analgoy would be the alcolholic who thinks he has a disease. Just because many of the symptoms of alcholism are analagous to disease doesnt mean the alcholic has a disease. He just has many synmptoms analagous to a disease while being guilty of self indulgence run amock.

……………………………………………..

notes

…………………………………………..

intellectuals like to believe as Broulliard does that the destructino of an image is the destruction fo an idea…iconoclast etc

but in fact while an image can represent the eternal it is not the eternal. by constructing the signifier and signified or whatever these guys think they can get their hands onto the real meaning of life and its a farce

hey im still working on these ideas…..haha maybe immissing the point of this guy completely & need to reread this….

note to self: may be mistake to take on big intellectuall like this…maybe its better to kiss ass and agree with him