George Ritzer’s Theorizing the Web 2011 plenary talk is also available. It streams below or can be downloaded here.
Comments 8
replqwtil — April 18, 2011
Thanks for posting this! A really interesting talk, and my first exposure to George Ritzer. Very pleasant.
I thought I would just express another view of Baudrillard's work here, and how it relates to the dualism discussed in the question period. The way I have seen Baudrillard presented in my academic work so far has not been with all 3 levels of simulation existing simultaneously, but rather a historical progression within society from one level to the next. Thus the reason the internet exists in the third order of simulation, in the hyperreal, is because society itself is in the process of totally transferring itself into that level, away from the commodity law which so structured our systems before.
As for the concept of dualism, from my reading and work with Baudrillard I would argue that it isn't that the world here is real, and the digital world is fake. The third order moves past distinctions like real and fake. Everything then is simply simulacra, a copy without an original. The online world is possible because our 'real' world is digital now as well. Rather than arguing that the online is real, because the material world is real, I would say that the online is 'fake' the same way the material world is 'fake'. In that they are both digital spaces constituted exclusively of simulacra.
Anyway, I just felt the need to prosume this material, and try and add my own interpretation to what I felt was a really good talk. Thanks again for the post!
Ismail Nooraddini — May 4, 2011
Despite your argument that were moving past the distinction between real and fake into a total copied reality, im going to take it a step further and argue the distinction is irrelevant. Functionalism posits the mind works in a three stage process. There is the sensory input (i.e. taste, sight, touch, hearing, and smell), the mental state resulting from the input (pain, anguish, euphoria, excitement, etc), and the resulting behavioural outputs (flinching, smiling, laughing, etc). Now, as long as the sensory inputs are stimulating, triggering a mental state, how that mental statement is stimulated is insignificant. "I think therefore i am," all i know is that i am real because i am aware of myself thinking. The mental state is the real, the sensory input could be artificial, synthetic, etc but it does not matter. The inability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy dissipates as long as your mental states interpret it through sensual stimulation. If i go to Disney World, Las Vegas, etc. and i am excited, it doesnt matter that these environments are "simulated," i am experiencing them as a reality, therefore it is reality and not fantasy.
Ismail Nooraddini — May 4, 2011
My head hurts :(
Comments are closed.
About Cyborgology
We live in a cyborg society. Technology has infiltrated the most fundamental aspects of our lives: social organization, the body, even our self-concepts. This blog chronicles our new, augmented reality.
Comments 8
replqwtil — April 18, 2011
Thanks for posting this! A really interesting talk, and my first exposure to George Ritzer. Very pleasant.
I thought I would just express another view of Baudrillard's work here, and how it relates to the dualism discussed in the question period. The way I have seen Baudrillard presented in my academic work so far has not been with all 3 levels of simulation existing simultaneously, but rather a historical progression within society from one level to the next. Thus the reason the internet exists in the third order of simulation, in the hyperreal, is because society itself is in the process of totally transferring itself into that level, away from the commodity law which so structured our systems before.
As for the concept of dualism, from my reading and work with Baudrillard I would argue that it isn't that the world here is real, and the digital world is fake. The third order moves past distinctions like real and fake. Everything then is simply simulacra, a copy without an original. The online world is possible because our 'real' world is digital now as well. Rather than arguing that the online is real, because the material world is real, I would say that the online is 'fake' the same way the material world is 'fake'. In that they are both digital spaces constituted exclusively of simulacra.
Anyway, I just felt the need to prosume this material, and try and add my own interpretation to what I felt was a really good talk. Thanks again for the post!
Ismail Nooraddini — May 4, 2011
Despite your argument that were moving past the distinction between real and fake into a total copied reality, im going to take it a step further and argue the distinction is irrelevant. Functionalism posits the mind works in a three stage process. There is the sensory input (i.e. taste, sight, touch, hearing, and smell), the mental state resulting from the input (pain, anguish, euphoria, excitement, etc), and the resulting behavioural outputs (flinching, smiling, laughing, etc). Now, as long as the sensory inputs are stimulating, triggering a mental state, how that mental statement is stimulated is insignificant. "I think therefore i am," all i know is that i am real because i am aware of myself thinking. The mental state is the real, the sensory input could be artificial, synthetic, etc but it does not matter. The inability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy dissipates as long as your mental states interpret it through sensual stimulation. If i go to Disney World, Las Vegas, etc. and i am excited, it doesnt matter that these environments are "simulated," i am experiencing them as a reality, therefore it is reality and not fantasy.
Ismail Nooraddini — May 4, 2011
My head hurts :(