Tag: simulacra

Avatars and Simulacra

crimson

I watched the Love Is Blind Season 6 finale, entitled “The Reunion,” just recently. It is my partner who likes the show, so I end up watching it for her; I would not ever watch this show myself if not for her. Writing that opening, I realize just how important my partner is in my life, and in my evolution as a person and a philosopher. Engaging with things I am not interested in, or even do not like, certainly plays an important role in helping me to gain a more holistic and complete view of the world.

In the case of this very specific episode of the show, I realized a number of things about my views on avatars and of simulation theory. I have spoken in previous posts about the separation between persons and their representations in simulation. As a very common example, of a player and their character in a video game. I think this distinction is critically important. That the player needs to always be aware that they are merely the player, and not the character within the simulation. And perhaps even more importantly, that the character’s experience is not the player’s experience. But this episode has thrown several monkey wrenches into my understanding.

One of the characters was being criticized by the shows host for going on record saying, “This is reality television. It is meant to entertain you, and I think that’s exactly what we’re doing. We didn’t miss with this one, baby. We didn’t miss!” This is very, very interesting to me. A reality show actor (and they are actors, just to be clear), goes on record publicly admitting that the purpose of reality television is to entertain. And if that isn’t enough, the show’s host then goes on record saying, “So, be very, very clear about this right now, was this all just for entertainment?” The conversation continues with the actor being placed on the defensive, being pushed to answer a false dilemma regarding the authenticity of the show.

I think it is going to take a bit of explaining to distill out what I think about hearing this. How I get from those statements to the conclusion that people are confusing their avatars for themselves. But that is precisely what this post is all about today.

In thinking much more about the particulars in this situation, I am going to try to explain what I think is going on and what I think the problem is. Firstly, there are individuals or persons who exist in what we might suggest is our main reality. This is me sitting in my chair typing out this post. I am a real, flesh and blood person existing in a physical universe. I need to eat and drink and breath to subsist. I am constrained by many, many limitations that are exceedingly difficult to overcome, such as gravity and air pressure. There is so much to say about this embodiment that I possess, but what I want to make clear is that this is the world that I think most people would agree is the main or true reality we all exist in. At least, as far as we can tell (this is a monkey wrench I can never seem to shake, so bear with me).

Then there are our avatars, who exist in some other reality. We all have many avatars, as many as all the simulations we interact with at any time. As the most basic example, when I play a board game, the playing piece I select becomes my avatar within the game. If I play a video game, my video game character becomes my avatar. And if I set up a social media account, the profile becomes my avatar. In any situation where I engage with some sort of simulation, I will have some sort of avatar that represents me within that simulation. The only exception I can think of is that perhaps I watch the simulation from the outside, like when I watch a sporting event on my television. But then I realize that in that situation, my avatar is akin to God within the simulation, looking down from above. A sort of “objective observer” of the simulation. And thus, there is still an avatar.

In all these cases, to be perfectly clear, I am suggesting that I am never my avatar. Not directly. I have a connection with my avatar, most often in that I control my avatar’s actions. In the case of a board game or video game, this may seem obvious. I might roll the dice to move my playing piece around the board of the board game. Or I might use my joystick to control the movements of my character in the video game. I, as the individual, exert an influence on my avatar in some way to make them behave in their reality.

In the case of the “objective observer,” I again exert an influence, not so much in the behavior, but more in the sorts of things the avatar will observe. I can change my viewpoint to look in different directions, or observe the simulation in different ways. As the “objective observer” is in a privileged position, my influence takes on a more abstract connection to my avatar.

But in the end, in all cases, there is still this distinction between who I am, as an individual, and who my avatar is, within the simulation. And more than just this distinction, it seems to me that there is a particular direction of the flow of things. As individual, my influence extends toward my avatar, not the other way around. The avatar does not make decisions for me, or influence how I behave.

Except that perhaps I’ve been mistaken in this regard. What if my avatar does exert some influence in the reverse direction? What if my avatar influences how I behave and act?

I have often suggested social media is a huge problem. A large reason I make this claim is that I suggest sometimes people confuse their avatars for themselves. Whereas in most video games, once the game is paused or ended, most people will understand that their character was just an avatar and not themselves. I am no longer Link, roaming the realm of Hyrule; in fact, I never truly was. I was always just myself in this world, and I was just “controlling” Link in that game. But what if I thought I was still Link, even when the game was over?

In social media, one creates a profile. That profile is often meant to represent themselves as accurately as possible. Same name. Same statistics. Same features. Same appearance. In fact, if a person purposefully does not do their very best to maintain this high level of correlation between individual and avatar, they are said to be a “catfish.” Being a “catfish” is considered a very unethical and taboo thing, and will often lead to such punishments as ostracization. Of course, this doesn’t appear to be uniform across all simulations; there are some simulations where “catfishing” is embraced and even encouraged. But then, the simulation is treated a bit more like a video game at that point, where the individuals have a much easier time recognizing that there is the distinction between their person and their avatar.

Thus, in general, in social media, it is encouraged to maintain an extremely high level of correlation between one’s avatar and one’s self. If something significant changes to an individual in the “real world,” they are expected to reflect that change in their avatar. If my relationship status changes in the real world, I am expect to update my relationship status within my online profile, for example. But what if something happens to my avatar within the social media; does this suggest that I need to update my person to reflect the change to my avatar?

In thinking about this at length, perhaps my earlier thoughts on individuals and avatars was too hasty. Because when I play an incredibly immersive video game, I do start to experience some of what my avatar experiences. I get excited and scared just as my avatar might. Clearly this is that reverse flow I was just speaking about, where my avatar is exerting an influence on my person. I never really considered this much before, but this is also part of the allure of playing these sorts of video games as well. To feel something I might not normally feel otherwise. To experience something I might not experience otherwise.

And so, in the case of social media, maybe the reverse flow ought to be expected. That if something happens to my avatar online, it will influence my person in this reality. Perhaps even to the point of changing me. My online existence manifesting into my real world existence. Perhaps my connection with my avatar can be far more comprehensive than I originally thought.

Returning to this episode of Love is Blind, and the comments by the actor about how the show is merely for entertainment. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that the actor did NOT say “merely.” It may possibly have been implied, which clearly is why the host criticized the actor. But the quote really only suggests that the purpose of reality television is to entertain, and that she believes it has been successful in this regard. Reality television can be both entertaining and real, in some sense. The possibility exists. Whether it is both simultaneously is another discussion altogether.

However, as the host criticizes her, that is clearly the perspective of the host. Or perhaps I might suggest, the host interpreted the actor’s statements as suggesting it was either one or the other, but not both. The host is committing a false dilemma, suggesting the actor could not mean both simultaneously. And the actor, clearly not trained in the art of debate, was led down a very entertaining path for the audience’s amusement.

And this, ultimately, is the most interesting thing for me. Because the host is pressing against the actor regarding things she said publicly regarding something that I believe the host likely DOES understand. That is, the episode of this show is, well, just a show. It is a reality television show that really is made for my entertainment. The actor is clearly correct. I am watching a show. I am in the privileged position. And the show is a simulation of my reality. These actors are avatars. I do not know these people in their real lives. Just like I only know “The Rock” and not Dwayne Johnson. To be perfectly clear here, Dwayne Johnson is an individual, and “The Rock” is his avatar (his character on various television shows and online).

So, this is a case of extreme layering. Of inception, to use the popular understand of this term, coming from the film that came out in 2010. The host is a character on a television show, just as the actor is playing one as well. And the host is also in a bit of a privileged position, because the real person associated with the host is also in part generating the narrative of this show. The person behind the host is (in part) creating this show. So the person, who is controlling the character of the host, knows full well that the actor is in fact correct regarding their statements.

Taking this further, I would argue that the host not only knows that the actor is correct, but that the host cannot admit this publicly. The host MUST maintain the illusion of the show being actually real in order to maintain the credibility of the show and its viewership. To maintain the support of its investors and stakeholders. The host NEEDS to criticize the actor for “breaking the 4th wall.”

This is precisely the issue I have with virtually all reality television and with social media. The nature of these simulations is that they are supposed to be “real.” They are simulations that pretend not to be simulations. To know that the simulation is a simulation is to destroy the “magic” of the simulation entirely. The audience needs to believe that these things are fully real and authentic for them to gain the proper amount of immersion. And unfortunately, just as Jean Baudrillard seemed to fear most, the “precession of simulacra” has already occurred.

Fantasy Is Reality

crimson

I’ve written two other posts discussing fantasy and reality. In the first I tried to show how fantasy and reality related to one another; how fantasy tends to include and be influenced by reality. I felt it was important to demonstrate that many fantasies are often mistaken for reality, of fictions being misrepresented as facts. That I think it is important to recognize this, lest I fall into creating my own simulacra, deceiving myself about the world.

In the second post, I explored more precisely what fantasy was, and how I tend to work toward making my fantasy into reality. I tried to show how fantasies are sort of like my wishes and desires, and how I can sometimes manipulate reality in order to turn a fantasy into the real. The main point I focused on was how fantasy and reality are not really opposites from each other, but more like steps of a procedure; my fantasy is my ambition, and turning it into reality is my goal.

Today, I again delve into these two related concepts, but this time I want to discuss how there is something of reality in fantasy. That is, when I spend time in a fantasy, like when I read a book or enter into simulation, how the fantasy is in some way just as real as the reality I am in here and now. How fantasy is reality, in a very real sense.

Before going any further, I first need to set some ground rules. Language here is already becoming incredibly confusing. And so, when I use the term Reality (with the capital letter “R”) I will be referring to this realm that I presently inhabit. That is, I am talking about the life that I exist in, just as I assume you do as well, where I have a flesh and blood body and I am required to breath and eat to sustain myself. Where I live on a planet we call Earth, in a country we call Canada. I have a job and I have a partner that I live with.

It may seem strange for me to delve into such detail, but I assure you it is necessary. This Reality is not to be confused with what goes on on the Internet in chat rooms or the like. In Reality, I have to literally walk from place to place, picking up objects with my flesh and blood hands. In Reality, if I die, I cease to be able to participate in other realities, which is something I will discuss a little later.

When I use the term Fantasy (with the capital letter “F”) I will be referring to a realm of existence where I am real but the world I inhabit is in some way fictitious. For example, when I read a book, within my mind I imagine the world of the story. The images in my mind, of the landscapes and of the people, are entirely fictitious and do not exist in Reality. The world I inhabit, while reading the book, only exists within my mind and my imagination. Often there are similar and related things in Fantasy to what exists in Reality, however if something in Fantasy is changed, the similar thing in Reality will remain unaffected.

There can be many Fantasies. As another example, perhaps I play a video game on my computer. The world of the video game is another Fantasy, distinct from the earlier example while I read the book. In the world of the video game, I still exist in some fashion, though the world of the game is now represented within a computer. It may be presented to me through the use of a monitor or perhaps even goggles over my eyes, but that world still does not exist in Reality.

I hope the clearing up of these terms helps, but I suspect it is still going to be challenging to follow. I will do my best to keep things clear.

I have already been hinting at something significant here during my definitions that is the real focus of my interest in this discussion. In both Reality and Fantasy, there is something in common: me. While the world in Fantasy may be fictitious, I am not. Perhaps I control an avatar within the Fantasy, and that avatar is certainly going to be fictitious, but I am still linked to that avatar in some way. And again, for emphasis, I am still real. I inhabit Reality and Fantasy simultaneously.

But then what am “I” really? Clearly I cannot be talking about my flesh and blood body, as that seems only to exist in Reality. There is no flesh and blood in Fantasy, at least not of the same sort as exists in Reality. If one assumes mind-body dualism, as René Descartes suggested, then “I” clearly cannot be my body. “I” must be somewhat closer to being my mind. And when it comes to simulations like video games, this may very well suite our purposes acceptably. But in the case of reading the book, this does not work as well. In a video game, “I” controls an avatar. In a book, “I” does not control anything.

No, when I talk about “me” in these cases, I need to be talking about something distinct from my mind as well. Perhaps not entirely distinct, but at least different than. “I” can exist apart from my mind, in some sense. So again, what am “I” really?

The best I’ve been able to describe this idea I have, up to the point I wrote this post, is that “I” am a thing that experiences. A “first person” for lack of better language. When my eyes react to the light outside my body, chemical signals are sent to my brain and interpreted. The interpretations are then… What exactly? Analyzed perhaps? Worked with? Experienced is the only word I can come up with. Something experiences whatever the brain has been dealing with. This is “me,” the thing that experiences.

I’ve tried to explain this concept to others, but I think I have failed every time. Perhaps I am failing again this very moment. But I hope not. And I will continue, in the hopes that you understand, at least a little bit.

What is extremely important to clarify here is that if “I” am the thing that experiences, then my mind is not necesarily under my control, in a sense. I am a reflection, or a reaction, to the world around me. It seems to be, as far as I can tell, that Reality is highly (if not completely) deterministic. That is, Reality appears to follow a law of cause and effect. For me to see, light must excite the cells in the back of my eyes. The light is the cause, and the excited cells are the effect. Those excited cells send chemical signals through neurons to my brain. The excited cells are now the cause, and the chemical signals now the effect. I can add more specificity, but the result is the same. Something causes something else to happen, the effect.

My mind is part of this chain that started with my body. The body is my interface to the world, reacting to stimulus, and manipulating matter. I can pick up the glass that was on my table, and place it beneath, and thus have manipulated Reality. However, as I stated earlier, my body does not exist in Fantasy. My mind receives the information from my body, and can send commands to my body, allowing me to pick up that glass. But in Fantasy, there is no body and no glass.

In the case of some Fantasies, my mind may still exist in the same fashion it did in Reality, however, it no longer controls my body in Reality nor even necessarily receives the same stimulus from it. This point is highly contentious, as it can easily be argued that the body in Reality is receiving all the stimulus from the monitor or goggles, which are presenting the Fantasy to me. Perhaps this is why my mind can so easily be reasoned to continue to exist within Fantasy. So let us tackle this from another perspective.

In the case where I read the book, what then is going on? There is no monitor to present Fantasy to my eyes. No speaker to present Fantasy to my ears. Where does the interface lay? It seems to me that my mind itself now becomes the interface. Through my imagination, I generate my Fantasy realm. My mind has, in some sense, replaced my body in this regard. But it still isn’t quite clear what is happening in this case. It is not clear whether my mind is both representing my Fantasy world and simultaneously “me.” Can it do both at the same time?

Untangling becomes a bit more interesting when I consider the fact that the story from the book contains a character: the protagonist. “I,” in some way, inhabit the protagonist. “I” become that entity in a very real way. As the story is read, I can feel what the protagonist feels and see what the protagonist sees. Within my imagination, of course. But that is the very point I am driving towards here. I feel what the protagonist feels. My feelings are real, even when the protagonist is not.

To be happy or sad are not things I can control or fabricate. It is true that I can present myself to be these things to others in Reality, or even in Fantasy, and the others may be convinced. But I would still know on some level. I cannot deceive myself, can I, akin to Jean-Paul Sartre‘s description of Bad Faith, working at convincing myself to ignore the evidence to the contrary. My feelings simply are as they are. I can try to deny them or ignore them, but they still exist despite my best efforts.

The key here is that these feelings are still real to me. I still experience them, regardless of what realm I seem to be inhabiting. In Reality. In Fantasy. It makes no difference to “me.” I feel as I feel. The feelings are.

In writing this all down, it occurs to me that perhaps these feelings are not necessarily a part of my mind anymore, and may instead be a part of “me.” Perhaps “I” am more than merely a thing that experiences. Or perhaps the fact that “I” am a thing that experiences is why I have these feelings at all. Perhaps emotion is a component of “I.”

Returning to my focus, “I” still experience my feelings, regardless of whether I am in Reality or in Fantasy. “I” am the same, in some sense, even when the world around me is completely different. “I” remain. “I” am consistent, or persistent. “I” exist in all realms.

The feelings I feel, the experiences I experience, are all just as real to me regardless of the realm they seem to originate from.

It makes no difference to me if the world around me is fabricated, if I am still brought to anger and wish to lash out. I still lash out. Perhaps the manner in which I am forced to lash out will be changed based on the limitations and restrictions of the realm I presently inhabit, but I still feel as I feel and I still lash out in some manner. Whether I am flailing my arms in Reality, or my avatar is flailing his arms in Fantasy, I still manifest my emotional state in both cases.

In the case of the protagonist, I may not have control of my actions. I may be stiffled. My anger welling up inside me, begging to be set free, while the protagonist restrains himself. Unable to manifest how I need to manifest, as the Fantasy realm in this case is limiting my actions and agency. But I still feel that anger. I still feel.

I know this is all quite a lot to consider. Quite an abstract concept to wrap one’s brain around. But I hope I’ve been successful in my attempt. To demonstrate how there exists something very real within Fantasy. How Reality, in some sense, exists within all Fantasy. Because “I” am real, and “I” exist in all Fantasy. At least, all Fantasy that “I” participate in, whether voluntary or involuntary.

Because “I” exist in all realms, and because “I” am in some sense real at all times, the significance between Fantasy and Reality becomes less important. I experience in both Fantasy and Reality. Fantasy and Reality both generate within me feelings, and those feelings are always real to me. In these ways Fantasy might as well be Reality for most purposes. And if I don’t know the difference, it may ultimately be unimportant to me. Robert Nozick‘s suggestion that I would not want to participate in the experience machine because it was somehow not real seems false. Fantasy may be Reality, as far as I can tell, or even as far as I want to.

Clowns and the Simulacra of Gender

crimson

I am attracted to clowns. Not all clowns, but enough of them to raise questions within myself. Why do I find clowns attractive?

To be clear, when I talk about clowns, I am referring to those performers who paint their faces white and apply rather garish red makeup across their cheeks and above their eyes, often adding a ruby, red ball to their noses that frequently makes a honking noise when squeezed. But it isn’t just their faces; they often add brightly coloured wigs to their heads, and dress in brightly coloured baggy clothing. They are typically comedians of physical comedy, sometimes never speaking and only bouncing around in a frivolous manner. They present themselves in a way that is hard to ignore, making themselves the center of attention in any place they perform.

Some hints as to my predilection became apparent to me after a long time watching women. After a time, I realized that many women are clowns. Like clowns, they apply significant makeup to their faces, altering their hair, sometimes wearing garish wigs. Some of these women even choose colours that are bright and unnatural during the process. Most do not add a ball to their noses, and often their clothing is tight fitting rather than loose, but the general assembly is strikingly similar.

These women are not comedians, generally. But for many of them, their goal of entertaining their audiences remains the same. They too present themselves in a way that is hard to ignore, and work very hard to make themselves the center of attention in any place they go. Like clowns, these women are spectacles.

The similarities between clowns and some women is not enough to explain their allure to me. The next piece of the puzzle comes as part of my upbringing. As a boy, I was taught what I should like. I am supposed to like girls. But not just any girls. I was taught to keep an eye out for certain features. Features that will make these girls attractive, according to some standard that others have selected long before I was ever conceived.

In my philosophy of feminism classes, we often spoke of the “eternal feminine,” an impossible standard that most women are held against in our world. A standard that defines beauty and attractiveness. A standard that is the model many women use when trying to present themselves. It may not surprise my reader that this standard bears a striking resemblance to the standard clowns seem to follow.

I admit this is my interpretation, but it seems to me that this is where my fondness for clowns is coming from. For me, I am attracted to these choices and presentations. These cues. These signs.

Which leads me to another thing I have more recently been noticing. When it comes down to it, there is not a lot of difference between men and women. I am referring to the sexes of man and woman when I say this, not the genders. If you place a nude male of the human species next to a nude female, aside from the (hopefully) obvious differences in genitals, their bodies are much alike.

I already know that many readers will immediately disagree with this. They will speak of the musculature of the male and the swelling of the hips of the female. The breasts. But are these features really as generalized as we are led to believe? Are these features genetic and unchangeable, or are they often originating in other places?

I have seen a great many different bodies in the nearly half a century I have been living on this planet. Bodies of a vast variety of shapes and sizes. I have seen women who have the musculature of what a man ought to have. I have seen men with breasts. And following this multitude of observations, it seems to me that while bodies are shaped as they are as a result of one’s genetic code, they are also very much influenced by the individual’s lifestyle and choices.

As a boy, I was encouraged to behave in the ways of masculinity. This meant going out and playing physically. It meant trying to get me interested in sports (though I admit this particular guidance failed on me). Similarly, I was encouraged to take things apart and put them back together again. Encouraged to play with machinery and computers. And, perhaps more importantly, to dress and present myself in a very particular way. To wear pants, and not dresses. To keep my hair short. To walk in two tracks (I initially walked in one track, and was given lessons to ensure I did not continue this behavior).

Meanwhile, my sisters were encouraged in other ways. Different behaviors. That they ought to be interested in different things than myself. To play with dolls and bake cakes. And also to present themselves in very particular ways. To wear dresses. To let their hair grow long. To walk in one track.

These lessons did not cease over time. As I grew from a child into an adolescent and eventually into an adult, my training continued. If ever I faltered in my presentation, I was shamed and ridiculed until I conformed to the standards set out for me. Encouraged to be physical frequently. To solve conflict through physicality. My strength was considered an asset, and one I ought to develop.

When I think upon all these things, it is no surprise to me that I look as I do. Move as I do. I learned to not bounce when I step, keeping my head at the same level as I progressed. To allow my shoulders and upper body to swing slightly from side to side as I walk, keeping my hips relatively stationary. My gait is a man’s gait. I do not wear heeled shoes, and obviously find them uncomfortable. I do not wear makeup. I do not wear clothing that is intended to alter my appearance. No corsets or the like.

But I cannot say this about the women I know. My partner is wrought with anxiety concerning her appearance all the time. Her presentation is a very significant part of her daily routine. And if the occasion is special or sensitive, she will go to great lengths to upscale her appearance through the use of makeup and other accessories. She has a jewelry box. She has heeled shoes. She knows of those conventions and will make attempts to follow them when she believes it is important or appropriate.

My partner is not a clown, however. When she upscales her appearance, it is only under certain circumstances. Those occasions where she knows it is expected of her. Most of the time, she does not bother with such frivolous things. And I am happy she does not, because I find the entire exercise quite strange.

There are other women I know, however, that are clowns. They spend countless hours doing themselves up every day. Hours in the morning spent preparing for the day ahead. Always applying makeup. Always wearing the heeled shoes. Not always wearing the dresses though, as that convention has been slowly changing. But some of them do still wear those dresses.

You may note that as I carry on regarding all these ways of presentation that I rarely, if ever, discuss their actual bodies. The particulars of their hips or breasts is absent in this discussion, for good reason. Because what makes a man a man, or a woman a woman, it seems to me, actually has very little to do with the individual’s body. The concern, it seems, is far more about the sorts of things I have been talking about. Of makeup and accessories. Of attire choices and of heeled shoes.

This is what I’ve come to realize. How a body appears to be is predominantly about makeup choices and attire choices. I recently watched the film Meet the Spartans. There is a joke within the film about painted on abs on the male actors. And it is surprisingly effective. It is actually hard to tell whether their abs are actually their abs or not. Again, I can hear many readers arguing that it is obvious, but I would challenge exactly how easy it is to really tell. Which is why I will start to discuss trans people.

When an individual establishes publicly that they are a trans woman or a trans man, the first thing they seem to do is find ways to signal this change. A trans woman dresses more feminine and a trans man more masculine. It is this presentation that is important, as it is through this presentation that others will be able to identify who they really are. If they have enough money, and if they are so inclined, they may take their desired identity to their doctors to be surgically altered, but this is seldom the first step in their process. It always seems to begin with trying to make others see them as they wish to be seen. For others to make the correct assumptions and interpretations of the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth.

The main problem with these standards of presentation is, as I said earlier, that they are impossible to achieve. The “eternal feminine” and the “eternal masculine” are models of the idealized, of the perfect. Like Plato’s Forms, they exist in their own reality. Our reality can only ever aspire for such perfection.

This is why drag queens frequently seem to come off as excessive and extreme. These people understand the challenges of these impossible standards, and pursue them relentlessly despite the unfeasability. Pushing their presentation as far as it can possibly go, and still sometimes further than that. Due to the excessive nature of the presentation, the audience is already cued that something is not entirely what it seems. Not quite natural.

It seems to me that drag queens have created their own culture around this extreme presentation. They have appropriated the “eternal feminine” for themselves in a way that is quite astonishing. Their courage is marvelous! However, the cues and signs of genderhood that they exhibit are confusing, and so others may ultimately be left wondering.

With trans people, this is less likely the case. For most trans, it seems that the goal is not the extreme, but often the more subtle. Not necessarily to draw everyone’s attention to what they are doing, but instead to capture the right level of signaling to present themselves as they wish to be presented. A trans person, if successful, is indistinguishable from a non-trans person. A woman is simply a woman in both cases. Similarly with a man. Prefacing with the word “trans” or “cis” seems entirely unnecessary, in my opinion.

Of course, all of this that I express is my opinion. There are clearly plenty of others out there who feel that the prefaced words “trans” and “cis” are critically important. That it is important to realize that the individual’s assigned gender at birth is a significant part of the identity they wish to present. Or, perhaps, it is more about the others holding significant value in something else that has nothing to do with the presentation. That what was assigned at birth is somehow an incredibly important aspect of who a person is.

So, if that is to be the case, it might be best to look closely at how this gender is assigned at birth. What identifying features are used to determine a baby’s gender? This is obvious. In the absence of the baby expressing some sort of preference (obviously due to the baby’s inability to do so), it is their genitals that will be used to determine what to do. If they have a penis, they are clearly male. Otherwise, they are female. Except that isn’t quite what happens.

In cases where the genitals do not provide a clear cut decision in this false dilemma, because the individual has both a penis and a vagina, or perhaps neither, the doctors and parents have some decisions to make. And sometimes the parents are not even a part of this decision. Because heaven forbid that the individual live out their lives not as one of the standard gender choices we have in our world. Only men and women exist, and nothing else.

The choice made on behalf of the newly born individual comes from outside. It comes from others. Others decide who and what the individual is and will be going forward. Again, this may seem reasonable; after all, a baby is in no position to make such choices on their own. They have to grow up first. Perhaps in adulthood they will be ready to start making these sorts of decisions. But until that time, they will still have to be trained and taught how to be whatever it is that they are supposed to be.

The body, and in particular the genitals, are used to select gender initially. But after that initial selection is made, the body is no longer important. The choice made, all that follows is about how to guide the individual toward the appropriate standard. Early on the concepts of the eternal form of their gender are memorized. This knowledge is constantly reinforced through parents, teachers, other children, strangers, even mass media. The pictures in magazines. The characters in film. At every turn, the standards are being reinforced. Still images are “photoshopped” to ensure conformity, just as moving pictures have evolved special effects. I refer once again back to Meet the Spartans, and painted on abs.

The false dilemma is packaged and distributed for mass consumption by the greater audience. Society knows what is supposed to happen. All individuals, left to a sort of self legislation, can attend to themselves and ensure their presentation is managed appropriately. For those individuals who do not conform, shame and guilt are impressed strongly. The religion of the two genders is not the sort of thing you are simply allowed to opt out of.

Bodies are not ignored completely in this divisive situation. Eventually, there comes a time when what is underneath the spectacle will have to be revealed. The truth about ourselves will be exposed eventually. This is why surgical enhancements are greatly sought. Why corsets are worn frequently, training the abdominal region, like doing push-ups trains the pectoralis major. My body is still important, regardless of how it came to me originally.

One should notice, however, that it is not simply acceptable to allow one’s body to remain as it is. Because no body meets the impossible standards. Work will have to be done to make the body conform, as best as possible. And so it should be clear that the body does not determine gender ultimately. It is gender that determines the body. Gender, however selected, becomes the template for how the body ought to be perceived.

The Rehearsal

crimson

It was recommended to me to watch the HBO series The Rehearsal. So I did. I am not entirely sure what to make of this show. This blog will be me exploring my own feelings regarding what takes place and to see where I end up. In other words, I actually do not know how I feel at this point. I am literally going to travel down a rabbit hole and see what happens…

I also need to warn of spoilers here. If you have not seen this series by Nathan Fielder, then you ought to watch the show first before reading this post. On the other hand, perhaps you might find my analysis valuable to help you understand whether you will want to invest the time in watching the show at all. This, of course, is entirely up to you.

Briefly, the show is about a guy who helps other people with challenging, but relatively mundane, real life situations by rehearsing those situations in order to try and achieve the most optimal outcome. For example, in the opening episode, we have a man who has been lying about his education to his trivia buddies for the past twelve years, and has decided finally to come clean. The man is afraid of the reaction one particular trivia buddy will have, and so the rehearsals are intended to ensure that his buddy will remain his buddy after the truth is revealed.

In other words, Fielder is going to attempt, to the best of his ability, to simulate with perfect accuracy the situation whereby the man will engage when he reveals his deception. This entails Fielder building a full sized replica of the bar where the individuals will be hanging out, filling the bar with actors who will portray the various potential people that will be present, including an actor portraying the buddy who will be learning of the “horrible” lie.

The entire series is filled with such pedantically assembled rehearsals of mundane activities and situations, with the creation of detailed sets and the hiring of a literal army of actors. It is quite amusing the passing comments regarding budget throughout the series, especially when staff are hired to maintain the illusion of winter time around a house during the middle of summer. It seems there is no limit to the lengths Fielder is willing to go to perfect his craft.

As a comedy, the series is quite good. The level of ridiculousness that is achieved by the show is far and beyond any other show I have ever seen, and I laughed a lot. But during the viewing, I found the humor was constantly overshadowed by something else. Something sinister and insidious.

It seems others have been suggesting that Fielder was manipulative and sadistic, taking his “contenstants” and embarrassing them on live television. When I suggest something nefarious is going on, this is not what I have in mind. I need to make this clear at the outset. The problem I found with the show is something more subtle, and perhaps even difficult to see unless one just happens to be trained in hard core analysis (like perhaps philosophical analysis) and perhaps even possessing a bit of OCD.

To properly discuss my concern, I first have to talk a little about my personal history. I have a challenging relationship with my siblings and my parents. I am not always sure if my siblings and parents realize this, but I cannot really be around them anymore. It is more than just that they “drive me nuts.” When I am around them, I start to lose parts of myself.

The problem I have with my family has to do with the understanding of actions and consequences of actions. Of cause and effect. My family complains a lot about the going-ons in their lives. They complain about how hard their lives are. They complain about how the world is so unfair. They complain about how others do not take care of them in the ways they feel they are supposed to be taken care of. My family seems to feel that the world owes them something. My family feels that other people owe them something.

However, from my vantage point, it seems to me that something very different is going on. To me, it seems like all the terrible and painful situations my family members end up in are a direct result of the choices and actions they each take. I am able to see the chains of events that have transpired through days, weeks, months, even years, that have led from decisions they have made to their ultimate downfall and suffering. I do not know why or how I was able to do this from such a young age, but I did. And the worst part was that I didn’t even really understand how much I was doing the same things until I finally gained distance from my family.

Less than ten years ago, I left the city I grew up in. I moved to another city in another province. Far enough away that it was unreasonable to see in person my family or many of my existing friends at the time. This distance slowly revealed to me the problem I am expressing. I started to recognize just how much my own actions and decisions were affecting my own situations. How my own world view was responsible for my happiness and well being. And, I admit, I had a lot of help with all this because I was then living with my current life partner. She was instrumental in me seeing what I could not, up to that point, see.

The reason all of this is significant is because I learned to see how my own choices and actions led to all the consequences around me. My world was so much more within my control than I ever realized. I still cannot control other people, nor can I levitate above the ground, but through my choices and actions I can have a profound impact on the circumstances and situations I find myself in. I can choose to be happy, for example. And I can just as easily choose not to be happy.

This all applies to my family and friends as well. And this is where I have challenges. Because it seems to me that my family and many of my friends all choose not to be happy. They seem content to complain and carry on about how bad their lives are, and they seem never to see how it is their own decisions and actions are making their lives so miserable. I find it incredibly difficult to listen to people complaining about things they could very easily change. I often try to say to them that if life is so bad, why not change it. But they just look at me like I am somehow crazy.

This is how I see the show The Rehearsal. I see the show with the same critical eye that I see my family. I see how the various characters, and especially Fielder himself, are orchestrating their own downfalls and their own difficulties. What is worse is that Fielder appears to be trying to fix his situation, by conducting these rehearsals, not recognizing how his rehearsals are in fact having the opposite effect. The rehearsals only serve to exacerbate the situations.

I think the most frustrating thing for me is how Fielder barrels down his path to the abyss by focusing on the very thing that is causing him so much trouble. His simulations are imperfect, and so he focuses on trying to make his simulations more and more perfect. He seems to be of the opinion that if he could simply get to a high enough level of accuracy, his simulations will somehow both reveal and make possible the perfect rehearsals for the perfect outcomes. In the third episode, he has the epiphany that he needs better emotional resolution in his characters, because he believes that it is this lack of emotional connection that is causing him the troubles.

What Fielder does not understand, just as many scientists or statisticians do not understand, is that he is privileging information in his selection process. He is introducing bias in his decision regarding what he holds important. For example, when he trains the actors in his “Fielder Method,” he is privileging the sorts of ways the actors ought to watch their targets in order to gain the greatest amount of accuracy in their performances. Ultimately, the method leads to an almost literal stepping into the shoes of the target, living what they believe are the same lives, working the same occupations, etc.

However, what neither Fielder nor the actors seem to realize is that a large part of what makes a person what they are is unobservable. As often comes up in the discussions I have about consciousness, I cannot experience your experiences. I cannot think your thoughts. I cannot feel your feelings. René Descartes rightly pointed this all out in his Meditations, and the unfortunate conclusion that can be drawn from such things is that mine might be the only consciousness in existence, leading to the very real possibility of solipsism.

What is worse is that when the actors, and Fielder himself, start to occupy the roles they observe their targets filling, they start to introduce further biases in their method of occupation. For example, Fielder suggests to Thomas that to better understand his target, he ought to move into an apartment with some artistic roommates, because they had learned that the target lived in an apartment with musician roommates. Later, Fielder himself, while in the role of Thomas, also moves into an apartment with some artistic roommates, even going so far as to use the same names for the roommates as well. As accurate as the simulated simulation is, it is clearly not the same. Aside from using different actors in the roles of the roommates, the apartments are mirrored in their set ups as well. Likely due to constraints of budget again, it is not feasible to absolutely replicate the simulated apartment. It is also worth noting that the audience never sees the original apartment for which all these simulations are being copied from, perhaps because that original is unavailable to be viewed.

The driving force of my concern here is not whether Fielder is sincere in his effort at duplication or replication, but in the simple fact that perfect duplication or perfect replication is not possible. More to the point is the fact that in order to achieve the simulation, subtle choices have to be made to “bridge the gaps” were information is missing, which leads to the creeping in of unfortunate biases.

Later in the season, it does seem like Fielder ought to start to recognize these challenges when he starts noting how any formulation of replacement for Remy is always inferior in some way to the original. The use of older actors pretending to be six year old children, or even the use of dolls, in both cases never works. Fielder ought to be able to recognize the problem, but instead simply pushes further and further into his own insanity.

Which brings me to my final point: insanity. Fielder is so focused on his goal that he misses all that he does to alter and change the situations in his attempts at perfection. He changes the model he is trying to attain in order to make it more likely to attain the model. But he has to CHANGE the model each time to do this. Meaning that the idealized source of all his concerns keeps changing. He is not looking at anything remotely real by the end, but only of a simulacra.

This show is a demonstration of Jean Baudrillard‘s concern in his work Simulacra and Simulation. While normally the formation of simulacra tends to be a slower and more time consuming process, Fielder has succeeded in generating his simulacra of reality in a matter of a few episodes of his show. By the finale, with his apparent flub, Fielder has confirmed his existence in Baudrillard’s hyperreal, complete with the formation of… Well… We have to wait until the second season to see what he has become. Will he confuse the child actor Liam, who plays the other child actor Remy, who was playing the imaginary child Adam, as his own actual son? And if so, who has he confused? Adam? Remy? Liam? Someone else entirely?

For Baudrillard, the problem is the detachment from the real. To lose the source of grounding and end up in some sort of relativistic plane of existence. Where symbols are of symbols only, with no connection to anything that is actually real. To mistake the symbols for the real and start living a life that is devoid of connection to the world as it actually is. To not understand that there even could be a world outside our illusions, and mistake all the illusions for everything there is. This is the ongoing challenge of social media in our present age, mistaking people’s profiles for the people themselves. When the people mistake their own profiles for themselves and start living their virtual lives as though these virtual lives are their actual flesh and blood real lives.

Which ultimately leads me back to my original question. Did I like this show? How do I feel about this series? I am still not sure. I do like that the series has got me thinking so much about things. I do enjoy anything that gets me thinking, especially really hard like this. But at the same time, it simultaneously frustrates me to see a person so deep in his own psychosis as to not understand what is going on. To be so lost that they cannot see how their own choices and actions have led them directly to where they are now.

I supposed this will all hinge on the second season for me, assuming that one is created. To see where Fielder ends up. Is he as cracked as the finale is suggesting, or was the flub just a momentary lapse and he will recover? Is his show just an extremely complicated personal experiment where he will learn something new and interesting about himself and the world around himself? Or did he just slide head first into the abyss and is now completely lost?

I think if he went through an enlightenment, taking all he learned and processing it, reflecting on it, and evolving as a person, I think I would be happy with that. This is essentually the path I have taken over the past ten years myself. And yes, it is true that I am being biased in my privileging of going through an enlightenment like this. But that is my privilege to assess the series in this way. As a piece of art, I connect with it in my own way.

On the other hand, I suspect the series is more likely to go in the opposite direction. Like social media, I expect the series to continue racing down into the darkness, convinced that if Fielder just holds out a little bit longer, his “Method” will eventually generate fruit. I imagine Fielder will simply push harder and raise the bar on the ridiculous until what little sense that is left is lost completely. The “precession of simulacra” completed in its entirety, and even cycled several more times just to be safe. As Baudrillard would suggest, until everything is left completely meaningless.

Fantasy Versus Reality

crimson1 Comment

The other day, I ended up in a dispute with my partner over investment reporting. We have some money invested and when we receive the reports periodically, they may or may not provide information to us about what percent increase (or decrease) has occurred since our initial investment. Our dispute was related to both the availability of such information, as well as its accuracy. She believes the information should always be provided by the agent, and that that information is simple and reliable when presented. I believe the agent ought to offer it, but I recognize the complexity of such information and so I prefer to figure it out for myself.

It is not my intention in this post to go into the finer details and mathematics of calculating this sort of information. What I would like to focus on is the nature of what information the agent would provide. In particular, is such information real (and accurate and reliable) or merely fantasy (as in speculative and largely biased).

When I was younger, I heard someone say, “80 percent of all statistics are made up.” If you didn’t catch it immediately, this is a joke. The idea is that the statement itself is “made up,” and as such, the statistic it is purporting is also “made up.” The statement, ultimately, is entirely useless as it does not actually tell us anything useful. It is merely a joke.

However, there is some truth in this joke. Statistics is the area of mathematics concerned with taking data and analyzing that data to formulate potentially useful conclusions about it. In other words, one takes a large (often very large) pile of information (such as numbers), and they run through the data looking for various common things or different things. One can, for example, find the average of a group of numbers, which will tell them (very approximately) a sort of midpoint in the data set. Other popular midpoint finders include median and mode.

Here is a simple example:

Data Set: 5, 4, 3, 7, 6

Average: 5

In this case, 5 is clearly and easily the midpoint. All the numbers are relatively close in magnitude to 5 (within 2 in the most extreme case). Thus, the average seems to provide something useful in description of the data.

The reason there are many different methods utilized to find the midpoint is that depending on the nature of the data set itself, weird things can happen in the analysis. If within the set of numbers, there is one number that is significantly different, then the average may be pulled far in some direction, providing strange results. Here is another example:

Data Set: 5, 4, 3, 7, 6, 125

Average: 25

In this case, 25 is much less useful as the midpoint. Most of the data is hovering around 5, as demonstrated in the previous example. The single outlier has taken the average and pulled it violently away. The number 25 isn’t very helpful in describing the data anymore, though the result itself is technically accurately describing the average of the data.

Again, it is not my intent to dive into extensive mathematical proofs. But I hope that the simple examples make my point clear. It doesn’t take much to significantly change the results of a data analysis and provide vastly different results. All I did above was add a single new number to the data, and the average changed drastically.

This also leads to the main problem with statistics that most don’t think to consider: why did I choose to use average as my preferred method of analysis, as opposed to median, mode, or something else entirely? As the one performing the analysis, I necessarily have to select my tools and methods to perform my analysis. Which tools I decide to use affect the results, as does what part of the data I decide to utilize.

Selection of what part or parts of the data I will use is also a significant factor to consider. In the second example, clearly the value 125 is very unlike the other values and is having a significant affect on my result. I could simply remove the outlier, claiming it is an outlier and not representative of the rest of the data and then proceed with my analysis (which will result in it appearing the same as the first example). This sort of decision is not uncommon in statistics or science.

In both cases, the decision regarding which tools I utilize and the decision regarding which data I include, I have fulfilled the requirements of statistical analysis. I may be asked to provide good reasons for my choices, but the making of those choices is mine to make. Furthermore, this also places the responsibility upon others to question my choices. If no one questions or challenges my choices, then my results will stand very nicely.

In the argument with my partner, my point was that if the agent will provide us with a rating of the interest our investments accumulated, I would ask for details regarding how that number was attained. Unfortunately, this is not usually made very clear by agents. Often, when I have raised this question, I get pages of statistical analysis that by itself is challenging and time consuming to sort through. I sometimes wonder if they are simply trying to confuse me with large information, in the same way as one confuses by using big words when they talk. Makes them sound more intelligent than they may actually be.

I would also relate this to my anxiety when I observe companies “graciously” offering to shop around on my behalf, ensuring that I get the “lowest price” on an item. Why do those companies compare against the specific other companies that they choose to compare themselves against? Like a commercial which says their product beats the leading brand, and then you see in the fine print that the “leading brand” is simply their own lesser product. By making crafty choices, the companies are rigging the game in their own favor. As a crafty consumer, it is up to me to raise the questions back to them to tease out something of the truth.

Which brings me to the point I was wanting to raise at the beginning. Statistical analysis is a form of fiction. It looks a lot like the truth, but certainly bears some difference. How much difference is highly dependent on the choices made by those performing the analysis. The choices themselves are not objective, they are subjective, forming the foundation of the fiction being generated. They are a form of fantasy.

But most fantasy does have some relationship with the real. The centaur is a mythical creature based on the ideas of a horse and a man merged. Horses and men are real things. In the same way, the results of statistical analysis is a fantasy based on a real thing as well (based of the very real data that has been analyzed). It can sometimes be difficult to remember this fact.

This too, I think, is the source of many simulacra. Science and statistics both provide innumerable examples of these sorts of fictions, which become the basis of other fictions, and so on. If it is forgotten the original source of these things, then they simply become symbols of symbols of symbols…

It is certainly unreasonable for any person to keep track of every single fact in existence. I have to depend on the amalgamated “facts” that come from science and statistics, and other places. I myself have not performed the calculations required to predict the weather, but I still listen to the weatherperson, and I still do plan my day around what they say. In that way, I am adopting a fiction into my list of “facts.” I am accepting a fantasy as part of my reality.

But I try to always remember where my data is coming from. To acknowledge and appreciate that there are likely errors (sometimes significant ones) in my “facts.” To be wary that sometimes those errors have been placed there intentionally by various parties with a vested interest in affecting my choices and decisions. To always be aware that my world is heavily mediated, and that almost everything I know is, in truth, simply a variation of fantasy. As Immanuel Kant suggested in his Critique of Pure Reason, I have no direct connection to the real world.

Imperfection in Perfection

crimson1 Comment

I checked, and I haven’t yet spoken on this topic. I am surprised, as it is a pretty big deal for me. Of the things I’ve learned in this life, this may be one of the most important.

Growing up, my father was responsible for most of the things I know and think, directly or indirectly. The idea of an absolute truth, a truth about the universe that is true irrespective of all our perspectives, is one my father held onto very strongly. Even I find myself seduced by the charm of this idea. However, as I continue my life, I find that the idea of an absolute truth seems less and less likely. The world is so mysterious, and I discover things I never expected all the time. So much so that I wonder if those things we so strongly hold onto might possibly be shown false at some point.

Perfection is such a thing. What is it to be perfect? The idea seems simple enough. To be perfect is to be without flaws. To be without defects. So what is a flaw or defect? I decided to look this up online, just for completeness, and I was amused at the response I received: a flaw or defect is something that makes a thing imperfect. This loops right back to my original query. This is circular reasoning.

So far, to be perfect is to be without flaws, and a flaw is something that makes a thing imperfect. Great. That doesn’t tell me anything at all. Or, to be more accurate, it is suggestive of something about perfection. Perfection, it seems to me, is highly subjective. For a thing to be perfect, I have to decide it is perfect. For a thing to be a flaw, I have to decide it is a flaw. Only then will the definitions start to make sense. Only then can I hope to find perfection.

This all relates back to freedom, which I often talk about. I am free to decide what things will count as being perfect, and as such, I can thus decide what things will count as flaws. A perfect circle is perfect because every point in that circle is precisely the same distance from a very specific point that is not a part of that circle. This sort of definition of a circle works, but it may not be clear its reason for working. I have decided this is what counts as a circle, and so I now have a method for determining flaws: if a point on the circle is at a different distance from the specific point, then that point is a flaw in the circle. The more points that exist of this nature, the more flaws exist in the circle, and the more imperfect the circle becomes.

The question to be asked here is whether this definition of circles is justified. That is, can I suggest that there is such a thing as a circle, and thus a perfect circle? Do I need, as Plato did, to generate a realm of perfect Forms to contain these perfect objects, as our material world contains no actually perfect circles? If our current science is to be trusted, and all things are made up of atoms and molecules, then there are certainly no perfect circles in existence. Each atom is bound to each other atom in very particular ways, and those atoms are not stationary either. If I count each atom as a point in my hypothetical circle, then the distance to that circle’s specific point from each atom varies from time to time, making each atom a flaw in my circle. A very imperfect circle indeed.

This may all be quite pedantic, as no one is likely to notice those sorts of flaws at our scale. A circle that is drawn on a piece of paper may be perfect within the reasonable error of our measuring devices. I may still be inclined to suggest my circle is perfect, within reason. And that may be sufficient for most circumstances. That may be sufficient for an assessment of beauty, for example.

If this all works, so far, then I might be inclined to suggest that perfection is achievable within a certain amount of error. That is, if a flaw exists within the scope of error, then I may want to dismiss this flaw. Only when a flaw exceeds the error do I want to count it as a true flaw. But then, I have to decide now what constitutes an appropriate amount of error. In the case of my circle, I may decide that the amount of error may be determined by the limitations of my measuring equipment. However, this is still a choice that I am making. It is still subjective. Given different circumstances, my choice of an appropriate amount of error may change, and a circle that was once perfect may suddenly find itself to be imperfect.

It seems all well and good to discuss geometric objects, but what about real world objects. What about bodies? What about faces? Is there a perfect body or a perfect face? A perfect human? How would we define such a thing? I’ve heard it suggested that perfection in bodies and faces is related to bilateral symmetry. That is, every point on one side of the body or face is matched with an exact equal on the other side. The arms are precisely the same on both sides, or the eyes or the ears. Not just that those parts exist on both sides, but that they are of precisely the same size and shape and colour.

With a definition like this, it seems to suggest that what each side possesses is irrelevant, so long as there is matching going on. A person missing one arm is imperfect, but lop off the other arm, and they may possibly find their perfection once again. Would I consider a person with no arms perfect? This seems to flow naturally into the question of the perfect human.

A perfect human has both their arms. Both their legs too. In fact, there is a laundry list of features that all humans are expected to have. Physical features that I expect all humans to possess, and if they are lacking, I consider them deficient. Where does this list come from? Some might suggest the list comes from our genetic code. Upon growing from egg to fetus to baby, my genetics dictate that I will have two arms, for example. So what if a particular human’s genetics suggest otherwise? There are perfectly natural people out there with more or less appendages as a direct result of their genetic blueprints.

It can be found very easily online, if you perform a search for “human defect;” the flaws that exist as a direct result of our genetics. But if this is true, then our genetics cannot be the source of a list of perfect features. After all, we cannot use the same source for our list of perfect features that we at the same time use as our list for flaws and defects. How do I decide which features the genetics got right, and which it got wrong?

I hear some saying that if the feature promotes fitness, as in Darwin’s idea of survival of, then it is a perfect feature. But if we follow this, then different features will provide fitness in different circumstances. Where one is born, as well as when, will play a very important role in determining which features are desirable and undesirable. Not all places or times required stocky attributes over skinny ones. Sometimes the other was more desirable. Sometimes the other was more fit.

The more I ponder this, and I have been pondering for over 40 years now, the more I have decided that perfection is unreasonable. The very idea implies a subtle truth: that nothing is perfect. As humans, we seem to have decided that all things need to be categorized. This idea of categorization is important, as it helps us relate to our surroundings and the world as a whole. But it also is suggestive that there are many alike things in the world as well. Things that we can look upon and decide that they are all circles, or dogs, or people. And upon calling a thing by its category, we also decide what makes that thing representative of its category; what makes it perfect.

We decide what things fall into what categories. We, starting with Aristotle, made up these categories. As such, we decide perfection. It is subjective. To forget that we decided when something is perfect or imperfect, to elevate perfection to an absolute measure, claiming its source to be objective or from the universe itself, is to make perfection into simulacra.

Simulacra

crimson

It is time to elucidate my concept of simulacra. In reviewing Jean Baudrillard‘s version of simulacra, I realize that my perspective (while heavily influenced by his perspective) is probably not quite the same. My original intention today was to discuss his perspective, and then try to related it back to my ongoing topics. However, I realize now that the better approach is to discuss my perspective instead.

In short, for me a simulacra is akin to an imperfect copy of something whereby the original being copied no longer exists, and those who view the copy no longer realize the copy is a copy. There is a lot going on in this description, so I will break it down into parts and discuss each aspect individually.

The first aspect of a simulacra is that it is, in fact, a copy of something else. That is, at some point, in some distant way, the simulacra is related to something real. I will call this real thing the “original.” The original does or did exist. The original was a real thing, observed or experienced. The original is real, in some fashion.

However, the connection between the copy and the original is somehow disrupted. Perhaps the copy bears so little resemblance to the original that one is unable to connect the two together. Perhaps the original has been lost, through time and decay. Perhaps the original has been forgotten. Somehow, the connection between the copy and the original has been lost, so that the copy is all that remains to discuss, without an original to related it to.

The last aspect, which is critically important, is that the copy is no longer regarded as a copy. That is, for the observer, the copy is its own thing in reality. The copy possesses signification and meaning in itself without needing to relate back to the original. Without the knowledge that the copy is, in fact, a copy of something else, it becomes regarded as an original in its own right. This, for me, is when it becomes the simulacra.

This description belies a major problem: if no one knows the copy is a copy and is regarding the copy as its own original, real thing, then how does one come to realize it is a simulacra in the first place? After all, if we all believe the thing is real and original, then we would not suspect its dubious nature as simulacra. This is the point for me. This is the reason I consider the situation significant and in some sense malicious.

The best way to discuss this concept is going to be by discussing examples of simulacra. Due to their very nature, those examples I now present will be wrought with controversy. This will be because I cannot provide “hard evidence” to support my claims. If the evidence existed, then the examples wouldn’t be of simulacra, but instead of known artificial copies of things.

The example I most often raise in discussions of late is of gender. I believe gender is a simulacra. Gender, as I see it, is an imperfect copy of sex. Sex, being the physical description of a living entity, often incorrectly delineated as being either male or female, is a flawed manner used to describe certain aspects and traits of an entity. A male is usually considered to be the portion of the population that has the masculine sexual characteristics; in humans, this would include such things as the possession of a penis, testicles, and a significant amount of facial hair growth. A female is usually considered to be the portion of the population that has the feminine sexual characteristics; in humans, this would include such things as the possession of a uterus, ovaries, and a significant lack of facial hair growth. A problem should be apparent in such descriptions, as there are entities that can exhibit both or neither sets of characteristics. What sex is a person with both a penis and a uterus? I will not probe further into this inquiry, as my interest is in gender, but it should be clear that if gender is an imperfect copy of sex, it will inherit many of these problematic qualities.

Gender, as I understand it, is a way to clarify the problematic situation of sex. Gender, unlike sex, is not predominately focused on physical characteristics, though physical characteristics will influence an entities initially determined gender. That is, an entity whose sex is considered male, is likely to have their gender considered male as well. Similarly, an entity of sex female is usually considered of gender female as well. However, in our modern times, there are definitely those who are of sex male but of gender female (often a trans woman), and of sex female and gender male (often a trans man). One whose sex and gender match are usually referred to as being cis gendered, while those whose sex and gender do not match are usually referred to as being trans gendered. These are very broad descriptions, and I’m sure there will be those who can find fault with them, but I am trying to simplify something very complicated in my discussion to present my point.

In the ways I have described above, gender clearly has a relationship with sex. However, sex itself is problematic, and human societies have often attempted to reduce sex to a false dilemma in order to accomplish some, unknown to me, agenda. It will frequently be said that there are only males and females, and anything else does not exist. Sometimes it will be said that males and females make up the dominant portion of a human population, and the non binary component is in great minority. I do not know what to think about this, as I suspect the amount of the non binary population is far greater than we are led to believe. This is where gender steps in.

Gender, in its greater artificiality, can claim the false dilemma much more strongly as it is not focused on physical characteristics. To say one’s gender is male is to suggest that they possess certain characteristics that are expressed by their behaviors and temperaments. A man is masculine: he likes sports, he likes cars, he is loud, and he drinks beer. A woman is feminine: she likes children and small animals, she likes cooking and cleaning, she is quiet, and she drinks wine. These characterizations are just that: characterizations. They are also very much artificial. The descriptions of man and woman a century ago would likely be quite different. In fact, the description I just provided is technically about 30 years old, as the current descriptions are likely different still.

When you hear someone tell another to “be a man,” you are witnessing the called individual being shamed into conforming to whatever the currently established characterization of “man” is. Perhaps he isn’t fulfilling his responsibilities, something a man would do. Perhaps he isn’t drinking beer. It could be any number of things. Similarly, to be called “a woman” bears similar connotation. This sort of shaming is highly suggestive of the source of gender. Unlike sex, where the source of the description is focused on physical characteristics which are incredibly difficult to alter, with gender, the source of the description is on aspects that should be relatively easily changed.

For example, my friends told me that I ought to enjoy drinking beer as I am considered of gender male by them. I do not like beer, and regardless of the expectations put upon me, I refuse to consume it. In an attempt to get me to consume it anyway, I was told by one of them that no men really like beer, they just learn to like it over time. Whether he was correct or not, I believe he was attempting to get me to conform to the established description of the gender I am supposed to belong to. It wasn’t important whether my personal preferences or characteristics actually matched my gender assignment, what was important was that I conformed to it anyway. As one who has gender male, I am supposed to like beer; if I happen to not like beer, I need to change until I conform to my assigned gender.

The problem with gender is that it is not a reflection of my attributes, it is a guide to the attributes I ought to possess. Sex, it can be argued, is at least reflective of a reality: I have physical characteristics and my sex is a reflection of those characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is an established set of characteristics I am meant to adopt as my own. Those of gender male are supposed to like beer, therefore I ought to learn to like beer. If I do not demonstrate a liking for beer, then I am to be shamed and pressured until such time as I start to exhibit those desired traits.

This is how gender becomes a simulacra. It is not actually associated to a reality. I never liked beer. If one goes far enough into history, before there is a history that we can properly trace, can it be shown that men have always enjoyed beer? What about before beer even was invented? The gender of male became associated with the liking of beer through the ages, by mechanisms I know not of. To be a man means to like beer. To drink beer is a manly thing to do.

I have focused on this one aspect and example, but I hope it is clear this applies to so many more. Like how the gender of woman includes such characteristics as wearing make up, dresses, and liking to cook. If a woman today does not exhibit these characteristics, she is shamed and pressured until she does. This is how human society works.

Therefore, gender is something that is an imperfect copy of something else (sex), but has lost its connection to the original (it no longer reflects a reality, instead creating a reality). Gender is its own thing. Gender is itself real, and we are meant to conform to it. But gender also does not reflect any sort of reality itself. Think about it. How does one’s fondness for a beverage relate to anything about that person, other than their preferences. One cannot say that a person who likes beer is also a person who likes cars; to do so is to perform a stereotyping upon the person. Like relating the hue of one’s skin to their intelligence, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

In these ways, I believe gender is a simulacra, and an insidious one at that. After one is born, they are assigned a sex based on their characteristics. Immediately after this assessment is made, their gender is assigned to match their assigned sex. And it is their gender that is used to instruct that individual’s upbringing. They are trained and conditioned to like wearing dresses if female, or pants if male. They are trained to cut their hair short if they are male and long if they are female. They are trained to fix machines if they are male and raise babies if they are female. Wearing blue if they are male, and pink if they are female.

I hope this all makes sense so far. In my next post I will bring social media into this mess, and try to demonstrate how social media is also a simulacra. How individuals who create profiles of themselves (copies) in social media, end up trying to reflect their profiles instead of allowing their profiles to be a reflection of themselves.

What is “Real?”

crimson

Before I can really dive into simulacra and social media, I need to take a moment to discuss something I brought up in my last post. The challenge to determine what is “real.” While I may want to believe this should be obvious, as the last post suggested, this is not the case.

I will begin by lumping some other ideas in with this idea of the “real.” There is the idea of what is “true.” There is also this idea of what is “I,” the pronoun used to describe what I consider to be myself. These ideas all have something very much in common: while I feel confident I have a solid grasp on them, so that I use them constantly in my day-to-day life, it turns out when pushed, I cannot for the life of me explain what exactly they are.

In the case of “I,” it seems like what makes up me is what is not outside me. That is, if I assume the existence of the world, then I am not the world. If I suggest the universe is made up of me and the world, then I might suggest that I am the part of the universe that is not the world, and vice versa. However, this quickly devolves if I considered how my body sheds cells and molecules constantly. I consume parts of the world, taking them into myself and using those pieces to generated more of myself. Later, I will shed parts of myself and those pieces will again become part of the world. I am my own personal Ship of Theseus, bringing with it the same challenges to identity.

This line of reasoning holds until I raise the question of the unmeasurable. That is, if all that I am is these molecules, the billions upon billions of them that constitute my cells and body parts, then the Ship of Theseus thought experiment seems to hold true. However, what if there is something more? What if there is a part of me that is not merely these molecules, something unmeasurable? Then what is me may not be as simple.

The intention of this post is not to focus on identity issues, so I won’t dive any deeper into this topic for now. But I hope my point is clear. To explain myself in a way that is clear, to describe myself in a way that delineates me and only me, and not anything else, is quickly becoming a rather challenging endeavor.

The idea of what is “true” is similarly challenging. For my discussion, trying to explain what is true has a strong linkage to what is “real” as well. In fact, part of what I believe most people would want to say about truth has to do with what is real. The explanation I chose to go with in my previous post was to suggest that truth is in some way matching up with how reality is, and reality is what matches up with what we all, collectively, agree to.

That last statement probable raised some hairs, so I will elaborate more. When I utter something, you will likely want to say that what I’ve uttered is true or false, but how do you decide? If possible, you are likely to look to your world and verify my claim, comparing it to your experience of the world. If I suggest that the sky is blue, you will look to the sky and see for yourself if the sky really is blue. If it is, you will say that I uttered a truth. If I instead said the sky was green, you are likely to suggest I uttered a falsehood, as the sky is not green.

Immediately there is a problem with all of this. For a truth assessment to be made, there needs to be something to assess the statement against. Something like facts and evidence. However, there are many, many things I might utter that you will be unable to verify in any way. For example, if I utter “what I see when I look up at the sky appears green to me,” you will have no recourse. You cannot say whether that statement is true because you have no access to my experiences. You could look at the sky and compare your experience to mine, but that would not tell you if my statement were true or not. It would only provide you a possible correlation to my experience.

This is where the idea of “my truth” comes from. The idea is that my perspective on the world, and my experience of the world, is mine and mine alone. No one else can experience the world as I do, and so what is true for me is indisputable. It is my truth that the sky appears green to me, and no one can verify my claim either way. And there are a great many better examples I can give than simply my experience of the sky.

This brings us to the idea of the “real.” For me, what counts as real is a personal experience. I assess when reality is real, and when it is not. This is not to say I cannot be deceived or make errors in my assessment; only that it is ultimately up to me what makes up what is real. What is more, if I do make an error, I have to come to the conclusion that I came to an error on my own; no one can tell me I made an error. To be more accurate, others can tell me I made an error, but I will not necessarily believe them; I have to believe I’ve made an error myself before I will see beyond my assessment of the real.

It is a messy business determining for one’s self what is real, what is true, or who one is. It requires a great deal of effort. It can even be painful. This is why I believe so many people defer these sorts of judgments to others. It is much easier to simply allow others to dictate the answers to these questions than to work tirelessly one’s self to determine the answers. This problem is further compounded when groups of people decide to collaborate their efforts together, often with an aim to convince those around them to their side. From what I’ve seen, this appears to be the job of main stream religions, as well as modern commercialism.

I hope that it is apparent to you at this point that I have spoken very little about science and the universe. Not that these things are unimportant, especially in a discussion about what is true or real. What I want to emphasize here is that what science tells us about what is true or real is unfortunately quite biased. And this is what also brings us to Jean Baudrillard‘s simulacra.

I will go into much more detail regarding simulacra in my next post. For now, I will simply say that a simulacra is something like an imperfect copy. Initially, the copy is of something real, but over time the copy no longer refers back to the thing copied. Where there may have originally been a linkage between the copy and the real, no linkage exists any longer. Like if you photocopied a piece of paper over and over repeatedly; eventually what came out of the photocopier would not look at all like the original.

The significance of the simulacra with science is the very same. Science is a process. It was first used long ago by the likes of Aristotle, nearly 2500 years ago, though he never used the term “science” back then. Science is about taking something, like a procedure, and repeating that procedure endlessly. To run an experiment, and to see what the result is. If I run that same experiment repeatedly, do I get the same result each time? How about if others run the same experiment I did, do they get the same result? It is about agreement and consistency. And it is about reality.

However, if you and I and many other people all run this same experiment and we all observe the same results, does that mean we have found a truth? Does it actually tell us something about reality? It was believed that all swans were white for a very long time, until one day a black swan was discovered. It was believed that the Earth was flat for a very long time, even when there were people out there fighting to suggest it was round. It is interesting to me that even today, there are still people who argue that the Earth is flat.

If one follows pure logic, and deductive reasoning, one can feel very, very confident in the results of such experiments. If I assume that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal, then I can be very, very confident that Socrates is mortal. However, note that I made 2 important assumptions at the outset: that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal. Were either of these assumptions shown to be untrue, my conclusion suddenly looses its veracity.

Science, like so many things, begins with assumptions. So long as we can agree that those assumptions are good assumptions, then what follows can be trusted. But we cannot prove an assumption. Circular reasoning cannot be used. To say that God exists because it is stated so in the holy scripture that He Himself wrote is circular reasoning; the evidence neither proves nor disproves his existence. It simply provides no meaningful information.

What is real is an assumption. It is clearly a critically important assumption that we all must make. Even if we do not do so consciously, our actions and choices will be a reflection of that assumption. When I walk across the floor of my kitchen, I have assumed that the floor is a real thing, trusting it to support my weight and allow me to get to the door I wish to go through. I’ve made the assumption, even if it isn’t obvious.

This is the key to everything, in my mind. Not to suggest our assumptions are necessarily bad assumptions; but to recognize that we are making assumptions. When we fail to recognize the assumptions we make, we mistake confidence for certainty. We take something that we are 99% certain about and make it into something we are 100% certain about. In general, this may not seem like a dangerous choice to make, but if we continue to make this assumption repeatedly, over and over, taking the results of one experiment as the assumptions of the next, we will end up with something that does not match up at all with the original. We will end up with a simulacra of reality.