Tag Archives: simulacra

Ideological Delusions

Nietzsche writes in one of his better-known fragments, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense, that the concept of ‘truth’ is an illusion which we have forgotten as such. This forgetting of the illusion is driven by the desire for knowledge; in other words, it is the desire for truth that transforms illusions into knowledge and masks them further by calling them ‘truths’. The power of desire turns against all possible opposition by declaring that lies are deceptions of the real that utilise real words to fabricate a false image. Nietzsche’s larger focus here isn’t an attack on epistemological frameworks but on the language that already validates those frameworks:

In a similarly limited way man wants the truth: he desires the agreeable life-preserving consequences of truth, but he is indifferent to pure knowledge, which has no consequences; he is even hostile to possibly damaging and destructive truths. And, moreover, what about these conventions of language? Are they really the products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Do the designations and the things coincide? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?

Our language formulates arbitrary abstractions that rarely (if ever) ‘really’ exist. Take for instance, the concept of ‘leaf’: it exists as an abstract class that is always instantiated differently. The qualities of ‘leafness’ are made so that one can say a lettuce leaf is a leaf just as much as a maple leaf even though the two have different qualities as well. Another example would be that of ‘worm’ in which its definition is slippery enough that it could be twisted to also designate the concept ‘snake.’ In other words, the language of ‘truth’ is at best metaphors. The cynic in Nietzsche sees in that language something a bit more sinister, that which will become the Will to Power breaking through language. Correct perception can only be an aesthetic relation; that is, perception is art. It follows from this that powerful speakers will be able to paint perceptions and to mask them as something more than perceptions–as ‘truth’. It is in this vein that I wish to turn to the primary focus of this article: concepts we (Americans and possibly the West in general) have deluded ourselves in believing.

Free Propaganda

Three concepts which the US has consumed wholeheartedly are the illusions of freedom, its cousin democracy, and capitalism. These began to be consumed en masse after WW2 during the beginnings of the Cold War, but it must be kept in mind that these are strictly arbitrary and their influence can be found much earlier. In order to paint America and the West as being radically different from the USSR and communism, we began to market to ourselves these differences. It is during this time that the phrase ‘under God’ was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in order to differentiate America from atheist Russia. However, all of this was a marketing ploy, much like the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ for the actions in Iraq. We’ve been able to see the fruits of this marketing in the last 20 years once the Cold War ended. We’ve deluded ourselves further into thinking that our military actions in various places (post-collapse Russia, Yugoslavia, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) as spreading freedom and democracy (oh, and capitalism, of course). Ironically, we have never been a free nation. Our freedom has always had qualifications, some quite reasonable (e.g. restricting murder) and some less reasonable (e.g. restricting ‘free speech’ obscenities). The way the marketing works is that our ‘freedom’ is only a relative measure typically used in comparison to what is perceived as the most oppressive nations (e.g. USSR, mainland China, East Germany, etc). We’ve then taken this relative comparison and made it an absolute statement: not only are we more ‘free’ than (insert oppressive nation) but we are truly ‘free’ and all that the concept contains. What this rhetoric produces is not only the belief that ‘we’ are ‘free’ but that there cannot be anyone more ‘free’ because we ourselves are already ‘free’. By utilising this language and forgetting the relative nature of the original claims, we have created a situation in which one cannot think of ‘freedom’ outside of the restricted concept we’ve been marketed. While the US is not as overtly oppressive as Oceania from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, we’ve created the paradigm of the perversion of fascism it utilised.

The same also goes for the concept of ‘democratic.’ There are countless occasions in which we’ve elected one president under the guise of repairing the problems of a previous president (e.g. Obama’s election), but what we’ve failed to notice collectively is that the executive branch uses this in order to further abuse its privileges and abridge ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in order to give us a ‘better’ place (e.g. the original PATRIOT act). As long as people continue to vote reactively, we will continue to see the restriction of ‘freedom’ under the guise of a ‘good-natured’ president that is trying to restore ‘freedom.’ In contradistinction to this, the ‘restoration of freedom’ is a re-interpretation of the concept of ‘freedom’ in light of the new, limited ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Another useful example is the American Civil War in which we quickly discovered that a state cannot peacefully leave the union (further echoed in Texas v White). We may begin to see this issue rise again in cases like Montana and Georgia. The US Constitution names the government as a republic (and only a ‘democracy’ with qualifications) and requires/guarantees all states within to have the same kind of government.  In other words, we’ve created our own definition of ‘democratic’ so that we ourselves are the epitome of such and there can never be another who is more ‘democratic’. We have forgotten how we became ‘democratic’ and refuse to allow others that same path.

Our last illusion is that of ‘free market capitalism’. In some ways, we can never have a ‘free market’ society because we are only human and it will be abused however which way possible. We have also been able to paint the West as the only source of ‘free market’ capitalism even though mainland China (which is still ‘communist’) has allowed ‘capitalist’ growth beyond what the US could imagine. In a ‘free market’ system, there are no absolutes except the abstract concept of value. Everything has a value and this is always in flux and depends on the production of desire (through marketing techniques). Capitalism is the believing machine that believes in humans who, in turn, provide for its very survival. Yet we have forgotten that even capitalism is an illusion created in the past few centuries. Capitalism subsists in the world by managing the production of desires through marketing and advertisement; ‘You need that $50,000 car to feel happy‘ which then leads to ‘you need that $75,000 car to really feel happy.’ This process of a never satisfied desire is very familiar to psychoanalysis, as it is a manifestation of the unchecked ego. It is by its very nature never satisfied for the satisfaction of its desires implies the end of its existence. The unchecked ego transforms its process of desire by desiring desire itself; this provides the vehicle for it to exist indefinitely as the desire of desire is one that can never be satisfied. Capitalism is able to survive by tapping into this process and equating objects (e.g. cars, food, phones, computers, etc) with that desire–but only temporarily. The team of capitalism and ego have wreaked havoc on the individual and, by extension, society by reducing the individual to a set of desires and an illusion of freedom. You are free to do what you desire, as long as you are happy in doing it! Fortunately for capitalism, the means to enjoy desire also includes the proliferation of capitalism.

Escaping Freedom

In short, we are slaves to our own desires. Capitalism abuses this enslavement and has helped us delude ourselves into thinking we are free. We have never been free; but we willingly delude ourselves into thinking such and ignoring it by buying things to satisfy our displaced desires. And it is this distinct lack of freedom that we find in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin. For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Paul’s escape from this ‘freedom’ is servitude, slavery by choice. It is a wonderful working of rhetoric of Paul here in that he short circuits the concepts of freedom and slavery by arguing to be free is to be enslaved and to be enslaved is to be free. Because of ideology, mankind is never free…and because of this, whichever ideology is the most prevalent will always be the most corrupt and it will always delude us into thinking we are free.

Returning now to Nietzsche, who sees the rhetoric in Paul; Nietzsche also sees in Paul the very reactive nature that continues the cycle of ideology (cf The Antichrist). For Nietzsche, the real escape isn’t choosing another ideology (e.g. religion) but moving past ideology altogether and returning to active thinking. In other words, freedom is to actively shape one’s own reality by taking controlling of one’s own ideology. That is the true power of the overman in Nietzsche (cf Thus Spoke Zarathustra). It is with this purpose in mind that the mad man in Nietzsche’s The Gay Science proclaims the death of God. It is not because some entity known as God is killed by Nietzsche (for that already happened 2000 years ago at the hands of Jewish ressentiment according to Nietzsche) but that the ideological Master that was erected in place of that God is now dethroned and revealed to be the powerless creature of ressentiment. Freedom is the power to create values, something which mankind has long since forgotten. This is the same power that capitalism wields over us now and the revolution isn’t finding a better ideology (e.g. socialism, communism, etc) but the radical revaluation of ideology itself to show the chains that always bind us.

On suicide

As I lie awake late one night recently, I was thinking about some scenes in the finale of Battlestar Galactica.  If you haven’t seen it yet and don’t want to know what happens (Darth Vader is Luke’s father), then don’t read this (yet).

A quick summary of the series: humans are nearly eradicated by Cylons (robots created by those humans a while back) and are chased by them for most of ther series.  Some Cylons rebel against the rest and join forces with the humans.  Oh and many of the Cylons are indistunguishable from humans.  Come to find out some Cylons from a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away as well) came in and stopped the “first war” between them and, in exchange, helped the Cylons perfect their human look-a-like models.  Now, fast forward to the end of the series during the final confrontation between the human side and Cylon side. The Final Five Cylons that came into the fray and crafted the armistice are siding with the humans (and, in fact, did not know they were Cylons until late in the game).  The humans have destroyed the central system that allows the Cylons to live forever (basically, the persona data gets downloaded into a new body of the same model when the old one dies/is killed).  The Final Five offer a new armistice: give the Cylons the information needed to recreate what was destroyed and both sides go their separate ways believing/hoping in faith that the other is trying to hunt them down (again).  The humans agree to this as well as the Cylon “leader”, Number 1 (this being his model number).  For the Final Five to get the information, they need to interface together in order to piece together the data that each has.  Of course, when this happens, the dark past of one of them enrages another and results in one of the Final Five being killed immediately and the information lost forever.  Throughout the confrontation, the Cylons have the military advantage (the battle being on their home turf with plenty more operational weaponry and numbers than the humans.  However, at this point in the finale, #1, who is fully aware of this situation, commits suicide; he moves the handgun in his hand to his mouth and pulls the trigger.

What is it that made #1 do this when the Cylons could have easily destroyed these humans (as well as the last bit of worthwhile weaponry the humans had)?  Sure, because of the numbers in that specific situation, #1′s chances of surviving the fight was minimal, but suicide?  I think the issue came down to that of hope.  Throughout the series, #1 claimed to be an atheist (whereas the rest of the Cylons were monotheists), however I think his suicide contradicts these claims. He wasn’t placed in a difficult position, nor was he forced into the compromise. He willingly accepted it because it offered him a hope of a life after death, in effect a religious hope. He quickly grabbed hold of this hope for purely selfish reasons: so that he could live another day. The very moment that hope was postponed (after all, the Cylons would have eventually recreated the missing pieces), he panics–something out of character. Instead of reasoning this as a poor choice from the writers, I will assume it was intentional and not as a way of quickly ending the series.

This panic, then, reveals #1′s true nature as a believer. He had always wanted to believe, but was afraid of what that might entail. In this sense, #1′s suicide isn’t a random act, but one of total desperation for the very belief he truly cherished.  The hope he briefly saw was the removal of his mask of unbelief. When that faltered, suicide was the only option he saw that would remove the mask because he would rather have died a believer than to live either as a believer of lies or as a false non-believer. It is within this irony that #1 reveals that his guise as a preacher was the best guise of all as it was the real him masking an illusion of an atheist.

The Bailout is not Happening

Look at any news outlet today and you will find references to the financial bailout of large corporations.  While it is restricted right now to financial and automotive sectors, I won’t be surprised if it expands.  There are a number of arguments in support of and against this bailout; however I want to take a different stance altogether: it isn’t happening at all.

Most people reading this are at least familiar with the factors that led to this: collapse of the financial market due to poor choices from most parties involved as an attempt to get more money.  Some have argued it goes back to subprime lending in the1990s.  I will suggest a specific date: 15 August 1971.  What was important then?  This was the date that the US, under President Nixon, began to move away from the “gold standard” of Bretton Woods.  I am not against this action, but its most important action was the dereferencing of the US dollar.  The dollar became a free-floating object without a fixed reference; it became a simulated identity.  As other monetary values (British Pound, Deutsche Mark, etc) became dereferenced as well, the financial market became both simulated and fragmentary.  The system became self-referential and self-perpetuating.  As the money flowed, monetary value was no longer limited to some externally-imposed “Real.”  Because of this dereferencing, we saw an increase of trade and stocks to the point where the total “value” of the US (measured by the GDP) was traded roughly every 3 weeks in the markets.  The amount traded annually far exceeded not just the GDP of a particular nation, but that of all nations combined, and this was just for one system!

The problem, however, happens to be found in the desire to recreate external references to this simulation.  The product of this recreation of reference is not a return to the original object, but rather a new simulation.  We have gone through so many simulations and simulacra that we are unable to relate to the original object and can only see it as another simulation in a procession of simulacra.  The”bailout as well as the financial crisis is not real.  It is just another game of simulation which results in the production of more simulations and the production of more desire.  The crisis is a non-event.  It cannot be avoided, yet it is not real either.

Some want to use this non-event as a call to socialism (e.g. Badiou and even Bush).  Others want to argue for capitalism and free-market.  I would like to argue that the only true “solution” to the bailout is to take the dereferencing of monies to its ultimate conclusion: the removal recognizing the lack of their value.  Since 1971, money has bean meaningless outside of the financial market.  It was an illusion created to produce more money.  It serves no purpose except to perpetuate itself.  In a money-less society (yes, it is another simulation), there would be no financial crisis.  It is in this society that we today live, but like the death of God in Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, it has not yet been recognized.  There is no bailout because there is no financial crisis.  There is no financial crisis because there is no economy to have a financial crisis.

Simulated Identities

Baudrillard has become somewhat famous in popular culture through the play on his ideas in the movie The Matrix where an astute viewer can see the image of his face appear as a ghostly haunting throughout the film (he also helped in the writing and production of the film). However, he has been “famous” for some time in contemporary philosophy as one of the pioneers in theorizing about the body and the images. In his book, Impossible Exchange, he proposes a progression of simulation which can be seen in two examples: capital and identity.

The first progression is that from the object to signs. In other words, an object begins with some kind of arbitrary value which is the basis for exchange. Money and capital as we know it did not exist at this level. We can see this in action with historical transactions between two entities: I exchange ten pounds of fertilizer and receive 25 gallons of milk. However, the progression to signs involves a kind of “standardization” in which each objects value is given a relatively static exchange ratio: a gallon of milk will be 4 units of this new sign–be it a dollar or whatever. At this point, the object becomes a commodity that is freely exchangeable in the market; it has become a simulation of the object.

This ability to be exchanged brings about the second progression: fetishism. A fetish is a perversion of the object that further removes it from the “real” object. It becomes a “pure, unrepresentable, unexchangeable object–yet a nondescript one” (Baudrillard, Impossible Exchange, 129). Here, the object is taken to the point of being a desire for the sake of desire. Zizek sees this best in the example of Caffeine free Diet Coke: it lacks everything that makes “Coke” “Coke” but it is the pure semblance of Coke, “an artificial promise of a substance which never [materializes]” (Zizek, The Fragile Absolute, 22). The fetish is not just a simulation of a simulation (what Baudrillard calls a simulacra) but it is also devoid of the “original” object: it is the nothingness itself.

Here we can see the final progression: the spectre (or phantasm). The object now becomes an unrepresented non-being which haunts the “real.” Not only does the object become a simulation, but even its component parts become simulated: Toyota cars are manufactured 60% in the USA. Perhaps the best example of this progression is in the phenomena called “reality TV.” These shows are no more real than “normal TV”: absurd scenarios with unreal events, simulated events, false personas, etc. Here, the actors are not given a particular role but rather play their own made-up role, an idealized, distorted self-image.

A direct corollary can be seen in that of The Matrix where those in the “real world” are projected back into the “virtual” world of the Matrix as imagined bodies. One’s identity in the “real world” is fragmented and distorted as the Matrix is treated as being more real than real, a hyperreality. As the end of The Matrix trilogy shows: there is no real distinction between the “real” world and that of the Matrix because one’s identity is a composite of fragments from many different “worlds” which reach across all the boundaries.

Where does all of this leave identity? A poster put up in Berlin in 1994 poked fun at loyalties to identities: “Your Chris is a Jew. Your car is Japanese. Your pizza is Italian. Your democracy–Greek. Your coffee–Brazilian. Your holiday–Turkish. Your numbers–Arabic. Your letters–Latin. Only your neighbour is a foreigner” (quoted from Zygmunt Bauman, Identity, 27). As the above progression of simulation is explored, it will become more obvious that “‘belonging’ and ‘identity’ are not cut in rock, that they are not secured by a lifelong guarantee, that they are eminently negotiable and revocable; and that one’s own decisions, the steps one takes, the way one act–and the determination to stick by all that–are crucial factors of both” (Bauman, 11).