But what if you were an outside observer looking in, how would this situtation look? Between real and what could be termed, simulation, we are aware that something is a copy. We can see enough similarities to connect the copy to the original but also detect differences that show it is not exactly the same as the original. Any simulation of the real would be apparent both whether you observed some phenomena directly or you observed someone else observing that same phenomena. Obviously, each observer wouldn't read the text exactly the same but fundamentally each reading would exhibit similar traits. But the next step would be different. What occurs between simulation and simulacra that is different to what occurs between real and simulation? This is where it gets more complicated. With the step from simulation to simulacra, unlike the step from real to simulation, it makes a difference as to whether you observe directly or you gaze upon, or imagine someone else observing. In addition, this step is not just a move from one state to another but may also be perceived as a difference in perspective or awareness between two separate identities.
The simulacra is also a simulation of sorts, but rather than just acting as a second simulation against a previous simulation for some, it is also a simulation which for others acts on the individual in terms of perception or awareness. To the outside observer who is aware, the simulacra looks like a world which is hyperreal or has mutated in some way, a world which is more real than reality itself while at the same time is somehow unreal. There is a component of awareness here held by the viewer in relation to the hyperreals' difference to both the real and the simulation. Additionally, this observer can view that difference in both positive and negative terms, ie. as hyperreal (more than real) or as unreal (less than real). Whereas the simulation proper both compares and contrasts itself to the real, in what measure or to what percentage I cannot say, its overall effect is considered as inferior to the real, that is, the simulated copy has less value than the original.
On the other hand, as mentioned, the hyperreal is still a simulated effect because we can recognise it as something other than the real, and like the original simulation it makes points of both comparison and contrast, but differs from the initial simulation because it is both inferior and superior to the real at the same time, again remember unreal and hyperreal. What actually occurs then during this second simulation from this hyperreal/unreal perspective? It is not simply a reversal of the initial simulation, it is something different because we have not returned to the real, we have arrived instead at the hyperreal. It would seem that the second simulation splits in two and does two separate things at the same time, like a simultaneous dual simulation. One simulation it seems is produced from within the previous simulation, so this would explain the inferior, unreal, weaker or watered-down aspect of the final hyperreal outcome. This we can imagine as a continuous line travelling in one direction forging the frontiers. This simulation simply travels from the point of the initial single simulation to the point of the hyperreal.
But how would we explain what the second simulation does, how do we end up with a hyperreal rather than an unreal outcome in the hyperreal? Could we say that the second twin simulation, rather than just moving straight to the position of the hyperreal, actually resimulates itself once again against the real (refuelling on reality or morality for the frontier so to speak) in order to produce a new and completely unrelated simulation to the first? We could imagine this perhaps as the second simulation moving backward to the real and repeating the first leg of the journey before completing the same leg as the first twin. Effectively, the second twin has covered around three times the distance of the first in the journey from simulation to hyperreal and travels in an ever widening circle rather than just a line as the frontier expands. Could we perceive the single leg journey as having occurred in real time and the triple leg as moving much quicker to cover three times the distance in the same time? Could we also say that the triple leg portion becomes thicker with data having covered three times the distance or would we have to say that this portion is in fact thinner or more incoherent as it has collected the same amount of data as the single leg but rather over a much longer or wider range of available data and data-types?
But how is it then that in the hyperreal we can see both hyperreal and unreal? How is it that we can see both these elements within the same image? Is the second simulation moderately transparent in some way that when layered over the top of the first simulation we can witness elements of both at the same time? Additionally, the second simulation seems to be posited as the superior and the first simulation as the inferior in this hyperreal scenario? So the second simulation is passified with the apparent glory of being superior yet does all the work! In terms of space, the first twin utilises a smaller space for its work but likewise uses much less energy and is requied to cover much less distance than the second twin. This all seems somewhat reminiscient of Latour's 'Trains of Thought'! How else would we account for the apparent incongruence of the hyperreal and unreal which has been forced to fit within the hyperreal scenario.
Is this the capital machine that Baudrillard speaks of? Is the imperative of the machine to work more efficiently by trying to make the weaker work harder while those who do not work have become spacejunk cast away from earth with no use value, judged to be only dead weight? Meanwhile, the strong forge ahead at the expense and work of everyone else?
But what about the direct observer who doesn't see hyperreal but is within the simulacra seeing only the real? How would this person see or interpret the transition from simulation to simulacra? This is a change which wouldn't be detected by the direct observer in the same way as the outside observer. This unaware person would be aware that they are no longer in a simulation because such a contrived duplication would be obvious. But this person would assume therefore that they have returned to the real only as a result of the absence of simulation. If that person for example had never actually witnessed the real real and only knew of simulation, then hyperreal would seem more real than simulation. From this perspective, the hyperreal would become the real and simulation would simply move out of view, the notion of a real real not even ever having been conceived. As such, this person would only see that which represents difference to simulation. (Thus becoming blind to the similarities with simulation and both the similarities and differences with the real as an outside observer would perceive). In this sense then, where the unaware observer would perceive only a move away from simulation and assume therefore a move toward the real, the aware observer would perceive the other as having moved only further away from the real.
Furthere, because the unaware observer has never known of a real real the aware observer cannot impose the perspective of any move from simulation to simulacra as being imagined by the unaware observer as a reversal from simulation to the real. Even though, from the perspective of the aware observer, there is a temptation to do so. As such, it becomes apparent that there are two types of aware observers? There are the ones who imagine they look at the Other from the perspective of the Other and those that look at the perspective of the Other simply from their own perspective. Or perhaps stated as those who are aware and those who think they are aware. But are those who think they are aware the same as those who are unaware?
This piece is still in BETA form. I have to really think about all these things, but have to have a wee break from it!
No comments:
Post a Comment