Discussion about this post

User's avatar
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

Reality is bigger than all of us. The best any of us can hope to grasp is a small kernel of it. This leaves an opening for the propagandists to exploit and manipulate.

We like to believe otherwise because our puny monkey brains can grasp more than those of a parrot, or a skink or a mink.

Diving deep into reflection is nearly impossible for most of us because we're kept constantly busy with the demands of daily life. The job, the home, dealing with a deluge of often superfluous paperwork, etc. It's exhausting. Is it any wonder that people get information from the tube and just accept it as reality? That is, unless that gut instinct wells up to tell them "something isn't quite right here".

Expand full comment
Veronika Bond's avatar

Thank you for introducing me to Braudillard's Simulacrum:

"we become complicit in a system that no longer reflects reality but manufactures it.

"‘facts’ no longer point to an underlying truth but exist solely to reference and reinforce one another. In this world, the real is not simply distorted, it is displaced entirely,

"making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is constructed.

leading to this conclusion:

"Our sense of self is shaped not by authentic experience but by curated digital personas, algorithmic reinforcement, and media narratives designed to evoke predictable reactions..."

Keeping in mind that Simlacrum was written around 1980 Braudillard's ability to already capture what has become much more apparent 45 years on is truly impressive.

Of course, as long as we see ourselves as 'products of the world around us', B's 'Levels of thinking' apply.

However, there is also a contradiction. If a human system can manufacture a reality, then humans can ~ in theory ~ manufacture any reality (echoing the autopoiesis theory of Maturana/ Varela)

B's Level 1 only applies as long as scientist 'stick to their own rules' of being scrupulous observers etc. I think we all know that's not the case, (Max Planck made a comment somewhere about science making progress at the speed of life expectancy of the scientists ~ I'm paraphrasing here) calling into question the theoretical 'factual rigor' and "The hallmark of Level 1 is a commitment to accuracy over personal or social convenience."

So we have to ask whether there is any truly 'neutral level' at all?

The question of 'truth' seems to have gone completely down the drain in the 'post truth era'... so perhaps it's no longer helpful to ask the truth question at all.

It is easy to blame language for 'being manipulative', or 'words being used as weapons'. But if language is our symbiont, and words can be created and filled with meaning by humans at our own will and leisure, isn't it the intention and motivation that is the source of manipulation, deception, and aggression rather than the way words are used?

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts