Don’t the characteristics associated with Artificial Intelligence (gets better as it goes, the more data and interactions the more effective the abilities) apply to Baudrillard’s simulation ...the further it goes the more encompassing it gets?
I would certainly wage it does Sherman. That seems to be what led to the progression through the orders of simulacra to simulation itself so it makes sense that the simulation would only be growing more labyrnthine and self-enfolding
That would mean any efforts to comprehend or observe the simulation just provides more aspects, data and energy for the simulation to remain incomprehensible and unobserved. I had read Foucault as part of graduate school, but not Baudrillard (I was an amateur 2nd half of life anthropology major not philosophy). I have been introduced to an idea that is pretty unsettling, thank you.
Very interesting to hear that the inspiration for The Matrix didn't think they understood what he was saying. It raises some interesting questions about the value of the movie itself. However I think you've made a compelling case for why he misunderstood things.
Thanks for the exposition. You might be interested to know that I arrived here via the Wikipedia entry for Simulacra and Simulation (endnote 16), which references this post. I think your critique is valid in broad strokes but possibly too superficial and somewhat untroubled in its finer details. That is to say, I can understand why Baudrillard would reject The Matrix, particularly based on some of the interviews you cite.
The quote from the interviewer that you reference is, I believe, a strong justification for Baudrillard’s rejection. The film can be seen as hypocritical because it purports to denounce the very techno-hyperreality that it simultaneously indulges in—through its fetishization of leather outfits, sunglasses, guns, choreographed fight sequences, and other cyberpunk aesthetics.
Another issue Baudrillard’s criticism raises is that the film never fully establishes—nor is it entirely clear about—the distinction between reality and unreality. Neo is "the One," which suggests that he has an inherent grasp of what is real and what is an illusion. Meanwhile, the Judas character—whose name escapes me—eats a steak and openly acknowledges that it is "not real," yet he still enjoys it. In fact, his betrayal of his comrades is driven by his preference for the world of illusion, which he considers superior to the harshness of the "real" world.
Furthermore, how do we know that what the Architect tells Neo is not a deliberate lie designed to demoralize him and the rebellion? In any case, despite the film’s attempts to blur the nature of reality, it remains clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. While reality may be ambiguous, morality remains starkly black and white.
What Baudrillard may be gesturing toward in Simulacra and Simulation is something far less clear and far more unsettling than the world depicted in The Matrix. According to the Wikipedia entry (I don’t have the actual book with me), Baudrillard outlines four stages of simulation. One could argue that The Matrix films fit somewhere between Stage 2—the Platonic treatment of reality as an imperfect copy of the ideal—and Stage 3, where reality itself recedes into what Baudrillard describes as the "order of sorcery," in which all meaning is artificially conjured to reference an increasingly hermetic and self-referential "truth."
What is missing from The Matrix is Baudrillard’s fourth stage—pure simulacrum, in which there is no reality whatsoever. In this stage, even the suggestion that a 'real world' exists outside of the simulated one is dismissed as naive. Here, "signs merely reflect other signs," untethered from any underlying reality.
In short, Baudrillard’s exploration of simulation is far more profound than what The Matrix presents, and that, in itself, should not be particularly surprising.
Baudrillard wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he insists the Wachowskis misread him, implying there is a distinction between misreading him and reading him correctly. On the other hand, if the distinction between the real and the illusory "implodes", as Baudrillard insists, then his own work too, everything he has to say is covered by this implosion and there can be no distinction between a correct and an incorrect reading, between interpretations of his work that are "illusory" and one which "really" reflects his "real" meaning". There is only the infinite play of simulacra. He's a fraud and the serious attention given to him when he hoists himself by his own petard is quite comical. Most of what he has to say about representation was covered by Chomsky and Herman years ago.
It seems to me that the movie the Matrix was about a simulation that was real. And Baudrillard’s rejection of that concept makes perfect sense to me. Baudrillard’s concept of simulation was about layers of confused mental constructs that obscure reality. Replacing not the authentic reality but our perception of reality.
The simulacra can obscure our perception to the point that the underlying reality is completely removed from view. Yet, reality remains buried deep beneath the simulacra.
The Wachowski's movie missed all that and turned the simulation into a real world technological projection upon the mind. Insisting that a simulation is actually real seems to be a common theme for the Wachowski (brothers/sisters). Their lives are a textbook example of simulacra that is mistaken for reality.
The Wachowski's scattered understanding of the concept makes more sense when you realize that they allegedly stole the original story from Sophia Stewart then passed it off as their own. If this is true it makes sense that this would add to the depth of their hypocrisy. Sophia Stewart's original story apparently was intended to be a modern gnostic parable. I haven't read her book but I remember hearing her side of the story. To me she was convincing. She also seemed to understand the underlying mythological inspiration for the story. Which the Wachowskis seemed quite clueless of.
Her story becomes more convincing after watching the rapid decline in quality of the movies that followed the first one. Seeing how they lost the imaginative spark of the first movie. Ostensibly they couldn't steal the rest of the story so they had to write those parts themselves. In my opinion, it shows.
"The bottom line is, the distinction between the real and the illusory has been muddied so much that we no longer know where one ends and the other begins. The distinction, has as Baudrillard would say, imploded." I agree with the first sentence. However, it is not clear that this amounts to an imploding of the distinction in the sense meant by Baudrillard, as that seems to be a transcendental concept challenging the very meaning of "reality". Now I am not sure whether the movies represent this well, or whether it can even be represented cinematically. Naively, the leaking of Neo magic into the ostensible real can be accommodated by a simple Russian Doll type argument, invoking a (possibly infinite) hierarchy of simulations within simulations. I don't think that is the rationalisation of the narrative B had in mind when speaking of implosion, and this might explain his discontent. But again, what might constitute a better representation within the medium of a motion picture? He should have taken them up on the offer to work on the sequels! Even if that had been a failure, it would have been an interesting one.
Don’t the characteristics associated with Artificial Intelligence (gets better as it goes, the more data and interactions the more effective the abilities) apply to Baudrillard’s simulation ...the further it goes the more encompassing it gets?
I would certainly wage it does Sherman. That seems to be what led to the progression through the orders of simulacra to simulation itself so it makes sense that the simulation would only be growing more labyrnthine and self-enfolding
That would mean any efforts to comprehend or observe the simulation just provides more aspects, data and energy for the simulation to remain incomprehensible and unobserved. I had read Foucault as part of graduate school, but not Baudrillard (I was an amateur 2nd half of life anthropology major not philosophy). I have been introduced to an idea that is pretty unsettling, thank you.
Very interesting to hear that the inspiration for The Matrix didn't think they understood what he was saying. It raises some interesting questions about the value of the movie itself. However I think you've made a compelling case for why he misunderstood things.
Thanks for the exposition. You might be interested to know that I arrived here via the Wikipedia entry for Simulacra and Simulation (endnote 16), which references this post. I think your critique is valid in broad strokes but possibly too superficial and somewhat untroubled in its finer details. That is to say, I can understand why Baudrillard would reject The Matrix, particularly based on some of the interviews you cite.
The quote from the interviewer that you reference is, I believe, a strong justification for Baudrillard’s rejection. The film can be seen as hypocritical because it purports to denounce the very techno-hyperreality that it simultaneously indulges in—through its fetishization of leather outfits, sunglasses, guns, choreographed fight sequences, and other cyberpunk aesthetics.
Another issue Baudrillard’s criticism raises is that the film never fully establishes—nor is it entirely clear about—the distinction between reality and unreality. Neo is "the One," which suggests that he has an inherent grasp of what is real and what is an illusion. Meanwhile, the Judas character—whose name escapes me—eats a steak and openly acknowledges that it is "not real," yet he still enjoys it. In fact, his betrayal of his comrades is driven by his preference for the world of illusion, which he considers superior to the harshness of the "real" world.
Furthermore, how do we know that what the Architect tells Neo is not a deliberate lie designed to demoralize him and the rebellion? In any case, despite the film’s attempts to blur the nature of reality, it remains clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. While reality may be ambiguous, morality remains starkly black and white.
What Baudrillard may be gesturing toward in Simulacra and Simulation is something far less clear and far more unsettling than the world depicted in The Matrix. According to the Wikipedia entry (I don’t have the actual book with me), Baudrillard outlines four stages of simulation. One could argue that The Matrix films fit somewhere between Stage 2—the Platonic treatment of reality as an imperfect copy of the ideal—and Stage 3, where reality itself recedes into what Baudrillard describes as the "order of sorcery," in which all meaning is artificially conjured to reference an increasingly hermetic and self-referential "truth."
What is missing from The Matrix is Baudrillard’s fourth stage—pure simulacrum, in which there is no reality whatsoever. In this stage, even the suggestion that a 'real world' exists outside of the simulated one is dismissed as naive. Here, "signs merely reflect other signs," untethered from any underlying reality.
In short, Baudrillard’s exploration of simulation is far more profound than what The Matrix presents, and that, in itself, should not be particularly surprising.
Baudrillard wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he insists the Wachowskis misread him, implying there is a distinction between misreading him and reading him correctly. On the other hand, if the distinction between the real and the illusory "implodes", as Baudrillard insists, then his own work too, everything he has to say is covered by this implosion and there can be no distinction between a correct and an incorrect reading, between interpretations of his work that are "illusory" and one which "really" reflects his "real" meaning". There is only the infinite play of simulacra. He's a fraud and the serious attention given to him when he hoists himself by his own petard is quite comical. Most of what he has to say about representation was covered by Chomsky and Herman years ago.
It seems to me that the movie the Matrix was about a simulation that was real. And Baudrillard’s rejection of that concept makes perfect sense to me. Baudrillard’s concept of simulation was about layers of confused mental constructs that obscure reality. Replacing not the authentic reality but our perception of reality.
The simulacra can obscure our perception to the point that the underlying reality is completely removed from view. Yet, reality remains buried deep beneath the simulacra.
The Wachowski's movie missed all that and turned the simulation into a real world technological projection upon the mind. Insisting that a simulation is actually real seems to be a common theme for the Wachowski (brothers/sisters). Their lives are a textbook example of simulacra that is mistaken for reality.
The Wachowski's scattered understanding of the concept makes more sense when you realize that they allegedly stole the original story from Sophia Stewart then passed it off as their own. If this is true it makes sense that this would add to the depth of their hypocrisy. Sophia Stewart's original story apparently was intended to be a modern gnostic parable. I haven't read her book but I remember hearing her side of the story. To me she was convincing. She also seemed to understand the underlying mythological inspiration for the story. Which the Wachowskis seemed quite clueless of.
Her story becomes more convincing after watching the rapid decline in quality of the movies that followed the first one. Seeing how they lost the imaginative spark of the first movie. Ostensibly they couldn't steal the rest of the story so they had to write those parts themselves. In my opinion, it shows.
"The bottom line is, the distinction between the real and the illusory has been muddied so much that we no longer know where one ends and the other begins. The distinction, has as Baudrillard would say, imploded." I agree with the first sentence. However, it is not clear that this amounts to an imploding of the distinction in the sense meant by Baudrillard, as that seems to be a transcendental concept challenging the very meaning of "reality". Now I am not sure whether the movies represent this well, or whether it can even be represented cinematically. Naively, the leaking of Neo magic into the ostensible real can be accommodated by a simple Russian Doll type argument, invoking a (possibly infinite) hierarchy of simulations within simulations. I don't think that is the rationalisation of the narrative B had in mind when speaking of implosion, and this might explain his discontent. But again, what might constitute a better representation within the medium of a motion picture? He should have taken them up on the offer to work on the sequels! Even if that had been a failure, it would have been an interesting one.