[QatzelOk]

According to Jean Baudrillard, today's media viewer is no longer able to distinguish between 'reality' and 'fantasy' because of the overwhelming number of visual and oral stimulai that he comes into contact with each day.



If this is true, our civilisation may be on the verge of serious decline because of this. A people that can't tell the difference between World War 2 and a video game, between car commercials and extinction, is hopefully not going to last for very long.

Some of Baudrillard's fave words include:

"simulacra" = copies of copies of copies...

"hyperreality" = a state of consciousness where real and fantasy mix and become the same thing (infotainment taps into this social phenomenon, as does reality TV)

"semiotics" = the study of signs and languages of signs

Some of his fave concepts include: the deterioration of meaning, the impossibility of exchange between fake economies and real ones, and the fabrication of history.

Here's a link

What do you think of this guy?

[Abood]

Sounds interesting, although needs a hell lot of evidence to prove.

I like the pic of the computer-designed girl playing a computer-designed game.

[The Antiist]

I certainly believe virtual worlds can have an influence on reality. But then, what can be called non-existent when all that is 'designed' is designed by perfectly real beings? Video games always correlate with reality in a sense. If it didn't, we wouldn't be interested in it.

Perhaps I would rather view such virtual worlds not as mere playthings of men, totally unrelated to reality, but rather as a verification, an emphasis of what reality means to us. I'd say the better we can relate to it, the more it interests us.

Rap music, for instance, is fiction in its concrete form. However, for a lot of young people it is a part of their image and a part of their ego just as any kind of role model has an influence on ones character. These things do not come to life out of a void, but are a representation of something: some more meaningful than the other.

[Shannonnn]

Eh. I think it's an interesting concept, but a little extreme.

[QatzelOk]

But Shannon, isn't our current behaviour towards the future of our environment ALSO a little extreme? And how else can it be explained - this cavalier disregard for survival - other than by people whose brains have been fried by an outside source, like media.

Sitting in front of a tube and being indoctrinated all day isn't really a "non extreme" social phenomenon.

[MistyTiger]

That interesting and scary at the same time. The theory has some truth in it but it does take it to the worst case scenario. This could be true for people who have never had an adult explain things to them, maybe. But for people who love this simulations virtual reality stuff, but who don't take it that seriously...that's uncertain.

[Shannonnn]

Sitting in front of a tube and being indoctrinated all day isn't really a "non extreme" social phenomenon.

Don't get me wrong-- you're right about the dangers of propaganda and people becoming sheep because of the mind-controlling media. But this certainly isn't everybody, and like MistyTiger said, it's worst-case-scenario stuff.

[QatzelOk]

But even the people who DON'T expose themselves to this electronic indoctrination all day... they still have to live in society with people who do. And once a critical mass of people start living in media fairyland, it's only a short time before the fairyland mindset is the predominant one.

Especially if this fake reality appears to be the one that affords you the easiest way to social status.

[MistyTiger]

But even the people who DON'T expose themselves to this electronic indoctrination all day... they still have to live in society with people who do. And once a critical mass of people start living in media fairyland, it's only a short time before the fairyland mindset is the predominant one.

I think you're inaccurately assuming that all who aren't indoctrinated, just throw themselves out there to be influenced by those who do. And you're assuming that in everyone, exists the need to conform to what society views as being popular and cool. Some people, like myself, never felt the need "to expose themselves to electric indoctrination all day." I have friends who are crazy about this stuff and like to talk about it, but since I don't understand what they're talking about, I'm detached from the conversation. Therefore, I am not indoctrinated by my friends. Sometimes I may ask a question, just to be polite or because of a moment of curiosity, but that's as far as it goes.

Especially if this fake reality appears to be the one that affords you the easiest way to social status.

Hmm...I'm not sure why you separated this from the paragraph above. This seems like a bit of a jump.

[QatzelOk]

Misty, the process of social norms construction doesn't only affect the way beautiful, popular people try to model themselves. It affects us all, the ugly, the unfashionable, the rebels, the conformists... we all have our social norms constructed by society.

When that "society" is replaced by electronic stimulae that are manufactured and distributed by corporations looking to increase their revenue, then we are all manufactured by this media no matter how "alternative" or "independent" we like to think we are.

Media creates a norm for the "alternative" as well. It's just as fake. Society used to construct its social norms via daily life - reality. Now, it's TV, Hollywood, videogame makers and magazines that tell people what "normal" is, what "abnormal" is, and what kinds of behaviors fall into both categories.

This is how we got to live in hyperreality. This is how we became dangerously stupid.

[MistyTiger]

Quatzel,

I think you're generalizing too much. You're generalizing as if everyone is like a zombie and will just follow the shiny object. I say that not everyone blindly accepts everything that looks appealing. Blind acceptance and inquisitiveness is what separates the uneducated or gullible from the sharp and intelligent-minded people. We have free will. Rousseau said, "Men are born free, and yet everywhere they are in chains." I would amend that statement to, Men are born free and yet they decide which chains to wear and which ones they don't need to wear. No disrespect to Roussea, that's just what I think.

[QatzelOk]

"Men are born free, and yet everywhere they are in chains."

Misty, everyone has some means of self expression and free will, obviously.

But most of your " individual decisions" are made from withing a framework of social norms. People all tend to wear ear-muffs during the exact same fashion seasons because it is "in." Wearing ear-muffs when they are "out" is generally considered reason for social scorn, which we ALL try to avoid.

So much of what we do is predicated by what is possible to do, and this is also defined by social norms to a great extent.

Television affects these social norms. It tells the general public what is "normal" and what is not.

[MistyTiger]

Ear muffs? LOL. I have a pair but most of the time, I don't bother wearing them.

I don't buy designer clothes. Not everybody shops at American Eagle, the Gap, or some other "trendy" stores. It costs an arm and a leg to just buy a pair of jeans. I'm in college and I watch what I buy. The most I spend is for tuition, car insurance, and books.

So if people have to choose between studying or getting drunk, they'll get drunk because society says that's the cooler thing to do? Or people think it's uncool to study a lot, so nobody studies a lot to get good grades? Studying is not "cool" it's hard and tedious, if you think of the distractions and fun that could be had. Society can pressure us to go to that party or go to the movies, but it's our will that says we should study to do well in school.

Or maybe you or I am/are equivocating the meaning of "social norms."