Working Through This Learning Module For many this will be the first unit in the Master of Digital Learning Futures, a course in which this unit can be considered a kind of foundational unit. It is a unit which in some ways ties together the various discipline areas that you might study in the Master of Digital Learning Futures; variously New Media, Software, Hardware, Education. Because of this, the unit is located at a cross disciplinary intersection - a characteristic of much knowledge production at this point in time. A good example of this cross disciplinarity is the field of computational sociology (Baudrillard would be rolling in his grave at this one). Nonetheless, as an educator I enjoy using new technologies for teaching and learning and as someone who spends much spare time playing around with web development frameworks and JavaScript etc, I enjoy not only enjoy using digital affordances, but also creating them at the level of code. But as a sociologist I am equally aware that at some point the code interacts with the human or the social and that this interaction is never neutral. This unit, therefore, emerges from this intersection of disciplines, experiences, observations and interests. It is not meant to dampen your enthusiasm for using digital technologies in education and it does not support 'techno-ludditism' by an means. Rather it aims to provide you with an informed understanding of some of the unforeseen and perhaps unintended consequences of our movement into the world of the digital. Are these consequences good or bad? That's for you to ponder. Baudrillard certainly has a view on this. Unit Structure This single module contains the follow topics in the following order: Introduction Video Games in Education The Logic of our Times, and 3B. Interlude What is the Digital Bostrom’s Challenge Information and The Social Total Situational Awareness The Masses Deterrence Implosion As will be noted elsewhere in this module, Baudrillard is a 'tough read', and - like engaging with anything new (such as learning programming languages), a key to progressing relatively smoothly is to engage with the new knowledge in reasonably small amounts in a 'logically' sequenced order. The topics in this module are presented in such a way as to provide such logic and order. You will note that we treat all of Baudrillard's key concepts before we look at hacking more specifically as the place to apply and evaluate Baudrillard's concepts. You will need to begin to collect your hacking related data for your second assessment task well in advance of the due date for submission of Assignment Two, however. Returning to the 'difficulty' of Baudrillard, however, my advice is (like learning to program) to simply persist. Patience and practice. Patience and practice. Ultimately we are dealing with abstraction in reading Baudrilard, and that can always be a challenge. Reading Baudrillard If you have already visited the Digital Education Futures website and clicked the 'Baudrillard' tab you will be presented with details of Baudrillard's work (his books). Baudrillard's writing encompassed much more than books. Hence it is not possible to cover Baudrillard in his entirety in the space of 13 weeks or so in one unit. You will be introduced, however, to the some of the 'fundamentals' of his thinking, and have the opportunity to apply such to a review of a real world challenge; namely that of computer hacking as a 21st century digital activity. Topic Notes Some of the topic notes presented below comprise parts of papers that I have written around ideas closely related to those of this unit. You will be able to identify those notes because they have in-text referencing. To support your progress through this unit, I have included (in this unit) the reference list associated with these notes. Filmography The unit draws much from the Matrix Trilogy. For your referencing purposes, use one of the following formats: the Internet is awash with information about Baudrilllard and many of the books he wrote. It seems that the very logic, which his notions of simulacra and simulation highlight has contributed significantly to this. The International Journal of Baudrillard Studies is available online. But the articles can be difficult and I would not recommend reading these articles until 'after' you have at least read the two texts below. Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. It is recommended that you commence your reading of these texts from the outset, starting with 'Simulacra and Simulation'. A Cautionary Note On Computer Hacking As you may already know, computer hacking has a bad name, even tough - as you will see a little further on - not all hacking or hackers are 'bad'. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that your use of CDU's IT environment should always follow the CDU policy guidelines. There are in fact many Internet sites where you can legitimately engage in hacking, should you wish to do so. We sill identify these in our hacking topics. This unit purposefully avoids engagement in discussion of the ethics, morals or otherwise of the use of digital technologies. This is not to say that these matters must be avoided. Rather, its focus is upon the sociological dynamics and implications, which will invariably be considered differently by different groups. Topic. 2. Video Games in Education As one of our foci is the use of the digital for teaching and learning, it is appropriate that we commence our discussion with a brief look at various aspects of using video games in education. Like hacking, the use of video games in education has - at least in the recent past - not been spoken of particularly highly. At one level the opposition to using video games seems to come from the view that education should not be fun, while - of course - there is always the concern with the appropriateness of the content. While I sense that the strength of the general opposition to the use of video games is now just a little diminished, possibly due to the ubiquity of games on mobile devices accessible through the Apple or Android / Google markets, there is a degree of opposition that remains. In around 2011 there was a church group in the US that had used the then new Halo 3 video game as a teaching and learning strategy for the engagement of youth in the life of the church. What was interesting to me at the time, was not the fact that a church had decided to use a video game or even this particular video game, but the extent of the debate which raged at a national level. I researched the event and wrote the following paper as a cautionary note to pre-service teaches who might have been thinking that playing a game in the classroom was a relatively innocuous activity. Tamatea, L. (2011). 'HALO 3 Pedagogy and Christian Ministry: A Curriculum and Context Relationship for Pre-service Teachers', Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33: 1, 48 — 75. Virtual Reality Since writing the above mentioned paper, consumer level virtual reality affordances have 'exploded'. Indicative of the uptake of VR at the consumer level is difficulty one finds in purchasing a Playstation 4 VR (as of the end of 2016). But if pixels alone in a game like Halo 3 have a capacity to generate media effects, imagine how this logic is amplified in a VR environment. And since we are discussing virtual reality, it is probably an appropriate time to acknowledge the Matrix Trilogy, which as we know presented audiences with a world wherein humans could not distinguish the difference between the virtual and real. Not having access to the real, on what basis could they make the distinction. Indeed the virtual in the matrix was "more real than real". Optional Readings Tamatea, Laurence. 2011. 'HALO 3 Pedagogy and Christian Ministry: A Curriculum and Context Relationship for Preservice Teachers',Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33: 1, 48 — 75. Key Ideas Digital artifacts invariably have social impacts, and are located within prevailing economies of value, politics, morals, truth, etc. DiPietro et., al's., Framework. Focus Questions How is it possible for pixels to have some 'material' effect? This is a question that you might like to revisit as your start to engage with the work of Baudrillard. DLF514 Digital Technologies: Education, Apps and Mobile Devices. Discussion Board If you would like to read more about video games in/for education I also recommend the work of K. Squire. Click the following url to visit his research site: https://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/research.html You will find some very good material here. I wonder what Baudrillard would have thought about brining the digital paradigm (or the third phase of the image (see following topics)) into education? Topic. 3. The Logic of Our Times What is the Matrix matrix what is real What is The Matrix The dialogue below emerges from one of the key scenes in the first matrix film wherein Morpheus explains to Neo the nature of what he took to be his reality. There is a direct reference to Baudrillard in this dialogue. MORPHEUS Sit down. Neo stands at the back of the chair as Morpheus sits. NEO Right now, we're inside a computer program? MORPHEUS Wild, isn't it? Neo's hands run over the cracked leather. NEO This isn't real? MORPHEUS What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain. He picks up a remote control and clicks ON the TELEVISION. We drift through the Windy City circa 1996. MORPHEUS This is the Chicago you know. Chicago as it was at the end of the twentieth century. This Chicago exists only as part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix. We GLIDE AT the television as he changes the channel. MORPHEUS You have been living inside Baulliaurd's vision, inside the map, not the territory. This is Chicago as it exists today. The sky is an endless sea of black and green bile. The earth, scorched and split like burnt flesh, spreads out beneath us as we ENTER the television. MORPHEUS ‘Welcome to The desert of the real.' In the distance, we see the ruins of a future Chicago protruding from the wasteland like the blackened ribs of a long-dead corpse. MORPHEUS We are, right now, miles below the earth's surface. The only place humans can survive outside the Matrix is underground. In the dialog above Morpheus shows Neo what the real work actually looks like, and if you have viewed the first installment int he trilogy, you will know that Neo has a hard time accepting it. The discussion below, however, takes up one of Baudrillard's fundamental explanatory frameworks upon which his 'thesis' around simulacra and simulation is built. It is particularly important that you understand this framework. Where as those like Marx, for example, saw economics (or the relations between capital and labor in the era of capitalism) as the fundamental engine of 'history', Baudrillard saw the principal powerful dynamic being humanity's relationship to the image or expressed otherwise, humanity's engagement with re-presentation. Successive Phases of the Image While you are encouraged to read through simulacra and simulation from the outset of this unit (and also "The Transparency of Evil"), the discussion below is critical to your understanding of both this unit and Baudrillard. Like many other writers his key ideas appear in many places (papers, books etc) as the are presented, and re-worked. But in one sense the discussion of the phases of the image comprises the very core of Baudrillard's conceptualisation of logic of the times that we live in. Reading Simulacra and Simulation provides a very good starting place to engage with this first key concept. Baudrillard’s work is primarily concerned to account for the nature of our televisual world in terms of its functioning, dynamics, and impact upon knowledge, society and liberty. He argues that humanity has entered a fundamentally different paradigm in which interaction with the world and others is increasingly mediated by televisual technologies including ‘cybernetics’, computers and the Internet [The Transparency of Evil, 1993; Simulacra and Simulation, 1995; Screened Out, 2002], making him one of the most insightful [if not also one of the most scorned] critics of our digitally mediated society, of which computer hackers are very much a part. In this, Baudrillard provides an historic trajectory, mapping humanity’s arrival at its current position with regard to representation and engagement with the [un]real world. Baudrillard maintains in Simulacra and Simulation [1995] that there have been three orders of simulacra following the original pre-modern condition of symbolic exchange, each grounded in the relationship between humanity, the image [as in re-presentation] and reality. The initial condition of symbolic exchange comprised a time when reality was taken to be fixed and God-ordained. Our imagery, including art, functioned to reproduce the divine order of the real, with the image being “a good appearance” of the real, thus of a “sacramental order” [p. 6]. The question that reality might be otherwise such that it could be represented otherwise was simply a non-issue. Imagery functioned to dissimulate or “to pretend not to have what one has” [p. 3]. But it is in the second order of simulacra that a shift takes place, from dissimulation to simulation. Imagery and art become “an evil appearance – it is of the order of maleficence” [6] and in contrast to dissimulation, the move to simulate is to “feign to have what one doesn't have” [3], which implies an absence. Dissimulation “reflects a theology of [God given] truth and secrecy” [6] whereas simulation reveals that “there is no longer a God to recognise his own, no longer a Last Judgement to separate the false from the true” [6]. It is the second and third orders of simulacra that intensify the logic of simulation. In the second order, roughly associated with early modernity from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution [Mann nd.], representation comprises an attempt to create the real. Here the image “masks and denatures a profound reality” [Simulacra and Simulation, p. 6]. Yet distance between real and representation remains. Mann [nd.], for example, draws attention to the representation of utopias in literature art during this stage. In the second order the image “masks the absence of a profound reality” [Simulation and Simulacra, 1995, 6]. This is the period from the Industrial Revolution to the mid-Twentieth century. Industrial technologies impact production of the image, including [analogue] photography leading to mass production and re-production. It is a time of belief in continuous expansion, the “indefinite liberation of energy as a productive expansionary force and its “materialization by the machine” [118]. Whereas the first order belongs to the “imaginary of utopia” [118], the second “corresponds [to the utopias of] science fiction” [118]. The third order of simulacra is “founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game – total operationally, hyper-reality, aim of total control” [118]. This is our time and our order, it is the order that gives birth to computer hacking. In this order the image “has no relation to any reality whatsoever” [6] and as realised particularly through digital technologies, the image is pure simulation. Computer games exemplify this order in that they create worlds within which players interact via the screen, which in many instances have no relationship to the ‘real’ world. Moreover, the world of some games is absolutely beautiful – more real than real; utopia achieved [81]. In this digital word, science-fiction is dead, not because futuristic possibilities can no longer be imagined, but as a consequence of the diminished distance between the imaginary and the real, making it increasingly impossible to tell the difference between the real and representation. But the significance of this goes beyond mere technological capacity. It is significant because the simulation now feeds back into the real; reabsorbed by the real creating a hyper-reality [118] wherein reality engagement is through a model against which reality itself is evaluated – the complete opposite of the first order dynamics. Ours is a time when not only do digital representations engage our interaction often untouched by association with the real world, it is a time when simulations simply reference other simulations, while the real lies “rotting” in the corner [145]. Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 1]. It is important, however, to acknowledge as does Baudrillard that while we “can clearly mark the difference between the mechanical robot machines of the second order, and the cybernetic machines associated with computing, that in their governing principle, depend on the third order” [123]; it remains possible that “one order can certainly contaminate another” [123]. For example, the F-35 stealth fighter arguably transcends two orders. It is a mechanical and industrial artefact, the purpose of which is to unleash the kinds of revolutionary productive [and destructive] forces of the second order of simulacra, but its capacity to function in this way, including the means by which the human pilot interfaces with the machine and the world [by situational awareness][i], is largely a product of digital cybernetics, no doubt also significant to its production. What’s more a number of stealth military aircraft would simply not fly without avionics grounded in powerful computing [Moir and Seabridge, 2008, 397]. Though perhaps these stealth aircraft exemplify what Baudrillard would call a super-machine, they are ones that “still bear witness to the reflexes of a finalized universe” [Simulacra and Simulation, 123]. Thus in terms of exploring computer hacking as a potential system change phenomenon, it may be valuable to recognise that although hackers work in the digital space of the third order of simulacra, they may nonetheless engage in tactics which are more resonant with the logics of the second order. Moreover, humanity’s inscription by the third order of simulacra is surely also nuanced by location. Parts of this paper were written while in Indonesia at locations, where for example, the television is largely ignored, children do not bring laptops to school; schools do not have Wi-Fi, and high-speed large volume broadband connections are restricted to the wealthy; otherwise known as the digital divide[ii]. [i] “The F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS] streams real-time imagery from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilots to “look through” the airframe. See: https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/helmet [ii] The paper was concluded upon returning to Australia from Indonesia. My entry into Australia was processed by face-recognition technologies with very little human interaction. Topic. 3B. Interlude. A Short Note Agent Jones fires again, as Neo bends impossibly back, one hand on the ground. The bullet grazes his thigh, leaving a red groove. He screams and falls backwards. As he lies there, Agent Jones aims his gun at Neo one last time. Agent Jones: Only human... (The Matrix) The Challenge of Baudrillard Jean Baudrillard was one of those public 'intellectuals' who left an impact upon the academic community and clearly also upon popular culture. He was a prolific writer and if you have already visited the Digital Education Futures Website (yes it needs a good update) you will have seen an overview of his books. If you have not noticed already the Digital Education Futures website is about Baudrillard, digital technologies, video games and associated things. I have another website focused upon Baudrillard, the matrix and hacking, which although a work in progress, is public: http://baudrillardsmatrix.info Baudrillard is a hard read, there is no getting around that. Part of this is because to read Baudrillard in English is to read a translation of Baudrillard's French. It is also because Baudrillard is a cultural provocateur who aims to disrupt the norm and force us to step outside of the prevailing orthodoxy in the 'academy'. While it might be said that for some post-modern writers it was 'fashionable' to be seen as in comprehensible, I don't think that Baudrillard was one of them. The challenge of reading Baudrillard seems to emerge more so from the difficulty of his conceptualisation of things, forcing us to bend our thinking in new ways. In some ways its like learning to program. At first it can be excruciatingly difficult, which in time gives way to the 'i get it moment'. But if you find yourself struggling with Baudrillard, you are not alone. A quick google search reveals that there are many who have been in your exact position. Why are French postmodern philosophers (like Baudrillard) so hard to read/understand? up vote 4 down vote favorite 1 I've read my fair share of philosophers. Now I won't say that proper philosophical texts are ever easy to understand, but it seems that French postmodern philosophers like Baudrillard are extremely hard to understand. Now this might just be me. To me their texts seem more like poetry. Like they're hinting towards meaning, but don't want to be explicit. Am I missing something? Or are they just very vague? metaphysics argumentation postmodernism share improve this question edited Apr 1 '15 at 16:26 asked Apr 1 '15 at 16:15 vkjb38sjhbv98h4jgvx98hah3fef 124 3 6 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism :D – Lukas Apr 1 '15 at 17:38 1 What other 20th century continental philosophy are you familiar with ? – J. LS Apr 1 '15 at 22:01 1 There was a question a while ago on basically the same topic... philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21292/… – virmaior Apr 3 '15 at 1:55 1 @J.LS Thanks. And as for Baudrillard, I can sympathise with your statement, in a way whilst reading him I felt that the subject matter wasn't that complicated. But his writing almost made me feel like there should be more, and I just wasn't understanding it properly. Opaque and somewhat superficial would be an apt description of what my experience was reading him, and confirms my suspicions (that the writing style was quite prozaic, but not necessarily alluding to deeper, hidden meaning). I'll try Foucault. – vkjb38sjhbv98h4jgvx98hah3fef Apr 4 '15 at 11:24 2 @J.LS Funny that that was cowritten by Sokal, who also got a nonsensical paper published in a famous journal to make a statement about those kinds of texts :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair – vkjb38sjhbv98h4jgvx98hah3fef Apr 7 '15 at 20:41 show 6 more comments 4 Answers activeoldestvotes up vote 5 down vote John Searle apparently asked Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, why they wrote so badly. (Apparently they were both much clearer in conversation or when lecturing, and Searle respected them both greatly.) He says that Foucault told him, If I wrote as clearly as you do, people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously, they would think it's child-like, it's naive... En France, il faut avoir au moins 10% incomprehensible. [Searle adds: "This translates to 'In France you gotta have 10% incomprehensible.' Otherwise people won't think it's deep, they won't think you're a profound thinker!"] And that when he told this story to Pierre Bourdieu, he answered, It's worse than 10%, more like 20%. I don't know why that's the case, assuming that the story is true. (Searle blames the legacy of German philosophy, presumably Hegel). share improve this answer answered Sep 30 at 6:13 David Bahry 81 1 5 add a comment up vote 0 down vote In defense of what is sometimes called "obscurantism", particularly in philosophy, it can be said that reason proceeds sometimes by disruption, radical irreverence, noise. It is easy to see that not all said obscurantists are of the same caliber. The same can be said of the defenders of clarity. That said, this is not what the authors you collectively refer to as "postmodern" (a denomination that is, itself, quite... obscuring), particularly Baudrillard, are advancing in their work. They are writing at a time when their readership has largely assumed that consensus in philosophy has already failed as a project, so it can be said that criticism of their work as "hard to read" largely misses the point. Poetry was never a stranger to philosophical thinking. share improve this answer answered Sep 17 at 19:08 André Souza Lemos 943 2 18 add a comment up vote -1 down vote There was a moment in France, where all the philosopher tried to use some psychoanalysis in their works. Lacan was one of the really, most famous psychoanalyst, and was known to be really difficult to read. Actually, a lots of peoples start to speak like him, and a lot of philosophers were really influenced by this. One of the main point was to use a lot of references to science and a lot of analogies. I am trying to give you a decent, not opinion based answer but it's difficult. If the first comment talks about obscurantism it's not meaningless. Some people started to criticize the postmodern philosopher. Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont published a book, "impostures intellectuelles" (intellectual imposture, or fashionable nonsense), which ... well the title says it all. They receive some supports. Michel Onfray also published some works against psychoanalysis, for reasons closely related to obscurantism. I have some doubts for some of this author. I don't think all of the work they have done is bad, or not interesting. For what I understand it was some sort of fashion, a way to act, to appear smart. Onfray : Twilight of an idol (Crépuscule d'une idole) Sokal Bricmont : Fashionable nonsense / Intellectual imposture (Impostures intellectuelles) I just found also that there is a wikipedia page on this topic :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism Apparently Noam Chomsky is cited here. By the way I don't know if you read them in french or a translation, but even for french people it's really hard to read. share improve this answer answered May 13 at 9:42 JSFDude 77 7 add a comment up vote -3 down vote Because they're mostly liars. They pretend to be left-wing, and have even been adopted as neo-marxists in many countries. But any serious examination of their "thoughts" reveal the many flaws therein. So, one point in being so "hard to read" is that they can always flee saying "that's not what I've meant". So they keep on misleading so many "developing countries", against any chance of real revolution, which was their goal, from the beginning. share improve this answer edited Aug 18 at 7:28 Camil Staps ♦ 5,135 4 20 43 answered Aug 18 at 7:03 I Just Don't Get It Like learning your first programing language, the problem with learning Baudrillard is simply one of knowing where to start. Do we read a book that he wrote? Do we read a 'reader'? Do we read journal articles that draw upon or critique his work? Do we start with Wikipedia or do we start with a Google search. All of these sites will provide an insight into Baudrillard's writing. Not A God Baudrillard was after all only human. And in some respects his writing simply reflects this. The point here is that we are not to read Baudrillard as if he had the answer to 'life the universe and everything. No academics, intellectuals or theorists ever do (some might pretend they do). Hence Baudrillard's writing has been the target of critique. Some of this critique is acknowledge below: Much has been written about Edward Snowden and his making public the surveillance activities of the US National Security Agency [Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2015]. Of concern to my research project however, is how the work of those like Snowden, Julian Assange [Richter, 2011] and others associated with computer hacking are to be accounted for in terms of Baudrillard’s propositions for understanding simulacra and simulation. In part this is a response to the need to generate workable theoretical frames for understanding computer hacking and other activities broadly associated with digital activism. It is also a response to the need to consider the full range of digital activities in the discussion of system subversion and not just those considered ‘legal’; Baudrillard does not make a distinction between ‘good’ information and ‘bad’ information. It is simply excess information. Thus there is a pressing need to bring who is arguably the pre-eminent critic of televisual mediated culture into the discussion of digital activism; namely Jean Baudrillard, whose work through its use in the script of the Matrix Trilogy, has become – probably much to his dislike – very much a part of popular culture. And with this, there is a need to apply Baudrillard in a detailed, focused and sustained way specifically to the study of computer hacking. Not only because his work informed the Matrix Trilogy, but because his work points us towards hacking as an outcome of the logic of the system, a particular line of inquiry which he did not take up further. But Baudrillard’s work is not without its flaws, and arguably it is worthwhile acknowledging what these are. Butler maintains that Baudrillard “gets his own logic wrong” [2009, 49] and falls “short of the standard his own work sets, making the same mistakes he condemns in others” [49]. Baudrillard’s analysis is criticised for resting upon his version of events, and not necessarily a repeatable rule [50]; for example, the art he likes and the art he dislikes [53]; distinctions of the kind, for which Baudrillard has been labelled an elitist [Kellner, 2009, 101]. Baudrillard is also criticised for not always failing to see the paradox emergent in his analysis such as that associated with attempting to argue the existence of “nothingness at the heart of the system of signs” [Butler, 52]. But how does one demonstrate non-existence, except as a “retrospective effect of it being lost, through what [now] stands in for it”? [58]. Butler also highlights what seems to be a degree of nostalgia in Baudrillard’s work, whereby the past was ‘good’ and the present is not [52]. Additionally Baudrillard’s work is criticised for the need to go ever further back in history “to locate [the] Omega point” [52] wherein an original [good] un-simulated condition existed [52], which raises questions about the kinds of evidence used to establish his argument [53]. Butler further questions Baudrillard’s location. If there is nothing outside of the third order of simulation, and if all critical perspective is now lost, from what [privileged] position does Baudrillard generate his insights? [54]. Is Baudrillard bigger than the game? [50]. At this juncture we might also ask if Baudrillard is part of the system or part of the masses, although the answer to this question might be informed by the lack of conceptual clarity and coherency in Baudrillard’s discussion key concepts including both society and the masses [55]. Kellner concludes that the contradictions in Baudrillard’s work and its change over time make Baudrillard difficult to sum up and pin down [2009, p. 102]. Such contradiction, for example, emerges in his discussion of the masses; do they reflect or do they absorb the system’s meaning? Others note the lack of alternatives provided in Baudrillard’s work. Are there truly no alternatives, or is a lack of alternatives a property of the system? [Hammond, 2009]. While Kester accuses Baudrillard of over generalising [p. 21] others accuse him of being a nihilist, and or being at error in his dismissal of the value of critical theory [King, 1998]. Robinson [2012c] expresses concerns about Baudrillard’s repetition of patriarchy and the authoritarianism in his theory. Yet there are still more criticisms. Barrowman argues that at least up to the mid-1980s Baudrillard failed to define key terms: his writing style is hyperbolic and declarative, often lacking sustained, systematic analysis when it is appropriate; he totalizes his insights, refusing to qualify or delimit his claims. He writes about particular experiences, television images, as if nothing else in society mattered, extrapolating a bleak view of the world from that limited base. He ignores contradictory evidence such as the many benefits afforded by the new media [2007]. On less than strict epistemological grounds Baudrillard has been accused of sympathising with terrorists [Hammond, 2009, 132], being a product of his times [Kester, 1987], of erasing the morally responsible subject, of variously being the high priest and prophet of postmodernity, the prophet of the apocalypse, of being a fatalist [Gandesha, 2004], of mixing sociology with moral denunciation [Wernick, 1993, 3], of peddling absolute nonsense, of being noisy, mischievous and attached to no school [Corbis, 2007], and of being a luddite [Shaviro nd.]. These are not insignificant claims, and I would add to them that some of Baudrillard’s discussions of computers and programming is clearly uninformed, while his discussion of the orders of simulacra seems mostly grounded in European history, ignoring the significance of simulation in other cultures, such as in Indonesia where the Javanese and Balinese stage shadow puppet plays [Wayang]. Baudrillard also often ignores evidence to the contrary, and builds his case on ‘extreme’ exemplars. Dutton further asserts in relation to Baudrillard’s work that: when it isn’t unintelligible, almost everything Baudrillard says is either trite or somehow — vaguely or baldly — false [1990]. But it is perhaps the critique of Butler [2009] which is the most powerful, and yet it is also Butler who in drawing upon Baudrillard’s discussion in The Conspiracy of Art argues the case for the value of Baudrillard’s work. Noting Baudrillard’s assertion that there is “nothing less seductive than a theory that is actually verified: a verifiable theory is no longer a theory”, Butler argues that a “good theory is at once unrefutable and undemonstratable” [59] such that to reference Baudrillard’s response to Warhol, “we cannot say exactly what it means” [59]. Of such theory: we cannot but follow it, but we cannot simply follow it, because in a way like art itself it is only an effect of its future reader of spectator. And it is just this quality that marks the work of powerful thinkers, which lives on not by being empirically correct or even theoretically consistent, but only insofar that it is self-splitting and induces a split … it is just this internal inconsistency, this irony, this inability to put together enunciated and enunciation, that defines the major thought, thus allowing subsequent commentators to enter into it and make [or think that they are making] it their own [59]. Required Readings Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. Optional Readings Key Ideas Reading Baudrillard is sometimes hard. Keep at it. Baudrillard's work is not to be take as the 'truth'. Baudrillard had his detractors. But was Baudrillard's writing always one step ahead of us? Focus Questions What is the most difficult thing for you in reading Baudrillard? On what grounds could be it said that Baudrillard was disruptive? Activity Build a list of the criticisms of Baudrillard's work if not character. Identify what the overall media representation was, and explain why so. Topic: 4. What is The Digital? Morpheus : The Matrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes. The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth. THE DIGITAL PARADIGM In this module you will explore key aspects of the digital paradigm. But before we explore Baudrillard's notions of simulacra and simulation we first identify what exactly the 'digital' comprises - from a 'scientific' perspective. With a scientific understanding, we then have a benchmark against which we can reflect upon Baudrillard's notions of simulacra and simulation. What Does Digital Mean It is interesting to note how often we use the term 'digital' without really understanding what the digital actually is. We live in an era inscribed by digital media, and I we generally understand the digital to be something that can be transfered between computers along the Internet. Alternatively we might think of the numbers on a digital clock which uses digital digits to represent the time although not in the sense of presenting a map of the territory which time has moved across as analogue clock face does. Although both are exemplars of the digital what is actually going on behind the interface? Digital describes electronic technology that generates, stores, and processes data in terms of two states: positive and non-positive. Positive is expressed or represented by the number 1 and non-positive by the number 0. Thus, data transmitted or stored with digital technology is expressed as a string of 0's and 1's. Each of these state digits is referred to as a bit (and a string of bits that a computer can address individually as a group is a byte). Prior to digital technology, electronic transmission was limited to analog technology, which conveys data as electronic signals of varying frequency or amplitude that are added to carrier waves of a given frequency. Broadcast and phone transmission has conventionally used analog technology. From What Is: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/digital The digital comprises the re-presentation of an analogue entity and its qualities and functions, generated through binary code (1s and 0s). Both you and I comprise analogue entities; 'meatware' as opposed to software. Through similar outcomes and functions of the analogue can be reproduced, but with several advantages some of which are noted in the definition above: generation and storage. Another advantage is transferal capacity in terms of quantity and speed. Another way of look at the digital is in terms of information as binary code is fundamentally associated with information. A good example of this is to be found in 3D printing. Assuming that the material that a 3D printer requires is on hand - say for a house of sorts - then all that needs to be sent through to the new location where the house is to be built - lets say Mars - is the program. We see similar things in tele-robotics, even in the field of surgery. What is Digital: An Explanation Advantages of the Digital In discussion of Artificial Intelligence you will often find references to 1. software and 2. meatware. The reference to the latter describes those things (namely humans and animals) that comprise flesh. In other words the functions (such as computational thinking associated with maths) that we undertake are the end result of our biochemistry in contrast to the functions of a digital machine which are the outcome of its programing. The point that is highlighted here, is that there are different means to the same end, and who is to say (if we suspend religious, philosophical and ethical positions) that one means is inherently better than another. A simple example is this: a bird can fly, but the F-22 Raptor can also fly. Indeed, thanks to digital technologies significant advances are being made in the field of unmanned aerial vehicle - commonly referred to as 'drones'. 0:00 A Digital Jet for the Modern Battlespace Underpinning the F-35’s unrivaled capabilities is more than 8 million lines of software code – more than four times the amount of the world’s first 5th generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor. From flight controls to fusing together the F-35’s sensor data to form a clear and comprehensive picture of the battlespace, software is essential. From: https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software Notwithstanding the disclaimer above (religion, ethics etc) the table below highlights what might be considered some of the advantages which digital agents have over us humans as 'meatware'. Activity Digital Agent Human Being Reproduction Replicate virtually instantaneously and in unlimited quantities 9 months pregnancy Compliance Don't don refuse to carry out instructions Feelings, emotions, resistance, politics Precise Repetition Generally repeat the program exactly the same way every time leading to same precise outcomes Significant margins for error due to physical and mental constraints Objectivity Runs the program as instructed Constrained by one's own view of the world Waste Need power and hardware. But a move to nano-scale and quantum computing will reduce these requirements Human waste is unhygienic and must be disposed of Evolution Upgrade and reproduce at an exponential rate. Produce some outcomes now better than humans in only 60 or so years of development Millions of years Durability Withstand hostile environments Constrained by hostile physical (and mental) environments Down Time Scheduled downtime but not every day Require sleep every day Space Needs Miniaturization of computing and possible nano-scale leads to much less space required Require significant space for living, farming etc Knowledge Transfer and acquisition Almost instantaneous across vast distance Limited to those in proximity. 12 years in school followed by university Life Span Continuous upgrades Average 79 years for men Memory Vast and expandable Limited, somewhat fragile and unreliable The table above again presents information that intention of which is to highlight through contrast, and your response to its propositions will most likely depend on if you view future technology through the: 1. same old 2. heaven or 3. hell frameworks. Although if scrutinised in detail the propositions above become much more 'messy' (eg. code cancer), what they do show is that 'functions' can be arrived at through different means, and software (or the digital) is one that is only intensifying in terms of its significance and the impact upon humanity. What is the Link With Education? Aside from the notes above about the education, sociology, programming link, perhaps the answer to this is 'best' (depending upon your view) provided by the makers of the F35. Impacting Education Advancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is a critical focus for Lockheed Martin. We know firsthand the importance of educating our young people in these areas. Our future success — and our nation’s technological advantage — depend on a constant supply of highly trained, highly capable technical talent. We believe strongly that advancing STEM education requires collaboration among industry, educators, policy makers and families. As an industry leader, Lockheed Martin, with an employee population that includes 49,000 engineers, scientists and IT professionals, is committed to working with these groups to develop programs that educate and inspire tomorrow’s scientists, engineers and mathematicians. To help address these challenges and strengthen the workforce pipeline, Lockheed Martin provides generous funding to STEM education outreach activities for students from elementary school through college. We are committed to supporting programs, events and campaigns that focus on student achievement, teacher development, and gender and ethnic diversity. Some of these programs include: Generation Beyond - a first of its kind, national educational program to bring the science of space into thousands of homes and classrooms across America. The program is designed to inspire the next generation of innovators, explorers, inventors and pioneers to pursue STEM careers. Code Quest — A computer programming competition that puts high school student’s coding skills to the test by solving problems created by Lockheed Martin Information Technology professionals. 4-H Robotics: Curriculum and Clubs — A program that seeks to help young people develop their engineering and technology passion and proficiency through new, high-quality robotics curricula, use of digital technologies, robotics clubs, and competitions. Great Minds in STEM (GMIS) — Students participating in GMIS’ Viva Technology program experience a day filled with fun, hands-on STEM-focused activities. Girls Inc. — Our pilot program connects Lockheed Martin volunteers with girls ages 9-12 to strengthen their interest and confidence in pursuing STEM education and careers. Project Lead The Way (PLTW) — Our partnership supports PLTW’s Launch, Gateway and Engineering programs, which are used in K-12 schools across the United States. National Geographic Society — Lockheed Martin is working with National Geographic to develop STEM-focused film “edutainment” projects that reach teachers and students with multi-media classroom activities, teachers’ guides, and White Board and Smartboard content. ng-lm-logo-lockup Engineers in the Classroom — Through this STEM education outreach initiative, Lockheed Martin provides numerous opportunities for our employees to interact with and inspire the next generation of engineers and technologists by serving as local school advisors, extracurricular activity mentors and career role models for students in communities where we live and work. K-12 STEM Match — Lockheed Martin continues to look for ways to improve the lives of its employees, better align itself with its philanthropic efforts and create inclusive employee programs. We most recently launched a new K-12 company matching program for employees by partnering with DonorsChoose.org to support STEM education in our local communities. FIRST Robotics — FIRST Robotics encourages the pursuit of STEM fields through its robotics programs. Each year, FIRST reaches more than 400,000 young people worldwide, nearly 40,000 teams, and builds more than 30,000 robots. A Lockheed Martin employee who is actively mentoring a FIRST team may apply for a grant through the sponsorship application site. Imagine Science — Lockheed Martin is supporting four of the nation’s largest youth development organizations — the Boys & Girls Club of America, The National 4-H Council, YMCA of the USA, and Girls Inc. — in a multi-year partnership to jointly tackle the challenge of engaging under-represented youth in STEM learning. From: http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/who-we-are/community/education.html Summary The focus of this topic has been what comprises the digital. It is a term often used, but arguably often not well understood, despite the ubiquity of the digital. Arguably the digital comprises a new way of interacting with the world such that we can refer to the digital paradigm or the information age or paradigm. One of the reasons why the digital paradigm has only continued to intensify is because it simply offers many advantages, some of which have been identified above. If we were to identify only two key advantages we could say that the digital offers a capacity to 'transcend' some of the limits of time and some of the limits of space. Significantly it was noted that the digital offers an alternative means to similar if not the same ends. Readings Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. Optional Readings Key Ideas Although the digital is ubiquitous we seldom have an appreciation of what actually comprises the digital, beyond what we see in terms of the user interface (UX). An understanding of what the digital comprises at its 'physical level' will allow you to more easily conceptualise Baudrillard's notions of simulacra and simulation. In one of the scenes in the Matrix Trilogy, the Oracle explains to Neo that there are programs everywhere variously undertaking assigned functions. Although, of course, in our world those programs have not (yet) taken human forms, the concept is not to far removed from 'reality'. Next time you go on line and and book your travel, drive to the airport, pay your e-ticket, stopped at the traffic lights, set the car's cruise control (let alone an autonomous car), order a meal in the airport cafe, pay with your card, buy the price scanned magazine, watch the flight schedule, check your emails, scan your phone's boarding pass, watch the in flight entertainment (not to mention the avionics on the plane), and so on .... you will have interacted with numerous programs. Some driving mechanical interfaces and some driving digital ones. Some simple programs, and some much more complex. Arguably this relationship will only intensify in scope and scale. Focus Questions Who are the students we are teaching? What do we, as teachers, have to do to support them? How do we connect our content in the curriculum to their needs? Activity What is the pathway (or process) from the moment of turning on the electricity to the presentation of visuals on your computer screen? Identify instances where the digital form/version is not as good as the analogue version. Discuss why and the likelihood of change in the future. The table above identifies the 'advantages' of the digital. Identify what you see as the disadvantages. Discussion Board - Topic x Now we have explored Baudrillard's three phases of the image && what the digital actually is, now would be a good time to reflect upon how the digital functions along the lines described by Baudrillard in his discussion of the third phase of the image. Topic. 5. Bostrom's Challenge Other Views So far we have explored Baudrillard's views around simulacra and simulation. Baudrillard argues that we hare living in the third phase of the image, which we can take as being very well represented by the digital paradigm. At this point, however, it will be useful to look at two other ways that the predicament that Baudrillard highlights has been read. One is 'old' and the other, a little more recent. While you should continue to read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, for this week, also read the chapter in his 1993 book, "Xerox and Infinity". The Old - Plato's Cave As you may have already noticed, the Matrix Trilogy is inscribed by a range of religious motifs, which in one sense is understandable. Humanity has often constructed representations of reality grounded in the notion that 'there is something more'; that we do not see all there is. Its an age old question: Is there more to life - to this existence - that we see or know? And ... how would we know? The following information is from Wikipedia, which you are encourage to read at length at that site. For our purposes, here, however the key issue is one's capacity to see the world (reality) as it is - or not. The secondary issues is - how would one know? Essentially these are questions around both ontology and epistemology. What is truth and how do you arrive at truth? The Allegory of the Cave was presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work the Republic (514a–520a) to compare "the effect of education (παιδεία) and the lack of it on our nature". It is written as a dialogue between Plato's brother Glaucon and his mentor Socrates, narrated by the latter. The allegory is presented after the analogy of the sun (508b–509c) and the analogy of the divided line (509d–511e).[citation needed] All three are characterized in relation to dialectic at the end of Books VII and VIII (531d–534e).[citation needed] Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows.The shadows are the prisoners' reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison; for they know no better life.[1] Socrates remarks that this allegory can be paired with previous writings, namely the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided line. Imprisonment in the cave[edit] Plato begins by having Socrates ask Glaucon to imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from birth. These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not look around at the cave, each other, or themselves (514a–b).[3] Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets "of men and other living things" (514b).[3] The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do ("just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets" (514a)[3]). The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them, they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls, and the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows (514c).[3] To Socrates suggests that the shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave (514b-515a).[3] Departure From the Cave Plato then supposes that one prisoner is freed. This prisoner would look around and see the fire. The light would hurt his eyes and make it difficult for him to see the objects casting the shadows. If he were told that what he is seeing is real instead of the other version of reality he sees on the wall, he would not believe it. In his pain, Plato continues, the freed prisoner would turn away and run back to what he is accustomed to (that is, the shadows of the carried objects). He writes "... it would hurt his eyes, and he would escape by turning away to the things which he was able to look at, and these he would believe to be clearer than what was being shown to him."[3] Plato continues: "Suppose... that someone should drag him... by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out into the light of the sun."[3] The prisoner would be angry and in pain, and this would only worsen when the radiant light of the sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him.[3] "Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun. First he can only see shadows. Gradually he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later see the people and things themselves. Eventually, he is able to look at the stars and moon at night until finally he can look upon the sun itself (516a)."[3] Only after he can look straight at the sun "is he able to reason about it" and what it is (516b).[3] (See also Plato's Analogy of the Sun, which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI.)[4] Return to the Cave[edit] Plato continues, saying that the freed prisoner would think that the world outside the cave was superior to the world he experienced in the cave; "he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other prisoners]" and would want to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight (516c).[3] The returning prisoner, whose eyes have become accustomed to the sunlight, would be blind when he re-enters the cave, just as he was when he was first exposed to the sun (516e).[3] The prisoners, according to Plato, would infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the cave had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave (517a). (See also Alex Gendler's Ted-Education video on Plato's Allegory of the Cave for a brief summary).[3] From Wikipedia Visualising Plato's Cave An 8 bit Explanation of Plato's Cave How Would You Know - Neo is in a Simulation Outside of the Simulation Elon Musk and The Simulation Argument In some respects, the Matrix Trilogy comprises a new 'high-tech' remaking of a very old dilemma, presenting us with a digital Plato's Cave. You are encouraged to explore the Net, and review what others have said about the links between the 'Trilogy' and Plato's Cave. The New - Nick Bostrom Nick Bostrom has advanced proposition that we may all in fact already be living in a matrix. But before you start to think that this proposition has been put forward by some who is clearly not living in 'reality', it is important to first identify Mr Bostrom's credentials: About Nick Bostrom Nick Bostrom (English /ˈbɒstrəm/; Swedish: Niklas Boström, IPA: [ˈbuːˌstrœm]; born 10 March 1973)[1] is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, the reversal test, and consequentialism. In 2011, he founded the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology,[2] and he is currently the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute[3] at Oxford University. He is the author of over 200 publications,[4] including Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014), a New York Times bestseller[5] and Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (2002).[6] In 2009 and 2015, he was included in Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers list.[7][8] Bostrom's work on superintelligence – and his concern for its existential risk to humanity over the coming century – has brought both Elon Musk and Bill Gates to similar thinking.[9][10][11] From Wikipedia Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument Visit Nick Bostrom's Homepage This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed. I. INTRODUCTION Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully. Apart form the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking. The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we formulate an assumption that we need to import from the philosophy of mind in order to get the argument started. Second, we consider some empirical reasons for thinking that running vastly many simulations of human minds would be within the capability of a future civilization that has developed many of those technologies that can already be shown to be compatible with known physical laws and engineering constraints. This part is not philosophically necessary but it provides an incentive for paying attention to the rest. Then follows the core of the argument, which makes use of some simple probability theory, and a section providing support for a weak indifference principle that the argument employs. Lastly, we discuss some interpretations of the disjunction, mentioned in the abstract, that forms the conclusion of the simulation argument. Bostrom's argument is not without its critics and indeed the simulation argument is debated on a number of fronts. Some of it particularly hard to understand if one is not a physicist. One of the counter-arguments (or perhaps clarifying positions) appeared in the Huffington (a re-post) Post: Ozkural, 2013. Digital Physics Vs The Simulation Argument. See also: We might Live in A Computer Program, but it May Not Matter! Is The Digital Paradigm Enabling Trans-humanism For more on this possibility visit the Humanity+ website Essential Reading Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. Specific Chapters To Read Baudrillard 1993 (above). Read Xerox and Infinity. Optional Readings Bostrom, N (2004). Are You Living in a Computer Simulation. Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255. Key Ideas The Matrix Trilogy draws many of its themes from Baudrillard in addition to a range of religious perspectives (more on that later). But at one level, although it is a particularly 'modern' (perhaps even post-modern') story, it is also a very old story, and some see it as a digital reworking of the allegory of Plato's Cave. At issue is the question question of truth or reality (ontology) and how that truth might be known or accessed (epistemology). The work of Nick Bostrom in the article identified above, explores precisely the very same issues. Clearly Bostrom is no 'fool' and hence we are challenged to respond to the three propositions that he advances. Focus Questions In teaching and learning we should always ask: Who are the students we are teaching? What do we, as teachers, have to do to support them? How do we connect our content in the curriculum to their needs? But, in view of the predictions around the nature of our digital futures and indeed the predicted nature of 'humanity', how will answers to such questions likely begin to change? I don't necessarily ask for a correct answer here, as much reflection informed by our work in this topic. Indeed, one wonders if there will continue to even be (human) teachers in 'schools' as we now know them. So-called intelligent tutoring systems have been in development for a while now, and should only improve, while additionally, wearable tech will one day give way to embedded tech. Just last week (March 2017) an individual in President Trump's government made c incorrect and uniformed statements about the future of AI and human employment. He was subsequently corrected with facts. He was subsequently labeled an AI denier in the media. You can explore the OECD's thinking around Artificial Intelligence here: Activity Try to sum up Bostrom's argument in the one sentence. What is trans and / or post-humanism, and how is this agenda enabled by digital technologies> Discussion Board What are the similarities in the propositions advanced by both Baudrillard and Bostrom Topic. 6. Information and The Social We live in an era wherein we have more and more access to information. Indeed in many respects live in society that claims access to information is fundamental to both a health society and enduring freedom. Baudrillard, however, does not agree with this proposition. Like the topic that explored the three phases of the image, this topic is one which also introduces key ideas from Baudrillard the concern the relationship between information and meaning. This is an important topic - from a concepts perspective. ---- Whereas in Simulacra and Simulation [1995] Baudrillard outlines how we arrived at the present day predicament, in The Transparency of Evil [1993] he details the effect of televisual mediation via the computer and the screen. Although not quite a detailed micro-level level of analysis in terms of ‘test-casing’ his broader macro-level proposition about simulacra and simulation, the broad level focus on computers and the screen, nonetheless, identifies a particular site wherein the logics of the third order of simulacra are played out, which hold implications for understanding not only the possibilities for the our loss of freedom, but also significance for computer hacking. Here Baudrillard explores the relationship between humans and the cybernetic; one leading to a profound questioning of value and meaning, and of the demarcation between machine and human. To those who would dismiss Baudrillard’s ideas on the grounds that clearly we are not living in a matrix as represented in the trilogy, his discussion of this site of abstraction advances additional arguments to support his macro-level proposition about simulacra and simulation, which render that particular claim redundant. Simply put, while interfacing with machines via a cerebral jack might be where digitisation is heading, it is not a precondition for the validity of Baudrillard’s argument. With respect to the generation of value Baudrillard argues that we have entered a fractal stage characterised by the achievement of the kind of utopian liberation desired in the second order. But paradoxically, in this stage it is meaning that has been liberated such that now anything can mean everything and nothing at the same time; the end of meaning or meaninglessness and nihilism realised [and released] simultaneously [Simulacra and Simulation, 157]. Reflecting what seems a desire to classify, Baudrillard’s mapping of the movement in value from anchorage in a natural referent to its production in the absence of any referent reveals an historic trajectory, which is surely only escalated by the digital paradigm. The first stage is coterminous with the period of symbolic exchange. With a natural external reference, value develops “on the basis of a natural use of the world” [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 5]. Like the first order of simulacra, the second stage in the liberation of value is grounded in “a general equivalence and value [is] developed by reference to a logic of the commodity” [5], while in the third stage the production of value is “governed by a code, and value develops here by reference to a set of models” [5]. In the fourth [current] stage, which is fractal, viral or radiant: there is no point of reference at all, and value radiates in all directions, occupying all interstices, without reference to anything whatsoever, by virtue of pure contiguity. At the fractal stage there is no longer any equivalence, whether natural or general. Properly speaking there is now no law of value, merely a sort of epidemic of value, a sort of general metastasis of value, a haphazard proliferation and dispersal of value. Indeed, we should really no longer speak of 'value' at all, for this kind of propagation or chain reaction makes all valuation impossible [5]. While Baudrillard explores this loss of value and meaning in relation to Visual Art, arguing that “with its incoherent artifice, [contemporary art] relieves us of the grasp of meaning through the spectacle of nonsense” [The Conspiracy of Art, 2005, 96], the loss is also observed by Baudrillard in relation to information or communication. This is not an insignificant claim considering we live the information age. Communication for Baudrillard is a modern construct, an operational paradigm signalling the end of speech and symbolic exchange [Clarke, Doel, Merrin et al., 2009, 5]. To those who would argue that it has always been so – a world of communication – Baudrillard disagrees. He rejects the notion that “men [sic] have always communicated since they first spoke to each other and lived in a society” [Baudrillard, 2009, 16]. That we now have to talk about the communication of meaning signals to Baudrillard that meaning is already lost. It is lost “when the social body is no longer conducive [and] relations are no longer regulated by informal consensus” [16-17]. What we now take for meaning is none other than the product of communications network architectures, science, government, political regulation, and increasingly also surveillance [Electronic Frontier Foundation 2015], which converge as the “techniques of communication” [Baudrillard, 2009, 17]. The speech act “has become an operation” [17]. For Baudrillard communication is a performance such that it is possible to speak of communication in terms of speed, volume and efficiency [17]. From 3G to 4G, from 1.4 megabyte floppy disks to Blue-ray, and from high-definition to full high-definition and now 4000k definition, in all fields of information communication, speed, volume and efficiency continue to escalate. But the dilemma is that just as excess production or consumption can generate a crises, so too can excess communication, and for Baudrillard we are now at the critical limit [2009, 16] with consequences for the reproduction of society. Hackers not only access information, they also publish information. Baudrillard offers three models to explain the relationship between [excess] information and society [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995]. The first postulates that although information continues to produce meaning; the “brutal loss of signification in every domain” [79] leads to escalating efforts to reinject meaning into both message and content, which ultimately fails because meaning is lost faster than it can be reinjected [79]. With the mainstream media’s inability to generate meaning faster than it is lost, alternative media driven by the ideology of free speech are looked to as spaces wherein meaning might be regenerated. But according to Baudrillard this only intensifies the failure of signification, as the fundamental problem which is excess information continues. Notions of liberation and critical insight fail not only because value and meaning continue to be detached from their referents, but also because with diminishing access to a real world untainted by reabsorption of the simulacrum, the production of meaning grounded in the occupation of objective distance is increasingly limited. The second model proposes that information may have nothing to do with signification. This possibility emerges from what Baudrillard sees as a pragmatic framing, avoiding the value-judgements framing the first and third models. Here information is simply what it is, and Baudrillard asks that we consider the possibility that information has no relationship to meaning; that information be considered purely functional like a code with meaning residing somewhere else. In the third model, however, Baudrillard asserts that there is an explicit relationship between information and meaning. In this model information is “directly destructive of meaning and signification” [79]; an outcome that is the very opposite of one of modernity’s [if not the mainstream media’s] key myths, which is that information is central to the production of society, “without which the credibility of our social organisation would collapse” [80]. In this model information “devours its own content and the social” [80] because in the act of staging meaning - which is performative - it exhausts itself of meaning. In this model meaning is pursued through a process far removed from symbolic exchange. The mass media stage the desire of the audience, which for Baudrillard is none other than the anti-theatre of communication or a simulacrum of communication and meaning-making, which requires significant energies and resources to hold off “the obvious reality of the loss of meaning” [p. 80]. But it is pointless, Baudrillard asserts, to speculate as to which “which came first; [the] loss of communication that produces this escalation or the escalation that produces the loss of communication” [80]. In making mass media communication seem more real than real, because the real is no longer extant, what is produced is not reality, but hyper-reality [81]. Arguably all three models hold implications for computer hacking as a strategy of subversion, particularly if the aim is to provide an alternative information source, to release information in the pursuit of transparency, or providing truth or critical insight, [Ziccardi, 2013, 7]. But beyond the destructive consequences of the production and circulation of yet more information, across functionalist network architectures, it must also be asked as to the extent to which hackers, groups and individuals, equally stage communication. Plato's Cave Baudrillard's argument around the loss of meaning and value can be linked back to the argument of Plato's Cave. That is, there is a proliferation of information in the digital paradigm, but much of it is without a relationship to a referent - or the real object. Too much information without linkage to a referent reduces the value of information producing value-less information without real meaning. INFO WARS! Alex Jones' InfoWars is a youtube channel that claims to offer an alternative to the mainstream media. But does it really? If we applied the thinking of Baudrilalrd to websites like InfoWars, I think that we would have to say that it does not. But the question is: why not? At this point it might be valuable to begin to think about how computer hackers get their message 'out there'. What is their message and how is it delivered, and does it (the message) really ever escape the paradox around information that Baudrillard highlights? Alternative Media TV - AMTV Readings Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. See: The Implosion of Meaning. Grace, V. M. 2004. Baudrillard and the Meaning of Meaning. International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 1 (1). Online. Optional Readings Key Ideas Focus Questions What is the relationship between information, meaning and the social? What significant 20th-21st century institution is particular active in propagating the positive relationship between information and social well-being? Activity Now that we have explored Baudrillard's views on the relationship between information, meaning and the social, begin to note what you see as the implications for computer hacking and its likely success as a strategy or system change or subversion. Identify instances where information is not productive of the generation of value and or meaning. Topic. 7. Total Situational Awareness For Baudrillard the information society with its dependence upon computers is contiguous with the disappearance of the subject, or at least the blurring of boundaries between subject and object. The very same communications network architecture, which we assume circulates meaning, also erases the distinction between Self and Other; a proposition that comprises a further response to those who would argue that we do not live under matrix-like conditions. Baudrillard asserts that “where human relations become mediatized and computerized … we interact without touching each other” [Baudrillard 2009, 17]. We “interlocute without speaking to each other” [17] and we “interface without seeing each other” [17]. Humans become permeable to all images: to all networks – submission to the virality of signs to the epidemics of value to the multiplicity of codes – tactility, digitality, contact, contiguity, contagion, irradiation and chain reaction: what gets lost in this new ritual of [information] transparency and interaction is both the singularity of the self and the singularity of the other. That is, the irreducibility of the subject and the irreducibility of the object [18]. We Are Increasingly All Dis(connected) While Baudrillard explores the temporal implications of networked communication and the impulse to erase silence arising from the compulsion to remain connected [18], it is his commentary around the implications for freedom that is of particular interest to this discussion of computer hacking as digital liberation pedagogy. Baudrillard maintains that our interaction with each other and the world via screens “videos and telematic possibilities” [19] - as he names it - renders the external world redundant; “it makes all human presences, physical or linguistic, superfluous … involution into a micro-universe, with no reason to escape anymore” [19]. Of concern to this discussion, however, is the capacity for repression and surveillance enabled by the digital network paradigm, wherein information about ‘you’ is accessible to those who might wish to know [19], as has been recently highlighted by Edward Snowden [Greenwald, 2014]. Visit the NSA But potentially more insidious and neutralising, is the network’s capacity to give you more information about everything, including oneself such that it is not the lack of information which enables repression. To the contrary, it is excess information, since: you enchain him to the pure obligation of being more and more connected to himself, more and more closely connected to the screen, in restless circularity and auto-referentiality as an integrated network [Baudrillard, 2009, 19]. The Next News Network Of liberty Baudrillard contends that in this paradigm the question of liberty no longer makes sense [p. 19]. Our sovereignty is “diffracted” externally through the apparatus of the digital network “in the operational network of institutions and programs” [19]. Worse still, it is diffracted internally in our own mind via the screen through which we interface with ourselves [19]. Screen Culture? Within our digital cave we interact with [digital] shadows and never the real [20]. This changes our relationship with the Self and others with whom we are cerebrally [dis]connected in the process of communication or co-mutation as Baudrillard puts it [20]. In making this claim Baudrillard references the mirror to highlight the limitations of the digital network paradigm. Whereas the mirror allows for transcendence and superability because the body can get to the other side, the screen does not. Located behind the screen, we can never meet others beyond the cerebral. Even with more ‘realistic’ interactive virtual environments, communication can only ever be digitally mediated and thus cerebral [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 60] – or the production of the real through the unreal. 4K Resolution - Better than Reality? Whereas the subject in the mirror is closer than it appears, the digitised subject [now as object] in screen is always more distant than they appear, such that it is analogue physical proximity, which is a fundamental component of our humanity and of meaning-making. An Analogue Screen Reflects 'Reality'. In the analogue world the body can transcend distance, but in the digital it can never do so, because as Baudrillard reminds us, it can never transcend the screen. In this communication paradigm the analogue body is left behind – also rotting in the corner. Moreover, the image of the subject rendered on our screen often does not “have to be asked for their meaning, but to be explored instantaneously, in an immediate abreaction to meaning” [Baudrillard 2009, 20]. Likewise for the voice of the other. “Not really a voice, just as the screen is not really an object of vision” [p. 20]; more so a “perpetual vacuum” [20], which draws us into its televisual cerebral coma, never allowing us to actually pass through [20]. Connection grounded in a fundamental disconnection and proximity through remoteness, “communication man is assigned to the network in the same way the network is assigned to him” [21], rendering him not as subject but as a [digital] object. AI Bot (2013) Baudrillard goes further. In the network communication paradigm the architecture “imposes its own image” [21] just as the camera imposes its framing upon the world, further producing the subject via abstraction as the framing always diminishes the totality of the subject and yet ironically it adds more. All of which Baudrillard argues, leads to a profound uncertainty if not confusion, which is [incorrectly] assumed to be resolved through the pursuit of certainty based in the very same “quantic” logic that [paradoxically] not only sustains the digital network paradigm, it generates less reality and less certainty [22-23]. This outcome is both debilitating and yet for the system [and also hackers], particularly enabling. Big Data! The key issue for Baudrillard is not a lack of information but excess information, and the extent to which our formerly analogue based subjectivity is now digitised. This digitisation opens up a 'pandora's box of possibilities - enabled through the malleability of digital re/presentation - which in the view of Baudrillard may not always be so good for us. Essential Reading Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. Optional Readings Key Ideas body text here Focus Questions In what way/s can it be said we live in a matrix-like world, despite not being physically plugged into computers? What is Baudrillard's critique of "communication"? Why does Baudrillard argue that generating more information will not 'solve the problem'? Activity x Discussion Board - Topic x Topic. 8. The Masses Morpheus Believe me when I say we have a difficult time ahead of us. But if we are to be prepared for it, we must first shed our fear of it. I stand here, before you now, truthfully unafraid. Why? Because I believe something you do not? No, I stand here without fear because I remember. I remember that I am here not because of the path that lies before me but because of the path that lies behind me. I remember that for 100 years we have fought these machines. I remember that for 100 years they have sent their armies to destroy us, and after a century of war I remember that which matters most ... We are still here! Today, let us send a message to that army. Tonight, let us shake this cave. Tonight, let us tremble these halls of earth, steel, and stone, let us be heard from red core to black sky. Tonight, let us make them remember, THIS IS ZION AND WE ARE NOT AFRAID! [The Matrix Reloaded, 2003] Anonymous Baudrillard’s representation of the public response to computer viruses seems at first to be misaligned with ‘realty’. But while the veracity of his claim will certainly be followed up in the conduct of the research project; arguably the more pressing question concerns the location of computer hackers. Are they a part of the masses who Baudrillard invests with the agency to bring about the system’s end or are they not? Although the answer to this question is complicated by the fact that hackers also work for the system (eg. The NSA), if the mainstream media is any initial guide, the answer would be no [Ziccardi, 2013, 102]. Moreover, the system itself is capable of disseminating viruses, making it difficult to tell the difference between a system-generated virus - which is a simulated virus - and a ‘real’ virus [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 42]. But despite these complexities, it is arguably useful to identify what Baudrillard means through reference to the masses, in order to assess the socio-political location of hackers. This is because it is the masses that he invests with the power to bring an end to the system. And despite Baudrillard cryptically arguing that the masses are the masses precisely because they are those who cannot be identified, this line of reasoning is perhaps the best we have, in reviewing the system-changing capacity of hackers, at least as a starting point. Connected, but disconnected. Baudrillard’s discussion of the masses is grounded in socio-political dynamics associated with their emergence, their relationship to the system, their relationship to the media, their agency and their inaccessibility to both the analysis of critical theory and the system. In terms of their origin, Baudrillard represents the masses as a modern phenomenon associated with movement in the relationship between the political and the social. He argues that the political emerged during the Renaissance “from religious and ecclesiastic circles” [In The Shadow of The Silent Majorities, 1986, 16] at which time it comprised a domain of strategy and signs, best represented by Machiavelli. Unencumbered with notions of historic truth or meaning the political was a form of game and not “a system of representation; a game not yet based upon reason [17]. Substantive change emerged from the 18th century and the Revolution, aligning it with a “social reference” [18]. At this juncture it assumed the pursuit of truth, responsiveness to the social and the production of meaning. For a period of time balance ensured between the “sphere of the political and the forces reflected in it; the social, the historical, the economic” [17]; a balance associated with “the golden age of bourgeoisie representative systems” [17]. Constitutional exemplars included “18th century England, the United states of America, the France of bourgeois revolutions, the Europe of 1848” [18]. But according to Baudrillard it was Marxist thought, which initiated the demise of the political, with political autonomy increasing in relation to the “growing hegemony of the social” [p. 18]. In contrast to liberal thinking which postulates a balance of sorts between the political and the social, Socialist thought, aims at the withering of the political and the ascendency or transparency of the social [18]. At this point where the social wins, the social is also lost and the masses begin to emerge. It is at this point: of generalisation, of saturation, where, it [the social] is no more than the zero degree of the political, at this point of absolute references, of omnipresence and diffraction in all the interstices of physical and mental space, what becomes of the social itself? It is the sign of its end: the energy of the social is reversed, its specificity is lost, its historical quality and its ideality vanish in favour of a configuration where not only the political becomes volatised, but where the social itself no longer has any name. Anonymous. THE MASS. THE MASSES. [18-19]. Although continuing to function under old signs the political is now a fundamentally disconnected domain as “there is no longer any social signified to give force to a political signifier [18]. The signs of the political, which are drawn from an earlier era “no longer represent anything and no longer have their equivalent in a reality of a social substance” [19]. Baudrillard furthers his discussion of the political and the masses through critique of the Beaubourg[i]. For Baudrillard the Beaubourg’s grounding in a disconnection between sign and referent “establishes itself on the alibi of the previous order” [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 64] providing mass access to French ‘culture’ precisely when culture as it previously existed is dead. Access to culture is now by way of programming, control, regulation, management and the production of a model for consuming culture as a mass produced commodity in a hypermarket [67], which the Beaubourg exemplifies. The Beaubourg’s culture is none other than a simulation; an “order of prior simulacra [of meaning] [which] furnishes the empty substance of a subsequent order, which, itself no longer even knows the distinction between signifier and signified, nor between form and content” [64]. Likewise the ‘public’ for whom the Beaubourg provides access to culture is “no longer social, but statistical … whose only mode of appearance is the survey” [20] – simulation of the social. In one sense the masses exist as the product of systemic data collection; polls, tests, surveys, referenda and so on, and because of this, the system interfaces with the masses through simulation, or abstraction – the model of the computer program. They are no longer the social because the social no longer exists, replaced by a simulation of the social in place of the real [20]. The dilemma which confronts the system, then, is that the masses do not speak, despite incessant subjection to quantitative analysis, the goal of which is to make them speak. They are the silent majority [19]. Through data collection the system achieves not the voice of the masses but “the simulation of an ever inexpressible and unexpressed social” [21] that neither speaks for the masses, nor makes them speak. But the mass’s silence “isn’t a silence which does not speak, it is a silence which refuses to be spoken for in its name” [21]. And “far from a form of alienation, it [silence] is an absolute weapon” [22]. Baudrillard’s representation contrasts with how the masses are typically framed, which is either as those who are alienated, repressed and manipulated, or full of revolutionary vigour as Baudrillard puts it. But as an anonymous entity the masses are no longer a subject, which has implications for the project of critical theory. If they cannot be spoken for, they can no longer be alienated, and if they are not alienated, they therefor cannot be un-alienated [22]. Neither are they an object. Every effort to make an object of it [the masses], to treat and analyse it as brute matter, according to the objective laws, runs head on into the contrary fact that it is impossible to manipulate the masses in any determinate way, or to understand them in terms of elements, relations, structures and whole ... [all of which] gets sucked back into the mass [30]. Social analysts incorrectly assume that the lack of the masses’ participation in socio-political regimes presented to them by the system represents a problem to be solved, a false consciousness to be dispelled, and liberation to be won. In refusing to accept that the mass’s denial of meaning has in fact no meaning [41], social analysts are attempting to re-inscribe the system with meaning, which is none other than “the final somersault of the intellectuals [which] is to exalt insignificance, to promote non-sense into the order of sense” [40]. Put simply, the masses are “inaccessible to “schemes of liberation, revolution and historicity” [22]. What’s more, it is not resistance, which the masses pursue, but hyper conformity. The masses are neither waiting for a revolution, nor to receive or to be saved by “theories which claim to liberate them by a dialectical movement” [46]. The emergence of the masses signals the end of the political class which historically relied on the “apathy of the masses”, the security of which was located in a system grounded in centralised power, proportional to the passivity of the masses [23]. But in a decentralised network paradigm, as ours is, the aim of this class is to make the masses speak, although according to Baudrillard it is “too late”. Silence is the unbearable unknown in the contemporary political equation [29]. “The threshold of the critical mass, that of the involution of the social through inertia is [now] exceeded” [23], and realising this, the voice of the masses is relentlessly pursued by the political class [23], because the domain of contemporary politics is grounded upon the “credibility hypothesis”, which assumes that “the masses are permeable to action and to discourse, that they hold an opinion, that they are present behind the surveys and statistics” [37]. The paradox is that while substantial system resources are expended to make the masses speak, the generation of excess information produces neither the social nor meaning, but only more mass [25]. Baudrillard argues that historically the system held power [until the third order of simulacra] because it supplied and produced a demand for meaning - as the currency of the system. But when the system can no longer provide the energy or resources to supply meaning, or when the loss of meaning outstrips the supply, the system’s existence is under threat. Unlike objects which can be reproduced to meet excess demand, meaning is not so easily created in a system grounded in the excess supply of information and pursuit of the masses by abstraction [28]. The conundrum arises in part because the masses simply absorb all meaning. They neither produce nor absorb the system’s meaning, and it is the neutralisation of meaning, which produces the fascination that the masses prefer; a fascination that is both independent of meaning and “proportional to the disaffection of meaning”. Meaning is lost as the product of: neutralising the message in favour of the medium, by neutralising the idea of favour of the idol, by neutralising the truth in favour of the simulacrum. It is at this level that the media function. Fascination is their law, and their specific violence, a massive violence denying communication by meaning in favour of another mode of communication [36]. For Baudrillard, however, the masses are much more than a mass media manipulated or a coalition of the deceived[ii]. Their fascination is grounded in the joy of the execution; “dismemberment, this operational prostitution of a culture finally truly liquidated” [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 66]. They rush to consume non-meaning and the spectacle much as they would rush “towards disaster sites” [66]. As an instance of the spectacle the Beaubourg [which exemplifies deterrence] is thus consumed by the masses whose consumption, as of often occurs with staged events, [Merrin, 2009] exceeds the agenda of the programmers, and it is through this that the masses “assume the role of catastrophic agent in this structure of catastrophe” [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 66], such that it is the masses who “themselves … put an end to mass culture” [66]. In going “one better” [66], in redoubling the logic of the system the masses: participate and manipulate so well that they efface all meaning one wants to give to the operation and put the very infrastructure of the edifice in danger [66]. Here Baudrillard is not only referencing his concern about the capacity of the Beaubourg to withstand the physical weight of the masses, he is highlighting their hyper-simulationist response wherein they exchange being positioned by deterrence as the “livestock of culture”, to positioning themselves through going one better as “agents of the execution of this culture” [66]. The masses have the power to damage if not destroy systems of deterrence, not through opposition or confrontation but through adding more mass to the inherent logic of the prevailing structure. It is the mass’s destructive hyper-simulation [70] and redoubling of the system’s logic that produces fear among the ‘organizers’ who only ever wish for the “apprenticeship of the masses to the spectacle” [70]. Big Data In sum, the masses are those who “are the aggregate left in place by the operations of the code” [Robinson, 2012a]. They are “what remains when the social has been completely removed” [In The Shadow of The Silent Majorities, 1983, 6-7]. They are the end-product of the social, but they also “put an end to the social” [Robinson, 2012a]. They are those subject to incessant system-sourced demands for data for the purpose of making them speak. They are “statistical refuse” [In The Shadow of the Silent Majorities, 1983, 5]; real only in the sense that statistics and data construct them to be so – as a simulation, more social than social. The masses are those who absorb system-generated meaning, but who do not produce meaning. Yet they are those who also reflect meaning though not the meaning, which the system intended; meaning misappropriated and radically distorted [8]. They are those whose strength is that of “inertia” [3]. The masses are those who “obey the imperative to devour simulations” [Robinson, 2012a] and who consume system generated deterrence through their fascination with the spectacle of the non-event, who derive joy from the spectacle’s meaningless. They are the “stumbling block to all our systems of meaning” [The Shadow of the Silent Majorities, 1983, 3]. The masses are those whose consumption of meaning goes one further, exceeding the capacity of the system to generate meaning, and through this they are those who hold a system-imploding agency. Furthermore, the masses are those who resist the system’s call to responsibility [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 85]. And additionally they are those who do not accept the system’s call to responsibility [Robinson, 2012b], which is most certainly a characteristic of hackers. But we can also look elsewhere in Baudrillard’s work to establish criteria to evaluate the location of hackers, particularly his discussion of terrorism. As noted earlier, terrorism like hacking is a systemic pathogen. Terrorism The Spirit of Terrorism See: Baudrillard, J. (2003) The Spirit of Terrorism A comparison with terrorism is useful because like hackers, terrorists too seem to represent a division within the masses [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 50]. Yet like hacking, terrorism emerges from the same logic, which produces the masses. Terrorists according to Baudrillard do not try to “unmask” the repressive character of the state, a function left to groupuscules [53]. Seemingly like hacking, terrorism propagates by its own non- representivity [53-54], and it aims at the social in response to the system’s terrorism of the social [50]. Terrorism’s power is to deny all institutions of representation including those who would play solidarity with it [54]. Like terrorism, we cannot always verify the claims of hackers [51], and like terrorism, hacking seems to be aimed at the “white magic [of abstraction, anonymity] that surrounds us [51]. Hacking, like terrorism thus also seems to comprise a “counter-performance for which it is violently reproached” [51]; and “blind, senseless, unrepresentational behaviours” [51]. Like terrorism, hacking follows social dispersion and indeed it also seems to mark the end of the political and the social [52]. Terrorism is the end product of the end of social, now a globalised abstract sociality. Terrorists are both nobody and yet anybody – a radical subjectless subversion [57]. Hence the appropriateness of the name of what is arguably the most well-known group of hackers – Anonymous [Olson, 2013]. Like terrorism, hacking draws upon a decentralised logic to engage the system asymmetrically [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 15], and like terrorism its effects are potentially worse than the real because its symbolism destroys the reality principle [29]. And finally, the power of terrorism – perhaps like that of hackers – would possibly be diminished without the media [31]. Anonymous Justice [i] The Beaubourg is a French government sponsored project grounded in the opening of the Centre Georges Pompidou (otherwise referred to as Beaubourg], on 31st January 1977. It is located in the Beaubourg area of the 4th arrondissement of Paris, near Les Halles, rue Montorgueil and the Marais, and was intended to provide public access to modern art and ‘culture’. Centre Georges Pompidou. Wikipedia. (Last Accessed 5th September, 2015]. [ii] In the mass’s relationship with the media there “is no priority of one over the other media” (In The Shadows of the Silent Majorities, 1983, p. 44]. Instead there is a “single process” involving both masses and the media (p. 44]. Readings Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. Optional Readings Baudrillard, J. 2003. The Spirit of Terrorism. Key Ideas Baudrillard does not lay out a detailed strategy for system 'subversion' as such. (Disclaimer: the 'ethics' of such are not the focus of this unit). Rather, he points to the logics of the system and identifies key players in the space of these logics; those who are made by such logics and those whose activities eptomise, reproduce and intensify such logics. Terrorist, he argues comprise one such group. Baudrillard's discussion of terrorism, then, provides us with an opportunity to identify a further set of criteria against which we can evaluate the status of hackers in relation to the masses. Focus Questions What the the logics that inform the creation of the masses? How are the masses different from the 'social'? On what grounds can be argued that terrorists below to the masses? Why have decentralised, networked relations emerged at this point in history? Activity Read Baudrillard with the purpose of identifying criteria by which you might locate computer hackers as part of the masses. Begin to think about the information that you are collecting in terms of the criteria associated with the formation and characteristics of the masses. Discussion Board Topic. 9. Deterrence We have noted that the 'system' is infomed by the logic of simulacra and simulation, and that when its logic is not reisted but redoubled, implosion may be the consequence, but how does the system actually function to prevent subversions. To this question Baudrillard offers the notion of Deterrence. I won't lie to you Neo. Every single man or woman who has stood thier ground .. everyone who has fought an agent has dies" (Morpheus) Deterrence Beyond the loss of meaning, de-socialisation and even the production of madness [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 90] that accompanies existence in the third order of simulacra, is the production of control through deterrence, which Baudrillard describes as “the best system of control ever” [35]; a “hypermodel of security” [35]. Deterrence is grounded in simulation or the pretence of possibilities, functioning to neutralise opposition through the fear of what might take place. Just like possession of nuclear weapons deters ‘real’ war [34], deterrence is a kind of virtual capital exchanged for the real such that it is the threat of possibilities which is effective and never the real itself. With this model of control no real conflict is allowed, “only simulacra of conflicts” [Simulacra and Simulation 1995, p. 35]. Deterrence precludes war - the archaic violence of expanding systems. Deterrence itself is the neutral, implosive violence of metastable systems or systems in involution. There is no longer a subject of deterrence, nor an adversary nor a strategy - it is a planetary structure of the annihilation of stakes. Atomic war, like the Trojan War, will not take place. The risk of nuclear annihilation only serves as a pretext, through the sophistication of weapons [a sophistication that surpasses any possible objective to such an extent that it is itself a symptom of nullity], for installing a universal security system, a universal lockup and control system whose deterrent effect is not at all aimed at an atomic clash [which was never in question, except without a doubt in the very initial stages of the cold war, when one still confused the nuclear apparatus with conventional war] but, rather, at the much greater probability of any real event, of anything that would be an event in the general system and upset its balance. The balance of terror is the terror of balance [35]. Nuclear Deterrence Deterrence[i] masks the fact that the real no longer exists. It offers a staged ‘reality’; a simulacra masking the fact that the real object is no longer here, and what remains of it is somewhere else. Mass Media Is Watching You The virtual dynamic upon which deterrence is grounded, Baudrillard argues, is also a fundamental quality of the mass media, which comprises a site of deterrence not only because mass media communication is staged, but also because like capital which preceded it in the production of deterrence through abstraction and the liquidation of referentials [2], it also trades in fear, scandal and crisis as the means of re-injecting ‘reality’ for the purpose of self-perpetuation, the neutralisation of opposition and the re-validation of the televisual medium itself; the success of which is determined through the aggregating of ever more information [about us as data instances]. "in a virtual environment like the mass media, perhaps fear and loathing are the more easy emotions to convey without a physical body" This information is not only the very basis of the medium itself, it is the very basis of a medium whose every message is aimed at the re-validation its own existence [53]. The mass media is a part of a broader system of deterrence which through the sale of scandal, fear and crises seeks new blood in the cyclical staging of its own death [148]. Thus it is arguably valuable to review the mass media’s representation of computer hacking, particularly in terms of how such reporting may not only be inscribed by the logics of deterrence, but how such reporting – through referencing hacking - might also reveal the crisis and revalidation logic noted by Baudrillard. One way of looking at this and the mass media's incessant fear based reporting is that we are now so 'massified', so engaged (and inherently disengaged) through the abstract, that the system constantly 'cuts' itself, in order to reconfirm that it is still alive. "the mass media has now started crawling over people's online social posts, and making front page news our of these!" "Where else can the people go to express their ideas (even if these do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy of the day?" "is this still a liberal-democratic framed world"? Facebook "the world is ending, nightly at six" / But is the world (really) ending? [i] In Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard also speaks of the university as a site of deterrence, particularly with regard to the conferral of awards which highlight the “terror of value without equivalence” (p. 149]. Essential Reading Baudrillard, J. 1993. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso, London. Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism. University of Michigan Press. Optional Readings Key Ideas body text here Focus Questions How might we use the notion of detterence to understand media reporting of hacking? What do we, as teachers, have to do to support them? How do we connect our content in the curriculum to their needs? Activity body text here Discussion Board body text here Topic. 10. Implosion Although Baudrillard does not really lay out a 'manifesto' for system subversion, it can be argued however, that despite this absence, a reading of Baudrillard provides one with an understanding of how the system might end and what kinds of 'logics' might be associated with its end. The issue this unit explores is the place of computer hacking in the process of system subversion. In many respects the work of Baudrillard is contrary to those political philosophers (such as Marx) that preceded him, or even his contemporaries. Indeed, Baudrillard has been scathing of the university or 'academy' and its academics of the 'critical' persuasion. To understand the significance of his dismissal of 'critical politics, you need to know that the 'critical' position has generally been aligned with the pursuit of freedom of asymetrical relations of power. In education for example, you have 'critical' pedagogy with leading figures including Giroux and McLaren. For Baudrillard this group has been part of the problem. ----- Neo: What are they? Morpheus: Sentient programs. They can move in and out of any software still hard-wired to their system. That means that anyone we haven't unplugged is potentially an agent. Inside the Matrix, they are everyone and they are no one. We have survived by hiding from them ... and by running from them. But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys, which means that sooner or later... someone is going to have to fight them. Neo: Someone? Morpheus: I won't lie to you, Neo. Every single man or woman who has stood their ground, everyone who has fought an agent has died. In the above scene from The Matrix [1999] Morpheus informs Neo about ‘Agents’, one of the system’s lines of defence, making sure that those who begin to wake up to its true nature are dealt with. Baudrillard argues in relation to the system of deterrence that it is always the simulation which is effective and never the real, because if the real threat ever occurred, it would only delay the agenda [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, 57], which is not the pursuit of the reality principle, but to the contrary, the maintenance of a system of deterrence [and control] grounded in simulation [61]. In the matrix, Agents are tasked with ensuring the continuance of the virtual world within which humans are enslaved; a world virtually grounded in the reality principle. But as Baudrillard argues, the system although never admitting to it, cannot in fact control the dynamic of simulation, which makes its pursuit of the reality principle [fear, crisis, scandal] as means through which to re-inject the real [22] particularly urgent. This is a system that: as long as the historical threat came at it from the real, power played at deterrence and simulation, disintegrating all the contradictions by dint of producing equivalent signs. Today when the danger comes at it from simulation [that of being dissolved in the play of signs], power plays at the real, plays at crisis, plays at remanufacturing artificial, social, economic, and political stakes [24]. And why does this work? It works because as Baudrillard notes, a simulated robbery is no less effective than a real robbery [21], such that a simulated crisis is no less real in its effect than a real crises. Baudrillard does not, however, directly advocate the use of simulation-based strategies of subversion, at least not in the sense of identifying detailed micro-level tactics involving the use of simulation. To read Baudrillard with the purpose of collecting specific strategies for subversion, will only disappoint. His focus is largely upon the macro-level and the dynamics for subversion at the level of the system as a whole. These dynamics which are generated by the logic of the system itself coalesce to produce in the system a tendency towards implosion [33]. What is produced in reality is that the institutions implode of themselves, by dint of ramifications and feedback, overdeveloped control circuits. Power implodes, this is its current mode of disappearance [71]. Contrary to the title of the third installment in the Matrix Trilogy [revolutions], resistance must be grounded in a redoubling of the system’s own logic [The Shadow of the Silent Majorities, 1983, 47], and not forceful revolutionary practices. Baudrillard argues that the masses must continue to function as a mass, and through this, add to the surplus of information [47]. Information is the currency of this system, and more communication is what this system wants, such that efforts to deliver or reveal the ‘truth’ or a ‘position’ in a system which can assume all positions and take all sides [because of the disconnect between referent and meaning] cannot, then, be an effective response. This would seem to limit the effectiveness of hackers and other digital liberationists who establish websites, and Twitter and Facebook accounts with the purpose of disseminating information in pursuit of transparency and the truth [Ziccardi, 2013, 7]. As the debate around the value status of both Snowden’s and Assange’s revelations has shown, information transparency often only results in the production of yet more information - more energy for the system - and as if to prove Baudrillard entirely correct, more apathy[i] [McNaughten, 2013]. Though it is useful to also note that the use of digital liberation technologies may only reach the already ‘converted’ [Karpf, 2010, 154], this is not the kind of limitation Baudrillard identifies. To a system of third order simulacra, Baudrillard considers the refusal to speak as a strategy of resistance [Simulacra and Simulation, 1995, p. 86]. But this does not mean that we all must stop talking. What Baudrillard means is something different. The masses are invited – indeed compelled - to engage in hyper-conformism and play the system at its own game, and by doing so ‘ramp up’ the stakes, leading towards system implosion. Baudrillard invites the return to the system of its own logic by reflecting, like a mirror, the meaning which it attempts to generate and disseminate [86]. The masses: must not resist this process by trying to confront the system and destroy it because this system that is dying from being dispossessed of its death expects nothing but that from us: that we give the system back its death – that we revive it through the negative ... end of revolutionary praxis, end of the dialectic [26]. Baudrillard maintains, however, that the process of implosion can be identified by the system’s production of antibodies or pathogens, which to use a medical metaphor, destroy the host; a line of reasoning similar to McMurty’s discussion of the cancer stage of capitalism [1999] - but not the same. According to Baudrillard, implosion will initially be marked by accident, breakdown and failure, followed by virulence [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 63]. In his discussion of superconductive events, Baudrillard identifies four pathogens as outcomes of the system’s logic, one of which is computer viruses. Others include cancer, AIDS and terrorism, though not interchangeable, all hold a “family resemblance” [37]. Thus every individual category is subject to contamination, substitution is possible between any sphere and any other: there is a total confusion of types. Sex is no longer located in sex itself, but elsewhere - everywhere else [8]. In The Transparency of Evil, Baudrillard highlights the virulence of these pathogens, and capacity to spread on national and global scales, of which it is computer viruses in particular that spread rapidly in a virtualised system making computers prone to “viral infection” [37], as viruses “leap from one system to another” [37]. Baudrillard identifies viruses as a ‘natural’ consequence of a system grounded in information and communication, whose goal is precisely the replication and circulation of information and the image “from one screen to another” [38]. Computer viruses are part of the very “hyper-logical consistency of our systems” [39], following not only the established pathways of our systems, but exploring pathways “never anticipated by [our] network designers” [39]; operating on nation-state and global scales [39]. Indeed Baudrillard speaks of hacking and terrorism together referencing hackers who have “introduced a soft bomb” [38], taking the “program and all its applications hostage” [81]. Indeed, we can now see the convergence of two of these pathogens [hacking and terrorism] particularly with terrorists who use the Internet and engage in computer hacking [Safi, 2015]. Baudrillard maintains that like terrorism and AIDS, these [pathogens] revolve around “one generic scenario – that of catastrophe” [The Transparency of Evil, 1993, 37], although his argument here is particularly nuanced [37]. While computer viruses suggest the fatality of the system [40], they are not [yet] the fatality of the system. Instead “the sudden whirlpools that we dub catastrophes are really the thing that saves us” [69]. While this conclusion seems an unusual representation of the consequences of computer viruses, Baudrillard argues that such “extreme phenomenon” are set to become more extreme “as our systems grow more sophisticated” [68]. Like other extreme phenomenon, computer viruses are “merely the outcroppings of [a] catastrophe; nine-tenths of [which] remans buried in the virtual” [68]. Like homeopathic medicine, they attain a dual functionality. They are “both the first sign of this lethal [systemic] transparency [of all information and communication], and its alarm signal” [68]. Consequently and contrary to intuition, computer viruses and thus hackers prevent the catastrophe. For now computer viruses preserve us … thanks to them, we shall not be going straight to the culminating point of the development of information and communications, which is to say death [68]. [i] There are also media reports arguing the opposite, which as Baudrillard also asserts results in meaninglessness. This is indeed a predicament. Reflection Readings Optional Readings Key Ideas body text here Focus Questions Who are the students we are teaching? What do we, as teachers, have to do to support them? How do we connect our content in the curriculum to their needs?