Wednesday 21 May 2008
Thursday 8 May 2008
I dissertate therefore i am!
Online, like in life, truth is a transient verb forever changing in definition, rather than a fixed noun whose form and function are permanent and capable of possession. As western society increasingly appropriates the virtual world, our experience of reality is brought into dialectic, a process through which our definition of truth also undergoes. In our present age society must be well aware of and carefully consider the changes brought about by digital technology, as our very concept of existence is put through simulation. Firstly it is important to define the word "true" Collins English Dictionary reads, "true. Adj. truer, truest, in accordance with facts; faithful; genuine." Notice that the initial search for the noun "truth" resulted in redirection to the word "true" signifying that perhaps truth is not an object that can be owned but an adjective used to describe the extent to which the subject or object is true. I think it only fitting to quote an online definition of "true." Dictionary.com defines it as, "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false." This is problematic, how does one define reality and what is it to conform to reality? It is also worth noting that Dictionary.com defines truth by comparability to its opposite – false.
The interdependent semantic and syntactic relationships between signs in the semiotics of hyper-reality cause it to be the third order simulacrum model of the real, and therefore as a digital society in the era of simulation we should continually question our definition of truth inside and outside the virtual world. But rather than the third phase of simulacra having no relation to any reality other than its own, it does actually reflect the profound reality of the original but via a third order simulation, a completely new model, binary which overlaps and permeates the original era of the real with its simulated model. The successive phases of the image of reality have come full circle, from the original, to the counterfeit, to the era of the produced in age of mechanical reproduction to our current simulated epoch. We are living in a structure of the real which has looped round, back to the beginning and exists as a layer on top of the first. In the simulation of reality through binary code, the language of computers in which words and other signs are translated into a series of 0's and 1's, the notion of truth is boiled down to two opposites, true and false, 0 and 1. This leaves very little room for maneuver. For example if we look at the semantic relationship between black and white in more detail. Between the two we have grey. Grey is almost white, but also almost black. Therefore it can be argued that black is close to white. Yet it is taken as a fact that black is the complete opposite of white, the furthest from white possible to imagine. But through the syntactic relationship of the two it can be stated that black and white are seen together as two halves, parts of the same whole, only separated by their hereditary connection of being each others opposite. The only thing stopping them being synonyms is the fact that they are antonyms. This paradox reflects the relationship between our real world and our constructed virtual world built on binary. Similarly the word 'real' has multiple synonyms; authentic, existent, factual, genuine, true, valid, followed by the innate antonyms; false, imaginary, imitation, unreal. Again we have gone from one to the polar opposite simultaneously, from true to false, from the original word and its synonyms to the antonyms concurrently. Dictionary.com defined ‘true’ by comparing it to its opposite and stating “not false.” In this semantic fashion the original meaning, the "true" definition is far too easily warped and confused with its opposite and so the digital revolution with its infinite possibilities from just two signs 0 and 1, brings about new metanarratives that Western society is becoming accustomed to and is evolving their understanding of truth and reality around these new grand schemas of similarity and differentiation. As the developed world goes digital meaning increasingly lies with the reader, aura with the audience and so we are encouraged to play digital demi-Gods. But it is the very nature of the digital model, its binary code that reduces everything down to a simulation of bare necessities, two opposites, 0 and 1. Something and nothing. As author and audience interchange and become potential synonyms within the virtual world and hyper-reality, first life and second life existences do the same. Perhaps between our first life and second life there will be no grey area other than the seamless connecting facets. In the era of simulation our perception of reality is unconsciously doubled, by the real world and the virtual world and our existence will become a dichotomy involving both. As 0 and 1 induces a hyper-reality through simulation it becomes an appropriate media-scape for long term existence. In a few generations time our great grand children will see very little difference between existing in Second Life, and existing in tangible reality. This is not to say they won't 'know' or be able to define the intrinsic differences between the two realities but the way in which they distinguish the idea of living in one and the other and the social relationships between both will be of such an advanced understanding that their discernment of both will amalgamate so that they are intrinsically linked and naturally considered synonymously.
The interdependent semantic and syntactic relationships between signs in the semiotics of hyper-reality cause it to be the third order simulacrum model of the real, and therefore as a digital society in the era of simulation we should continually question our definition of truth inside and outside the virtual world. But rather than the third phase of simulacra having no relation to any reality other than its own, it does actually reflect the profound reality of the original but via a third order simulation, a completely new model, binary which overlaps and permeates the original era of the real with its simulated model. The successive phases of the image of reality have come full circle, from the original, to the counterfeit, to the era of the produced in age of mechanical reproduction to our current simulated epoch. We are living in a structure of the real which has looped round, back to the beginning and exists as a layer on top of the first. In the simulation of reality through binary code, the language of computers in which words and other signs are translated into a series of 0's and 1's, the notion of truth is boiled down to two opposites, true and false, 0 and 1. This leaves very little room for maneuver. For example if we look at the semantic relationship between black and white in more detail. Between the two we have grey. Grey is almost white, but also almost black. Therefore it can be argued that black is close to white. Yet it is taken as a fact that black is the complete opposite of white, the furthest from white possible to imagine. But through the syntactic relationship of the two it can be stated that black and white are seen together as two halves, parts of the same whole, only separated by their hereditary connection of being each others opposite. The only thing stopping them being synonyms is the fact that they are antonyms. This paradox reflects the relationship between our real world and our constructed virtual world built on binary. Similarly the word 'real' has multiple synonyms; authentic, existent, factual, genuine, true, valid, followed by the innate antonyms; false, imaginary, imitation, unreal. Again we have gone from one to the polar opposite simultaneously, from true to false, from the original word and its synonyms to the antonyms concurrently. Dictionary.com defined ‘true’ by comparing it to its opposite and stating “not false.” In this semantic fashion the original meaning, the "true" definition is far too easily warped and confused with its opposite and so the digital revolution with its infinite possibilities from just two signs 0 and 1, brings about new metanarratives that Western society is becoming accustomed to and is evolving their understanding of truth and reality around these new grand schemas of similarity and differentiation. As the developed world goes digital meaning increasingly lies with the reader, aura with the audience and so we are encouraged to play digital demi-Gods. But it is the very nature of the digital model, its binary code that reduces everything down to a simulation of bare necessities, two opposites, 0 and 1. Something and nothing. As author and audience interchange and become potential synonyms within the virtual world and hyper-reality, first life and second life existences do the same. Perhaps between our first life and second life there will be no grey area other than the seamless connecting facets. In the era of simulation our perception of reality is unconsciously doubled, by the real world and the virtual world and our existence will become a dichotomy involving both. As 0 and 1 induces a hyper-reality through simulation it becomes an appropriate media-scape for long term existence. In a few generations time our great grand children will see very little difference between existing in Second Life, and existing in tangible reality. This is not to say they won't 'know' or be able to define the intrinsic differences between the two realities but the way in which they distinguish the idea of living in one and the other and the social relationships between both will be of such an advanced understanding that their discernment of both will amalgamate so that they are intrinsically linked and naturally considered synonymously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)