The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?
I don’t really understand the difference between simulacra levels 2 and 3.
Discussing reality
Attempting to achieve results in reality by inaccuracy
Attempting to achieve results in social reality by inaccuracy
I’ve never really got 4 either, but let’s stick to 1 − 3.
Also they seem more like nested circles rather than levels—the jump between 2 and 3 (if I understand it correctly) seems pretty arbitrary.
I think 3 is more like: “Attempting to achieve results in social reality, by ‘social accuracy’, regardless of factual accuracy.”
1 = telling the truth, plainly
2 = lying, for instrumental purposes (not social)
3 = tribal speech (political correctness, religious orthodoxy, uncritical contrarianism, etc.)
4 = buzzwords, used randomly
This is better understood as a 2×2 matrix, rather than a linear sequence of 4 steps.
1, 2 = about reality
3, 4 = about social reality
1, 3 = trying to have a coherent model of (real or social) reality
2, 4 = making a random move to achieve a short-term goal in (real or social) reality
Maybe a different framework to look at it:
The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?