The levels of simulacra

Zvi Mowshowitz explains some interesting models of communication in terms of the truth-values of statements. Even though his summary is much shorter than the original, it’s still, er, loquacious, so it helps when we have even shorter versions of his posts to refer to. I might write one here.

Original: Zvi Mowshowitz on simulacra and subjectivity:

[…]what it means to say “There’s a lion across the river”:[…]

Level 1

There’s a lion across the river.

Level 2

I don’t want to go (or have other people go) across the river.

Level 3

I’m with the popular kids who are too cool to go across the river.

Level 4

A firm stance against trans-river expansionism focus-grouped well with undecided voters in my constituency.

Or alternatively, and isomorphic to the Lion definition, from my previous simulacra post:

“There’s a pandemic headed our way from China” means…

Level 1

“There’s a pandemic headed our way from China.”

Level 2

“I want you to act as if you think there might be a pandemic on our way from China” while hoping to still be interpreted by the listener as meaning “There’s a pandemic headed our way from China.”

Level 3

“I wish to associate with the group that claims there is a pandemic headed our way from China.”

Level 4

“It is advantageous for me to say there is a pandemic headed our way from China.”

We can think of this as a kind of gradient from a pure discussion of the world-as-it-is to conflict-theoretic manoeuvring.

Related:

• The high price of cheap talk

• Constructing myths

• Is language even symbolic?

• George Hosu, Empiricist and Narrator

  A fun dichotomy to split yourself or your society into is how much of an empiricist or a narrator you are.

  An empiricist attempts to find and communicate something that is, roughly, “the truth”, given any scenario. They are not necessarily skilled at this - a common “pitfall” of empiricists tends to be under or over estimating the audience they are talking to - as well as mistaking the degree to which their observations generalise.

  A narrator works directly at the level of vibes, emotions, words and consensus. I call this sort of person “narrator” because living life by wielding emotions and consensus is impossible unless you establish some sort of internal and external “cohesion” - the best narrators don’t only do this for their own narrative but also help others sort out their own narratives (often in a way that subtly brings them closer to theirs).

  This loosely maps onto wordcel/shape rotator dichotomy.

• Knowledge Is Power — by The Voice in Your Head

  I think the first thing to recognize is that attempting to convince people is a sucker’s game. The correct play is to find the people who agree with you, and make bullshit organizations that slowly become less bullshit over time. If you’re “ahead of the curve”, and confident enough that there will be a curve, your “power” is in the relative lack of competition in the space. One can debate the pros and cons of being a big fish in a small pond, vs. a medium-sized fish in the ocean. But if you’re convinced the pond will turn into an ocean, well, it’s easier to be king of a hamlet than an empire.

  This is what I mean by a “bullshit organization”. It’s easy to declare yourself king of your own house, but it rings a bit hollow, it’s not enough of a kingdom. So the idea being, back in 2015, you find other people also interested in misinformation, you create some official-sounding organization, “Media Misinformation Matters”, or some other cheesy name, and you go out and do things, you can waste some time trying to convince people, but really the name of the game is to “find the others”, and do studies, analyze the landscape, that sort of thing. Eventually, because you were right and this did end up becoming a big deal, all of a sudden big names start calling, people and organizations with more money than sense, at least concerning this formerly niche area that suddenly is IMPORTANT.