The Precession of the Simulacrum was dense, but at its core I believe it to be relevant to trends in our society. In its essence, the article is saying that representations or interpretations of reality come first, in virtual worlds, then society adopts that reality. If Disneyland is responsible for constructing our reality, then why can’t we build a “Politician Land” or even further a “Democracy Land” which we imitate and adopt as our own reality.

The article discusses the different interpretations of representation in its relation to reality, not unlike Stuart Hall’s theories about representation and meaning and how meaning is portrayed through absence. What he calls the “old theory” of representation claims that representation of reality creates our actual reality. His “new theory” directly reinforces the idea of the simulacrum. It states that representation itself creates our reality and because there is meaning is not fixed. But isn’t that just the argument to end all arguments? Playing the “the image is reality” card is no different than playing the “because the bible or God says so” card. There is no proof to back it up. In the end, facts win arguments, not theories on how there may not really be any facts at all. We could be seeing mixed representations of the war in Iraq, but in the end, the people are really dead. If the purposeless loss of human lives is a reality or moral that has been constructed through representation, it is a popular one, and one that I support, regardless of my morals having no actual meaning, according to the Simulacrum.

Blogger/mainstream conflict that I thought was interesting: http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/networks_struggle_to_get_blogg.php

Rove is filthy, check this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green