Ah yes, but the whole disagreement is about whether the 'semantic quality'
lies in the world itself or just in the eye of the beholder...
As to Baudrillard, AFAIK he further complicated the example you related
thusly: imagine that one of the customers, seeing the robbery, suffered
a heart attack and died. For him, the simulation was fatally real.
Well I haven't actually read Mr Baud but I did discuss his writings
extensively with a friend who has -- and this is what I am thinking:
The notion of reality as simulation does not eliminate the old binary
scenarios. The dichotomy remains as a result of the very concept of
'simulation' -- if we agree that something is a simulation then
necessarily we are posing the existence of 'the simulated'...
Or, if we assume that simulation is EVEYRTHING (i.e. there is no
'original', no 'simulated') then what good does the notion do us,
apart from stressing the assumption that all beauty *IS* in the eye
of the beholder?
On the one hand, I hate to yield to reductionist, binary thinking.
On the other, the way we make meanings is by differentiating:
letter 'a' means nothing in itself and it can take many various
forms (all the thousands varieties of True Type fonts :) -- it is
only useful insofar as it *differs* from all the other letters.
So too with words, colors, concepts... Hence, 'belief' may only
be a meaningful notion as long as we distinguish it from 'knowledge';
'simulation' only makes sense if we can point to at least one 'thing'
that is NOT simulated.
Does anyone see an emergency escape door from this? (Other than
sheer mysticism which is providing exactly that: a way out of
binary reductionism. Does simulation have a Buddha nature? :)
Marek Jedlinski
<marekjed@magnum.lodz.pl>