Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Every week the site tries difficult terms in human language.

Simulacrum (from Latin simulacrum - “pretend, pretend”) - a copy that does not have an original.

Everything is simple and clear, except for the main question: how is it in general?

The author of the term is the left-wing French philosopher Georges Bataille. The term was later developed by Deleuze and Baudrillard. By the way, in the famous film “The Matrix”, Keanu Reeves uses Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulations” as a hiding place for the disk. And it is Baudrillard's interpretation that is mainly used in modern society.

The key characteristic of the simulacrum according to Baudrillard is the ability to mask the absence of real reality. This insidious illusion is so plausible that, against its background, what really exists seems to be a fiction.

In general, this term has become a little blurred, and now it is often understood as a simulation of reality in a broad sense.

For example, if we assume that a person is created in the image and likeness of God, but there is no God, it turns out that a person is a simulacrum.

One of the famous works of Dali is called "Transparent Simulacrum". However, with a high probability all his paintings can be considered as such.

But it is worth distinguishing a simulation of reality from ordinary fiction or lies. Simulacrum is born in the process of imitation of reality and is a product of hyperreality - key term postmodernism. We know this is too much.

Previously (since Latin translations Plato) it simply meant an image, a picture, a representation. For example, a photograph is a simulacrum of the reality that is displayed on it. Not necessarily an exact image, as in a photograph: paintings, drawings in the sand, retelling real history In other words, they are all simulacra. The basis for such an interpretation of the concept of "simulacrum" is partly the fact that for Plato the very object of reality, depicted by a picture or sculpture, is in some way a copy in relation to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe object, eidos, - and the image of this object is a copy of the copy and in in this sense, false, untrue.

Usually the creation of this term is attributed to Jean Baudrillard, who introduced it into wide use and used it to interpret the realities of the world around. However, the philosopher himself relied on an already fairly strong philosophical tradition that had developed in France and was represented by such names as Georges Bataille, Pierre Klossovsky and Alexander Kozhev. But it would also not be entirely true to say that the term simulacrum owes its origin to the postmodern philosophical thought: the French theorists of the newest trend only gave a different interpretation of the old term of Lucretius, who tried to translate the word simulacrum Epicurus eicon (from the Greek. display, form, likeness). However, Jean Baudrillard, unlike other postmodernists, gave completely new shades to the content of the term simulacrum, using it in relation to social reality.

In our time, simulacrum is usually understood as the sense in which this word was used by Baudrillard. So, in the words of N. B. Mankovskaya, researcher J. Baudrillard, “a simulacrum is a pseudo-thing that replaces“ agonizing reality ”with post-reality through simulation” . In simple terms, simulacrum is an image without an original, a representation of something that does not really exist. For example, a simulacrum can be called a picture that seems to be a digital photograph of something, but what it depicts does not actually exist and never existed. Such a fake can be created using special software.

Jean Baudrillard rather talks about socio-cultural realities as such, acquiring an ambiguous and inauthentic character. The novelty of this approach lies in the fact that the philosopher transferred the description of the simulacrum from the spheres of pure ontology and semiology to the picture of modern social reality, and its uniqueness in an attempt to explain simulacra as a result of the simulation process, which he interprets as “the generation of the hyperreal”, “with the help of models of the real, without their own origins and reality.

For example, Baudrillard, in his famous work There Was No Gulf War, called the 1991 Gulf War a simulacrum, in the sense that there was no way for CNN viewers to know if anything actually happened. or is it just a dance of pictures and excited propaganda reports on their TV screens. It is in the process of imitation, simulation of reality (an example is CNN's dishonest display of the situation about the Persian Gulf War) that a product of hyperreality is obtained - a simulacrum.

It is noteworthy that Jean Baudrillard proposes to consider simulations as the final stage in the development of the sign, during which he identifies four stages of development:

• 1st order - a reflection of the basic reality. A class of copies - for example, a portrait photograph.
• 2nd order - the subsequent distortion and disguise of this reality. Class of functional analogies - e.g. resume or rake as a functional analogy of the hand.
• 3rd order - the forgery of reality and the concealment of the immediate absence of reality (where there is no longer a model). A sign that hides the fact that there is no original. Basically a simulacrum.
• 4th order - the complete loss of any connection with reality, the transition of the sign from the system of designation (visibility) to the system of simulation, that is, the conversion of the sign into its own simulacrum. A sign that does not hide the fact that there is no original.

An illustration of how simulacra are produced can be seen in the film "Wag" (eng. Wag the Dog- “The tail wags the dog”), which was filmed under the impression of Baudrillard’s “There was no Gulf War”.

There is an opinion that the unlimited semiosis of simulacra in the hyperreality of the postmodern era is doomed to acquire the status of a single and self-sufficient reality.

see also

Write a review on the article "Simulacrum"

Notes

Literature

• Baudrillard J. The spirit of terrorism. There was no Gulf War: compilation / La Guerre du Golfe n "a pas eu lieu (1991). L'esprit du terrorisme (2002). Power Inferno (2002), Russian translation 2015, trans. A. Kachalova. - M.: Ripol-classic, 2016. - ISBN 978-5-386-09139-2
• Yazykin M. and Dayanov I. Simulacrum (m/f)
• Bezrukov A. N. Simulacrum as a new model of literary text // European Social Science Journal (European Journal of Social Sciences). - 2014. - No. 8. - Volume 2. - S. 186-190.
• Baudrillard J. Simulacra and Simulation / Simulacres and simulations(1981), Russian. translation 2011, trans. A. Kachalova. - M.: Ripol-classic, 2015. - ISBN 978-5-386-07870-6, ISBN 978-5-91478-023-1;
• / Simulacres and simulations(fr.) -1981, (Russian translation, 2009) - ISBN 978-5-88422-506-0
• /. – Tula, 2006

Links

• Simulacrum
• Simulacrum in
• Simulacrum in
• Simulacrum in
• Simulacrum in
• Simulacrum in the encyclopedia " (unavailable link since 26-05-2013 (2430 days))» (article by M. A. Mozheiko)
• Simulation in " (unavailable link since 14-06-2016 (1315 days))”(article by M.A. Mozheiko) - (also a strange link, it’s not clear where it leads).
• Article by Ezri G.K.

An excerpt characterizing the Simulacrum

“Well, why are they me? ...” Tushin thought to himself, looking at the boss with fear.
- I ... nothing ... - he said, putting two fingers to the visor. - I…
But the colonel did not finish everything he wanted. A close-flying cannonball made him dive and bend over on his horse. He paused and was just about to say something else when the core stopped him. He turned his horse and galloped away.
- Retreat! Everyone retreat! he shouted from afar. The soldiers laughed. A minute later the adjutant arrived with the same order.
It was Prince Andrew. The first thing he saw, riding out into the space occupied by Tushin's guns, was an unharnessed horse with a broken leg, which was neighing near the harnessed horses. From her leg, as from a key, blood flowed. Between the limbers lay several dead. One shot after another flew over him as he rode up, and he felt a nervous tremor run down his spine. But the very thought that he was afraid lifted him up again. "I can't be afraid," he thought, and slowly dismounted from his horse between the guns. He gave the order and did not leave the battery. He decided that he would remove the guns from the position with him and withdraw them. Together with Tushin, walking over the bodies and under the terrible fire of the French, he took up cleaning the guns.
“And then the authorities were coming now, so it was more likely to fight,” the fireworker said to Prince Andrei, “not like your honor.”
Prince Andrei did not say anything to Tushin. They were both so busy that they didn't seem to see each other. When, having put on the limbers of the two guns that had survived, they moved downhill (one broken gun and a unicorn were left), Prince Andrei drove up to Tushin.
“Well, goodbye,” said Prince Andrei, holding out his hand to Tushin.
- Goodbye, my dear, - said Tushin, - dear soul! Farewell, my dear, - Tushin said with tears that, for some unknown reason, suddenly came into his eyes.

The wind died down, black clouds hung low over the battlefield, merging on the horizon with gunpowder smoke. It was getting dark, and the more clearly the glow of fires was indicated in two places. The cannonade became weaker, but the rattle of guns behind and to the right was heard even more often and closer. As soon as Tushin with his guns, going around and running over the wounded, got out of the fire and went down into the ravine, he was met by his superiors and adjutants, including the staff officer and Zherkov, who was sent twice and never reached Tushin's battery. All of them, interrupting one another, gave and transmitted orders, how and where to go, and made reproaches and remarks to him. Tushin did not order anything and silently, afraid to speak, because at every word he was ready, without knowing why, to cry, he rode behind on his artillery nag. Although the wounded were ordered to be abandoned, many of them dragged along behind the troops and asked for guns. The very dashing infantry officer who, before the battle, jumped out of Tushin's hut, was, with a bullet in his stomach, laid on Matvevna's carriage. Under the mountain, a pale hussar cadet, supporting the other with one hand, approached Tushin and asked him to sit down.
"Captain, for God's sake, I'm shell-shocked in the arm," he said timidly. “For God's sake, I can't go. For God's sake!
It was clear that this cadet had asked more than once to sit down somewhere and had been refused everywhere. He asked in a hesitant and pathetic voice.
- Order to plant, for God's sake.
“Plant, plant,” said Tushin. “Put down your overcoat, uncle,” he turned to his beloved soldier. Where is the wounded officer?
- They put it down, it's over, - someone answered.
- Plant it. Sit down, honey, sit down. Put on your overcoat, Antonov.
Juncker was Rostov. He held the other with one hand, was pale, and his lower jaw was trembling with feverish trembling. They put him on Matvevna, on the very gun from which the dead officer was laid down. There was blood on the lined overcoat, in which Rostov's trousers and hands were soiled.
- What, are you injured, my dear? - said Tushin, approaching the gun on which Rostov was sitting.
- No, shell-shocked.
- Why is there blood on the bed? Tushin asked.
“This officer, your honor, bled,” answered the artillery soldier, wiping the blood with the sleeve of his overcoat and as if apologizing for the impurity in which the gun was located.
Forcibly, with the help of the infantry, they took the guns up the mountain, and having reached the village of Guntersdorf, they stopped. It was already so dark that at ten paces it was impossible to distinguish the uniforms of the soldiers, and the skirmish began to subside. Suddenly, close to the right side, shouts and firing were heard again. From the shots already shone in the dark. This was the last attack of the French, which was answered by the soldiers who settled in the houses of the village. Again everything rushed out of the village, but Tushin's guns could not move, and the gunners, Tushin and the cadet, looked at each other silently, waiting for their fate. The firefight began to subside, and animated soldiers poured out of a side street.
- Tsel, Petrov? one asked.
- Asked, brother, the heat. Now they won’t turn up, said another.
- Nothing to see. How they fried it in theirs! not to be seen; darkness, brethren. Is there a drink?
The French were repulsed for the last time. And again, in complete darkness, Tushin's guns, as if surrounded by a frame of roaring infantry, moved somewhere forward.
In the darkness, it was as if an invisible, gloomy river was flowing, all in one direction, humming with whispers, voices and the sounds of hooves and wheels. In the general rumble, because of all the other sounds, the groans and voices of the wounded in the darkness of the night were clearest of all. Their groans seemed to fill all this darkness that surrounded the troops. Their groans and the darkness of that night were one and the same. After a while, there was a commotion in the moving crowd. Someone rode with a retinue on a white horse and said something while driving. What did you say? Where to now? Stay, what? Thanks, right? - Greedy questions were heard from all sides, and the whole moving mass began to press on itself (it is clear that the front ones stopped), and a rumor spread that it was ordered to stop. Everyone stopped as they walked, in the middle of a muddy road.
The lights lit up and the voice became louder. Captain Tushin, having given orders to the company, sent one of the soldiers to look for a dressing station or a doctor for the cadet, and sat down by the fire laid out on the road by the soldiers. Rostov also dragged himself to the fire. Feverish shivering from pain, cold and dampness shook his whole body. Sleep irresistibly drove him, but he could not sleep because of the excruciating pain in his aching and out of position arm. He either closed his eyes, or looked at the fire, which seemed to him ardently red, then at the stooping, weak figure of Tushin, who was sitting beside him in Turkish style. Tushin's large, kind and intelligent eyes fixed him with sympathy and compassion. He saw that Tushin wanted with all his heart and could not help him in any way.
From all sides were heard the steps and the conversation of those passing by, passing by and around the infantry stationed. The sounds of voices, footsteps and horse hooves rearranged in the mud, near and far crackling of firewood merged into one oscillating rumble.

The ability of the human mind
come up with collective concepts
this great trick
became the cause of almost all of his delusions.
Antoine Rivarol

Simulacrum is a term from the modern trend of philosophy called "post-structuralism". A simulacrum is a sign without a signifier, in particular, a word denoting something that does not really exist. In other words, a simulacrum is an empty concept, i.e. a concept that has no content and/or scope.

Inventing simulacra allows you to sell donut holes. It is enough to come up with a name for the donut hole (preferably positive and scientific), and a person who has heard this name will perceive the hole not as a void, but as something quite real, as an object or phenomenon. Why is it so?

There are several factors at work here.

From early childhood, a person learns words that denote specific objects. Parents say to their children: “look: kitty”, “look: pyramid”. And a person is gradually asserting himself in the conviction that if there is an object, then there is also a word that this object denotes. A person also believes in the converse statement: if there is a word, then there is also an object (or phenomenon) that this word denotes.

Then, already at school, we memorize a lot of concepts, terms, which are scientific facts, objects, phenomena, concepts. We get used to the fact that words have meaning and denote what really exists.

In particular, we are getting used to the fact that the name of a science necessarily contains certain term elements: “-logy” (for example, biology), “-nomy” (for example, astronomy), “-nomy” (for example, ergonomics) and / or words ends in "-ika" (physics, cybernetics, genetics). Therefore, if we read the word "eniology", but do not know what it means, then the first thing that comes to our mind is that this is the name of some science unknown to us.

In addition, a person perceives the world objectively, and objectivity is one of the main properties of perception. It is easier for a person to perceive the world as a collection of objects than as an undifferentiated field. And by creating a simulacrum, introducing it into the consciousness of a person, it is possible to achieve that for a person it will become a real, objective something that does not really exist. The main thing is to find the word.

Therefore, any pseudoscience is full of new words, which, in addition, have a scientific appearance.

Of course, the inventors and dealers of pseudoscience and pseudoscientific concepts and recommendations do not always consciously exploit this effect. I fully admit that some of them actually think that their speculative constructions are science, and therefore can be named according to the same scheme as real sciences.

And finally, we believe that people who communicate with us use words that have meaning and denote something real. In other words, if a person uses a word in communication with us, we assume that this word really means something that really exists. Usually people are shocked by subjects saying nonsense things. When a person cannot speak meaningfully, then this is a sign mental illness- schizophasia. Therefore, in general, we tend to believe that there is something real behind the words, and it is difficult for the average person to believe that such words as, for example, "NLP", "socionics", "Dianetics" do not mean sciences at all, but pseudoscientific syncretic okroshka or compotes from fantasies.

The names of pseudoscience are, in general, perhaps the most typical examples of simulacra used for commercial purposes. Reading such a name, a person begins to perceive the totality of contradictory, amorphous ideas as something integral, as a product. This happens involuntarily. To name means to define. The name of pseudoscience is a brand, and any popular brand is, in many ways, a simulacrum.

And of course, simulacring is used not only in commercial activities, but also in political manipulations (political technologies). For example, it is enough to name disparate groups of dissatisfied, hooligans, eccentrics with one word "opposition", as immediately something integral, real, capable of acting in one direction appears in the mind.

Simulacra are not invented out of thin air, as science fiction writers or futurist poets do. Simulacra are created from already known to man words and term elements. For example, when a person hears the phrase "Kadochnikov's system", it is the system that immediately appears to him, and not the totality of disparate nonsense. There is a recognition of a familiar verbal construction, a person seems to say to himself: “I heard something like that ...“ Stanislavsky’s system ”, or something like that ...”

Or another example: when a person hears the “march of millions” simulacrum, he really imagines a march, not a walk, and millions, not thousands. A highly paid specialist in the sale of donut holes will always not only create a simulacrum, but also introduce the necessary meaning into the minds of "suckers" with its help ...

In general, words that have a generalized and abstract meaning, such as: “energy”, “information”, “system”, “complex”, “aspect”, “synergy”, are very convenient as simulacra. That is why the sellers of donut holes are so popular with words that have a scientific or, at worst, mystical-religious origin.

And of course, simulacra are widely used in advertising, for example, such phrases as “protection against caries”, “anti-dandruff shampoo”, “antipyretic thirst quencher”, etc. are objectively simulacra. etc. Prefixes-simulacra: "bio", "neo", "nano", etc. are also widely used in advertising and in the invention of product names. And brand management is, in many ways, the process of creating a simulacrum and its promotion.

And finally, it should be noted that simulacra are very widely used in such a branch of modern Russian commerce as pseudo combat. Indeed, the average person believes that behind the words "Kadochnikov's system", "squall school", "sasori-kan", "lissaju-do" there are some real martial arts. In general, the use of Japanese and Chinese words in the names and other terms of pseudo martial arts is akin to a legal problem. similarity of trademarks to the point of confusion when a manufacturer, wanting to make his product salable, releases it under a trademark that is very similar to a well-known brand, for example, Adibas sportswear, Alinka chocolate. Similar tricks are used in site names, including extorting money from the owners of the original domain names. And the inventors of pseudo-martial arts really believe that if you name your offspring in Japanese or add the ending “do”, then people will pour into the gym in droves for training. And, I must admit, they are not completely wrong ...

Instead of concluding, I will give a few more examples of simulacra:

• the wise men of Zion;


• Jewish Masonic conspiracy;


• reptilians;


• torsion field;


• biofield (this simulacrum consists of the words “field” familiar to us from school and the prefix “bio”);


• energy informatics;


• information metabolism (this phrase-simulacrum consists of two concepts familiar to a person from childhood "information" and "metabolism"; objectively, this concept stems from the unreasonable transfer of phenomena of one level (biological - metabolism, i.e. metabolism and energy) to phenomena another level (social - information exchange), in this sense, similar to the concept of "information metabolism" are such concepts as: "verbal diarrhea" or "constipation of thought");


• informatization;


• collective unconscious;


• archetype;

AT order of discussion
Bagration Aleinikov

Information as a model ─ an individual process and the result of understanding stored in declarative memory

1. "From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice..." (V.I. Lenin)
2. "Copy without original" (J. Bataille)
3. Ying formation - interpretation of interpretations without the interpreted, self-clarification (auth)
Let's turn to some issues that directly follow from the previous discussion articles, which show the inadequacy of using the concept of "information" in technical aspects. Recall that this is due to the fact that, in our opinion, information arises solely as a result of a person’s mental activity, is stored with a greater or lesser degree of accessibility in his declarative memory and cannot be measured, received, or transmitted anywhere. and to anyone. Each act of thinking (having the character of an abstract interpretation) of a specific person, provoked by some external and internal stimuli for him, generates only in his declarative memory only traces peculiar to him, which are integrally connected with his entire material incarnation and his entire personal history. In this regard, the first epigraph is in no way discordant with the ideas of the article and, on the contrary, legitimizes the author’s reasoning, emphasizing that the creation of information is based on abstract thinking (this expression by V.I. Lenin is used here not without cunning, but in its most famous part, however further words of the leader are deliberately not used).
In the epigraph number 2, one of the shortest and, as it seems to the author, brilliant (from the standpoint of the possibility of its extended interpretation) definition of a concept is given, which is very characteristic of the era of the collapse of vulgar ideas about the world and man, which humanity is experiencing. This is a "simulacrum". (The simulacrum is from Latin semulo, “pretend, pretend”, a semiotic sign that does not have a designated object in reality, a “copy” that does not have an original in reality). What could, it would seem, be more ridiculous than this oxymoron definition. (Oksyu moron ─ from other Greek. οξύμωρον, lit. ─ witty-stupid, stylistic figure or stylistic mistake, a combination of words with the opposite meaning, that is, a combination of incongruous, an oxymoron is characterized by the deliberate use of contradiction to create a stylistic effect). However, on the other hand, what can more accurately and elegantly explain the process and result of thoughts coming "into the head" of a person, in other words, define the concept of information. This means to characterize the consciousness of a person, leading to the knowledge of the world and oneself, and further ─ to touch upon what, "confusing horseradish with radish", is identified with the will. Why is that? Let's consider these questions in more detail.
Within the framework of the current state of postmodern philosophy, it can be argued that humanity has now freed itself from the fetters of vulgar materialistic ideas about the nature of the process of "knowledge of nature". As a result of the development of ideas about human cognitive activity, typical errors of hypostatization were realized and it became clear that one cannot consider a description of what is not outside the human consciousness as cognition, that one can only cognize someone’s previously invented models, i.e. someone's thoughts that have absolutely nothing to do with what they supposedly describe. Or come up with your own patterns. (Hypostasization - from the Greek. hypostasis, logical, semantic, error, consisting in the objectification of abstract entities, in attributing to them a real-objective existence).
Cognition is the work of the brain to create temporarily acceptable models that allow you to navigate in life (from the simplest verbal mental operations to scientific work of any depth), calming the needs of the mind in explaining everything that is in the zone of human attention. In order not to explode with indignation from such, as it may seem, "disgrace", at first it is not bad to "digest", absorb and master another non-trivial statement, the understanding of which characterizes a certain stage in the development of the mind of a particular person: "Any law describes something that does not exist in nature ". It would be appropriate to note that this implies the inadmissibility of using the phrase "law of nature", as well as "law of the universe", "law of the universe" and similar vulgarity of the ending era of modernity. The law of physics, the law of chemistry, Newton's law,..., Parkinson's law, the law of meanness, the law of a sandwich ─ is correct (the latter are correct because everyone understands that this is a joke), since these laws operate in sciences invented by man with their axiomatics and models, but not the "law of nature". It would seem elementary, but a misunderstanding of this is the trap of the outgoing era of modernity, in which, alas, the vast majority of people find themselves (indeed, the overwhelming majority, since it suppresses the conclusions of a minority inclined to study this issue with its inert views), including serious scientists, for the most part, naturalists.
It is curious that in the same place (in this trap) there is a significant part of the humanities, in particular, the majority of philosophers who believe in the existence of the "essence of things" or in the possibility of writing an "objective history" of cheerful researchers of the past, who are not tormented by remorse and declare: "it was so !", or with the conviction of imposing on us the notion that "it was so-and-so." However, it must be understood that for Everyday life people's underlying confidence real existence what they think is undoubtedly necessary.
Since everything that we, as thinking subjects, consider (discuss), is "thought-creative" (by analogy with the "man-made" things created by us, and by us, as rational beings), then we can talk about "objectivity", or "out of subjectivity" ( i.e. outside the person thinking about these things) the existence of objects and the subject, as well as causes and effects in general view means to use an inadequate model of nature. As someone said that we see the world through words (available in our vocabulary). At the same time, being conscious, we constantly explain something to ourselves or others, striving to achieve a state of satisfaction from understanding, by developing a model that eliminates our misunderstanding. There is a kind of conversation between a person and himself with the help of an inner voice, i.e. self-explanation, and it is not always possible to notice that this is just a conversation (there are even methods for suppressing internal articulation, which, according to the authors of these methods, significantly speed up internal speech and the accumulation of information). It is as a result of achieving an individual state of understanding that the replenishment and restructuring of our personal declarative memory, which is a repository of information, takes place.
In this regard, in order to establish links that reflect the change in the states of models invented by a person that describe his feelings and life experience, it seems much more acceptable to use causal-causal relationships (rather than causal relationships, as it is traditionally called). This change in the usual sequence of words in a compound word is very significant and is determined precisely by the subjectivity of the thinking process, i.e. the invention by a specific person of all the situations that he comprehends, or, speaking in a modern way, narrativity. (Narrative ─ from Latin narrare, a linguistic act, i.e. a verbal presentation, in contrast to representation, the concept of postmodern philosophy, fixing the procedural nature of self-fulfillment).
Narrative presupposes knowledge of the "end of the story", i.e. the consequence necessary for this story to appear in its integral form (this explanation is the story in the context discussed here, i.e. it is human-born causal model). More "understandably", in a simpler way, the narrative is also defined as "a story that can always be told in a different way." What is important here is that the end of the story (final) determines its semantic content (the winners write the story), the consequence gives rise to the appearance of an explanation of its origin. The end of the story is understood as the current state of the narrator's knowledge, from the position of which he comprehends his personal experience of thinking and finds an explanation for this "final" state of his, "the end of the story." Thus, and only thus, is the birth of what we call cause-and-effect relationships leading to the explanation of temporarily incomprehensible things, and the emergence of a state of understanding. Today, it is simply indecent not to accept as trivial the phenomenon of the narrativity of the explanatory side of thinking (let us recall the well-known chain of “enlightenment” of the mind: “this can never be” ─ “there is something in this” ─ “this is self-evident”). We always explain everything - this is a narrative, a story to oneself or others why this happened, and not otherwise. And this happens after the fact, i.e. the fact of the effect gives rise to the cause in the context of cognition, in the process of information formation. "The 'explaining story' model, based on the presumption of the fundamentally narrative nature of knowledge, underlies narrativist conceptions of explanation".
In an ordinary, non-self-studying state, a person does not pay attention to the completely unexpected nature of thought and the flow of thinking in general, considering it a natural manifestation of some kind of his "I" (as he was already taught), and, moreover, seeing in this flow the realization of his volitional impulses ( as he understands it from the tracing paper by which he was taught to understand it). However, an observant self-observer, who has a certain sense of humor towards himself and does not suffer from the Napoleon complex (i.e., arrogance, with the belief that the product of thinking he creates is a manifestation of his own will), can easily shame such self-confident believers who do not doubt the existence of their will. Will as an immanent (inextricably linked, inherent) property underlies most theories about man, which in this way distinguish him from the entire animal world. It is believed that this is the prerogative of an animal called man, a derivative of his consciousness. Is everything here so simple and clear? Is there a change here?
It looks like, after all, the will is identified with thinking itself, which cannot be considered convincing and constructive for understanding. It seems that such an idea has its origins in the original religiosity of ancient man. Hence the well-known expressions that man is created in the image and likeness of God. Learned to think ancient man he saw in himself particles of a property that he himself categorically and undividedly attributed only to the gods, namely their hypothetical ability to create anything, without any connection with circumstances and in general with anything. This property of the gods or one god (in monotheism) is called "will". Hence the common expression "God's will for everything." Indeed, in this sense, will, of course, is a derivative characteristic of consciousness (but divine), in the presence of which god (gods) can hardly afford to doubt believers. However, at the same time, it is completely illogical that the ancient, and most importantly, modern people, ascribe to themselves these divine abilities. Here, after all, the slightest confusion of functions is unacceptable: either people cannot have will by definition, since will is a divine prerogative ("God's will for everything"), or what people call will has nothing to do with this concept. the slightest relationship. Since the atheistic-agnostic views of the author do not allow the existence of any gods, this also means the rejection of the existence of such a phenomenon as will. What is meant by this concept most likely characterizes a personal peculiarity of thinking, decisiveness in actions, upholding principles, "fortitude", etc. There are more and less decisive people who act more or less independently of the influence of other people on them. This is considered in everyday life as a manifestation of a person's "will". It seems that the totality of these traits would be more understandable and adequate to call willfulness as character traits. So that an association with the prerogative of gods invented by people is not born.
It seems that such an idea of ​​cognition is completely epistemological (or, by analogy with postmodernity, post-epistemological). Truth, or the solution of the subjective task of finding meaning, i.e. the achievement of the state of "understanding" always exists within the framework of the model of reasoning built by the human mind. And, being a form of information, of course, it is a simulacrum. Therefore, the so-called process of "knowledge" is not knowledge at all, but the creativity (creation of a new one) of any (!) thinking person, during which he creates an individual model of thinking, even the most primitive one, within which he finds the truth ─ an explanation of his misunderstanding, and ... calms down for a moment. This explains the meaning of the author's statement: "Every person is right within himself." Each person is self-sufficient in the space of his simulacra. This is his individuality and self-fulfillment.
Any person who gives birth to any thought creates a simulacrum, i.e. "copy" without the original (this expression is a classic example of an oxymoron, but through this oxymoron the paradoxical essence of a simulacrum is well conveyed, paradoxical because it reveals an unobvious feature of any mental constructions ─ everything that a person invents and uses in the process of thinking does not exist in nature). The original (object) in isolation from human thinking does not exist. This means that both the copy and the "real" original are only simulacra. A person creates a thought about the original on the basis of his psychological (mental) state, i.e. the physicochemical and emotional status formed by the time this thought came to him. At the same time, the original is the simulacrum previously created by him or other people - a model that does not have an original in nature, but exists only, so to speak, in the space of other simulacra. It was J. Baudrillard, who expanded the meaning of the term "simulacrum" (introduced into modern use by J. Bataille) for the postmodern era, who characterized this term as a model. But at the same time, he “did not notice” that this concept, in essence, becomes a synonym for a much more significant concept in the life of modern society ─ information (of course, with a refined definition of the concept of information). In any case, the awareness of the identity of these concepts in the discourse of postmodernists is still only vaguely guessed: "There is an opinion that the unlimited semiosis of simulacra in the hyperreality of the postmodern era is doomed to acquire the status of a single and self-sufficient reality". Brilliantly! Those. "Postmodern achievements" in that he described in such a pretentious word, in general, a trivial thing ─ everything in the world in relation to human consciousness is a model. An elementary model is a word that expresses a concept (that is, something that was once understood by the inventor of this word). This is perfectly and magnificently stated in the Gospel of John. "In the beginning was the word...". It turns out that the evangelist already in those distant times felt with his thoughtful mind such subtleties of the work of human consciousness, which became clear only in the modern era of developing postmodernity, when it became clear how unsightly a person of modernity looks, when he, in his arrogance, begins to seriously believe that can find out how the world works, integrating (inextricably including) it, and to which it reacts, perceiving signals with the most primitive "sensors" or with the help of always primitive (in relation to the immense inseparable integrity and non-stationarity of the world) tools. Modernism specifically (allegedly refusing mysticism and secularizing society) "deified" humanity, confusing it by introducing faith in the possibility of an asymptotic approximation to the truth, i.e. to what "objectively exists" and "objectively" has some characteristics (to what supposedly can be studied and explained in principle). The latter is, in fact, the same as God and the results of his creation, characteristic of the era of traditionalism, only called the "objective world", to the comprehension of which (the truth), as we were taught, we asymptotically approach in the course of cognitive activity. The illusion of man's omnipotence in his knowledge of the world is akin to faith in God. Since it presupposes the very existence of this knowable world-nature in the form of "objective" truth or, moreover, the laws of nature (which supposedly exist and existed before they are invented by man, and who only "discovers" them). Whereas the world of human knowledge is replenished only by subjective comprehension (having the character of modeling, or interpretation) of the signals of his external and inner worlds, depending on the previous mental experience (experience of thinking) of this person and his current physical and chemical state.
So, any thought is this new ideal reality that does not have a material prototype-original. And not a copy-description of something that exists in nature, but is self-sufficient, and cannot but arise in a person, since "his time has come", the time and circumstances for this thought to be born. Cognition is not the discovery of what is in nature. Not copying (modeling) one or another quality from the original, which is a canonical truth, or what is called in the philosophy of the modern era " objective reality", and the creation of new simulacra (note that the era of modernity, as well as the era of traditional, i.e. religious, or esoteric, views of the world, has not ended, and ideas about the world that correspond to the conditional periods of the past evolution of the human mind are bizarre and with varying degrees of influence are intertwined in the minds of almost all people, even those who consider themselves "complete" postmodernists.) Therefore, information arises in our minds on the basis of other previous simulacra, i.e. information stored in individual declarative memory, accumulated over past life, and is provoked by current external and internal stimuli.
Thus, the simulacrum underlies thinking as an operand, i.e. argument of the operation of thinking, representing information. But the process of thinking is continuous, and in the course of it, on the basis of operands within the framework of a model invented by a person, new operands are formed for their subsequent use in the following acts of thinking. The world of human thoughts is the world of simulacra, giving birth to more and more simulacra, forming each time new world ideal realities, directly controlling the whole life of a living person (the word "reality" is used here because no one, apparently, doubts the existence of ideas in the minds of people, therefore they are real, exist in the world, the world of people, at least in the form " state of the body). Allusion: "Ideas, mastering the masses, turn into a material force" ─ K. Marx. Precisely because each act of thinking creates a new ideal reality ─ information of the subject, organically inscribed together with material reality in existing world, it is fundamentally impossible to comprehend this world. It is obvious that the appearance of each thought in the subject, as well as the current, unthinking, vital activity of the brain of each individual person, are associated with some changes in the physical and chemical state of the body and the structural and energy characteristics of the fields generated by it (expressed in the way and in terms of modern scientific ideas). Hence, a natural view of the problem of the cognizability of the world for a person who understands this and reflects on this topic is agnosticism. While maintaining a completely materialistic views on the structure of the world. In purely materialistic terms, it can be determined thatthe real (in this context, information is a simulacrum, as a result of cognition) is a changed form and composition thinking holistic complex material education ( person). From here ─ it is impossible to know what grows and changes at every act of this process, multiplying the complexity of the world by every thinking person every moment of his conscious life.
Here, one more allusion seems appropriate ─ to the well-known principle of uncertainty in the physical microcosm, according to which observation changes the observed object. Cognition, like any thought in general, changes the state of the world. Any thought that arises in any person is a “killer” of the previous state of the world, therefore it is impossible to know what is no longer there. One can only generate a new thought-model, which becomes the property of a new state in which the world finds itself. Information is a simulacrum, "a copy without the original", subjective traces of one's own understanding. And you should not hypostasize in relation to entities invented by man (models and processes), i.e. the information itself. For example, it seems completely inadequate in any application of a very common set expression: "In fact, ...". There can be only one attitude to such statements ─ with a smile. This is perhaps the most striking and always relevant example of the hypostasis of personal information. Information of a person or a person (i.e., a process or a result) can lead both to events planned by someone, and completely unpredictable, and in addition to the cognitive function, have others, for example, destructive or deliberately misleading (for someone useful, bringing desired results or victories), which is becoming more and more significant for the present, the era of globalization of the world (globalization is a process of world economic, political, cultural and religious integration and unification). And since, within the framework of the considered representations, the truth in the process of cognition is a model-information temporarily created by a person, or a simulacrum, and not what is "really", the canonical expression "the criterion of truth is practice" remains unshakable for the postmodern era with its hyperreality, dystopias and identity crises.
To test the author's thought (by reference to a worthy authority) about the incentive mechanisms of thinking and explanatory features coming to man thoughts, let us cite a very aphoristic and precise statement by Bertrand Russell: "In reality, a person does not want knowledge, but certainty." In this article, this need of a human organism capable of "thinking" is extended to any thought that arises in a person, and not only related to the process of cognitive activity.
As a conclusion, further explaining and clarifying the meaning of the ideas presented, we will quote from a fundamental source: "A simulacrum is not at all something that hides the truth, it is a truth that hides that it does not exist. The simulacrum is the truth. Ecclesiastes." J. Baudrillard (there is an opinion that the author of the statement is "False Ecclesiastes", i.e. Baudrillard himself). Characteristically, neither Baudrillard nor other postmodernists and pre-postmodernists seem to have "noticed" that this means information = simulacrum. And the whole point is in an adequate definition of the concept of "information", which confirms the relevance of both this article and the background of the considered approach to this problem. So information is interpretation interpretations without interpretation. those. self-explanation.
Literature
1. Aleinikov B.K. Theory of VPiNN. 3 part. [ Electronic resource].URL: (date of access: 01/23/2014).
2. Maidansky A.D. About self-thinking Nature and ideal reality. - Questions of Philosophy, No. 3, 2004, pp. 76-84.
3. Gritsanov A.A., Rumyantseva T.G., Mozheiko M.A. History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia. - Minsk: Book House, 2002.
4. Simulacrum. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ru.wikipedia.org (date of access: 25.01.2014).
5. Globalization. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ru.wikipedia.org (date of access: 01.02.2014).
6. Bertrand Russell. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://citaty.info/quote/man/77067 (Date of access: 02/09/2014).
7. Skrypnik A.P. The power of simulacra.[Electronic resource]. URL:http://samlib.ru/s/skrypnik_a_p/vlastsimulyakrov.shtml . (date of access: 27.01.2014).

Aleinikov B.K.
Information as a model ─ an individual process and a stored in declarative memory result of understanding
The questions of cognitive activity of the subject are considered. Remaining in the debatable field, such statements as "information is the process and result of understanding by a specific individual", "the consequent-causal mechanism of understanding in the form of a narrative", "cognition as creativity", "the impossibility of cognizing nature, since the subject and result of cognition can be only a new simulacrum that changes the state of nature", "the naturalness of agnosticism and the unnaturalness of hypostatizing essences", " information - interpretation of interpretations without an interpretable, i.e. self-explanation".
Bible 7.