Now begins ranting. But first the disclaimer. To make it abundantly clear, if you like something that I think is dumb, it doesnt matter. I dont judge you and we can still be best buddies. We just cant watch Friends together. Its not a huge deal. Ill bet theres a multitude of things that I think are cool that you think are endlessly stupid, so were even.

And so... I came across a piece of narrative pertaining to hyperreality (and of course its contents have no bearing on the individual who brought it to my attention). I can only assume that it came from an online periodical, a vast source of employment for hack writers. The quote that caused me such consternation is embedded in the following passage:

Postmodernism is associated with hyperreality, the creation of places, spaces and settings that are more real than reality itself. Theme parks, mega-shopping malls, Las Vegas casinos and first-person-shooter computer games are all held up as exemplars of postmodern hyperspace.

In case you are wondering what the point is, I wont keep you in suspense any longer. Two things: I want to correct an obfuscation of the hyperreal (as I understand it). I also want to underscore the use of paradoxical, anecdotal rhetoric purveyed by journalists, politicians and the like in (often successful) attempts to sound authoritative without having said anything.

These are the words: the creation of places, spaces and setting that are more real than reality itself. This statement is not only incorrect, but worse it is essentially meaningless. As far as I am aware, reality is a binary state. Either a thing is real or its not (and arguably anything that can be imagined exists somewhere). I will certainly entertain the idea that there are numerous realities of which we experience one most of the time. However, the point of that discourse is that all realities are equally real. Theres no continuum of realness of which some are more real and others less. The hyperreal environments are completely (and often absurdly) artificial construct, like the ones the author listed. They are more real because the participant regards them as such. The pic above further demonstrates this, which some French smart-ass dubbed the order of the simulacra. The order is: an original > a forgery > a facsimile. The text under the pipe reads this is not a pipe. Its not a pipe, but a picture (or more abstractly a visual simulation) of a pipe. Similarly, hyperreal environments are totally symbolic simulations, but the observer/participant confers them their realness. We take them at face value. They are real, because at least for the moment, we prefer them to the more traditional reality, and accept them as totally real.

Now that weve untangled that knotted mess, lets get back to the moral of the story: All too often some self-important authority-figure (probably a politician or a journalist) will spew some aphoristic statement at you, from which they will derive the validity of their position. Initially, it will sound correct and cause you to fall silent and contemplate, and possibly accept it at face value. But beware, because its not truth, but rather the simulation of truth. Its purpose is to silence opposition and build up an image of sagely authority. Remember support our troops? It doesnt mean anything besides shut up. These aphorisms (and perhaps all aphorisms) are symbolic simulations, and we the audience confer validity on these statements because we prefer or permit them to be valid. But its still not a pipe.