|
|
Re: Hyperreality
Stephanie Wilson (swilson@BIGCAT.MISSOURI.EDU)
Fri, 10 Dec 1993 11:38:57 -0600
On Wed, 8 Dec 1993, douglass st.christian..... wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1993 seeker1@MAPLE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU wrote:
>
> > Danny,
> > I am not surprised that anthropologists don't seem to give a crap for
> > epistemology. At least the physicists seem to care a minute bit about it
> > more than us.This is what hyperreality is all about. If you don't get it,
> > you don't get it.
> > Seeker1
>
> The epistemology Seeker1 refers to is perhaps better known as
> deception...and anthropologists have long been interested in that...just
> ask poor margaret mead....
>
> however...let me ask a question...the novelty of this medium seems to
> require the invention of novel words to justify its novelty....now we have
> hyperreality and ireality...and if you don't get it you don't get it....
>
> sounds like freud dismissing otto rank by diagnosing him....
>
> some novelty, seeker1....really just the same old same old...
>
> d...
>
> who is only ever who he is, whoever that might be
>
> <->------<->------<->------<->
> douglass st.christian
What is this? a Who's-on-first dialogue?
As far as the "invention of novel words to justify novelty", isn't that
what post-modernism does?
As for hyperreality and irreality, that's nothing new either...was Homer
or Shakespeare a real individual person? Is it real or is it Memorex?
|