/lit/ - Literature

>>9644989
>Baudrillard will argue for an ever-more increasingly aristocratic enjoyment of this phenomenon.
That said, always in a kind of tortuous and evanescent way, the aesthetics/ethics of disappearance. And he had the literary flair to make this highly persuasive. I don't want that sentence to sound too on the nose.

>Then what's the distinction? Sorry if this is a retarded question.
Be more specific? Distinction between what and what? Bear in mind that all answers to this are likely to involve a lot of funky-sounding continental fuckery. From wiki:

>Simulacra and Simulation breaks the sign-order into four stages:

>The first stage is a faithful image/copy, where we believe, and it may even be correct, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality" (pg 6), this is a good appearance, in what Baudrillard called "the sacramental order".

>The second stage is perversion of reality, this is where we come to believe the sign to be an unfaithful copy, which "masks and denatures" reality as an "evil appearance—it is of the order of maleficence". Here, signs and images do not faithfully reveal reality to us, but can hint at the existence of an obscure reality which the sign itself is incapable of encapsulating.

>The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the sign pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the "order of sorcery", a regime of semantic algebra where all human meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth.

>The fourth stage is pure simulacrum, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims. This is a regime of total equivalency, where cultural products need no longer even pretend to be real in a naïve sense, because the experiences of consumers' lives are so predominantly artificial that even claims to reality are expected to be phrased in artificial, "hyperreal" terms. Any naïve pretension to reality as such is perceived as bereft of critical self-awareness, and thus as oversentimental.

>>9645005
Not that anon but as confirmed Girardfag it's only by a kind of sleight of hand. Capital to me runs psychosocially on mimesis. The more we know about memes and things, perhaps the more we also pay attention to literature, the less we go bananas and the more we come to understand - perhaps - that we are presently beholden to an awesome djinn that gives us everything we like. But there is a price for that - the earth, our minds, sanity, and so on. This is a meme answer really tho and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

>>9645006
cool