Ramses, the destruction of mumification.

An example is in order. we've hopefully covered a basic idea of what constitutes reality within postmodern philosophy. now, we have the opportunity to apply that which we've learned to something more tangible than a hypothetical farmer. (from my last post)

        The mummy of Ramses is a glowing example of the destruction of the real. Ramses is by many considered the greatest pharaoh Egypt has ever had. called "Ramses the great" by many, he accomplished much in his life, and perhaps more in death. Ramses like many great Egyptian figures of ancient times was mummified, preserved by techniques that stand as a symbol of ancient Egypt, just as recognizable as the great pyramids in which we has entombed. upon its discovery, the Ramses mummy was to be brought to a museum in America, but, after exposure to air, it would start to disintegrate. once in America, great care was taken to preserve the mummy, new additives, modern day preservatives, temperature moderators, and the likes were all used to keep the mummy from falling apart.

        this, is the destruction of the mummy. in its being preserved by hands not of ancient Egypt, what the mummy represents is lost more than had it fallen apart in the bottom of the pyramids. the mummy, everything it represented, was the mysterious ability to mummify things that the ancient Egyptians had. when we have to preserve it, when we have to keep that mummy together, it no longer is that mummy, for it cannot represent the ancient techniques of mummification, if we preserve it.

       the mummy has since been returned to Egypt, to be held in the Cairo museum. but, what really is being given to the Egyptians? the mummy no longer bares any resemblance to what it once was, it is as real now as if they'd reconstructed it from Papier-mâché. the Egyptians are receiving a testament to western culture's ability to preserve something, not ancient Egypt. now, the mummy is a symbol, but it doesn't mean what it once did. it now hides that there is no more reality in it. in keeping the mummy preserved, and in sending it back to Egypt, we are simply trying to mask that it isn't real anymore. should the mummy be destroyed now, it wouldn't be the object of ancient Egypt that ceases to be -- that happened when they removed it from the pyramids -- no, it would be a shot at our ability to present the fake, the simulation of the real, as the real itself.

What is Real?

as the title of this post may imply, the idea of it is to first outline some basic concepts that Baudrilliard is going to be dealing with. the three terms we'll define in relevance to Baudrilliard's work are simulacrum, simulation, and real.

      working backwards, let's begin with his use and definition of the word real. i know i haven't provided much context for the terms, so we need to understand the point he's trying to get across in order to understand his use of the word "real". this is not a Cartesian version of asking what's real. Baudrilliard is not concerned with if the keyboard I'm currently typing on is actually here, or if the only way to know if i exist is that somewhere, somehow i am thinking "i exist." no, as the postmodern philosopher he is, he uses real in the sense of what's genuine. but, that answer only raises further questions, such as, well, what then is not genuine? i suppose a way to look at it, is that which can be replicated. that is the way Baudrilliard likes to see it.

people, once upon a time were unprecedented, in the sense that yes, the farmer's son was very likely to be a farmer, but so much of this child was left to chance. how his parents raised him was far more prominent then than nowadays because the mix of schools, mass media and nationwide social norms would force this farmer's kid into a much more rigid definition of himself than had he been left to be raised by a small community and the rules that have successfully allowed that community to continue. an example that's perhaps a bit more relatable to the now than a hypothetical farmer is one i can draw from the very hallways of park. upon the lockers, there are countless notes taped each holding an ideal to the locker, with something like "we have the right to safety" or, "do not discriminate" or another idealistic utopian saying. so, there are three steps away from "real" here. the first, being the difference between the world these notes are trying to represent or create, and the world as it is, and as it will become. that’s our first separation, this is a representation of reality, or an ideal for it, and is clearly not real. the second, and, these are built on top of each other, is the thought that this is helping to achieve that world. there may be some truth to it, but the point is the perception that by posting these, one is actively making change. it is a simulation of going to the places that need help, and doing good there. and the third step, is in my reading of it, and thinking "yeah, that ought to be true" i also feel as though I’m helping. but, nothing could be further from it. I’m not even simulating helping, I’m simulating the people who are in turn, simulating helping.

 this level of separation from the real, this separation from actually helping, is an example of what Baudrilliard considers hyperreal. when we are not recreating the real, but instead, recreating the representation of the real, we end up in a cycle where real is lost, somewhere to the side, and we end up with a bunch of symbols that mean more than what they once tried to represent.

Enter; intrepid reader

      my first interactions with Baudrillard's book, "Simulacra and Simulation" have not been that of ease. not so far in as the first paragraph, the quote on which he starts his book, i have found myself worried. i knew the goal i had chose to set for myself was not an easy one, but i couldn't have predicted it'd be so challenging, because I've not came across such a difficult read in my short years.
       So, I'm setting out with two goals in mind; the first, and arguably lesser of these two evils is the job of understanding what Baudrilliard is trying to say. the second, should i accomplish the first of decoding his cryptic and and frustrating text, is that of putting it into words that can be understood by my piers with greater ease than his work. my gift, to my fellow classmates, is to be the go-between, to save everyone else from having to figure out his infernal writings.