website duck. 32-years-old. otherkin.


saw a post about hyperrealism and it reactivated some thoughts i had earlier this year. needless to say as a person with an identity-defining fursona, i'm invested in the hyperreal. and i guess at a fundamental level i think the confusion of symbols for reality is not born with (and would not die with) consumerism.

an example of hyperreality i've seen cited is "a plastic christmas tree that looks more convincing than a real tree". but both "plastic" and "real" christmas trees are symbolic. the unobserved universe has no "real trees". it has no separate things. a "real tree" is a gestalt. it's a pattern of sensory information. when you give it a name, it becomes symbolic of that pattern. if we are to understand hyperreality as a cultural state of confusion between symbols and reality, a "real tree" is hyperreal.

do you believe there are different countries? countries are symbols.

do you believe there are different species'? species' are symbols.

colors. genders. math. time. all of these things are abstractions of sensory experiences. consumer culture creates feedback loops of abstraction (symbols of symbols, plastic christmas trees etc). and the confusion of "symbols of symbols" for "mere symbols" is not unconcerning! (these feedback loops exist outside of consumerism too: countries, laws, genders, religions, etc. are all symbolic of symbolic things imo) but if the problem of hyperrealism is the occupation with abstractions then you need to look deeper than consumerism. to get in touch with what's real you need to observe the universe without language. and odds are, without the help of hallucinogenic drugs, you probably can't.

in my mind the confusion with symbols for reality is the very thing that separates the humans (one abstract symbol) from the animals (another abstract symbol).


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Webster's post:

i will admit that i don't know much about mathematics, but at minimum quantities of separate things are not inherently real. "one" and "two" are names for sensory experiences and are therefore symbols. that's not to say there's nothing foundational to those sensory experiences, but if the field of mathematics would not be possible without language, then i still consider it symbolic.

astonishingly, our biological father wrote a book on exactly this point. we don't feel competent to get into what he said, nor do we really want to.

(we do NOT agree with him on philosophical topics. also, he's dead so we can't talk to him about it. or rather, he can't answer.)

the part that i take issue with is not the assertion that mathematical objects are not real, the part i take issue with is that they represent sensory experiences. i don't think anyone has ever had a sensory experience of the countable categoricity of the dense linear order without endpoints

oh, okay, i misunderstood lol. you definitely have a much more thorough understanding of math than i do. i'll just phrase my thoughts this way: language is symbolic, and sensory experience is necessary in all that language defines. if math doesn't depend on named things, then maybe it isn't abstract.

Pinned Tags