Nothing is real and even if something is real, there is no point to it anyway

Lyotard presents us with two versions of narrative legitimation: the narrative of legitimation of freedom (or the autonomy of the will of freedom) and the narrative of legitimation of knowledge. Within the narrative of freedom humanity is the hero and all have the right to science. Within the narrative of knowledge science and other kinds of knowledge exist in and of themselves but speculate on themselves by using previously attained knowledge that also came from themselves. Knowledge here also exists to guide spirituality and morality and become a part of the master narrative or ideology of a society. Lyotard says that today we are in the midst of a narrative of the legitimation of freedom where knowledge comes from humanity and that humanity is perceived as self-managed through its own laws, which are also perceived as just in that the laws governing the people supposedly come from the people. In the narrative of knowledge, knowledge is the subject whereas in the narrative of freedom knowledge is the facilitator of morality and spirituality – at least that is what we believe.

Lyotard begins his second section titled "Delegitimation" with, “In contemporary society and culture...” He already said what is happening today is that we are reviving the legitimation of freedom, so I am a little confused by what he means by contemporary society and culture. Perhaps, this is a hypothetical or where he thinks we are headed. Maybe contemporary society and culture exist alongside of what is happening today ideologically speaking. In the contemporary, the grand narratives are no longer credible due to the techniques and technologies of the second half of the 20th c, which caused society to emphasize how we get somewhere rather than where we are going. The how is based on individual enjoyment of commodity culture. This arose from the rule of the legitimation of knowledge that says that knowledge has to legitimize itself in order to be true. However, the legitimation of knowledge with knowledge results in its ultimate suppression – the knowledge that came before is always undermined by the knowledge that comes after it. In this way knowledge appears to be pre-scientific or a vulgar (Clarke!!) narrative meant to exert control, as it exists in order to guide morality and spirituality. The result is delegitimation. Therefore, all that is left is what has already been established (although this is perceived as being untrue as well) because nothing new can be established. This reminds me of the postmodern as it applies to art in that the “original” as perceived by the modern is no longer possible (and perhaps never was).

Lyotard ends by saying that we are not doomed to becoming barbarians as long as we are mindful that we can only legitimate through linguistics and communication. Thus, we are “safe” as long as a discourse exists.

Yet, in his excerpt from “The Inhuman,” Lyotard refers to the pointlessness of discourse because we are all going to die along with our discourse anyway. But, we are in a sense still “safe” as long as we have our discourse because the discourse is a kind of simulation along with other forms of simulation that exist in order to keep a sense of chaos at bay – or barbaric behavior at bay – “for the benefit of humankind.”

In Baudrillard’s excerpt from Simulations he discusses the lack of “the real” based on the idea that all points of reference that we have to show us what is real, are in themselves unreal. His example is Disneyland. We believe that Disneyland is somehow imaginary in order to believe that the rest of the world is real, when the rest of the world is in fact a simulation. He believes that the children or childishness do not only exist in Disneyland, but are everywhere. This is also obscured by the existence of places like Disneyland because the perception is that these are the places where the childishness occurs – not in the “real” word. Before Baudrillard presents us with his notion of what Disneyland is for, he talks about maps. He says, “it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.” Simulation of the real has led to the disappearance of the real. How sad. Yet, here I am reminded of artists who now use mapping as a method in their art practices. Often, these “maps” occur on the Internet – a product that lends itself to simulation. But, these maps try to uncover what lies beneath the simulations.

Baudrillard’s discussion here is related to his discussion regarding terrorism in which images consume a real event due to the fascination with the image. Here he says that reality and fiction cannot be separated from one another – one depends on the other. In order to be fascinated by the attack, we have to be fascinated with the image. Thus, much in the same way that Disneyland is a tool to make us believe that simulations are real, the images of 9/11 are tools to fascinate us with the reality of the actual event and are a powerful tool, to be used by whomever controls them.

Zizek continues with the discussion of the image as spectacle in relationship to reality in Welcome to the Desert of the Real, a title taken from the film the Matrix where people only live simulated lives. She argues that the explosions were not a reality that broke apart our simulations, but rather that the images and simulations of 9/11 broke apart our reality. This is not to say that what happened wasn’t real, but the images and the spectacle “shattered” our realities. Her point that the images that we saw on 9/11 were in a sense sanitized relative to the images we see of other horrors in other countries was the most interesting. She says that, “the real horror happens there, not here.” The “there” is the realm of the Other in relation to Americans, and therefore somehow doesn’t matter so we can view the atrocities in other countries with more comfort than we would be able to view those occurring here.