I find it difficult to think about this. I think there’s a simulacra levels post that I really want to exist but doesn’t yet, and this isn’t it but it’s probably not really trying to be so okay.
Here are some things going through my head. Some of them are specifically related to this post, but others are about simulacra levels in general. A bunch of overlap between them.
These definitions seem to disagree with each other at levels 3 and 4. By my readings of them, sometimes 3 is describing social reality, in others it’s attempting to change it. Sometimes 4 is attempting to change social reality, sometimes it’s just vibing.
(In the lion definition, “I’m with the popular kids”, if said out loud, would usually read to me like a clumsy attempt to become with the popular kids. So it’s difficult for me to read that example and not feel like 3 is an attempt to change social reality. But my understanding is that that was intended as “at level 3, they are saying that because they actually are with the people who don’t want to go across the river”. And then level 4 was intended as “I’m changing which group of people I’m with according to what seems advantageous to me”.)
Why not say that level 3 is describing social reality, 4 is trying to change it, and 5 as just vibing?
If level 2 is lying about physical reality, and level 3 or 4 is attempting to change social reality, why the change from “lying” to “attempting to change”? Is that just because lies about social reality are more entwined with social reality, than lies about physical reality are with physical reality?
In what sense are these levels? Is there a progression through them (and it’s much rarer or nonexistent to progress in other orders like 1, 3, 2, 4)? What is doing the progressing—a person, conversation, subculture, culture?
What does it mean when you say a particular definition is “not quite right”?
The key issue with the lion and pandemic definitions is treating Level 4 as if it has motivations and does things for logical reasons. One can think strategically about level 4 implications but those operating on Level 4 mostly not only don’t do this, they have lost the ability to do so.
Is the claim here “when people leave level 3 they mostly lose this ability”? (Assuming people undergo a progression from 3 to 4.) But it’s still meaningful to lump them with the people who retain it in the same level? Is [the difference between those who retain and those who lose the ability], a difference in the people themselves, such that we could predict whether or not they’ll retain when they leave 3; or is it a difference in the circumstances under which they leave 3; or something else? For that matter, how do we know they’ve mostly lost the ability?
I find it difficult to think about this. I think there’s a simulacra levels post that I really want to exist but doesn’t yet, and this isn’t it but it’s probably not really trying to be so okay.
Here are some things going through my head. Some of them are specifically related to this post, but others are about simulacra levels in general. A bunch of overlap between them.
These definitions seem to disagree with each other at levels 3 and 4. By my readings of them, sometimes 3 is describing social reality, in others it’s attempting to change it. Sometimes 4 is attempting to change social reality, sometimes it’s just vibing.
(In the lion definition, “I’m with the popular kids”, if said out loud, would usually read to me like a clumsy attempt to become with the popular kids. So it’s difficult for me to read that example and not feel like 3 is an attempt to change social reality. But my understanding is that that was intended as “at level 3, they are saying that because they actually are with the people who don’t want to go across the river”. And then level 4 was intended as “I’m changing which group of people I’m with according to what seems advantageous to me”.)
Why not say that level 3 is describing social reality, 4 is trying to change it, and 5 as just vibing?
If level 2 is lying about physical reality, and level 3 or 4 is attempting to change social reality, why the change from “lying” to “attempting to change”? Is that just because lies about social reality are more entwined with social reality, than lies about physical reality are with physical reality?
In what sense are these levels? Is there a progression through them (and it’s much rarer or nonexistent to progress in other orders like 1, 3, 2, 4)? What is doing the progressing—a person, conversation, subculture, culture?
What does it mean when you say a particular definition is “not quite right”?
Is the claim here “when people leave level 3 they mostly lose this ability”? (Assuming people undergo a progression from 3 to 4.) But it’s still meaningful to lump them with the people who retain it in the same level? Is [the difference between those who retain and those who lose the ability], a difference in the people themselves, such that we could predict whether or not they’ll retain when they leave 3; or is it a difference in the circumstances under which they leave 3; or something else? For that matter, how do we know they’ve mostly lost the ability?