Nothing Exsists

All densitys are situated before each dimension however it works like this, say you have the 4th density, well the 4th density is situated before the 3rd dimension and the 2nd density Is situated before the 1st dimension In which the 1st density is the only connected density to the second density so it goes like this

1st density 2nd density 1st dimension (with the connection of density 1 and 2 forming a dimension in the first place and without the connection of the 1st and 2nd densitys there would be no such thing as dimensions, then you have then you have the 3rd density 2nd dimension, this is what connects the plants awareness and ways to teach and tell the 3rd dimension things, then,,, 4th density 3rd dimension 5th density 4th dimension 6th density 5th dimension 7th density 6th dimension 8th density 7th dimension 9th density 8th dimension 10th density 9th dimension (1D + 2D) < > 13 dimensions in total 11th density 10th dimension 12th density 11th dimension 12th dimension 13th dimension.

That is the order on how the densitys connection works. With the 11th, 12th and 13th consisting of 3 dimensions connected only suggesting the values 1 + 2 + 3 as if you were to count to 3 and the number of the Universe equals 13 so that's the 1 to 3 right there with remembering that the first two densities are connected to one another making 1 + 2 = 3 without the first two densitys connected as I already mentioned dimensions wouldn't exist, the 11th dimension the 12 dimension and 13th dimension don't have densitys between or before them because due to the law of density 1 and 2 together making the dimensions this would not work. Now 11 from the last 3 dimensions with no native densitys connected to them or being apparent consists of (11) - (12) - (13) when all singular decimals added up from 11,12,13 # 1+1+1+2+1+3 equaling the total singular sum of 9 (nine) now that's where the numbers 1 to 9 come from In that order.

Two years ago, I was given information about an on going 'secret military’ project.



One person had come in contact with the “Top Secret” file in a generals’ office in the Pentagon. This person had gotten to actually read the file and to say the least from what he told me he was just a wee bit shaken up at what the project proposed to do.



According to what he related to me this project was an effort to utilize the “Unified Field Theory” that Einstein had perfected in his time and the government had seized to keep it from a public (they felt the people were not mature enough to handle the information). In utilizing the unified field theory in the simplest terms it refers to the physical mass of the human body, the result would be awesome and almost beyond belief for most common people.



In short the apotheosis of a human.

We need to understand in simple words that what Einstein had discovered was all “mass“ is nothing more than coagulated thought and light. Nothing exists in this universe without the application of thought. Someone or something has to create everything first with the thought to design it. Also all existing mass “things” even people, animals etc. are a coagulation of energy (thought).



Everything is made up of elements from the atomic table and that is most definitely “energy”, and energy is most definitely “light”.



Are you with me so far?



If you don’t believe this, you will find pictures of Kirlian Photography.





This is a special type of photography that photograph’s the “energy” or “light field” that is around matter in different degrees and all living things have very active and ever changing light fields of all colors. All colors, not just blue or green or red, but all colors.



Why is that you ask?



Because different colors of the spectrum, are different frequencies of energy all the way from Hertizan to Gamma Ray and beyond. Colors also represent different levels of vibration or density that are also related to electro-magnetic fields, or frequency. As you can see, each color is related to a radio or energy frequencies.



Refer to the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project.



Now in simple terms, what Einstein found out was that by unifying the fields you can take mass, coagulated thought or light energy which could be anything, and accelerate the electro-magnetic field or the set light frequency that the object exists in, accelerate it by adding more electric energy to it, and by speeding up the magnetic fields that exist around the object you take it into another light frequency or density.



Say you took a rabbit and placed it between electro-magnetic fields and accelerate the rabbits elector-magnetic fields, the rabbit would first turn a glowing blue and would look like a hologram and chances are if you tried to touch the rabbit your hand would quite simply just pass through it.



Next the rabbit would become a bright light and then it would just disappear.

Where did it go? The rabbit is still where it was if it didn’t hop away.

Why can’t you see it? Because it is in another level of light, energy frequency or density, of existence in another dimensional level now.

What happens if you turn off the electro-magnetic accelerator? The process is reversed and your rabbit comes back.

I know that right about now most of you are thinking this is garbage, but that fact of the matter is that it is true.

Now a little about the different levels of energy or colored light.



As it relates to mankind on this planet most every person on the planet earth vibrates at a set frequency. For simplicity, let us say that there are only seven different levels of vibration on this earth plane. Each one of these levels of vibration is called a dimensional level. And all mankind exists in the third dimensional level on earth.



For the human, these different levels also relate to the human body and the endocrine system of the body. For those of you that don’t know what the endocrine glands are, they are ductless glands and they secrete their products into the blood. The secretions of endocrine glands are always hormone, chemicals that regulate various physiological activities.



The glands that this system consists of are:

the Ovaries or Te**es in female or male

pancreas

adrenal glands

thymus gland

thyroid gland

pituitary gland

pineal gland

Each one of these glands in the body relate to what level of dimensional reality a person functions in.



Most humans on the earth at this time are unfortunately locked into a reality of unawareness as to who and what they really are and that is because the few in control of everything have worked for centuries to keep mankind unaware so that they can put yokes around your neck and keep you as uneducated and unaware as possible as to what the truth about you really is.





It is all part of a bigger plan!



This way they can control and dominate you.

Each one of the endocrine glands have an energetic level and the sexual glands are the most powerful because they have lots of energy “power” to create new life, the sexual glands relate to level number one in a reality and we will call them “procreation and survival”, then you have pancreas and adrenal glands and these are levels two and three, and we will relate these to “Pain and Power” or “Victim and Controller”.



Reproduction, power and pain, these are levels one, two and three.



The third density or dimensional level is were most everyone lives today. The people of this planet are very socially caught up in their little boxes or their image of who they think they are; be it doctor, lawyer or Indian chief. This is also refereed to as a social consciousness level number three.

The planet earth is now in the process of taking its vibrational frequency into a higher level of density, which will accelerate everything on this planet into what is called forth density or the fourth dimensional reality. This well be accomplished in parallel with the earth changes, but it is a process that has already begun on this planet. In the forth dimension, people will still care for their physical bodies. It is also a dimensional level where compassion, understanding and unconditional love are predominant.



Full conversion to the fourth density will occur between 2003 and 2013.



The people that will survive this dimensional shift will have to be positively polarized in a path that is oriented towards unconditional love and service to others. There are people on earth now that are operating in the fourth density, and they will move on into the fifth and sixth density levels soon.

The next step up in dimensional vibration will also thrust people into the realization that “one” (a person) is not separate from God. It is that kind of spectrum which has been called by the Christians as the “second coming”. The second coming is a state of being and not an individual arriving and establishing a power hierarchy.

The fourth density is a vibrational spectrum which is working in sync with the geological changes. The time/space continuum has put Earth and that star system into that type of vibration. This causes the electromagnetic realignments within the body of the planet. The energies and collective thought forms of the population also disturbs the energy patterns of the planet.



Geological changes accompany transition between densities.



At this point we are in the last 20 years of the end of a cycle which has lasted 75,000 years. After the dimensional shift on Earth the evolution of man will be completed and there will be no need for “time” any longer and thus there will be no more “time.” There will be a collapse of Time/Distance and Space. The object of our time here on earth has for thousands of years been to come to earth and grab an available body the third dimension, and figure out how to accelerate the vi****ory frequency of the body to do it like we did the rabbit, and take it into other dimensional levels (forth, fifth, sixth and seventh).



This process is talked about in The Keys of Enoch and also in the Bible in the book of Revelations. The following is not a new science, and it is not demonic possession, it is a birth right inheritance that has for thousands of years been genetically blocked in our brains by interfering genetic engineers from another galaxy. It is the rise of the Phoenix, the awakening.



Another name for the seven endocrine gland in the body is “seals”; some times they are refereed to as “Chakras”. For two thousand years there has been virtually no one that has been able to achieve this. This is only part of what Jesus was teaching when he was here.



What I haven’t told you so far about this little process is that once a person is able to accelerate his vi****ory frequency into other levels of consciousness, they get some wonderful gifts; they have the capability to collapse time, distance and space and with a thought and they can travel from point “A” to point “B” at the speed of light.



They have the capability to walk through walls, to grow a new limb or an organ inside their body, to become invisible, to create food and water out of thin air, the proper word is the “ethers”. To touch a person and heal them; to raise the dead. The capability to see the past, present and future, because a person that can collapse time, because time becomes a no thing and everything and all times of the ages are all there together simultaneously. This person can see the past and the future as well as what is happening around him, having absolute awareness of everything, and everywhere at all times.



They have the capability to pick up a though from across the universe or to send one. This person never dies, and does not grow old, because for them there is no time any longer and if they are old when they achieve this new vi****or frequency their body reverses the aging process. This person will not need food or sleep and can create anything by simply having the thought and desiring it.

These are some of the secrets that Jesus was teaching, shortly after he made his grand exit by ascending. There were others that followed his lead and also ascended into higher vibration level and dimensions. This is what he thought was to follow his lead and do what he did. He never taught people to worship him. That is something the church concocted to fill the flock full of lies to control them because if the people knew how to do the things that Jesus was teaching; the church and the Roman government would loss all control over people.

When people go into other dimensional realities things start happening to them and they have a serious attitude adjustment rapidly. They soon start to discover unconditional love or they can’t exist there. Your body and mind and spirit must be in sync in order to handle the dimensional shift.



I have been there briefly and once there you realize that you are one with everything that exist everywhere, there is a part of you that is part of everything and is God. If you were fortunate enough to sample the next dimension up. when you come back from your short stay in an elevated frequency, it just might be a couple of steps on the way, not the full leap, you are changed and you may start to experience some of the following as we have. You feel everything around you, such as how that person seating next to you feels.



You could be driving down the road on fine day as I was and feel someone's sadness and just be to the point of tears and look over and see a young girl sobbing as she drives down the road, or you could feel extreme joy from someone. Or you may hear you horses talk to you or your dog or cat. Or a rock may speak to you. It comes from their consciousness to yours it is a knowingness a new awareness that will open new vista for you.



Some day you and your mate may be able to communicate to one another mentally over many miles. Or to touch someone you love very much an heal them of cancer. You may find that your body disrupts electricity of the lights in buildings or high voltage equipment. You may be having a romantic dinner by candlelight with the one you love and suddenly see X-ray and be looking at a talking skeleton setting across from you. You may be able to go out of your body and visit other places and have full memory of the journey.



About this time you start realizing that every thought that you have starts to manifest and then you really have to be very careful as to what thought process you have because this capability knows no right or wrong it just manifest for you to experience. If you start doing any of these you are on your way. And if you want to learn how to do these things all you have to do to start the process is to think it and want it and you will start feeling changes. The more passionately you desire a thought the faster and more profound the manifestation becomes for your experience.



All of this is a birth right as you start the apotheosis.



Even in the bible it is stated in John 10:34 and in Psalm 82:6 that everyone has that birth right of the apotheosis becoming fully activated. For you my brothers and sisters take this tiny piece of knowledge and if it feels comfortable for you take it and expand on it all the way to heaven. Because having these capabilities over all kingdoms is heaven.



Your next question I bet is, how can I do this apotheosis process to myself?



I can only tell from some of my experiences because I have no idea how the government is achieving the process with people unless they can put some kind of attachment on a person’s electro-magnetic field and accelerate it but that can be a fatal way to go if the body and mind is not ready for that much energy. Ideally it should be a progressive process of enrichment and expansion of the mind, spirit and the body follows so to say.



What has to happen first is all the powerful energy that keeps your mind occupied with sexual desires has to be pushed up through the endocrine glands. It reaches the pineal and pituitary glands in the brain and opens up your brain.



This process has been referred to as the rise of the Phoenix and the rise of the Kundalini.

What it really is, is pure energy being forced up through all the endrocine glands and spinal column into the center of the brain were it will cause through the opening of the pineal gland a chemical or hormone to be released that will stimulate the entire body to raise in vibration and you will start to change.



This is what the Yogas in India do. Once you start opening up the other 90% of the sleeping brain you can never be held back because it is your birth right to be all and know all and have absolute awareness and capabilities to use “thought”.



The next step up is the fourth dimensional level of vibrational frequency.

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong.

What we have called matter is energy,

whose vibration has been so lowered

as to be perceptible to the senses.

There is no matter.”
- Quote attributed to Albert Einstein


Yes, this is quite a bold statement, if true, that would certainly demand some sort of evidence or mathematical proof to back it up.



It may seem like a paradox that the things which we can see and touch are nonexistent. However, there is an answer to this, which may be found in the bold and exciting (relatively) new science of quantum physics.

In ages past, it was believed that what we can see and touch, like a rock for instance, was the elements, in other words, matter. However, as science developed, such as chemistry, and much more recently quantum physics, it had been observed that matter seems to exist on one hand, but once one takes a deep look into the heart of the matter (no pun intended), there seems as if there is nothing.



In atoms, you have mostly protons, neutrons and electrons.



However, electrons for example, are insignificantly microscopic and spread out over enormous distances. In-between them, there is what is perceived as empty space. In fact, 99.99999% of an atom is this so-called ‘empty space’.



Even if we look into electrons, protons, etc, we see that there is yet more open space. Gluons, neutrinos and the like are also in there somewhere but no matter how far into these particles we look, there is not anything that we can say quantifiably that it is the building block of all of this. What’s more, electrons literally possess no dimension.



An electron is simply not an object as we know it. There is nothing.



However, our eyes and observations are fooling us because indeed this nothing is something but we can not quantifiably say it is something and therefore it is nothing. There has to exist an energy that holds all these particles together like a sort of glue, or else matter would not exist because it would be akin to having a rock turn into sand that can not stay together as a rock any longer.

There have been some notable quantum physicists, such as Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, that have been looking to fuse science with spirituality… and with relative success.



Below is from an article attributed to Dr. Wolf concerning his perception of this most-interesting issue at hand.

Quantum physics has thus brought about a radical new understanding both of the particles and the void. In subatomic physics, mass is no longer seen as a material substance but is recognized as a form of energy.



When a piece of seemingly solid matter - a rock or a human hand or the limb of a tree - is placed under a powerful electronic microscope, the electron-scanning microscope, with the power to magnify several thousand times, takes us down into a realm that has the look of the sea about it…



In the kingdom of corpuscles, there is transfiguration and there is samsara, the endless round of birth and death.



Every passing second, some 2-1/2 million red cells are born; every second, the same number die. The typical cell lives about 110 days, then becomes tired and decrepit. There are no lingering deaths here, for when a cell loses its vital force, it somehow attracts the attention of macrophage.

As the magnification increases, the flesh does begin to dissolve. Muscle fiber now takes on a fully crystaline aspect.



We can see that it is made of long, spiral molecules in orderly array. And all of these molecules are swaying like wheat in the wind, connected with one another and held in place by invisible waves that pulse many trillions of times a second.



What are the molecules made of?



As we move closer, we see atoms, the tiny shadowy balls dancing around their fixed locations in the molecules, sometimes changing position with their partners in perfect rhythms. And now we focus on one of the atoms; its interior is lightly veiled by a cloud of electrons. We come closer, increasing the magnification.



The shell dissolves and we look on the inside to find… nothing.

Somewhere within that emptiness, we know is a nucleus. We scan the space, and there it is, a tiny dot. At last, we have discovered something hard and solid, a reference point. But no! as we move closer to the nucleus, it too begins to dissolve. It too is nothing more than an oscillating field, waves of rhythm. Inside the nucleus are other organized fields: protons, neutrons, even smaller “particles.”



Each of these, upon our approach, also dissolve into pure rhythm.



These days they (the scientists) are looking for quarks, strange subatomic entities, having qualities which they describe with such words as upness, downness, charm, strangeness, truth, beauty, color, and flavor. But no matter.



If we could get close enough to these wondrous quarks, they too would melt away. They too would have to give up all pretense of solidity. Even their speed and relationship would be unclear, leaving them only relationship and pattern of vibration.

Of what is the body made? It is made of emptiness and rhythm.



At the ultimate heart of the body, at the heart of the world, there is no solidity. Once again, there is only the dance. (At) the unimaginable heart of the atom, the compact nucleus, we have found no solid object, but rather a dynamic pattern of tightly confined energy vibrating perhaps 1022 times a second: a dance…



The protons - the positively charged knots in the pattern of the nucleus - are not only powerful; they are very old. Along with the much lighter electrons that spin and vibrate around the outer regions of the atom, the protons constitute the most ancient entities of matter in the universe, going back to the first seconds after the birth of space and time.

It follows then that in the world of subatomic physics there are no objects, only processes. Atoms consist of particles and these particles are not made of any solid material substance. When we observe them under a microscope, we never see any substance; we rather observe dynamic patterns, continually changing into one another - a continuous dance of energy.



This dance of energy, the underlying rhythm of the universe, is again more intuited than seen.



Jack Kornfield, a contemporary teacher of meditation, finds a parallel between the behavior of subatomic particles and meditational states:

When the mind becomes very silent, you can clearly see that all that exists in the world are brief moments of consciousness arising together with the six sense objects.



There is only sight and the knowing of sight, sound and the knowing of sound, smell, taste and the knowing of them, thoughts and the knowing of thoughts.



If you can make the mind very focused, as you can in meditation, you see that the whole world breaks down into these small events of sight and the knowing, sound and the knowing, thought and the knowing.



No longer are these houses, cars, bodies or even oneself. All you see are particles of consciousness as experience. Yet you can go deep in meditation in another way and the mind becomes very still. You will see differently that consciousness is like waves, like a sea, an ocean.



Now it is not particles but instead every sight and every sound is contained in this ocean of consciousness. From this perspective, there is no sense of particles at all.



If truly being the words of Dr. Wolf, I believe this above explanation of this fascinating reality is a beautiful description of the issue at hand.

So how is it that we exist as matter?

Albert Einstein alluded to this answer.



We, the people of this beautiful planet, are really beings made of energy, but we exist at the 3rd dimension because our atoms have a specific frequency which makes us able to exist in this very 3rd dimension.



This specific frequency is stable enough for all our lifetime.



Using this information, if we are indeed capable of accelerating and decelerating the frequencies to make us able to exist in the 3rd dimension, then naturally, we can use this in order to travel inter-dimensionally throughout the infinite multiverse… and here lies the key to the true evolution of the human being race.



Once we learn, or progress far enough, to accelerate and decelerate the vibrating frequencies of our atoms, then, in theory, we will be able to exist in the 5th dimension and in parallel universes of this wonderful multiverse.




Update (9.26.09)

I have been informed that the quote attributed to Albert Einstein in the beginning of the article, as well as the article quotations attributed to Fred Alan Wolf are not in the specific terms which these two physicists have used.



However, upon deeper research, I have found enough evidence to be compelled to believe that the general message of matter not being definitive to still hold true.



A quote from Einstein’s “Metaphysics of Relativity” (1950) is as follows:

“Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning...



The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton.”

A bit of extra information concerning this subject, Max Planck is attributed to saying in a lecture that was given in Florence that,

“As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast.



And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such. All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom.



Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent mind or spirit.



This is the very origin of all matter.”

Source of this quote is supposedly from the following:

Pauli, Wolfgang: THE INFLUENCE OF ARCHETYPICAL PRESENTATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE THEORY BY KEPPLER in: Jung Pauli: NATURAL EXPLANATION AND PSYCHE, Zuerich 1952, p. 163

My apologies if the quotations were not verbatim. I have modified the article to represent this possibility.

The Original Sin

The Anyu’s destruction of Aramatena’s Star Gate 12 is the event that became known as “The Original Sin,” as all life forms, including the Density-4 Christos Founder Races, became trapped in the Time Matrix until the D-12 Aramatena Star Gate-12 could be reconstructed.
Consciousness could incarnate into our Time Matrix but could not ascend to leave, while the Aramatena Star Gate-12 remained damaged.
The Fallen Angelic Anyu Race that later became the Fallen Annu-Elohim (forefathers of the Sirian-Anunnaki), intentionally traded in their original genetic capacity to hold natural minimum 12-Strand DNA Template “Christos Potential,” characteristic of the Christos Founders Races, for a digressive 11-Strand DNA Template Mutation
Through removing the 12th DNA Strand Template form their genetic blueprint, the Annu-Elohim successfully blocked the Density-5 Breneau Founders races from incarnating into their race line, so they were free to create a legion of self-contained Fallen Angelic dominion forces within or Time Matrix.
Their intention was, and continues to be, oppressive, exploiting dominion of our Time Matrix and its life-fields, and the operational control over the 12 Primary Star Gates of the Universal Templar Complex in our Time Matrix.
(Voyagers I – Page 162, 168)

This Green Reptilian fellow is from constellation "hydru$" like myself, the true forefathers of the creation of money, drugs, cars, chemicals and digital and analog hardware to write/construct and arrange electronic dance music (EDM) this includes the invention of "The Audio C0n$0L3 Mix1NG D3$k"

We are an ancient race and were one of the first reptilian races around in the kn0wn Universe.

We are known for our grand possession at large of people's and other beings souls and support the Matrix wholeheartedly, we are to be taken lightly as if we do not exist in which we use the factor of non existence to control and possess what's considered to be our landmark people on any planet known to the Universe herself. We are quite friendly if you let us in and if you shut us out we know of ways to come right back into your minds to possess you as we are trying to teach the possessed people a lessons on this planet, fail to comply with our blessed teachings will result in the extraction of your souls as we don't take s**t of of anyone that is white or black.

Kneel before your true masters of the non existent universe - The Red Reptilians

There is nothing new under the sun. With the death of the real, or rather with its (re)surrection, hyper-reality both emerges and is already always reproducing itself. The dead are already dead; precisely more than the living which are yet alive.



God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum; his own Disneyland…

To begin with it is no ''objective'' difference: the same type of demand. Formerly the discourse of crisis, negativity and crisis. It is pointless to laboriously interpret these films by their artificial resurrection in systems of signs, a more radical political exigency.
Jean Baudrillard

“The Precession of Simulacra”

Philosophers can get pretty excited about The Matrix.



An apparent exception is Jean Baudrillard, the author of Simulacra and Simulation (henceforth, S&S), the book that appears in the movie. Numerous sources report Baudrillard saying that the movie “stemmed mostly from misunderstandings” of his work. So a natural point of inquiry has been whether or not this is true.



Yeffeth (2002) contains two essays both entitled “The Matrix: Paradigm of post-modernism or intellectual poseur?”; one answering “the former” and the other “the latter,” and both apparently assuming the disjunction is exclusive.1



In this article I will point out some further interpretations, and (eventually) argue for one of them.




I. An analytic take on post-modernism

But first, let me lay my cards on the table. I am no fan of either Baudrillard or post-modernism.2 I am an analytic philosopher, and my focus is entirely upon what to make of Baudrillard and his connection to The Matrix, from the analytic point of view.

I think there’s a consensus amongst analytic philosophers that post-modernism is largely self-indulgent, self-important bunk, that has rather inexplicably taken hold in many philosophy departments outside the English-speaking world, and in many non-philosophy departments inside it. The following would be a fairly typical assessment:

Philosophy is hard enough to read, anyway, but analytic writers strive to be clear, whereas post-modernists seem to strive to be as obscure as possible. And just to make things worse, when an exponent of Po-Mo occasionally makes a reasonably clear statement, taken literally it’s either trivially true, or obviously false. So the Principle of Charity (interpret others so that what they say has the best chance of being both true and interesting) suggests that we take them non-literally.



But then what is the non-literal meaning?

There’s even a joke about it. What do you get if you cross a post-modernist with a Mafioso? Someone who’ll make you an offer you can’t understand!

But mostly, it’s no laughing matter. The more egregious the offense against clarity and good sense, the more influential and celebrated its perpetrator. They are elevated to cultish, pop-star status, with an almost religious devotion to their writings. But many of the “must-read” essays in Po-Mo circles would earn even an undergraduate a poor grade in an analytic school - it’s more like the unedited guff circulating on the internet, where any nut with a theory can hold forth.



What post-modernists are doing is not really philosophy at all, and they give the discipline a bad name amongst other academics, take jobs that could and should go to more sensible folks, and present dangerous falsehoods to the general public.

I confess to some sympathy with this line, perhaps tinged with some professional jealousy. And if Baudrillard can’t be understood, then he can’t be misunderstood, either. On the other hand, though, an undergraduate in a philosophy program inhabited by post-modernists can get a perfectly decent education in logic and the history of philosophy, so it can’t be true that post-modernists are just not doing philosophy. Rather, they have a very different conception of what is possible for contemporary philosophy.

A start towards understanding their view is to consider our ordinary use of fiction. A novel (or movie, or whatever) can provoke all manner of thoughts in us, and we often ask what it means, whether or not it was realistic, and what we can learn from it. The fiction represents a (part of a) world, and part of our normal interest is in how closely it resembles the real world.



But what are we really comparing the fiction to? Isn’t it the way we think the real world is?



And that’s just another representation of the real world, a mental story “about” it, not the real world itself.

Analytic philosophers are well aware of this potential regression in representation, and there is an ongoing debate over what it and related considerations might show. For instance, some think that all our observations of the real world are “theory-laden,” and debate whether or not this is a bad thing. Others think we have more direct access to the real world.



But the touchstone in all the analytic views on this subject is that representation - language, say - is aimed at the real world: for instance, on one very common view, names often refer to real individuals, and predicates often apply to real properties. Truth is a matter of the predicates used applying to the individuals referred to.

Post-modernists tend to have a fundamentally different view of language and other representation, a view inherited from structuralism in linguistics. Representations, they say, only ever refer or apply to other representations, so that language (and thought) is literally cut off from the real world. No matter how hard you try to refer to the non-representational, you can’t do it.

If this is correct, then whither philosophy? Well, there’s still the possibility of objective inquiry, but it’s a matter of studying the representations and the relations between them - the system of “signs.” A sign is made up of a “signifier” and a “signified”: e.g. the word “horse” is a signifier, and signifies the concept horse (and never, as we analytics would often have it, real horses.)



Now this pursuit - semiotics, or semiology - has its limits, though it’s not as limited as you might think, since post-modernists tend to radically expand the domain of things that count as representations (e.g. to include all artifacts). Moreover, some even suggest that semiotics is not objective, anyway. So in post-modernist circles there is a shift toward what I would call aesthetic aspects of representation.



Philosophy becomes after all an art-form, where presentation is as important (maybe more so) than representation. The point becomes to be playful, to fill one’s writings with double-meanings, puns, scare-quotes, irony, metaphors, capitalizations, and so on. For instance, in a post-modernist’s hands, the first sentence of this paragraph might be:

If this is “correct,” then w(h)ither Philosophy?

Baudrillard is entirely typical in this regard:

"The form of my language is almost more important than what I have to say within it. Language has to be synchronous with the fragmentary nature of reality. With its viral, fractal quality, that’s the essence of the thing! It’s not a question of ideas – there are already too many ideas!”

This quote is from Philosophers, a book of photo-portraits by Steve Pyke, accompanied by each philosopher’s answer to the question:

“What does philosophy mean to you?”

Baudrillard did not answer the question directly, and instead asked one of his English-speaking commentators to provide a suitable quote from his writings. Look up “synchronous” and “fractal” in dictionary, and it seems clear these words are chosen for some effect other than their actual, or even metaphorical, meanings. (“Viral,” on the other hand, at least makes sense as a metaphor applied to language, as in Kripke’s metaphor of the “contagion of meaning.”)

Philosophers also contains the answer from an analytic philosopher, Sir Geoffrey Warnock, to the question, “What does philosophy mean to you?”:

To be clear-headed rather than confused; lucid rather than obscure; rational rather than otherwise; and to be neither more, nor less, sure of things than is justifiable by argument or evidence. That is worth trying for.

Post-modernists reject this sort of answer as a quaint artifact from the “modernist” past, a demand for clarity and objectivity that cannot (now) be had. We analytics, modernist throwbacks that we are, should bear this in mind when we examine Baudrillard’s writings, and particularly since we usually are reading in translation.




II. Simulacra and Simulation

The first chapter of S&S, “The Precession of Simulacra” begins:

The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none.
The simulacrum is true.
Ecclesiastes

If once we were able to view the Borges fable in which the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up covering the territory exactly (the decline of the Empire witnesses the fraying of this map, little by little, and fall into ruins, though some shreds are still discernible in the deserts - the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction testifying to a pride equal to the Empire and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, a bit as the double ends by being confused with the real through aging) - as the most beautiful allegory of simulation, this fable has now come full circle for us, and possesses nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra.

Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyper-real.



The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself.

In fact, even inverted, Borge’s fable is unusable. Only the allegory of the Empire, perhaps, remains. Because it is with this same imperialism that present-day simulators attempt to make the real, all of the real, coincide with their models of simulation. But it is no longer a question of either maps or territories. Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference, between one and the other, that constituted the charm of the abstraction.



Because it is difference that constitutes the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real. This imaginary of representation, which simultaneously culminates in and is engulfed by the cartographer's mad project of the ideal co-extensivity of map and territory, disappears in the simulation whose operation is nuclear and genetic, no longer at all specular or discursive. It is all of metaphysics that is lost. No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its concept.



No more imaginary co-extensivity: it is genetic miniaturization that is the dimension of simulation.



The real is produced from miniaturized cells, from matrices, and memory banks, models of control - and it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times from these. It no longer needs to be rational, because it is no longer measures itself against either and ideal or negative instance. It is no longer anything but operational. In fact, it is no longer real the real, because no imaginary envelopes it anymore. It is a hyper-real, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere.

By crossing into a space whose curvature is no longer that of the real, nor that of truth, the era of simulation is inaugurated by a liquidation of all referentials - worse: with their artificial resurrection in the systems of signs, a material more malleable than meaning, in that it lends itself to all systems of equivalences, to all binary oppositions, to all combinatory algebra.



It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real, that is to say of an operation of deterring every real process via its operational double, a programmatic, metastable, perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short-circuits all its vicissitudes.



Never again will the real have the chance to produce itself - such is the vital function of the model in a system of death, or rather of anticipated resurrection, that no longer even gives the event of death a chance. A hyper-real henceforth sheltered from the imaginary, and from any distinction between the real and the imaginary, leaving room only for the orbital recurrence of models and for the simulated generation of differences.

Baudrillard apparently asserts that the post-modern condition is one of “simulation,” where reality has disappeared altogether. This historical process has been one of “precession of simulacra”: representation gives way to simulation, through the production and reproduction of images.



He writes (p6):

These would be the successive phases of the image:

it is the reflection of a profound reality

it masks and denatures a profound reality

it masks the absence of a profound reality

it has no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.

In the first case, the image is a good appearance - representation is of the sacramental order [i.e. not a simulacrum].



In the second, it is an evil appearance - it is of the order of maleficence. In the third, it plays at being an appearance - it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearances, but of simulation.

Note that Baudrillard is here reacting to, amongst other things, Marxist thought. Marx’s historical materialism postulated the necessity of the overthrow of the bourgouisie by the proletariat. Baudrillard claims instead that a different historical process is playing out - and the crucial factor is not the mode of production, but the mode of reproduction.



Moreover, whereas Marx claimed that the masses suffered from false consciousness, Baudrillard writes that the masses are post-modernist, understanding that all consciousness is “false,” and hungrily consuming one “false” image after another.

The historical nature of these processes suggests that it is only in the post-modernist world - from the late twentieth century on - that truth and objectivity is impossible. (This might explain why post-modernists don’t depart radically from analytic philosophers on the topic of the history of philosophy.) In Baudrillard’s terms, it seems there once was a real world to be investigated. It used to be that our images were more or less true representations of reality, then they became false representations, then they became the false appearances of representation, then finally (in the condition of simulation) they no longer even appear to be representations.

However you take this (for instance, whether he’s saying that there’s no reality, or only that our images bear no relation to it), it’s pretty radical stuff. Of course, he might not really mean what he says. If we interpret him literally, the obvious question to ask is why we should believe a word of it. So perhaps it’s better to take him as presenting a cautionary tale of some sort - that we in some meaningful sense have lost touch with reality. But then, all the obscure prose seems just unnecessary.

In any case, there seem to be many connections between Baudrillard’s work and The Matrix, not least the question of whether or not The Matrix is a simulation of the sort envisaged. A “programmatic, metastable, perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and short-circuits all its vicissitudes,” even sounds like the Matrix.

The connections become more obvious when we consider Baudrillard’s update of Marx’s theory of exchange value. Symbolic exchange is the key notion for Baudrillard, and ties in with the precession of simulacra. There is an unequal symbolic exchange when one object is a mere copy of an original (say a reproduction of a Queen Anne chair).



In the next order of simulacra, the exchange is equal (say, mass-produced chairs which are only copies of each other). In the current order (simulation), objects are conceived in terms of equal-exchange reproducibility (chairs, of course, were not conceived in this way), in binary computer code. Again, The Matrix looks like a simulation, conceived entirely in computer code.

Moreover, Baudrillard is very taken with the miniaturization of code by means of the binary language of the computer chip; all those ones and zeroes. A common post-modernist theme is deconstruction, very roughly the process of exposing metaphysical problems, and especially contradictions, in theoretical language.



If we understand “contradiction” in a loose sense, it is the assertion of both what is true and what is false, and it is common in logic to denote truth by the numeral “1,” falsehood by the numeral “0.” So perhaps we are to think that the Matrix necessarily contains the seeds of its own de(con)struction? After all, Neo is “the One,” and the name “Cypher” has amongst its meanings, “zero.”

Finally, S&S has a short disquisition (“On Nihilism”) on the necessity for terrorism and violence, and this may provide a justification of sorts for the mayhem that occurs in the movie. Even the electricity of human bodies turns up, by analogy, in Baudrillard’s In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, but here human beings are the “ground,” absorbing the “energy” of images.

So at first blush, The Matrix is based heavily upon Baudrillard’s work, and seems relatively faithful to it. But let’s not leap to a conclusion. Post-modernists are not the only ones interested in the notion of simulation, which has some important applications in analytic philosophy. I’ll mention just two. First, we want to know when to attribute intentionality to other individuals.



For instance, there’s a famous debate involving Alan Turing, John Searle and others, about the simulation of intelligence. (Searle argues against Turing’s claim that a digital computer that successfully simulates intelligence thereby counts as intelligent.) Second, global simulation of the sort we see in THE MATRIX seems to be a logical, physical and epistemic possibility, an observation that raises a host of well-known philosophical bugbears.

On the first issue, I am in the Turing camp, holding roughly that the best explanation of the ability of a computer to simulate the linguistic output of a normal human would be that the computer is intelligent. We might say that simulated intelligence can be real intelligence.3 Can we interpret Baudrillard as saying the same thing about reality: that simulated reality is real reality? Hardly.



It seems better to interpret him as saying that simulation is not simulated reality, because it doesn’t even have the appearance of reality.




III. Misunderstandings?



So it seems that Baudrillard has some grounds for his complaint noted above.



The Matrix is more faithful to traditional philosophical puzzles concerning global simulation, since there seems to be a profound reality outside the Matrix, and the folks in the Matrix falsely take their simulated condition to be reality. Of course, it might turn out when the trilogy is completed that even this appearance of reality is itself a simulation, but that’s not the point.



THE MATRIX still has it that humans in or out of the Matrix can conceptualize the distinction between reality and mere simulation.4



Baudrillard has recently expanded his criticism in this direction:

What we have here is essentially the same misunderstanding as with the simulation artists in New York in the 80s. These people take the hypothesis of the virtual as a fact and carry it over to visible realms. But the primary characteristic of this universe lies precisely in the inability to use categories of the real to speak about it.
(Reported translation from an interview in Le Nouvel Observateur.)

There is a reflexive paradox here, of course. Baudrillard’s criticism seems to presuppose that we can conceptualize and communicate the difference between mere simulation and reality - else could the movie could not give this impression - -which flatly contradicts the claim that we can’t.



From an analytic point of view, this alone shows Baudrillard (when taken literally) to be as mistaken as it’s possible to be, and drives us towards non-literal interpretations.

One possibility is that the Wachowski brothers were trying to be faithful to Baudrillard, but relied on a relatively superficial reading of S&S. After all, the “desert of the real” remark is one that Baudrillard immediately disavows, because it embraces the “impossible” conceptualization. The Wachowskis are easily forgiven for such an oversight - the first two paragraphs of S&S are actually pretty clear, but from then on, Baudrillard descends into murky prose that, if I may be permitted a complaint, has taken me weeks of my life to try to sort out. Frankly, if I was making a movie instead of writing this article, I simply wouldn’t bother.

At one point the script required Morpheus to tell Neo “You have been living inside Baulliaurd's [sic.] vision, inside the map, not the territory.” (draft dated April 8, 1996) This again ignores Baudrillard’s disavowal, and the horrid misspelling tends to undermine any claim of serious scholarship.

The wonderful sequences involving the taste of food (Cypher and steak; Mouse, Tastee Wheat and chicken) seem in one sense to support Baudrillard’s view of the post-modern condition. Steak, Tastee Wheat and chicken no longer exist. Moreover, the humans raised in the Matrix never did taste the real thing, as Switch points out, so “the taste of Tastee Wheat” in the Matrix condition might for all anyone knows be entirely invented by the machines.

But, once again, this seems more in line with analytic concerns than with Baudrillard’s, since it presupposes the conceptual line between the real and the merely simulated. Indeed, consider the real import of the chicken remark.



Mouse says:

"Take chicken, for example. Maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything."

The Wachowski brothers are here playfully evoking the old saw that in our world chicken tastes like everything, prompting us to wonder about the possibility of all this being a global simulation, again presupposing that we can conceptualize the difference.

The whole sequence also evokes the very analytic debate over how phenomenal content of a mental state (e.g. the subjective “what it’s like” of a certain taste), is to be specified.



According to some views at least, even if the Matrix produces in a human being a mental state that plays the complete functional role of the taste of Tastee Wheat, that fact does not guarantee that the state has the appropriate phenomenal content.




IV. Paradigm of post-modernism and intellectual poseur?

There is a real irony in Baudrillard’s focus on simulation.



When I first opened S&S and saw the epigraph attributed to Ecclesiastes, I smelled a rat, and a few minute’s investigation confirmed my suspicion that the attribution was false. Then as I read on, I presumed that Baudrillard was trying to give a concrete example of simulation. But I remain puzzled.



On the one hand, it seems a remarkably poor attempt at simulation - no one even remotely familiar with Ecclesiastes would be taken in by it. But on the other hand, to judge from the plethora of Baudrillard pages on the World Wide Web, many of Baudrillard’s readers seem either to be fooled by the false attribution, or else not to care one way or the other. And maybe that’s Baudrillard’s point: that to the “masses,” Ecclesiastes is no more and no less than the author of the epigraph.



More on this presently.

What makes the debate over “simulated intelligence” particularly interesting is that it’s possible in principle for a digital computer, suitably programmed, to simulate the linguistic output of a typical human being. But in practice it’s very difficult, in part because there are just so many things that might come out of a typical human being’s mouth.

There are, however, atypical linguistic outputs that are much easier to simulate. An early, eerily real-sounding program was Weizenbaum’s ELIZA, which simulated a Rogerian psychotherapist. (Rogerians take a passive approach, which mostly involves taking what the patient has just said, and turning it into a question.) Another domain of discourse which seems ripe for simulation is professional sports-talk, which seems to consist largely in repeating the same clichés over and over, with 20/20 hindsight.

Curiously, the linguistic output of post-modernists likewise seems relatively easy to simulate, with reasonably successful actual attempts by both human beings and computers. For instance, NYU physicist Alan Sokal submitted a parody of post-modernist writing entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” to the journal Social Text, only to have it published in their Spring 96 issue.5

Analytic philosophers and their sympathizers reacted with glee, of course. Once the dust had settled a bit, most of the commentary on the Sokal affair focused, in high dudgeon, on the nature of the editors’ error. The editors admitted to not understanding a good deal of the article - the science and math parts - and to being underwhelmed by most of what they did understand - the post-modern parts.



The diagnosis, then, has been that the editors inappropriately included the article on grounds unconnected to its actual content - political grounds, and particularly the fact that Sokal was an established scientist.

But perhaps the editors conceded error too readily. The fact that editors are unmoved by a view is by itself no reason not to publish it. And analytic philosophy is hardly free from political constraints - modern edited collections (and the relevant issue of Social Text was a themed collection) often contain articles chosen because they present a certain point of view, rather than on sheer philosophical merit. Moreover, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for non-technical journal to assume that an expert in science and math would take care to maintain accuracy in that respect.

But this line of defense assumes modernist standards of evaluation. Why not just reject them outright, as post-modernism would see to require? Baudrillard, for one, can embrace Sokal’s simulation positively, as analogous to his own “Ecclesiastes” effort. After all, for Baudrillard, a simulation cannot be a parody, because parody is impossible.

But post-modernists needn’t go to this extreme. The key question here is why modernists like Sokal think the success of the simulation is damaging to post-modernism. In a follow-up article,6 Sokal explains why and how he wrote the parodying article, and the implication is that he knows he wrote a parody because he intended it as such.

But (literal) post-modernists have a ready response: Sokal’s reasoning commits the intentional fallacy of supposing that a text means just what its author intended it to mean. Even analytic philosophers tend to accept that works of fiction can and do differ in meaning from that intended by the author, and the more post-modern you are, the less distinction you see between fiction and non-fiction. Indeed, post-modernists tend to reject the notion of a privileged interpretation, holding that if a text can be read a certain way, then that’s one of its many meanings.



So a natural post-modernist response to Sokal is that he inadvertently produced a serious work. (One needn’t claim that it’s a good serious work.)

The same can be said of the many amusing computer simulations to be found on the World Wide Web.7 Clicking on the link just footnoted will produce a new “post-modern” essay in a matter of seconds. But the mere fact that it’s generated “randomly” doesn’t by itself settle whether or not it can be read meaningfully. Consider an accidental “work” of fiction - suppose it turned out that Of Mice and Men was, by a massive coincidence, actually produced by an army of monkeys typing away.



This might diminish it in some ways, but the text could still be engaged with meaningfully.

Speaking of simulating the post-modern, it’s time for a confession: the epigraph at the head of this essay is not to be found in the works of Baudrillard. The first paragraph is my own attempted parody (for fun I included bits of the real Ecclesiastes), and the second is an excerpt from a computer simulation of Baudrillard, chosen only because it mentions films.8 Now I don’t claim either is a good simulation, but as with Baudrillard’s “Ecclesiastes” ruse, I bet they would fool a lot of people.

What should a modernist make of this?



We needn’t press the point about authorial intentions applied to non-fiction. Instead, we should ask, what is the best explanation of relative ease of simulation of linguistic output?



In the Rogerian psychotherapist and professional sports cases, it’s obvious: there is a very limited range of possible outputs. But that can’t fully explain the post-modern case. I suggest that we get the rest of the explanation by agreeing with the post-modernist. The post-modernist ought to regard simulated post-modernism as real post-modernism, and so should we.9



But, armed with the modernist distinction between mere simulated philosophy and real philosophy, we ought to conclude that post-modernism is (in large part) a simulacrum, in Baudrillard’s sense: either it masks the absence of a profound reality, or else it has no relation to any reality whatever, and is its own pure simulacrum.



Take your pick.

The irony, then, is that the most promising exemplar of Baudrillard’s literal claims about the post-modern condition is post-modernism itself! Of course, I don’t expect that to concern him. But in case any post-modernists are concerned, I propose a sort of test-in-reverse. Take a term or expression that appears frequently in post-modernist writing, say “fetishize.” Despite my efforts, I don’t know what this term means, and if Sokal and others are right, it might not mean anything at all.



Here’s the test: try to simulate an analytic philosopher, and explain what the term in question means, without resorting to:

quotation

paraphrase in terms equally obscure

non-literal language

The failure of the test for a decent number of post-modern expressions would provide some evidence of post-modernists being mere simulators of philosophy - intellectual poseurs.




V. The meaning of The Matrix

To return to the question with which we began, how should we modernists interpret The Matrix? As a more or less faithful homage to Baudrillard, or as a misguided homage? Or neither?



I have already argued that the philosophical issues The Matrix plays with are better interpreted as traditional, modernist, analytic ones, than as post-modernist ones. But even if I’m wrong about that, it clearly can be interpreted that way, and by post-modernist lights, that’s enough. So perhaps it’s true that The Matrix is a paradigm of post-modernism, and not an intellectual poseur, and also true that The Matrix is an intellectual poseur, and not a paradigm of post-modernism.

A third interpretation is that The Matrix is solidly modernist - not a paradigm of post-modernism, and not (at least, not in this respect) an intellectual poseur. But what then are we to make of the apparent references to Baudrillard and his work?



I suggest that they are playful, ironic references. In real life, S&S is a slim volume, in the movie it is rather thick. But not because it has more content - if anything, it has less content than in real life. The last chapter, “On Nihilism” has only the first page, and the rest of the book is hollowed out, a hiding place for contraband software.



And what is the purpose of the software? It is an op**te for the masses.



The message is either that S&S is only good for hiding stuff in, or, at a deeper layer of subtlety, that the real S&S is a simulation, in reality only containing brain-numbing escapism. Neo really escapes - rescued from the whole business by waking up to cold, sobering, reality.



S&S represents the post-modern condition, a condition only post-modernists themselves are trapped in, a condition where everyone is a drone or an addict (where’s that red pill when you need it?); and, as far as the rest of us are concerned, entirely expendable. Of course, this is likely not what the Wachowski brothers intended. If it were, then their reported insistence that Keanu Reeves read S&S, in preparation for the role, borders on cruelty.

To the extent that the Matrix corresponds to Baudrillard’s vision of our condition, The Matrix rejects the pessimistic notion that the real has no chance. Just as escape from the Matrix is possible, so we could escape from the post-modernist condition of simulation, even were it our present lot.



And that’s nice to know.



Footnotes

1. Glenn Yeffeth (ed), Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix (Dallas: Benbella Books, 2003)

2. There’s no doubt that post-modernists vary in the extent to which the criticisms to follow can be leveled at them. But there’s also no doubt that Baudrillard is representative of what we analytics regard as the worst of it.

3. The language of the debate is apt to mislead here. Every simulation captures some features of the thing simulated, otherwise it would not do as a simulation. An analytic philosopher will say (a) that any simulation is as real as anything else (i.e. if it exists, it exists), (b) calling something a simulation only means that some of the features it appears to have are not really had, and (c) if the computer really is intelligent, then its intelligence is not simulated, but real. The Turing camp would say that a computer can demonstrate real intelligence by simulating a human being.

4. This seems so, even if in fact it’s simulation “all the way down”: say, if somehow there is only layer upon layer of simulations, in an infinite regress. The denizens of the Matrix still seem able to conceptualize that which is not a simulation.

5. See Sokal’s website: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/, for the article, and a large collection of responses and commentaries.

6. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html

7. E.g. http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern

8. http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/c-g.writing/cgw.baudrillard.txt

9. Again, there are post-modernists and post-modernists. The reluctance to really bite the bullet over the Sokal affair suggests to me that at least a lot of American proponents are really more modernist than they like to let on.

physics.nyu.edu