A couple of disclaimers! I know Baudrillard would probably reject using this as a framework for multiple reasons, but I still found his Precession of Simulacra to be useful for mapping out new Simulacra. I also know that I am not an objective observer and at the same time doing this is a simulation of a simulation and a part of hyperreality.

I'll be using The Precession of Simulacra to analyze the aftermath of the bombing of Yandex's Sasovo hub and ultimately how the event was absorbed into hyperreality.

For Stage 1, the faithful reflection of "reality", we have raw unedited footage of the event.

For Stage 2 we have a denatured version of "reality." Examples of this are the news article I linked, press releases by Yandex, and exaggerations/spins by both governments

Stage 3, this is where we break completely from "reality." On social media a narrative started that the Russian bots were gone and that there was less division and hate. This is despite no evidence showing this. This also is Stage 3 of a separate precession of simulacra with stage 1 being the raw data of *all* bot activity from the data center decreasing and Stage 2 being the news of that bot activity. At the same time, the idea of Russian bots no longer being an issue gives people the false sense of a more real internet. Masking the fact that it never was real in the first place

Stage 4 / A New Stage 1 For Future Simulacra

Stage 4, a full simulation, this starts with a separate precession of simulacra. That being from the Speed/Usage limits of Starlink in Ukraine. At the data center's Stage 4, this is Starlinks Stage 3. Stage 4 is the political narratives and conversations about the believed reduction in Russian bots on Social Media. Some of these narratives include the idea that Elon Musk and Donald Trump shut down Starlink because Russia removed their propaganda network.

Effects

There are a few effects of this new simulacrum. One being that for many people this is their lived reality. The other being that this affects several existing signs. For example, signs like Elon Musk and Donald Trump/MAGA/Right Wing are further associated with Russian bots. The sign of Ukraine/Zelensky is associated with freeing the internet from Russian bots giving them a hero status. Because of this (and previous precessions) these signs evoke different emotions out of people that feel incredibly real.

I recently spoke with the psychoanalyst and author Darian Leader.

We covered a lot in our interview, including the ideological apparatus of Scooby Doo, the mediatization of violence and madness, the distinction between “true” and “false” ghosts, as well as the tensions in defining the internal and the external in schizophrenia and autism.

I'm sharing it here in case some of you are interested. Thank you in advance, should you choose to watch it.

What direction to take after Bauman and Weber? (Continuing classics, branching into Arendt, or Berger & Luckmann?)

Hi everyone,

I'm an undergraduate studying sociology. A while ago, I read Zygmunt Bauman's \*Modernity and the Holocaust\*, which left a huge impression on me. Following that thread, I just finished reading the chapters on "Domination" (\*Herrschaft\*) from Max Weber's \*Economy and Society\*.

Here is where I currently stand:
\- \*\*Currently reading\*\*: Norbert Elias's \*The Civilizing Process\* alongside Georg Simmel's \*Fundamental Problems of Sociology\* (though I'm honestly finding Simmel quite difficult to wrap my head around 😓).
\- \*\*On my shelf\*\*: I recently bought a copy of Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's \*The Social Construction of Reality\*, waiting to be read.

I'm now trying to figure out which path makes the most sense to prioritize next:

1. \*\*Stick with the classical foundations\*\*
   Continue building a solid foundation in classical theory—working through Durkheim, Marx, or wrestling more deeply with Simmel.

2. \*\*Branch off into Hannah Arendt\*\*
   Follow the thematic interest sparked by Bauman (violence, modernity, and totalitarianism) by reading someone like Hannah Arendt (\*The Origins of Totalitarianism\* or \*Eichmann in Jerusalem\*).

3. \*\*Dive into Berger & Luckmann\*\*
   Shift toward sociology of knowledge and social constructionism with the copy I already have.

For those of you who have navigated this stage of sociological study, how would you recommend pacing or ordering these readings? Any thoughts or alternative recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

I would love to hear your thoughts, experiences, or any recommendations you might have—please feel free to drop a comment!

(Disclosure: English is not my native language, so I used an AI assistant to help draft and translate this post.)

Many figures in the sphere present themselves as an apex of aggressive heterosexuality, focusing on the conquest and subjugation of women. But I feel there is a paradox: women are actually structurally absent. The reality is a sphere driving on an autoerotic masculinity. Women are continuously talked about, in practice, they are separated off from. She is not an actual human partner but a prop or a concept used to stimulate an "autoerotic" fantasy of what it means to be a man. The goal is not connection with a woman, but self-arousal over one's own perceived dominance.

The dynamic relies entirely on a male audience. When these ideas are broadcast, the actual energy exchange is man-to-man. It becomes a collective, homosocial ritual where men gather to validate each other's masculine fantasies. In a theoretical sense, the sphere is jacking itself off intellectually and emotionally to fantasies constructed within this world, making the entire ecosystem increasingly homoerotic despite its loud anti-gay rhetoric.

I also argue that this type of sexuality shapes male relations within the sphere. Trends such as looksmaxxing, the increased use of steroids, function within this sphere of separation from female desire, and instead is men shaping themselves in accordance with autoerotic masculine desire. It is delusional and dangerous as the reality of the other becomes increasingly distant and difficult to make a genuine connection to. That is, it fundamentally is a process of radicalization and engendering masculinity into a space of loneliness.

Hi all,

This is more of a search for personal advice than a theoretical question.

I work at a university in Australia and, like many universities around the world, our institution is rapidly descending into a neoliberal cesspit. Everyday at work I am forced into contact with ideas of 'best practice.' 'excellence (in some vague abstract sense),' 'impact,' the push for every academic to have a LinkedIn presence, to compete for industry grants (in Australia that usually means the mining industry), and build a brand around oneself. I'm finding it so overbearing and it causes me a lot of grief given, like many of you, I'm sure, I consider myself a critical thinker, wanting to challenge the assumptions underlying a lot of this language and institutional structure.

I guess my question is, how do you all stay sane in such an environment, and how do you actually practice criticality when many just uncritically adopt the language and behaviour of these institutional trends?

Thanks in advance and I hope everyone else is keeping well in these times.

Hey, new here. I'm a writer and creative strategist interested in the intersection of technology, ideology and belief.

I've been researching the parallels between 19th century spiritualism and AI, specifically how both manufacture a kind of epistemic authority. The more we trust these systems, the more dependent we become.

Wrote a piece on this recently. Curious if anyone has thoughts on AI as a mechanism for commodifying belief, or other theoretical frameworks worth looking into...I would love to do more research!

https://cultholdings.substack.com/p/the-demon-in-the-machine

Do you have any ideas/examples/theories of non formal practices happening in early socialization stages that could contribute to psychiatrist/psychological/pathological thinking patterns later on in life? As implicit knowledge incorporated in the habitus. Like for example in economical thinking: the practice of getting grades in school as socialization towards social comparison/competiton thinking patterns.

Hi! I finished my master's degree, i looked into nostalgia and melancholia in an internet subculture on social media (I'm keeping it vague on purpose).

I feel the need to change since a phd is longer and requires more work than a masters. And i need to work with new concepts and theories.

Is there something to do with hauntology?
And the feeling of doom?
In media studies?

I think, of course there is, but what could actually be interesting?

I'm currently reading mark fisher and I'm somewhat inspired. I like anything related to negociations between (possible) past, present, and futures, and internet culture. I know it is not specific, but if someone wants to help me brainstorm, i'd be really happy about it :)

Pls be kind I'm young and I know nearly nothing, I'm trying my best

​

A Phrase That Travels on Its Own

Hi everyone,
I am trying to track down the exact bibliographic source or published volume for a famous quote by D.W. Winnicott from January 1967.
In it, he openly discusses how he got "stuck" with the concept of delusional transference until Margaret Little clarified it for him. The quote goes:

"Now there was something I needed and could not manage by myself, and that was a full use of the concept of delusional transference. This is one of the most difficult things we have to deal with in analysis, and from my point of view this bit I really took from someone. If Margaret Little hadn't been able to clarify it I would have been stuck, as I think a lot of psycho-analysts are stuck. That is, then, a little bit of my life where I really got something from someone else, almost as if I had stolen it out of my mother's purse."

I believe (but I’m not sure) he said this in January 1967 at the British Psychoanalytical Society during the responses/Q&A after presenting an early version of his paper "The Use of an Object." However, while the main paper ended up in Playing and Reality (1971), this specific post-presentation commentary doesn't always appear in standard editions of that book.

Does anyone know exactly where this discussion transcript is published? Is it in The Collected Works of D. W. Winnicott, a specific biography (like Rodman's), or an archival bulletin of the British Society? Any help or citation pointing to where I can read the full context of this exchange would be greatly appreciated!

Hi, everyone! To take my mind off all the work at the academy, I’ve started putting together a YouTube playlist featuring songs that reference ideas or authors from social and critical theory.

The rule is simple: only songs that directly mention an author’s name or ideas (e.g., “Jacques Derrida'' by Scritti Politti; “Death of Ferdinand de Saussure” by The Magnetic Fields, etc.) or songs that can be interpreted through the ideas of one or more of the authors in question (e.g., “Ping Pong” by Stereolab, which, in my opinion, belongs to this second category) count.

Looking forward to your suggestions! !! Special prize for the most obscure song :)

Baudrillard uses Borges fable as an example of a second order simulacra. The territory(reality) comes before the map(simulation). But today that is no longer the case the map comes before the territory (what we now consider to actually be reality but it came from a simulation)

There are four stages of simulacra and Im going to use Hurricane Helene as an example. At the very beginning we had reality. The physical devastation, us completely cut off from the outside world. Then we had the death toll, pictures of everything that happened and raw footage. This is stage 1.

For stage 2 we have the simulation that adheres but denatures reality. Just footage and news reports of the devastation. It doesnt cover the full reality that we went through.

For stage 3 we have the political narratives that came after the news reports. Narratives like Elon Musk saying FEMA was purposely trying to limit planes from coming in in order to hurt us.

For stage 4 (hyperreality) we have the complete simulation that came from the simulation in stage 3. We have the idea that FEMA is taking over peoples land (and an armed man showing up to stop them proving that this was more real than reality for him) and the idea of the government manipulating the weather to take over the land for lithium. There are plenty more examples of our hyperreality but thats because its ongoing. The reality of the hurricane has been decaying as we rebuild and there will be no reality to return to.

Hello, I am doing a BSW program and a project I have talks about describing my personal ontology... i have asked my prof for clarification/what the expectations are but the response actually just sent me further into a tailspin, and reading other threads like it has not been helpful.

I have a very hard time with abstract concepts (read: painfully neurodivergent) so please help me out here... I've read the 'dumbed down' versions of it like talking about how a grocery store is laid out and categorized which does make sense over there but doesn't help me figure out how to explain my own way of thinking.

Does anyone have a fool proof, not a wall of academic non-sense, simplified version of even different ontological perspectives maybe, like core ones, that i can pick and choose things that fit with how I view the world?