In parts of the paradigm of reality

In the postmodern era and postmodernism as such, media and information appears to be a crucial factor that shapes and direct the form of this epoch and of its philosophical, artistic and historical movement. Postmodernism is a moment of history in which as its core there is representation, or  problem with it. The research, the arguments, the questioning revolves around how it appearance rather of how it is, and this gives a sense of looseness of meaning in which, perhaps we lose the capacity of looking for it, settling in the idea that “the real” does not even exists anymore.Information, visibility, choice and meaning entangles creating a net that appear to be the reality that we can look at as the only one that exists, forgetting about parts of the paradigm of reality that we don’t even consider anymore because they are too far away from the nearest reality. Therefore, another part of the loose of meaning is taken in consideration, the expansion that meaning can take, how big is meaning? Is it just part of the reality that I am from? Is it just what I can relate too? The world that we relate too has expanded, economically, physically, and even in terms of information and as such perhaps there is no more what we can choose to see as what we can relate but what we affect in the reality we consider meaningful. Baudrillard in the essay consider that who is not covered in the media is dissocialized or virtually asocial1, but practically non-existent.  Narrative is always present,in every age,place and society.Human beings continuously produce meanings within and through a narrative.It is possible to analyze many layers of narrative in its fractal composition,from the single phoneme to the story.Every layer is crucial and thanks to their connection  to production of meaning it is possible.Narrative produce meaning while is happening not just as its end, it runs across it .Narrative can be studied from a vast variety of standpoints:historical,psychological,sociological,ethnological,aesthetic etc.The semiotic is the study of meaning making through signs in linguistic and non-linguistic systems.What take place in narratives is from a referential point of view as Umberto Eco,an italian semiotician proposed,every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication,revealing an anthropological dimension.Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis treat signs as part of a system-exploring their functions within codes and sub-codes-a. The study of syntagmatic relations reveals the conventions or ‘rules of combination’ underlying the production and interpretation of texts(such as grammar of language).The use of one syntagmatic structure rather than another within a text influences meaning. While narrative is based on sequential and causal relationships (sequences) there are also syntagmatic forms based on spatial relationships( montage in posters and photographs,which works through juxtaposition) and on conceptual relationships (such in exposition or argument).The distinctions between the modes of narration,description,exposition and argument are not clear-cut. The prevalent narratives that design the meta-narrative as we know it, are the ones we recognize as representative of our stories and lives, affecting therefore the grand course, the meta narrative, that one that should enclose al the narrative but that in fact enclose all the narratives chosen from the majority of dominant social groups. Dominance in western narratives prevail on every minor stories that anyway is part of that narrative but we choose to not consider, being western metanarrative so pervasive in other minorities narratives that affects them, till the point of recognizing themselves as, eventually ,inferior and in need to change, culturally, economically, even aesthetically in order to fulfil a story that is not fully told, and morevor don’t consider them as subject of it but rather objects A liberal alienation in form of conscious blindness. Forgetting that media is not just a technical medium, that spread equally pure meanings, but rather we have to imagine it as products that are sold to a specific target and that as anything else in the market it has a value in rapport to the system that is in but as well with the swing of the market therefore offered and demand. It might sound absurd but perhaps it would be much easier to imagine and comprehend what information in the media world actually are without losing a real sense of meaning in respect of the “meaning” of which Baudrillard talk about. In fact, it will be very important to specify how the meaning always exists and to say that there is an implosion is quite dangerous nor quite specific. The importance of having a proper terminology of which significance in its history is considered while used it can be something that can help trace back and relearn were the meaning lies, a philosophical exercise, critically engaging with the information would definitely change the course that hose take therefore the meaning that they contain. Anyway they cannot, as they had never been, pure concepts untouched from the birth till the death, is a constant modification of them, a re-evaluation or a re-elaboration.I will take a closer look to the use of the term that I use earlier:object.It would be rather correct to specify that these subjects are objectified in order to serve the maintenance of the symbolic order,the social world of linguistic communication.But the abject is nor object nor subject,is not even situated in the symbolic order is rather encountered previously,as an element of “primarial repression”,on a level of archaic memory making the binary subject’s relation to its objects of desire and of representation possible.The abject is distinguished from desire but is desired in a painful and fearful way,the subject’s abject relation is based on an instinctual impulse of fear that is determined as: object of fear.Isn’t it now that philosophy is needed the most, its capacity of finding the core of the realities that coexist in a multifaceted bigger reality, to explore in the different narratives finding what of the metanarratives ought to be deconstructed.Furthermore semiotic seems to pose the ‘subject’ of phenomenology, that for long has held a privileged position in Western metaphysics ,in discussion, arguing that it is the first discursively constructed.Through this understanding there is a “displacing of the subject follows a sliding deconstruction of a number of key concepts essential for social phenomenology” so for instance the subject and the way it is expressed and represented is not a given anymore but a fundamental part of the discursive narration,a construction serving a definite function.As a matter of fact the subject is located in a contest,in which “the reality of it  our subjectivity is the trace of discourse”.Therefore the subject’s action,its experiences and its self-understanding are constituted and constitutive of the discourse,they are no “innocent point of departure of reflection” they maintain unchallenged their own composition,the deconstruction of it is essential to understand their representational configuration,that otherwise would not show itself,or re-determine itself in a cycle of evolution,but rather it reaffirms itself every time leading back itself .Therefore is important to understand the role and the significance that phenomenology has,as a tool both semiotics and phenomenology gives us perspective and perception that everything has a meaning,phenomenology and that these meanings are construction a part of a bigger interaction and not just a fixed given. Semiotic is not excluding phenomenology form the narrative but is instead shaking the Western one as Briankle G. Chang states:”It transform an essentialist problematic into a processual one where the question of ‘signification’,of the production of meaning,takes a precedence over substantive concerns”Baudrillard contribute to another rapture in the narrative of the 21th century discourse, he identifies the in the forms of communication the determining factor of social relation,in the article Simulacra and Simulation,he  states that the current state of the simulacra is simulation.That means that all is composed of referents with no reference and that create a hyper-reality,a reality that is more real than the real itself.The hyperreality is reinforced  by  the way we consider something more real when is more exposed to the media messages.”Information is thought to create communication”but we can consider that just a result of wealth,of opportunity of connection with position of power that determine the strength of an information but it does not ensure its sources,reliability and eventually truth.Here the word truth is used in a material sense,therefore in its material contingency,the information that is spreaded is most of the time the most pictorial,spectacular part of that story.It exploits the spectacle that creates,it exploits the expectation of the public of that spectacle and in doing so it “exhaust communication and meaning in the staging of both.” In this mechanism of mutual indispensable exploitation there are losses of the message but also of the medium,in fact Baudrillard  explains how the medium becoming the message “falls into the indefinite state characteristic of our great systems of judgements”,it annuls the original  purpose which media served,mediation.”The short-circuiting between poles of every differential system of meaning, the erasure of distinct terms and oppositions, including that of the medium of the real thus the impossibility of any mediation, of any dialectical intervention between the two or from one to the other.”Furthermore,he conveys that nothing can control this process,we are buried under the derisory terms alienation and passivity.The today’s overproduction of meaning and of speech have incredible impacts on our political,economical,social relations.Trump is the candidate of the era of simulation. Invoking the “truth against him does not work as a strategy.Trump is already more advanced than the discourse of truth.We are in a hyperreality where there is no more truth and no more falsehood,In other words,Trump is the candidate of the era of simulation.He has always been present in the public sphere,Tv show,reality show,advertisement of its own product and special guest in Tv series and his image has changed very little,Trum was consistent with the figure he represented in the hyperreality and was coherent with the hyperreal landscape as well.The mistake of the multitudes of journalists and editorialists like the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent is to not understand that the system of “truth and lies” is not some eternal, ahistorical or “scientifically objective” reality. It is an historically constructed cultural discourse or arrangement tied to an epoch which is finite in time. As Foucault might say, the concern with “true” and “false” is an epistème – an epistemological a priori, an expression of a specific power-knowledge constellation within an era – whose time has come and gone. The insistent belief in “truth and lies” is also embedded in the Plato-initiated “metaphysics” of the “human subject,” the subject-centered worldview, the sovereign (democratic or scientific) subject who “knows” and can therefore judge and determine when “knowledge” or a “fact” has been betrayed.In the new epistemological system beyond “truth and lies” to which Trump is finely attuned, of which he is the master, and which liberals do not get, the object itself is the hot thing. The spotlight is on objects (conceptual not physical), and they are a relationship, an association which knows nothing of whether they are real or fake. They transcend and straddle true and false. “Things have found a way of avoiding a dialectics of meaning that was beginning to bore them: by proliferating indefinitely, increasing their potential, outbidding themselves in an ascension to the limit, an obscenity that henceforth becomes their immanent finality and senseless reason.”When Trump says something, it becomes true because Trump says it, and there is nothing that the media press world wide can do about it. Trump will change what he says on any given topic from day to day, or on any given Sunday. The liberal media will “prove him wrong” with evidence, but this demonstration will have an effect exactly the opposite than that intended upon and for the “silent majority” of half of Americans for whom they are the liars. The institutional bases for consensus or legitimation of “the truth” have disappeared beneath the sheer load of mountainous piles of information, and the virtualization, delocalization, de-physicalization, and disembodiment of discourse. When did this happen (when was the “Canetti point”)? Impossible to say. To know the point of origin of that would be to overstate the claims of knowledge, to violate the methodological recursivity of our awareness of being lost within the culture of simulation.In the culture of virtual images,one geographical location to another, the hyper-space of Trump’s creative memory mingled with the hyper-dimensional expanding televisual space on the interior of the flatscreen.This has massive repercussion on the lives of people that live on the ‘real’ territory and on the diversity of these peoples that are negated by the dominant discourse that benefits its subjects,for example Trump.Fantasy is possible in a world that is still real. A fantasy could be said to be not true, some sort of illusion (in the non-Baudrillardian meaning of this word) or deception. But when images are everywhere, and they are universally exchangeable with each other, the made-up mental images become hyper-real. Meaning becomes hyper-meaning.Would not the ubiquity of video documentation and recording devices of every kind increase the availability of truth? Whipping the cam around, looking amazing from every angle? No, the effect is just the opposite. When documentation and recording are everywhere, then they are nowhere. They cease to exist in any meaningful sense. They serve no purpose whatsoever anymore. They are pure technology fetish decoupled through their excess from what they were supposed to enhance or invent.Indeed this happen because media and technologies are still functioning as tool in that sense,they can expand infinitely in a loop the hyper reality as well as they could serve higher purposes,as like reporting violent act against minorities,or even inform and therefore disrupting the dominant discourse of the existence of these subject and what role do they serve in the grand scheme of narrative;But if surveillance is everywhere, then this good side no longer functions. This is the same paradoxical logic that is operative for all virtual and digital media technologies. Yes, all of these wonderful new things are available to us, but we omitted the step of thinking carefully about the appropriate measure of their application. We forgot to humanely judge this. We are now fully in the era of simulation and telemorphosis, of the New Truth of the omnipresent image (both picture-image and word-image – the multimedia of the screen having transformed written words from texts into images). The New Truth is not a lie – that would be too easy and the claim is retrograde. The New Truth institutes its own hyper-reality, which is at present our only reality. The only way to contest simulation and the New Truth would be a strategy or perspective of “taking the side of objects” .We would have to get to know the codes which underlie and instantiate simulation and reverse them. Reversibility of the code comes from “objects” within the code which want more objecthood. “The media continues to ‘analyze’ what it cannot understand. It is like a world which has entered into dementia — where the dream life is more real than the ‘awake’ life, and where no one can say which is which. It is the nervous breakdown of hierarchical order.”