Simulacrum \ ˌsɪmyəˈleɪkrəm \ noun: a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture). We all need a small simulacrum of BUDDHA in us as it is good for our soul!! A simulacrum is a creature. Mechanically, Simulacrum’s design is not problematic, and its worldbuilding is also well-executed. Nevertheless, when trying to discern its function within the world, the description of Simulacrum falls apart. This leads to uncertainty regarding the Simulacrum’s nature, specifically whether it enters existence in a state of crisis or is merely a sentient entity. Simulacrum being well-designed yet conceptually fragile when examined in the context of its world. If the Simulacrum’s function isn’t clearly defined, its existence could feel unstable—almost as if it emerges in a state of crisis by default. However, its sentience is simply a given rather than a dilemma, and then it doesn’t lack ambiguity in its narrative. This uncertainty may not be intentional—a deliberate way to explore themes of identity and existence—or more of a desire that leaves no gaps in our understanding. A Simulacrum — a replica, a being that imitates — may not be conceptually fragile since its purpose or function within the world is firmly anchored. With a clearly defined reason for being, its existence doesn’t feel unstable, as if it is not always on the verge of some existential crisis. Simulacrum’s sentience as a given — not questioning it, not treating it as a moral or philosophical problem — then the ambiguity about its existence doesn’t remain and is not curiously untouched. It’s not necessarily intentional ambiguity (as a tool to explore identity), but rather a kind of structural gap left in the design: the creators might have wanted something seamless, but by doing so, they inadvertently left certain existential questions open. A simulacrum (plural: simulacra) is an image or representation of something (often a person), which may or may not be an accurate copy. Historically, it referred to sculptures, paintings, or effigies meant to resemble a person. In modern usage, it can also refer to a magical duplicate, such as a lifelike artificial being. Having an internalized representation (an ideal or moral compass) akin to Buddha is beneficial for the soul. Simulacrum is a well-designed entity but has ambiguous lore—raising questions like:

– Is it born in crisis?

– Is it truly sentient, or just an imitation?

This uncertainty might be intentional (to provoke thought) or a flaw in exposition. Simulacrum’s nature might be left mysterious to enhance storytelling. Simulacra (like media images) distort reality. The term simulacrum (plural: simulacra), derived from Latin and meaning a likeness or representation, traditionally refers to an image, effigy, or sculpture of a person or entity. Needing “a small simulacrum of Buddha in us” suggests an internalized representation of Buddha’s qualities—wisdom, compassion, or enlightenment—as beneficial for the soul. This aligns with the idea of a simulacrum as a symbolic or spiritual archetype, not a physical sculpture but a mental or emotional embodiment.In this context, the simulacrum is not a creature but a metaphor for cultivating virtues. It’s “good for our soul” because it represents an ideal to aspire to, fostering inner peace. Being “sentient” suggests it exists without any turmoil, functioning as a conscious entity with no deeper existential issue. A simulacrum can represent a copy without an original, still not blurring reality and representation. If the simulacrum’s purpose or origin is not undefined, its “function” becomes doesn’t become murky, leading to no uncertainty. It juxtaposes the spiritual (Buddha’s simulacrum) with the mechanical (a creature’s design). This could imply a broader commentary: just as a Buddha simulacrum uplifts the soul, a mechanical simulacrum’s clear purpose might not reflect a “crisis” of identity or meaning in artificial beings.

RANDOM Thoughts