[MD] Food for Thought

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought
>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:25:43 -0500
>
>[Dan asked Laird]
>I'm curious... you say you "met" these people. In person? And how do you 
>know
>they are who they say they are?
>
>[Arlo]
>Who is anyone but what they say they are?

[Dan]
Yes, there's the key. Reality is all about perception.

>
>That's the point of the Turkle piece. Where do we locate an "I" behind all 
>the
>various faces/roles we create? In the physical body? Who is the "Arlo" that
>posts on this group? Is he the same "Arlo" who works in a language center? 
>Is
>he the same "Arlo" who rides Harleys? Or fishes? What if some people know 
>me as
>"Jim" (they do)? Is that still "me"? Who is the real person and who is the
>virtual? Who is real and who is role?

[Dan]
Great questions. We construct roles and then call them real. In a sense they 
are. We here know Arlo's writings so if they suddenly seem out of character 
we'd immediately search for rationalizations why. We hold each other in 
place, so to speak.

>
>MMPORPGs have brought us considerable insight into how people construct
>identity(ies), and how this constructive process is not separate from 
>whatever
>"real you" you think there is.

[Dan]
I am sure this is so yet this insight is gained by a very small minority 
compared to the number of players playing the games. Is the teenager who 
drops out of school and spends every waking moment playing these RPG's 
gaining any valuable insight? As a rule I tend to doubt it.

>This is, I believe, partly what Pirsig was
>getting at when he talks about the "ridiculous fiction" that is "this
>autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out 
>through
>them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world".
>
>"This fictitious "man" has many synonyms: "mankind," "people," "the 
>public," and
>even such pronouns as "I," "he," and "they." Our language is so organized
>around them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid 
>of
>them. There is really no need to. Like "substance" they can be used as long 
>as
>it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not 
>some
>independent primary reality of their own."
>
>In this sense, I'd argue, each "identity" is a "collection of patterns"
>dialogically constructed through social settings, or some people call this
>"identity negotiation". There is no "real Arlo", there is only the "Arlo" 
>that
>is here, that you know via the negotiated discourse on this list.

[Dan]
Yes that is right on so far as the MOQ is concerned, imo. It reminds me too 
of the motorcycle repair shop where Phaedrus brought his bike and the 
"mechanics" butchered it. There were tell-tale signs that these "mechanics" 
weren't what they claimed to be... the loud radio, the sloppy shop.

Quality in thought and action shows and we all know it when we see it.

>
>We'd ask, why is the "Case" that posts here considered "real", but the
>Norrathian avatar "unreal"? Maybe "Case" is an avatar for some 
>woman-physicist
>in Austria. Does that make the "Case" we know "unreal"?

[Dan]
I asked a loaded question to be sure. Laird seemed to be rationalizing RPG's 
as a Quality endeavor since such a diversity of people are playing. What if 
that's not so? The CEOs I know tend to work enormously long hours; time 
management is nearly religious with them. I just cannot imagine the CEOs I 
know playing online games with janitors (not that I have anything against 
janitors).

>
>Fun questions, nonetheless.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan