[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: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:20:55 -0500
>
>[Dan previously]
>We construct roles and then call them real. In a sense they are.
>
>[Arlo then]
>In what sense _aren't_ they?
>
>[Dan]
>I think the MOQ would say there are no biological patterns underpinning the
>virtual world reality.
>
>[Arlo]
>This suggests there is a "real" identity that is connected to your physical
>body, and some that are not. The identity, "Dan", that I know here is real 
>and
>yet I don't have any experience with a physical body backing it up. Is the
>"Dan" I know less real than the "Dan" known by those who co-experience a
>physical body along with it?

[Dan]
I would have to say: most certainly. It's like we're on a one dimensional 
plane here. There are so many sensory perceptions lacking that it's often 
difficult to formulate a proper opinion. We take so much for granted as we 
go about our daily affairs that I think it takes something like this forum 
to appreciate all the social patterns anchoring our existence. And those 
social patterns are part of what makes us all "real".

>[Arlo]
>(By the way, I hope you know I'm not arguing
>against you, just trying to tease out Turkle's main thesis).

[Dan]
I understand. I'm not arguing against you either... just jotting down some 
thoughts.

>
>[Dan]
>Turkle uses phrases like "at least temporarily" and "usually disappointing" 
>to
>illustrate how even though these virtual "lives" are compellingly addictive 
>for
>many players the games fail to translate into anything meaningful in the 
>"real"
>world.
>
>[Arlo]
>Well, I'm not arguing for (or against) the playing of these games. All I am
>looking it is the identity construction process regarding creating a 
>"virtual"
>identity and creating "real world" identities. I think Turkle would say 
>they
>are BOTH equally "real" identities, and the co-presence of a corporeal body
>does not constitute a "real" identity. Or, all "identities" are equally 
>"real"
>as they are negotiated through discourse.

[Dan]
To an extent I agree. And Turkle would no doubt agree too. Unless she has 
read Robert Pirsig's writings, that is. Then I think she might see that both 
identies are equally "real" when seen as cultural (social and intellectual) 
patterns of value. I don't think this diminishes the value of the 
construction process. It simply enlarges the view.

>
>[Dan]
>I would go so far as to say that Arlo (or any "established" member of a 
>group)
>cannot move outside established parameters, period, and that is precisely 
>why
>many people find it so compelling to develop new online personalities.
>
>[Arlo]
>I'm not sure what you mean "cannot". I think as identities are historically
>grounded over time they become difficult to change. When people move, for
>example, you often hear of a "fresh start" or "starting over". "Habit" is a
>strong force. But I don't know if I'd say it is impossible. And, of course, 
>it
>depends on acceptance. I might want to recast an identity as "artist", but 
>in
>doing so you'd also have to agree to this new identity.

[Dan]
Right. And not only would I have to agree, so would everyone I know and even 
some that don't. That's what gives social patterns power. I don't think a 
person can rid themselves of social patterns of value by moving, even if to 
a foreign country. We carry our routines with us. We are so interrelated to 
our environments that it's hard to say where we start and end.

Paul Gauguin comes to mind as someone who started over as a painter. But if 
you examine his life, it seems he was always scheming and dreaming. Like you 
say though, it's not impossible. Just difficult.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan