[MD] Many Avatars, Many Selves

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

Tiny question.  My body is not perfect, but I still kind of like 
it.  Don't you like yours?

Marsha



At 11:48 AM 9/16/2008, you wrote:
>[Ian]
>I'll hope Arlo's "you body is irrelevant" remark was a little 
>extreme for emphasis, in his context ;-)
>
>[Arlo]
>Emphasis = "context". The physiological host of any self is 
>irrelevant to me in structuring my interactions with them in this 
>forum. However, as I said several time, should my goal switch to 
>mating, the physiological host assumes great value for me. In all 
>cases, my accepting or rejecting another's "self" as it is presented 
>to me has to do with what has value or meaning for me.
>
>Marsha seems to wonder why I am harping on gender, and I do because 
>I think it is a great way to disentangle "self" from "body", and a 
>great way to realize that any "body" can (and does!) host multiple 
>"selves". And it works as a good example because it forces people 
>who say one thing to have to actually explain their conceptual 
>framework in real world scenarios.
>
>My main point, which Marsha seems to also feel I've gotten away 
>from, is that "Arlo" is an avatar. "Ian" is an avatar. "Marsha" is 
>an avatar. They are functionally NO different from the avatars 
>inhabiting online worlds such as Second Life. Indeed, I think Krimel 
>was spot on in saying that the MOQ Discuss List is every much an 
>"online social world" populated by avatars as Second Life.
>
>Conventionally, we want to say the "Arlo" who inhabits MD is "real", 
>while the "Aenea" who inhabits World of Warcraft is "unreal", but 
>this works only a very superficial level, and on one where we have 
>to bury our heads in the sand over key issues of identity. I ask, 
>WHAT makes "Arlo" real and "Aenea" unreal. And I submit that if you 
>think about that, you'll eventually see that the only thing that 
>makes this distinction is that you believe one is real and you 
>believe one is pretend based on socially-contrived "things" that 
>fluctuate greatly from person to person.
>
>Part of this social-contrivance is the enforced notion of "one body, 
>one mind, one soul". It is a socially enforced "line of continuity" 
>that has usurped its socially-valuable role of providing us with 
>sought after social ends and has blinded us into thinking it is some 
>external, dogmatic rule. And I think it becomes evidently hollow 
>when we consider the identity-history of the author we so admire 
>(along with the other questions, scenarios which I've been presenting).
>
>[Ian]
>As soon as we move away from things entirely literal and objective, 
>as we must in this MoQish context, then we must rely on "patterns" 
>of behaviour (and intent) built-up over time; behaviors that must 
>include analogy, simulation, thought-experiments, mind-games, and 
>other rhetorical tricks in order to be "creative".
>
>[Arlo]
>This reminds me of Bob's talk about Chris' murder in ZMM.
>
>"What had to be seen was that the Chris I missed so badly was not an 
>object but a pattern, and that although the pattern included the 
>flesh and blood of Chris, that was not all there was to it. The 
>pattern was larger than Chris and myself, and related us in ways 
>that neither of us understood completely and neither of us was in 
>complete control of." (ZMM)
>
>In this case, the "flesh and blood Chris" was a very significant 
>part of Bob's life. And for ages of human history, most (if not 
>nearly all) social relations between people included this "flesh and 
>blood" aspect prominently. Sure, there were pen pals. And sure, 
>there were books. But the majority of the people "who we knew" we 
>interected with organically, and that included a "flesh and blood" copresence.
>
>I submit, what about "here"? If my body were to die, and "Arlo" 
>would no longer be here, reconsider the above description by Bob. 
>The pattern "Arlo" which you know doesn't really included a "flesh 
>and blood Arlo", does it? The pattern you would miss (well, maybe 
>one or two of you would miss) would be exclusively non-organic. That 
>pattern that relates us has nothing to do with my (or your) corporeal host.
>
>This is, I think, the disentanglement that online worlds allow us to 
>see. Our "selves" inhabit social worlds that have very little to do 
>with the physiological world (although still something, certainly 
>not "nothing") and this allows us to see the "patterns" which we 
>call self without the illusion that the "flesh and blood" component 
>is such a large part of that.
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.