[Ron] I think [avatars] have their merit, what I said was how avatars can be used as a loophole for accountability...
[Arlo] When email first hit the stage, people noticed the odd phenomenon that otherwise likable people were "suddenly transformed" to nasty "flamers" who would engage in vicious attacks they would never dream of doing "face to face". "Flame wars" became an almost cliche syndrome to explain what was thought to be the "depersonalization" of cyberspace. Almost counter-intuitively, at the same time a "hyperpersonalization" was occurring where people in online forums would express deeply personal attachments to people they "never met", often rapidly describing people as "close friends" where "IRL" such a label would take years of interactions. What the internet has done is give us a readily available medium by which anyone can see how "identity" can be disentangled from the notion of a bodily-associated "real you". And into this we have seen that the role-negotiations for identity "IRL" mirror the role-negotiations for "IVL". That is, there truly is no fundamental difference. "Arlo" is an avatar, Ron. You know him solely through his interactions in this medium. "Ron" is an avatar. We talk about meeting "IRL", and when we do you'll have a corporeal image to associate with "Arlo", but does that in any way correlate with "the real Arlo"? Indeed, will "the real Arlo" please stand up? "Arlo", "Ron", "Ham", "SA" are as "real" as we negotiate them to be. Indeed, "SA" is a great example. For years he has used this "avatar" as his "identity", yet recently he has "outed" another avatar he uses, "Nick". On top of this, for years many on this forum have thought of him as "Heather", a female, despite his proclaiming that this is "his wife". The only "identity" that matters is the one we accept, that "SA"/you have negotiated and built. I would imagine that those who know "Nick" may have a slightly (or greatly) different view of "who he is". When I ride with my Harley buddies, I don't talk linguistics or social theories or even often philosophy at all. I talk bikes and trips and oil and beer and strippers and burgers and elk. Indeed, many of my biker friends know me as "Jim" and not "Arlo". On the other hand, at work some people react with tilted heads and confusion if they find out "Techie Arlo" sometimes morphs into "Biker Jim". Which one "is the real me"? Both? Are they both "masks" on top of some deeper, core "me"? Can we ever be seen without a mask of some sort? Ham, of course, dismissess those who play with online virtuality, but in truth "Ham" is every bit as much an "avatar" as my shaman personae "Aenea" in World of Warcraft. What do you know about "Ham"? You know what he tells you, and you assume that "to be true". And you've formulated ideas about "Ham" based on years of social interactions. But how closely do you think "the real Ham" mirrors the "Ham inside your head"? Indeed, for all intents and purposes there is "no real Ham" OTHER than the one "in your head", and this is a dynamically negotiated avatar. Same with "Arlo" and same with "Ron". [Ron] I have a hypersensitivity to it because I was abused by someone who used a fictional character to do what they did without a shred of accountability, THEY hadn't done those things, didn't know what I was even talking about it was the character. [Arlo] As social beings, we expect a certain amount of continuity in our relationships. We expect that the "Ron" I know today will be more-or-less the same "Ron" I will know tomorrow. We expect that the "Ron" we may bump into inadvertantly at the local tavern will be more-or-less the same "Ron" we talk to here. You have every right to be disillusioned that this continuity between personae was shattered so severely. But I submit that this it is the abuse, not the mask, that is the crux. How do you know, for example, which of these personae (the abuser or the denier) was the "fictional character"? Was the abuser any less real? Seen another way, couldn't you say that the "fictional character" was the one who denied responsibility? I'd submit that both "abuser" and the "denier" are masks. And this does not absolve responsibility. I may, in my tavern-personae, pick a fight with someone who insults my honor, but the damages for this I am liable for are not absolved because of my philosopher-personae. [Ron] I spent a frightful evening with someone who I thought was sane slowly turn insane and by the end of the evening I had to call the police. [Arlo] Well now you've gone and brought neurobiological imbalance, trauma and/or psychosis into the mix. Who would you say "the real person" was, the one you know on meds? Or the one that appeared without the meds? Why? When Pirsig underwent his shock therapy, and literally had a "new identity" crafted for him, who would you say "was the real him"? Was he killed? Is this new person "not the same person" as the original Pirsig? He touches on all this in ZMM, but it remains fascinating to ponder when one thinks about "identity". 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/
