Arlo said to dmb: So are you going to define what's better "fun" for me? Are you going to define what's a better use of my time? Let reask, which is a "better" use of 15 hours a week, playing in a bluegrass band, brewing beer, riding solo on the hog, playing warcraft, playing poker, playing poker online, making hot sauces? And WHY? ..If you're going to define "what's better", DMB, you better give me the reasons you make this claim. Is it the copresence of corporeal bodies? Is it in the production of a material artifact? What exactly makes what you claim "better" to actually BE "better"?
dmb says: Are you inviting me to pass judgment on your whole life, to prescribe a set of worthy activities? Or are you just expressing resentment? "Don't judge me, man!" C'mon Arlo, I'm expressing skepticism. That's not a claim I'm making such that it can be back up. I'm skeptical about your claims and I have to say that you're not doing much to back them up. Further, my skepticism here is specifically about virtual reality games, not hot sauces or bikes. It's funny how you seem to be so personally offended by these questions while at the same time insisting on the fluidity of the self. And no, I don't think the issue revolves around the copresence of corporeal bodies, not unless virtual reality games are an out of body experience, in which case I'd wonder how its possible to operate a mouse or a keyboard. And maybe Krimel would point out that your brain is involved in any given activity. Arlo said: Just as in reading a book is itself a "passive" foray into fantasy, role-playing provides the gamer with the otherwise impossible "reality" of living a life outside of the corporeal, socio-economic bounds of her/his existence. When we play Monopoly, we "role-play" at being a wealthy real-estate tycoon. When we play Sid Meier's Civilization we "role-play" at being an omnipresent (but not omnipotent) guider of world events. "Play" is not simply a frivolous activity for children, but I'd submit the most meaningful of activities for adults. dmb says: I'm not denying the value of "playing" for adults. I'm asking about one particular way that one particular adult plays. But its also true that I never much cared for the literary genre known as fantasy and I lost interest in playing Monopoly decades ago. I've heard that the game called civilization, on the other hand, is an excellent tool for learning about how societies function. Plus it sounds like fun. But that's just me. Again, I'm asking if you can say anything specific about what being a virtual, magical warrior means to you or your friends. Arlo answered that question: It provides a shared social space for geographical distributed activity. Our guild consists of friends spanning the globe. It is fun, competitive without being aggressive of violent. You know, any list I give really is identical to the list I'd give about why I find riding with the HOG club here meaningful. Social contact, enjoyable activity, "escape" from the demands of work and the drudgery of day-to-day grinding, the same sorts of things that give meaning to any "IRL" activity. dmb says: Ah, now see I think role playing is important for the maturation process and the point and purpose is to prepare one for the adult world, where we no longer pretend to play these roles but rather actually play them. But here I get the impression that fun is more or less equal to escapism. That's one of the things that makes me so skeptical. That's what leads me to think that it would be wiser and healthier to get a life from which we don't feel the need to escape. It's like the difference between treating the symptoms and curing the disease. In the long run, its much better to fix the underlying problem than it is to simply mask the pain. Arlo said: I can't speak for others, but my experience in these virtual worlds is intensely social. If anything, I can't help but wonder if these worlds are a response to the pain and damage caused by alienation and that psychic isolation of modern life. dmb says: Okay, that's not too far from what I just said. But if virtual worlds are a response to alienation then the question becomes, "is that a healthy way to respond"? Can we really interact with others in a meaningful way via our avatars? I'm skeptical. Even now, when I'm being quite sincere and using my real name in having a conversation with you, I'm sitting alone in front of my computer. It's certainly possible to make a real, heart-felt connection in cyberspace but there's nothing like seeing the look on your face, reading your gestures. Those things convey a huge amount of information so that actual words and concepts become a small fraction of what's going on. Call me old-fashioned but I believe we can read faces and the eyes are a window to the soul, metaphorically if not literally. I mean, socializing by proxy through avatars makes sense for the "Naughty Auties" because these are among the things they can't do in real life. But you're a normal, healthy adult, no? If not, please forgive me. dmb said: I can't help but wonder if people are eating fruit-flavored candy instead of actual fruit, eating starburst fruit chews where a real cherry would be so much better for you. Arlo said: Well, again, you're making a prejudiced assumption here without backing it up. Why is playing Warcraft like eating a starburst, but hanging out with friends in the local pub like eating real cherries? You seem to be really hung-up on physical copresence, or else I'm missing any other distinction you've made. dmb says: Yea, that's it. I'm just a bigot who hates people without bodies. (Huh?) But seriously, I don't think physical presence has anything to do with it. We discuss philosophy here and this is obviously not a brick and mortar situation. The quality of the experience depends on the intelligibility of what we type, not our physical location. I like to get my news analysis from THE NATION but I've never been in the same room with any of the journalist. That is simply irrelevant. (Although I've talked to them on the phone and traded some e-mails with them.) In that sense, hanging out in a pub doesn't become more meaningful just because your pals are physically there with you. The distinction between sweet flavors and nutritonal value is the same way. Candy and cherrys are both physical and both are eaten in real life while neither can be eaten at all in virtual reality. The difference is one of quality. They taste good but the latter has something more going for it. Like you said, "The bottomline is that whether online, in a tavern, in a library, on the road, or in the kitchen, the Quality of the moment is defined by the value such activity brings to those involved." And that is exactly my question. What value does it bring you? Arlo said: Is it that its about "philosophy" that gives this forum its value? What if it was a forum about cooking? Actually, I participated for a while in an online forum for hot pepper fanatics where we talked about hot sauces, peppers, cooking, growing, etc. Was that "meaningful"? Would it have had no meaning if I only "pretended" I was a cook and gardener, but found value in talking to others about such things? Take this, DMB, and lets say I spent 15 hours a week participating in that hot pepper forum. Would that be better, worse, same as if I spent 15 hours a week playing Warcraft? Why? dmb says: You're asking me to compare the relative value of two things that I've never done. Instead of taking it so personally, how about if you pretend that I've only made an inquiry rather than expressing doubt or skepticism. Pretend that you really love warcraft and you want me to understand WHY you feel that way. Can you make a case for this particular activity, other than just saying it's fun. That's the part of it I already understand. People think it's fun. I get that. Maybe it doesn't suit my idea of fun and I don't like hot peppers either. It never made any sense to me to eat food that hurts and you can ask any doctor what that shit'll do to your digestive tract. But that's just a matter of taste. Virtual reality, on the other hand, is a cultural phenomenon. My eight year old son plays "Webkinz". He and his friends are into the double screen nintendo games as well. But he's a child and you are not. Help me understand why adults do it, seemingly without shame or embarrassment. That's what I don't get. And yes, of course, I think the philosophical discussions are what make this place worthy. It literally prepared me for graduate school. I've learned a great deal from you and others and I've otherwise grown personally from the time spent here. I've met people and made friends because of it, not least of all Robert Pirsig himself. It has opened up some very remarkable opportunities and I enjoy it very, very much. It has transformed my mind and enriched my life tremendously. Despite my complaints about all the drivel, I love it here. Arlo said: The "Arlo" you know here is a virtual "life". How is it not? dmb says: I don't understand that. The Arlo I know here is not a warrior with magical powers. There is no simulated three-dimensional space. It's just a bunch of people with keyboards and some ideas about the MOQ. How is that "virtual"? I don't see how it "simulates" a conversation. It simply is an actual conversation in print form, not a simulation. If the things you post here are only a simulation of your actual thoughts, beliefs and opinions then I share Marsha's concern for honesty and sincerity. You may have noticed that I'm not a big fan of bullshit and I'd be extremely disappointed if I were to learn that this is just a game to you or that you've been blowing smoke up my skirt. Because in real life I am a dude, but skirts make me feel sexy, except when they're filled with smoke. Just kidding. Arlo said: If you spend no time fantasizing, DMB, I'd say that you are the one with the problem. dmb says: I think Freud was right. It is impossible NOT to fantasize. It's a human trait. Personally, my fantasies usually involve Kate Beckinsale, award ceremonies or large piles of cash. But I'm asking about a particular fantasy, namely being a warrior with magical powers or being a wizard in a fictional world. This is not something you seem willing to address, but it is the essence of my question. Why THAT particular fantasy? That's why I mentioned the regression aspect. If memory serves, Freud thought that fantasies of omnipotence were an expression of infantile wishes and they should, at some point, be replaced by more mature, realistic fantasies, if you will allow such a paradoxical phrase. Like I said, it's easy to see how that would be fun, but in what sense is it meaningful or valuable or anything like that? Arlo replied: It is no more, but also no less, meaningful that cooking, riding a motorcycle (solo or in a group), playing in a bluegrass band, or reading history books. The meaning is what it brings to those involved. Or if you'd say these other things should be more meaningful or valuable, then tell me why? dmb says: Well, I think that's not much of an answer. And I think the idea that nothing is more nor less meaningful than anything else is just obviously false. You don't REALLY believe that, do you? That's okay. It's pretty clear that you feel insulted by the question. That was not my intention. I just don't get it and thought maybe you could explain the attraction but I can easily just go on not getting it. There are lots of things I don't get. Memorizing baseball statistics, for example. At least you're actually playing the game rather than watching others play, like billions of sports fans. The vast majority loves that stuff but I just don't get that either. _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/ 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/
