To begin our joint blog, my partner and I began looking for ties between articles, namely the Granovetter and Boyd articles. Facebook (and other networking sites), it seems, through helping us establish and maintain our weak ties allows us to build stronger communities. Granovetter claims that for a community to be strong such as in Boston's West End (a fragmented community of strong ties) versus Charlestown (a community connected through its weak ties), Charlestown turned out to be a much stronger community. Social networking sites allow you to maintain and keep weak and even absent ties. This could suggest that a community based on an online social network could wield more power than a strong real-life community. A good instance of the strength and power of online communities is the Digg communities reaction to the administrator taking down the copy-right-infringing code to crack HD DVDs encryption key. The entire community of weak and strong ties mobilized against the administrator forcing the administrators to reverse their position, stating ... "now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be."
The Digg scenario is a modern example of an online social network exibiting the same strength through weak ties that Grannovetter talks about in real life communities. If one takes the notion that weak ties make for a powerful community, then the prevelance of weak ties in online social networking must make for very strong communities indeed.
Adrik and Mark
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
testify, sistah!
In dana boyd's article “Why Youth ♥ Social Network Sites,” she describes the evolution of comment sections on social network profiles. Profile comments first appeared on Friendster, a social networking site that originated as a place to meet potential dates. They took the form of Testimonials, in which friends would write about the person on whose profile they were posting, adding to the information the user had already provided about his or herself. She gives the following true example of a Testimonial: “Mark is a man among boys, a razor sharp mind towering over the general sludge” (7). boyd (you can tell she's a real digital media professor by her refusal to submit to capitalization) describes how it became common for users to write testimonials back and forth to each other. This tendency led MySpace to name its comment area simply Comments. Along with The Wall of Facebook fame, these spaces became less about comments and more about inane chatty conversations. The example boyd gives: “Are we still gonna go paintballing?”
Clearly, these spaces are no longer exclusively for offering tribute to your friends. What are they for then? First off, they appear to be a way to show off your friendships. By publicly having the type of unimportant conversation you would usually have with your closest friends, you provide evidence to the world of your close relationship with the person on whose wall you are posting. You can see this effect at work in the informal Comments fans leave on a band's MySpace profile, simply saying things like “great show last night!!!!!1 lolz” These type of posts suggest a close relationship that may or may not exist offline.
Additionally, when you post on someone's wall, there is the expectation that that person post back on your wall, boosting your own wall post count. Unlike simply having a lot of Friends, post counts in the 1000s show that your friends actually like you enough to write to you, inferring popularity/coolness. In a sense, The Wall has become a Testimonial to yourself.
-Gene and Dylan
Clearly, these spaces are no longer exclusively for offering tribute to your friends. What are they for then? First off, they appear to be a way to show off your friendships. By publicly having the type of unimportant conversation you would usually have with your closest friends, you provide evidence to the world of your close relationship with the person on whose wall you are posting. You can see this effect at work in the informal Comments fans leave on a band's MySpace profile, simply saying things like “great show last night!!!!!1 lolz” These type of posts suggest a close relationship that may or may not exist offline.
Additionally, when you post on someone's wall, there is the expectation that that person post back on your wall, boosting your own wall post count. Unlike simply having a lot of Friends, post counts in the 1000s show that your friends actually like you enough to write to you, inferring popularity/coolness. In a sense, The Wall has become a Testimonial to yourself.
-Gene and Dylan
Everybody Loves Virii
The release of the Facebook programming platform sparked a new gold rush for the web. All of a sudden the blogosphere was humming with promises of riches in them 'thar hills, and programmers descended on Facebook in thick swarms. Now that the dust has started to settle, there are 18,553 Facebook Apps, and if you decided to install one new Facebook App a day, just, y'know, to check it out, it would take you more than 50 years to go through them. What's up with the frenzy?
Facebook apps are a prime example of Granovetter's theory. They spread through both strong and weak links but what actually enables them to spread to the widest audience is through bridges. Whenever you log in to Facebook, your home page/feed automatically inundates you with information about any of your "friends", who may or may not be actual friends. While you already share interests and therefore know about what your close friends are doing, what groups they're joining or applications they are downloading, it is through your weak links that you find more applications that you probably wouldn't have heard of before.
The viral spread of Facebook Apps neatly avoids one of the fundamental trip-wires of digital viruses (or evolutionary replicating programs). The weakest link in any algorithmic evolutionary scheme is always the so-called "fitness function" — the equation that maps certain characteristics of the program to its chances of surviving until the next round. In most systems, like Tierra, like Alife, like ECJ, you must mechanically, algorithmically, mindlessly determine whether your critters will live or die. For Facebook Apps, their future is fundamentally indeterminate: maybe they'll catch on with the cool kids in the right clique, maybe not; maybe they'll find a passionate advocate who can't wait to spread it to all their friends, maybe they'll be surpassed by a competitor's rival version on day two. Because human desire rules the fitness function, Facebook Apps will not only continue to spread and grow virally, but will also display an astonishing diversity of functionality and form. More like a virus in nature than a virus in some formal system.
— Su-Yee Lin and Jeremy Ashkenas
Facebook apps are a prime example of Granovetter's theory. They spread through both strong and weak links but what actually enables them to spread to the widest audience is through bridges. Whenever you log in to Facebook, your home page/feed automatically inundates you with information about any of your "friends", who may or may not be actual friends. While you already share interests and therefore know about what your close friends are doing, what groups they're joining or applications they are downloading, it is through your weak links that you find more applications that you probably wouldn't have heard of before.
The viral spread of Facebook Apps neatly avoids one of the fundamental trip-wires of digital viruses (or evolutionary replicating programs). The weakest link in any algorithmic evolutionary scheme is always the so-called "fitness function" — the equation that maps certain characteristics of the program to its chances of surviving until the next round. In most systems, like Tierra, like Alife, like ECJ, you must mechanically, algorithmically, mindlessly determine whether your critters will live or die. For Facebook Apps, their future is fundamentally indeterminate: maybe they'll catch on with the cool kids in the right clique, maybe not; maybe they'll find a passionate advocate who can't wait to spread it to all their friends, maybe they'll be surpassed by a competitor's rival version on day two. Because human desire rules the fitness function, Facebook Apps will not only continue to spread and grow virally, but will also display an astonishing diversity of functionality and form. More like a virus in nature than a virus in some formal system.
— Su-Yee Lin and Jeremy Ashkenas
Facebook's Poke: Uncomfortable or Comforting
Thinking about the “small-world” argument described in Granovetter’s article, we found that in fact our absent link was not absent at all. In the Mutual Friends section of Facebook we found we had two mutual friends. One mutual friend, with whom Megan had gone to highschool, Elinor had just come from a dinner with him before their meeting. This coincidence proves Granovetter’s forbidden triad. Seeing this forbidden triad through the lens of Facebook is often how current college students come to understand their social networks. However, both Elinor and Megan rarely take advantage of Facebook’s full networking opportunities, visiting the site only when notifications arrive in our email inboxes. In our meeting, we decided to break down inhibitions and discuss the sections of Facebook we do not use, particularly “the poke” option. To poke is a physical action being enacted virtually. We asked what does it mean? What does it mean to our mutual friends? Boyd discusses how the teens she studied had a “desire to engage publicly” (21). In a closed system, unable to be hacked into, Facebook’s poke becomes a way to fulfill that desire. Yet the implications of a poke are vast and unclear, different for every viewer of the act, and so how can such a tricky action be fulfilling? Or is “the poke” another way to make our large, incomprehensible world a “small-world” where we can feel somehow connected?
Elinor and Megan
It Looks Like You're Writing a Community
In “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites,” danah boyd (whose name, mysteriously, is never capitalized) discusses the phenomenon of private interactions (“Are we still gonna go paintballing?”) in the public space of social networking sites. By posting personal conversations on their friends’ Walls, she writes, “teens are taking social interactions between friends into the public sphere for others to witness” (7). But, we ask, how much of this “public” is actually taking the time to do the witnessing, to sift through this mass of information posted on the Walls of Friends? Some people, in fact, get so many posts that they can’t even keep track of their own, let alone anyone else’s.
boyd frames these networked publics as boundless communities that allow for the “persistence” and “searchability” of social interactions. But the sheer size of the “information mountain” on MySpace or Facebook (like Fuller’s “feature mountain”) is so overwhelming that most of this social information becomes essentially invisible to the community as a whole. The only person reading all of these might just be the ethnographer, boyd herself. boyd believes that social networking sites possess added functionalities that take them beyond the scope of RL social interaction, but, in the end, the two worlds don’t behave that differently.
As an added note, we think there’s an interesting comparison between the “blogosphere” (as web 2.0 would have us call it) and social networking sites. Everyone can have their own blog, talk about whatever they want, share it with friends (and other anonymous viewers), and receive comments. But, as with social networking sites, there’s so much information that it is virtually impossible to wade through it all. The network of blogs is essentially a social networking site without the actual central site.
- Charles Crandon, Ben Hyman
boyd frames these networked publics as boundless communities that allow for the “persistence” and “searchability” of social interactions. But the sheer size of the “information mountain” on MySpace or Facebook (like Fuller’s “feature mountain”) is so overwhelming that most of this social information becomes essentially invisible to the community as a whole. The only person reading all of these might just be the ethnographer, boyd herself. boyd believes that social networking sites possess added functionalities that take them beyond the scope of RL social interaction, but, in the end, the two worlds don’t behave that differently.
As an added note, we think there’s an interesting comparison between the “blogosphere” (as web 2.0 would have us call it) and social networking sites. Everyone can have their own blog, talk about whatever they want, share it with friends (and other anonymous viewers), and receive comments. But, as with social networking sites, there’s so much information that it is virtually impossible to wade through it all. The network of blogs is essentially a social networking site without the actual central site.
- Charles Crandon, Ben Hyman
A Flaw in Danah Boyd's Ethnographic Model
We disagreed with Danah Boyd's dissection of the population of 'teenagers' in her study of online social networking spaces. She, through analyzing online sources (and never through direct face-to-face communication), crafted three categories of teenagers, those who participate in online social networking, those who conscientiously object to using such networks, and those who do not have the means to participate but would like to. We argue that this model is an over-simplification of the actual spectrum of users and non-users-- mainly that Boyd's model implies that all teenagers actively care about social networking sites. Those who conscientiously object care enough to not use the social networking sites conscientiously, and those who do not have the means to participate *would* participate if they could. She does not account for teens who might not care either way. We also believe that she over-simplifies the rational behind the conscientious objectors who she says often simply say that they don't participate because "it's stupid", while these people might actually have more complex reasons for not participating.
Overall, we believe that Boyd's argument is too strong, and that she believes that social networks are more of a part of *all* teenagers lives than they really are. This then raises other questions: what is the importance of online spaces? Will online spaces become more important than they currently are?
-Matthew Jacobs, George Miller
Overall, we believe that Boyd's argument is too strong, and that she believes that social networks are more of a part of *all* teenagers lives than they really are. This then raises other questions: what is the importance of online spaces? Will online spaces become more important than they currently are?
-Matthew Jacobs, George Miller
Friday, March 7, 2008
Simulacra
Baudrillard, in all his modesty, seems to be putting forth a deterministic trajectory of how Earth will be eaten up by simulacra and how all loss and confusion will only worsen. Will Earth basically turn into LA, in his sense? And will this occur simply by virtue of the fact that simulacra, having been set into motion by capital, are a malevolent perpetuum-mobile? I think that B would nod yes, but I want to question the foundation of this stance. His argument is very convincing but I felt it needed dimensions that addressed, say, social psychology. In other words, I felt that capital(ism) as the ultimate simulacra-driver should have been substantiated more. Why is capital presumed to turn all representation into simulation by metonymy, to enact a totalizing system of exchange, and is there really no “going back” to a “truth,” a real? I understand that these are basic questions but I feel in order to arrive at some kind of answer an entire geneology of the concept of capital/exchange must be traced. Assuming that institutions and power are merely hollow vestiges left over from a time when they were alive and well, how do we theorize the power driving simulacra? Is it mainly a semiotic power that works (spirals) through language? What is the relationship between the diachrony of language, its malleability, and simulacra? Is there any possibility at all for an oppositional discourse? Also, I wish that B would be kind enough to provide some tactical pointers on how to take up this symbolic challenge of capital (is it even relevant to try?).
greatest in the World
I found myself underlining a lot in Snow Crash. And I had difficulty with some of the other readings this week, so after the beginning presentation during Wednesday’s class, I had an idea of what to write about.
“Did you win your sword fight?”
“Of course I won the fucking sword fight,” Hiro says. “I’m the greatest sword fighter in the world.”
“And you wrote the software.”
“Yeah. That, too,” Hiro says.
Someone brought up what the possible appeal to non-programmers is in Second Life. And I completely agree; what ARE the attractive to qualities to those who haven’t the foggiest how to program in Second Life? I mean, I suppose there are some slightly interesting things you can do in SL (I know someone mentioned in their post that there are concerts and museums and galleries that you can visit), but for the most part, I found myself incredibly bored. Perhaps I just don’t have that personality that finds “games” like this interesting. My brother is a big gamer and loves WOW…I’ve tried it, but just don’t find it that appealing. I certainly have no desire to play it for hours a day and days on end. Regardless, it just seems that all you can do in SL is walk around, or fly, and maybe talk to some people. Big deal. I’d much rather do that in real life, obviously minus the flying bit.
To me, what’s the appeal in Second Life, or for that matter, in Stephenon’s Metaverse, when there are people who can code and program? In Hiro’s mind, he’s the greatest sword fighter in the world. He’s the greatest in a world that he has had a hand in creating. And if you don’t have a clue as to how to alter the universe around you when others can do so by writing the software and programs, how is it even interesting? Without coding or programming knowledge, you automatically enter SL handicapped. Why would anyone be willing to do that to themselves?
“Did you win your sword fight?”
“Of course I won the fucking sword fight,” Hiro says. “I’m the greatest sword fighter in the world.”
“And you wrote the software.”
“Yeah. That, too,” Hiro says.
Someone brought up what the possible appeal to non-programmers is in Second Life. And I completely agree; what ARE the attractive to qualities to those who haven’t the foggiest how to program in Second Life? I mean, I suppose there are some slightly interesting things you can do in SL (I know someone mentioned in their post that there are concerts and museums and galleries that you can visit), but for the most part, I found myself incredibly bored. Perhaps I just don’t have that personality that finds “games” like this interesting. My brother is a big gamer and loves WOW…I’ve tried it, but just don’t find it that appealing. I certainly have no desire to play it for hours a day and days on end. Regardless, it just seems that all you can do in SL is walk around, or fly, and maybe talk to some people. Big deal. I’d much rather do that in real life, obviously minus the flying bit.
To me, what’s the appeal in Second Life, or for that matter, in Stephenon’s Metaverse, when there are people who can code and program? In Hiro’s mind, he’s the greatest sword fighter in the world. He’s the greatest in a world that he has had a hand in creating. And if you don’t have a clue as to how to alter the universe around you when others can do so by writing the software and programs, how is it even interesting? Without coding or programming knowledge, you automatically enter SL handicapped. Why would anyone be willing to do that to themselves?
I agree with a lot of people's blog posts about Second Life. I don't really get it. I never found it very enjoyable and at times it even seemed a bit creepy. But it's obviously very popular with some people, which makes me wonder why. So as usual I went straight to wikipedia and there was a lot of interesting stuff.
The section about arts and creativity in second life grabbed my attention. Apparently there are art galleries, museums, and even live concerts throughout second life. In a way this seems like an interesting use of second life: letting many people experience art and performances that are happening far away from them in real life. But I don't see why the whole virtual world with the avatars and everything is necessary. The wikipedia article even compares these 'live concerts' to webcasts of performances. People have access to these things without making a character and navigating a virtual world and I can't really imagine what second life could add to the experience. Seeing computer animated versions of the musicians playing and hearing the music in my computer speakers doesn't sound very engaging. I'd rather just watch live video of a band's performance on youtube. That seems a lot closer to the real thing.
It seems like all the useful or positive things that you can do in second life (such as communicating with a variety of people, hearing music, seeing art) can be done on the internet without the illusion of a 3D world. The part of the overall experience that this virtual world adds doesn't seem useful or positive at all. I think Steve Hall put it well in his blog post. He said something about second life being a magnifying glass for the mundane aspects of reality. And I completely agree with that. Moving around (walking, running, flying) was tedious. It was like walking from place to place in real life except more confusing and without the enjoyment of physically being outside and moving through an environment and the feeling of actually going somewhere.
The section about arts and creativity in second life grabbed my attention. Apparently there are art galleries, museums, and even live concerts throughout second life. In a way this seems like an interesting use of second life: letting many people experience art and performances that are happening far away from them in real life. But I don't see why the whole virtual world with the avatars and everything is necessary. The wikipedia article even compares these 'live concerts' to webcasts of performances. People have access to these things without making a character and navigating a virtual world and I can't really imagine what second life could add to the experience. Seeing computer animated versions of the musicians playing and hearing the music in my computer speakers doesn't sound very engaging. I'd rather just watch live video of a band's performance on youtube. That seems a lot closer to the real thing.
It seems like all the useful or positive things that you can do in second life (such as communicating with a variety of people, hearing music, seeing art) can be done on the internet without the illusion of a 3D world. The part of the overall experience that this virtual world adds doesn't seem useful or positive at all. I think Steve Hall put it well in his blog post. He said something about second life being a magnifying glass for the mundane aspects of reality. And I completely agree with that. Moving around (walking, running, flying) was tedious. It was like walking from place to place in real life except more confusing and without the enjoyment of physically being outside and moving through an environment and the feeling of actually going somewhere.
Second "Go Get A" Life
My initial welcome on Orientation Island in Second Life was revealing. The first thing that happened was I met somebody named Tyler, who asked me if I was real. I told him, "Unfortunately." He lol-ed and then departed after a few more of my witticisms, saying, "cu around." I knew, after that, that I would not have fun in this place trying to socialize, and therefore the best course of action would be to make fun of everyone to make myself feel better. So, after a mind-numbing exercise on Orientation Island about changing my appearance (if this game is so adult-minded, why on Earth do they treat everyone playing like an idiot? Rhetorical question, I know.) I teleported away.
Upon my arrival, I approached a large group of people who were talking in local chat. They were saying how they missed each other and other random conversational snippets. I interjected with, "I have the strongest desire to make fun of myself right now," to which people said "lol," and "can we help?" And then I proceeded to make fun of myself for playing second life, asking how I could ever stoop this low, pondering how long it would be until my parents kicked me out of their basement or until I got tail again. I promptly got everyone yelling at me, saying, "well, if that's your opinion, then why should we care?" and other such idiotic retorts that I swatted easily. These proletarians couldn't touch ME; I was God. I didn't play this game.
After tiring of their needless antagonism, buzzing on my chat feed like flies, I started flying. I enjoyed this aspect of the game, lifting up my character and dropping him down onto the concrete, to which he protested every time, flailing his arms every time he was dropped. The best was when I ran smack dab into a castle wall, apparently housing a society for "Mutants." Nobody was there. I guess the X-Men are fictional after all. Or at least, they're too cool for Second Life.
After flying, I teleported to another location, filled sparsely with people. Time was running out. I allowed myself to get pushed around by this one user, who kept being berated by another one for pushing people around. I started running through my memory of Carl Sagan quotes, to little response. Nobody was talking to me. Hmmm. And then I found somebody who said something strange; this user said, "Land, ho." Intrigued, I said hello, and wondered as to how conversations proceeded in this strange fictional place. He wondered the same thing, for he was new as well. Alas! I cried to myself. A fellow stranger in a strange land! But, a flaw in my plan: he may have been really trying to get into Second Life, instead of being forced into it like myself! So I tested the waters with, "Maybe I should just go back to what I was doing before Second Life, you know, crying alone on my bed in my room with the lights off while the ceiling fan beats back and forth and I rock back and forth in the fetal position, wishing, just wishing, for a way to end it all." He responded, "Yeah, I did that yesterday. You get over it quick." And then it was time to leave.
Perhaps...perhaps I had been wrong all along. Perhaps this land wasn't a land filled with idiotic overweight losers who had empty holes in their social lives that could only be filled by fictional relationships with people they would never meet. Perhaps there was an opportunity for real interaction with people that I didn't know. Perhaps in this escape I could find a reflection back to my own arrogant views about myself and about my life. Perhaps this virtual world is only a mirror to our own, the same but reversed, where losers "rule" and smart, passionate, good-looking, well-bred people like me "drool," and I could fill that empty gaping hole in my life where real social interaction should be.
Stupid game. If I wanted a fictional relationship with people, I'd just go to frat parties.
Upon my arrival, I approached a large group of people who were talking in local chat. They were saying how they missed each other and other random conversational snippets. I interjected with, "I have the strongest desire to make fun of myself right now," to which people said "lol," and "can we help?" And then I proceeded to make fun of myself for playing second life, asking how I could ever stoop this low, pondering how long it would be until my parents kicked me out of their basement or until I got tail again. I promptly got everyone yelling at me, saying, "well, if that's your opinion, then why should we care?" and other such idiotic retorts that I swatted easily. These proletarians couldn't touch ME; I was God. I didn't play this game.
After tiring of their needless antagonism, buzzing on my chat feed like flies, I started flying. I enjoyed this aspect of the game, lifting up my character and dropping him down onto the concrete, to which he protested every time, flailing his arms every time he was dropped. The best was when I ran smack dab into a castle wall, apparently housing a society for "Mutants." Nobody was there. I guess the X-Men are fictional after all. Or at least, they're too cool for Second Life.
After flying, I teleported to another location, filled sparsely with people. Time was running out. I allowed myself to get pushed around by this one user, who kept being berated by another one for pushing people around. I started running through my memory of Carl Sagan quotes, to little response. Nobody was talking to me. Hmmm. And then I found somebody who said something strange; this user said, "Land, ho." Intrigued, I said hello, and wondered as to how conversations proceeded in this strange fictional place. He wondered the same thing, for he was new as well. Alas! I cried to myself. A fellow stranger in a strange land! But, a flaw in my plan: he may have been really trying to get into Second Life, instead of being forced into it like myself! So I tested the waters with, "Maybe I should just go back to what I was doing before Second Life, you know, crying alone on my bed in my room with the lights off while the ceiling fan beats back and forth and I rock back and forth in the fetal position, wishing, just wishing, for a way to end it all." He responded, "Yeah, I did that yesterday. You get over it quick." And then it was time to leave.
Perhaps...perhaps I had been wrong all along. Perhaps this land wasn't a land filled with idiotic overweight losers who had empty holes in their social lives that could only be filled by fictional relationships with people they would never meet. Perhaps there was an opportunity for real interaction with people that I didn't know. Perhaps in this escape I could find a reflection back to my own arrogant views about myself and about my life. Perhaps this virtual world is only a mirror to our own, the same but reversed, where losers "rule" and smart, passionate, good-looking, well-bred people like me "drool," and I could fill that empty gaping hole in my life where real social interaction should be.
Stupid game. If I wanted a fictional relationship with people, I'd just go to frat parties.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
When I first entered the second life world I decided the best way to explore would be to teleport to random places where there appeared to be people. So I looked at the map, selected a random location and hit teleport. Upon arriving at the location I did not see any people. The only things I found at first were strange looking objects that looked like torture devices. When I looked at the actions associated with these objects I realized that they were some sort of sexual playthings. I continued to explore the location and eventually I found some people. They were standing near a number of animals with oversized male genitalia. There were dogs, horses, etc. A female character began to perform fellatio on one of the dogs. I typed, “What is this place?” and hit the shout button. Someone replied “heaven.” Soon after I discovered that it was an area devoted to “shemales.” As the users put it. I typed something along the lines of “Gee, of all the places to randomly teleport to when first signing up for the game.” A user replied, “Are you sure you didn’t search for shemales?” Others laughed. I decided to leave. Previous to this I had not thought of second life as a place for people to live out their sexual fantasies. Though apparently it is. Second life allows the users to act out fantasies or curiosities that may not be appropriate in real life, such as having sex with dogs. I wondered how many of the users at that location were actually transsexuals and how many were just exploring a curiosity. I wondered whether or not the use of second life as a sexual tool was a good thing or not. It is obviously all digital, making it safe, but what sort of mindset does this behavior promote? Frankly, I had no idea what to make of it.
In another one of my random teleports I ended up in a room with two people sitting on a couch. “Are you lost?” said one of them. I replied, “I just joined, so I am teleporting to random places to explore.” “Well,” said the man, “you are in someone’s house.” The user that appeared to be his digital wife said, “lol.” I apologized and left. What I really wanted to say was, “This is not a house. It does not exist. There is no space here. It doesn’t even provide digital privacy. Look at how easily I have invaded your “home.” What is the point of paying real money to own it?” I wondered why there weren’t more anarchists in second life. One could easily go around invading homes, attempting to point out how silly it is to own digital property. I supposed that users like this got banned from the server. Even this action in itself is somewhat contradictory. How can you point out something about real life within the world of second life? I personally can’t particularly understand why someone would pay real money to own a digital home. I suppose once again this ties into the idea of doing things in second life that you may not have the ability to do in real life, but why not put the time and money spent developing a life in second life into real life? I would think that after a certain time a second life user would realize that they could be just about the same person they are in second life in their real life (perhaps eliminating the fox head and unrealistic physique). Though the detachment from actuality is probably a liberating factor for most people.
The third interesting thing I stumbled upon was a simple discussion. A number of users sat at a table discussing whether or not they thought second life was a game. I stood off to the side and listened in. One man asked how much of second life they thought was representative of people’s real lives. He told them to vote in a poll on his blog about whether or not they thought second life was a game. Apparently, at this point, 85% of people had said no. I felt like pointing out that most of this people probably played the game themselves considering that he promoted it within second life, but I remained digitally silent. Is second life indeed a game? Or is it something different? Something more? There is no actual objective to second life. Perhaps it should be classified as an experience or an online community. I don’t know what to call it. What exactly about second life is so gratifying that it attracts so many users? I don’t really have answers for any of the questions that arose during my second life experience. I suppose second life is a dream world of sorts. It doesn’t particularly serve any purpose. It merely exists. The only thing I know is that I have no particular desire to return to this dream world, nor did I find anything particularly enjoyable about it.
I dont want a second life
Experiencing second life for the first time was a bit unnerving. For some reason the idea of a space that is created with no real purpose other than to loosely simulate life freaks me out a little. I felt really kind of uncomfortable when exploring the virtual world, attempting to interact with other people. I had several strange encounters which furthered my apprehension. One was when I found myself in a Disco club with dozens of people just dancing strangely in place. I clicked on a sphere that said 'boogey' and my character began to dance along with everyone else. I stayed for a few moments, thinking, trying to decide how this could be fun for anyone. I wasn't having fun. I tried several times to talk to people and the conversations were littered with pieces of other conversations that had nothing to do with me. I left shortly after that. My next encounter was with a white, faceless, torso, crucified and with a giant pitchfork through his chest. I asked him why he looked like that and he said he liked it or something, and then he started to dance while his female friend took off her clothes. I was really freaked out by this, and I ran away. I guess I just question what purpose does this program serve? I find it very hard to grasp any reason, or way that this could be used productively or even enjoyably. There is nothing attractive about second life for me personally. I guess if you are programming and making money in it, exploiting the program, then it makes sense because you are getting something out of it. It isn't a game, there is no plot, there is no narrative. Basically it is a place to just exist, and not worry about needs, just to go and fly around and interact and do whatever. If I spent any amount of time on Second Life I would feel like that time was completely wasted because I accomplished nothing. It is a separation from reality, you experience this whole other world through your rectangular computer screen. I had a dream that was more of a nightmare the night after the lab. I was stuck in Second Life and I wasn't playing it, I was actually living it and it was terrible.
My name... is ChauncyQ Wrigglesworth.
I’d like to agree with Ken’s earlier post, however I concur from the perspective of one who has never been a gamer. I was an outdoor kid. I spent much of my adolescent years throwing mud at girls, falling off a skateboard, and lighting things on fire. I never played a lot of video games and my knowledge of computers (as well as recreational activities) remains frighteningly close to what it was ten years ago.
When I started with Second Life this week, I found myself saying: “This is nothing like reality. Get me out of here.” I immediately realized that I didn’t know what I was talking about. How did I define reality? There is such an obvious rift between what I conceived as “reality” when I was saying that and what I actually know as my daily existence, and the latter was surprisingly close to Second Life.
A good example: when I sat down, the first while was spent designing the visual appearance of my avatar. After about five minutes I realized “Hey! Who the fuck cares? You’re in Second Life!” and now I’m the androgynous nudist dancing underwater by himself. (Did someone say “RL”?) But it dawned on me that even my first activity in Second Life was representative of my daily existence. When you wake up in the morning, you dress and fix yourself until you recognize “you” as your own pre-conceived self-image.
My second action was figuring out where the hell I was—this is about right.
My third series of actions were just interacting with my environment—wandering (or flying) around, learning about myself (tutorials), meeting other people ( / dance7), observing the (un)natural world. Save my closet obsession with Billy Ray Cyrus, this pretty closely resembles my day-to-day, even down to the / dance7.
But my point in highlighting these actions is partly to credit Second Life as being more realistic than I thought it would be, but more to highlight that these actions are not what I consider reality to be. When I use the word “reality” as an abstraction, I do not think about doing my laundry or walking to class. “Reality” to me is voice, it is emotion, it is exhaustion, it is celebration. This very notion of reality is often veiled by our daily routines, but remains what we strive for—a human experience.
I can understand the fascination with Second Life as an alternate reality and I will be the first to admit that I probably don’t understand a lot about it. However, to me, Second Life is little else than a magnifying glass for an already subsuming mundane reality. If I need better graphics, I can always take some mescaline—but Second Life is a poor excuse for daily routines, and daily routines are a poor excuse for reality.
When I started with Second Life this week, I found myself saying: “This is nothing like reality. Get me out of here.” I immediately realized that I didn’t know what I was talking about. How did I define reality? There is such an obvious rift between what I conceived as “reality” when I was saying that and what I actually know as my daily existence, and the latter was surprisingly close to Second Life.
A good example: when I sat down, the first while was spent designing the visual appearance of my avatar. After about five minutes I realized “Hey! Who the fuck cares? You’re in Second Life!” and now I’m the androgynous nudist dancing underwater by himself. (Did someone say “RL”?) But it dawned on me that even my first activity in Second Life was representative of my daily existence. When you wake up in the morning, you dress and fix yourself until you recognize “you” as your own pre-conceived self-image.
My second action was figuring out where the hell I was—this is about right.
My third series of actions were just interacting with my environment—wandering (or flying) around, learning about myself (tutorials), meeting other people ( / dance7), observing the (un)natural world. Save my closet obsession with Billy Ray Cyrus, this pretty closely resembles my day-to-day, even down to the / dance7.
But my point in highlighting these actions is partly to credit Second Life as being more realistic than I thought it would be, but more to highlight that these actions are not what I consider reality to be. When I use the word “reality” as an abstraction, I do not think about doing my laundry or walking to class. “Reality” to me is voice, it is emotion, it is exhaustion, it is celebration. This very notion of reality is often veiled by our daily routines, but remains what we strive for—a human experience.
I can understand the fascination with Second Life as an alternate reality and I will be the first to admit that I probably don’t understand a lot about it. However, to me, Second Life is little else than a magnifying glass for an already subsuming mundane reality. If I need better graphics, I can always take some mescaline—but Second Life is a poor excuse for daily routines, and daily routines are a poor excuse for reality.
Baudrillard
Baudrillard was talking about the repatriating of the Cloisters in New York, resurrecting artifacts of our past, some feeling of authenticity with the mummy. Is there something that compels these repatriating? Is there something in society that just clicks and drives us to start returning and reviving things back towards their original states & sites in an attempt to simulate reality? What happens, do the cloisters in new york suddenly become awkward, too transparent, too glaringly obvious in their artificiality that are sudden sparked into returning it to the original site?
Also, Baudrillard's discussion of power made me think in terms of a relevant issue today. Castro's stepping down had been interesting to me because it was so anticlimactic, in essence the Cuban population in Florida had already celebrated and received closure on Castro's death when he gave over temporary power (to his brother I think) to get his surgery. Baudrillard says "Everything happens as if Mao or Franco had already died several times and had been replaced by his double." Castro had already been long dead in the minds of Cubans, already replaced by his brother Raul (having died any number of times before and during the revolution, while in hiding from Batista's government, while sick). It is just "the modern political imaginary goes increasingly in the direction of delaying, of concealing for as long as possible, the death of the head of state" (25).
Also, Baudrillard's discussion of power made me think in terms of a relevant issue today. Castro's stepping down had been interesting to me because it was so anticlimactic, in essence the Cuban population in Florida had already celebrated and received closure on Castro's death when he gave over temporary power (to his brother I think) to get his surgery. Baudrillard says "Everything happens as if Mao or Franco had already died several times and had been replaced by his double." Castro had already been long dead in the minds of Cubans, already replaced by his brother Raul (having died any number of times before and during the revolution, while in hiding from Batista's government, while sick). It is just "the modern political imaginary goes increasingly in the direction of delaying, of concealing for as long as possible, the death of the head of state" (25).
The power of information
Anybody ever play Animal Crossing for the Gamecube? It's a much more primitive version of Second Life. You can visit other players' villages, but not while they're there, and you can only interact with computer-controlled animals. But like in Second Life, the fun parts are in the little secrets, the parts that you aren't meant to see or do. It still got boring pretty quickly, though.
On another note, I found one of the most interesting themes in Snow Crash to be the power of information. It's not always obvious how powerful information is in today's world, but Stephenson illustrates it very well. Obviously, the bitmap's ability to destroy a programmer's mind is one example of this. One passage mentions that cars are checked for "bombs or NBCI (nuclear-biological-chemical-informational) agents in the undercarriage" (p. 176). Information, in the form of DNA and three-ring binders, is the source of power for viruses and franchises.
On another note, I found one of the most interesting themes in Snow Crash to be the power of information. It's not always obvious how powerful information is in today's world, but Stephenson illustrates it very well. Obviously, the bitmap's ability to destroy a programmer's mind is one example of this. One passage mentions that cars are checked for "bombs or NBCI (nuclear-biological-chemical-informational) agents in the undercarriage" (p. 176). Information, in the form of DNA and three-ring binders, is the source of power for viruses and franchises.
Ken Estrellas made an excellent observation that very few Brown students use Second Life:
However, as a CS major, not only have I never heard of any other CS major using SecondLife, I was not introduced to the virtual world until last year when I took another MCM class with MCM majors who used SecondLife regularly. Interestingly, despite massive amounts of work in the computer lab, CS majors (at Brown at least) are normal students. In fact, I have found that most CS majors surprisingly not interested in (online) gaming or virtual worlds. (Personally, I haven't even played a video game in many years.)
I actually spent a lot of time searching the internet for reasons that people might want to use Second Life. I found many articles about people getting married in SL, how SL marriages can affect one's first life (FL), people having cybersex in SL, and just about anything else you can imagine. So I was about to give up on understanding the draw of SL and go to dinner with my friends when I realized that perhaps for people without the resources that we privileged students have here at Brown, (such as friends/people to talk to and constant intellectual stimulation), perhaps escaping the real world wouldn't be so bad. Case jacks into the metaverse where, unlike in reality, he is someone important and isn't living in a storage facility. So for people who are lonely and want to be someone else, perhaps SL is a wonderful platform. What is interesting however, is how SL has direct effects in FL -- a case of the simulation affecting the real.
name 10 people you know that play Second Life, outside of this class (and OUTSIDE OF THE CS DEPARTMENT. Nice try.).
However, as a CS major, not only have I never heard of any other CS major using SecondLife, I was not introduced to the virtual world until last year when I took another MCM class with MCM majors who used SecondLife regularly. Interestingly, despite massive amounts of work in the computer lab, CS majors (at Brown at least) are normal students. In fact, I have found that most CS majors surprisingly not interested in (online) gaming or virtual worlds. (Personally, I haven't even played a video game in many years.)
I actually spent a lot of time searching the internet for reasons that people might want to use Second Life. I found many articles about people getting married in SL, how SL marriages can affect one's first life (FL), people having cybersex in SL, and just about anything else you can imagine. So I was about to give up on understanding the draw of SL and go to dinner with my friends when I realized that perhaps for people without the resources that we privileged students have here at Brown, (such as friends/people to talk to and constant intellectual stimulation), perhaps escaping the real world wouldn't be so bad. Case jacks into the metaverse where, unlike in reality, he is someone important and isn't living in a storage facility. So for people who are lonely and want to be someone else, perhaps SL is a wonderful platform. What is interesting however, is how SL has direct effects in FL -- a case of the simulation affecting the real.
SIMULATION
Snow Crash was very enjoyable to read. I loved all the Sumerian mythology, as well as linking religion to being viral. It was a new perspective that, although fictional in nature, was entertaining to think about. Still, I'm having a very difficult time accepting the Metaverse as a second world. When users play Second Life, it is so blatantly obvious that the world is fake and I don't think anyone can really accept it as a simulation. I feel that no matter how good the rendering is in the Metaverse, there would be no way to get past the shortcomings of not being able to physically move or touch things in the Metaverse. But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the point is to be absorbed into a world that is different from our own in order to escape reality while still acknowledging it's existence. But if that point were to be made, we might also say that a book does the same thing. Are books another form of simulation?
I feel that people have a tendency to question reality often, and I find it hard to believe that we are easily fooled by simulation. Besides, how "real" something is depends on our standards of what "real" is. Here is an excerpt from the Matrix that caught my attention early on, said by Morpheus to Neo:
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste an see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
Does this not imply in favor of the Matrix? That the Matrix can be considered real? What difference does it make if we live in a simulation? I found the relationship between humans and machines to be symbiotic.
Finally, I would just like to point out how much of a badass Ng was in Snow Crash.
I feel that people have a tendency to question reality often, and I find it hard to believe that we are easily fooled by simulation. Besides, how "real" something is depends on our standards of what "real" is. Here is an excerpt from the Matrix that caught my attention early on, said by Morpheus to Neo:
"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste an see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
Does this not imply in favor of the Matrix? That the Matrix can be considered real? What difference does it make if we live in a simulation? I found the relationship between humans and machines to be symbiotic.
Finally, I would just like to point out how much of a badass Ng was in Snow Crash.
The Symbolic and the Simulation
According to Lacan, to enter the symbolic is to learn to accept lack by becoming a subject, an "I," and thereby accept your own interchangeability with other "I's." This notion resonates heartily the the Second Life concept of an avatar.
In creating or logging onto your avatar, you become, through the mirror of the imaginary, a definitive subject, the control, behind you given actor. Yet in second life the interchangeability of the subject can be even more literal than the Lacanian understanding of subject. It is possible to imagine that the other subject you interact with, other 'I's" could not always be the same person.
When I was in second life I had a long conversation with a girl from Germany, which was weird, to be honest I still get a little creeped out talking to strangers over the internet. That said, it was pretty fun, through her sometimes broken English typing we chatted about music, the house she had just bought in second life, cars, and shopping. Anyways, the point was that as much as I was enjoying talking to another "I" in second life, the very concept of an avatar is interchangeable. I could've gotten up and let someone else control my avatar, or I could log in as another avatar, the fundamental subject is interchangeable. Bummer. Ultimately the effect is a dehumanizing one. Debby227 could be a sweet college student from Germany, or she could be a 40 year old sex offender or an undercover cop on "To Catch a Predator" trying to set up cyber stalkers. Everything is interchangeable. If modernism is the collapse and reordering of time into industrial society, and If Jameson cites Postmodernism as the collapse of distance, Second life must be and even further collapse of the subject.
In creating or logging onto your avatar, you become, through the mirror of the imaginary, a definitive subject, the control, behind you given actor. Yet in second life the interchangeability of the subject can be even more literal than the Lacanian understanding of subject. It is possible to imagine that the other subject you interact with, other 'I's" could not always be the same person.
When I was in second life I had a long conversation with a girl from Germany, which was weird, to be honest I still get a little creeped out talking to strangers over the internet. That said, it was pretty fun, through her sometimes broken English typing we chatted about music, the house she had just bought in second life, cars, and shopping. Anyways, the point was that as much as I was enjoying talking to another "I" in second life, the very concept of an avatar is interchangeable. I could've gotten up and let someone else control my avatar, or I could log in as another avatar, the fundamental subject is interchangeable. Bummer. Ultimately the effect is a dehumanizing one. Debby227 could be a sweet college student from Germany, or she could be a 40 year old sex offender or an undercover cop on "To Catch a Predator" trying to set up cyber stalkers. Everything is interchangeable. If modernism is the collapse and reordering of time into industrial society, and If Jameson cites Postmodernism as the collapse of distance, Second life must be and even further collapse of the subject.
I laughed out loud while reading Baudrillard. Of the tug-of-war over The Cloisters, he says, "their reimportation to the original site is even more artificial: it is a total simulacrum that links up with 'reality' through a complete circumvolution," (11). I thought SecondLife was as funny, metamorphosing the real to uphold the reality principle.
Mapping (here I am only partially channeling Jameson) real life forms and actions onto the land of Linden (appropriately called "The World") sometimes turns into a situation similar to the custody battle of the Cloisters. My favorite detail in SecondLife is that you are told to communicate vocally (with commands like "Shout"), but your avatar's animation is of typing, not speaking. The real action gets twisted, referred to as vocal action, but ultimately the simulacrum is truthful in its own right, where "talking" is essentially typing.
Mapping (here I am only partially channeling Jameson) real life forms and actions onto the land of Linden (appropriately called "The World") sometimes turns into a situation similar to the custody battle of the Cloisters. My favorite detail in SecondLife is that you are told to communicate vocally (with commands like "Shout"), but your avatar's animation is of typing, not speaking. The real action gets twisted, referred to as vocal action, but ultimately the simulacrum is truthful in its own right, where "talking" is essentially typing.
Stuff
Haha, I wrote my MC15 final paper about Jameson vs. Lyotard on the concept of totality (Lyotard doesn't like it, he's even more freaked out than Baudrillard I think) and I've forgotten pretty much all of what I referenced there. I do recall though that one or both of them make use of spatial metaphors--the real, or the absolute, has been lost, so that there are no longer any stable reference points to guide yourself by. Jameson criticizes some forms of totality but seems to have his own preferred one, and I'm not really sure what he's trying to get at, but I'm not bothered by the idea--say, sort of an ideological "gray goo," if you're up on your end-of-the-world scenarios.
I'm quite fond of theory but I prefer more theatrical, even mythological ideas to explain the sort of things life and theory concern (the Kantian sublime is pretty cool, for example, and Campbell/Eliade's ideas of the sacred are even better). So I particularly enjoyed Snow Crash's ridiculous stories about Enki the original linguistic hacker. It's true that most (perhaps all) world-creation stories begin with the separation of things--God separated light from darkness, the waters from the heavens, etc. Of course that separation had to have been real in some sense--in truth there is no difference between the sky, the sea and the earth, or at least not as far as we're concerned: they're all part of what is observable in one way or another. The separation between them is not intrinsic except in science, which is (in the context of postmodernism) an art which lacks the kind of truth that we so fruitlessly seek. It's fascinating to wonder what it was like--if there was a moment when the world of instinct and raw sensation split into the world of words. Probably there wasn't, and it happened over millions of years, but that's what we have myths for, isn't it? Anyway, that primitive world is still there--we're still in it, we've just convinced ourselves (but only halfheartedly) that it's gone. Eliade says that when the Aztecs and Mayans removed the hearts of their victims, the gods were supposed to be there, present, as real as anything else--and that they really were, as far as anyone was concerned. Maybe it's just my naive wish to be a spiritual guy, but I think the gods are all still there, just buried under mountains of words, though I'm sure that's been said better many times in the last few thousand years.
At this point my blog post is a horrible mess of what amounts to incoherent pop philosophy, but to get to my original trite point, I think Snow Crash functions as a light held to the act of describing the experience of living that is the fundamental concern of all human projects, once we get past the business of staying alive and reproducing. I suppose the question is are we actually getting anywhere? Sure, anybody in this class who enjoys thinking about this stuff might get a thrill of "enlightenment" once in a while, a sort of "Oh, so that's what it was" feeling of understanding, but I'm sure any number of kids studying existentialism in the early 1900s or priests studying whatever priests studied during the middle ages came to similar conclusions, (I think thinking about thinking tends to repeat itself a whole lot) just phrased differently. Jameson (among others) believes we're approaching a nexus where things are going to get really wild, maybe because of computers, maybe because of politics (I'm personally holding out for ascension to a higher state of being through philosophical meditation, but that seems unlikely), probably a combination of things. But it's kind of easy to find similar beliefs throughout history--aren't we always headed towards a crisis or a paradise of some sort? I guess I've just been reading way too much about postmodernism + computers lately (I'm also in Code, Software and Serious Games), and at times the essentially ridiculous (the texts strut around like roosters) nature of a lot of this stuff chafes a bit. Still, didn't someone once describe the entirety of human civilization as a protracted bout of mass schizophrenia? I guess we all settle into our own madnesses.
I'm quite fond of theory but I prefer more theatrical, even mythological ideas to explain the sort of things life and theory concern (the Kantian sublime is pretty cool, for example, and Campbell/Eliade's ideas of the sacred are even better). So I particularly enjoyed Snow Crash's ridiculous stories about Enki the original linguistic hacker. It's true that most (perhaps all) world-creation stories begin with the separation of things--God separated light from darkness, the waters from the heavens, etc. Of course that separation had to have been real in some sense--in truth there is no difference between the sky, the sea and the earth, or at least not as far as we're concerned: they're all part of what is observable in one way or another. The separation between them is not intrinsic except in science, which is (in the context of postmodernism) an art which lacks the kind of truth that we so fruitlessly seek. It's fascinating to wonder what it was like--if there was a moment when the world of instinct and raw sensation split into the world of words. Probably there wasn't, and it happened over millions of years, but that's what we have myths for, isn't it? Anyway, that primitive world is still there--we're still in it, we've just convinced ourselves (but only halfheartedly) that it's gone. Eliade says that when the Aztecs and Mayans removed the hearts of their victims, the gods were supposed to be there, present, as real as anything else--and that they really were, as far as anyone was concerned. Maybe it's just my naive wish to be a spiritual guy, but I think the gods are all still there, just buried under mountains of words, though I'm sure that's been said better many times in the last few thousand years.
At this point my blog post is a horrible mess of what amounts to incoherent pop philosophy, but to get to my original trite point, I think Snow Crash functions as a light held to the act of describing the experience of living that is the fundamental concern of all human projects, once we get past the business of staying alive and reproducing. I suppose the question is are we actually getting anywhere? Sure, anybody in this class who enjoys thinking about this stuff might get a thrill of "enlightenment" once in a while, a sort of "Oh, so that's what it was" feeling of understanding, but I'm sure any number of kids studying existentialism in the early 1900s or priests studying whatever priests studied during the middle ages came to similar conclusions, (I think thinking about thinking tends to repeat itself a whole lot) just phrased differently. Jameson (among others) believes we're approaching a nexus where things are going to get really wild, maybe because of computers, maybe because of politics (I'm personally holding out for ascension to a higher state of being through philosophical meditation, but that seems unlikely), probably a combination of things. But it's kind of easy to find similar beliefs throughout history--aren't we always headed towards a crisis or a paradise of some sort? I guess I've just been reading way too much about postmodernism + computers lately (I'm also in Code, Software and Serious Games), and at times the essentially ridiculous (the texts strut around like roosters) nature of a lot of this stuff chafes a bit. Still, didn't someone once describe the entirety of human civilization as a protracted bout of mass schizophrenia? I guess we all settle into our own madnesses.
Hillabee Clinton
I really enjoyed the discussion about simulations in respect to politics and entertainment in the preview on mondays lecture. It is really interesting to see how important simulacra can have an affect on changing the minds of people, in the sense that the simulations can change peoples' minds in what they think is "real" or not. As Professor Chun pointed out, seeing Hillary Clinton and Amy Poehler in the SNL skit is really personal to the viewer; Poehler does not present a real critique, only the hallucination of a critique. Simulations such as these can be the greatest direct way to get a point across. Since it is all in humor, anything goes. But do politicians do media stunts like this as a ploy to get more votes? I think so. I imagine the average SNL watcher is not well educated on the precession of simulacra and probably do not realize that such media ploys affect them as much as they really do. This works the same way I feel in the realm of political cartoons, where people can get the most "bang for their buck" of the latest political information in one glance at the newspaper.
Nit-Picking/The Usability of Virtual Reality
I’m sure a very common, almost compulsive, comparison is made between Second Life and the Metaverse in Snow Crash. Hell, if you search "Metaverse" on YouTube, a bunch of videos filmed straight out toSecond Life show up. There are tons of comparisons that can be made, so I will only focus on a few, with the aim of pointing out the shortcomings of Second Life in fulfilling Stephenson’s vision of the Metaverse (whether the developers are trying to or not), and the shortcomings of the design of both Second Life and the Metaverse.
The first comparison is the between avatars and their use in the respective virtual worlds. Snow Crash explains how avatars can come in set packages – the Brandy and Clint of the Metaverse – but there is almost infinite customizability if you can code it. This is very similar to Second Life, where your initial avatar is a bland, generic character that is customizable without code, but much more extensively customizable with code. However, in general, Second Life is much less flexible, both in avatar design and in general use. Hiro can write a sword fighting code that is intricate and usable, whereas the best you can do in Second Life is write a code to throw someone around, like what the guy who talked in class on Wednesday did. Furthermore, the graphic rendering described in Snow Crash goes way beyond anything possible in Second Life, and there is much less flexibility in writing code that provides extensive information or functionality, especially as Second Life is relatively contained within it’s own program.
However, this isn’t exactly true. Second Life is able to access information over the internet, allowing users to extend their internet use (and personality) into the virtual world. This also implies that executable programs, both benign and malignant, can be linked through Second Life.
There are also some problems that both Second Life and the Metaverse fall victim to. The most striking one to me is the usability of both. Why on earth would anyone use either beyond the use of any video game? Both are described as "worlds", and the Metaverse has the added feature of letting you communicate with expressions almost to the extent of real life (and with apparent ease). But aside from communication, there seem to be no advantages over your run of the mill MMORPG. You can’t feel anything in either; going to a bar, or a party, or playing a game, or anything, seems less poignant as you’re just watching it happen on a screen. This, in my opinion, should prevent both from being widely adopted; why would you play around in a virtual environment when you can do the same virtual things over the internet, and the replicas of real actions in real life?
Perhaps the best functionality would be the ability to do work in either one. But both lack an effective interface: going out into the ocean to type some code in Second Life seems worthless, especially as it only affects things in Second Life. And working with hypercards in the Metaverse just seems too complicated. Both are far too much like GUIs, obscuring much of the underlying functionality. Perhaps a rotating interface would be more effective, like this or this, so that you could navigate the virtual world on one screen and type code or do work on another screen.
A couple more points that don’t fit into the above rant of sorts:
I think it’s really cool how Second Life has created its own world and its own currency, with an actual exchange rate to US dollars. This seems tantamount to creating your own country. It’s as if virtual reality is the new frontier, where people can expand to and create their own nations or worlds with their own laws and currency. Plus, it’s a limitless frontier.
Secondly, I’m kind of frustrated with some parts of Snow Crash. First, the first few chapters led me to distrust Hiro as a narrator; he seemed to over exaggerate his ability as the Deliverator. This led me to distrust his claim of being an amazing hacker – especially coupled with the fact that he is nearly broke – even though this turned out to actually be true. Second, I feel like the long discussions with the Librarian about Sumerian history stuck out like a sore thumb. Stephenson seemed to force in little humorous quips to break up the extensive background, and the background information itself slowed the pace of the novel and seemed almost unnecessary. Not to say it wasn’t interesting; it was just kind of overly extensive.
The first comparison is the between avatars and their use in the respective virtual worlds. Snow Crash explains how avatars can come in set packages – the Brandy and Clint of the Metaverse – but there is almost infinite customizability if you can code it. This is very similar to Second Life, where your initial avatar is a bland, generic character that is customizable without code, but much more extensively customizable with code. However, in general, Second Life is much less flexible, both in avatar design and in general use. Hiro can write a sword fighting code that is intricate and usable, whereas the best you can do in Second Life is write a code to throw someone around, like what the guy who talked in class on Wednesday did. Furthermore, the graphic rendering described in Snow Crash goes way beyond anything possible in Second Life, and there is much less flexibility in writing code that provides extensive information or functionality, especially as Second Life is relatively contained within it’s own program.
However, this isn’t exactly true. Second Life is able to access information over the internet, allowing users to extend their internet use (and personality) into the virtual world. This also implies that executable programs, both benign and malignant, can be linked through Second Life.
There are also some problems that both Second Life and the Metaverse fall victim to. The most striking one to me is the usability of both. Why on earth would anyone use either beyond the use of any video game? Both are described as "worlds", and the Metaverse has the added feature of letting you communicate with expressions almost to the extent of real life (and with apparent ease). But aside from communication, there seem to be no advantages over your run of the mill MMORPG. You can’t feel anything in either; going to a bar, or a party, or playing a game, or anything, seems less poignant as you’re just watching it happen on a screen. This, in my opinion, should prevent both from being widely adopted; why would you play around in a virtual environment when you can do the same virtual things over the internet, and the replicas of real actions in real life?
Perhaps the best functionality would be the ability to do work in either one. But both lack an effective interface: going out into the ocean to type some code in Second Life seems worthless, especially as it only affects things in Second Life. And working with hypercards in the Metaverse just seems too complicated. Both are far too much like GUIs, obscuring much of the underlying functionality. Perhaps a rotating interface would be more effective, like this or this, so that you could navigate the virtual world on one screen and type code or do work on another screen.
A couple more points that don’t fit into the above rant of sorts:
I think it’s really cool how Second Life has created its own world and its own currency, with an actual exchange rate to US dollars. This seems tantamount to creating your own country. It’s as if virtual reality is the new frontier, where people can expand to and create their own nations or worlds with their own laws and currency. Plus, it’s a limitless frontier.
Secondly, I’m kind of frustrated with some parts of Snow Crash. First, the first few chapters led me to distrust Hiro as a narrator; he seemed to over exaggerate his ability as the Deliverator. This led me to distrust his claim of being an amazing hacker – especially coupled with the fact that he is nearly broke – even though this turned out to actually be true. Second, I feel like the long discussions with the Librarian about Sumerian history stuck out like a sore thumb. Stephenson seemed to force in little humorous quips to break up the extensive background, and the background information itself slowed the pace of the novel and seemed almost unnecessary. Not to say it wasn’t interesting; it was just kind of overly extensive.
Sorry, but I don't need a Second Life right now.
Ever since I was little, I've been somewhat of a gamer. (As if my blog posts don't give that fact away.) So you'd think that I'd be ecstatic about our Second Life session on Tursday... unfortunately, I can't say that I was. It did nothing more than make realize two things.
As I entered college, I've become more and more involved in real life - RL for the l33t-speakers out there. No longer am I the marathon gamer I once was; gone are the days of planning 5-hour mammoth tank rushes, building monuments in Civ II, or going for that one...last...round... of de_dust2 in CS. Now it's all about getting that last angle, or landing that dance routine perfectly on music. Don't call me a Luddite, but I'm not as plugged in as I once was. As Y.T. said: "You spend too much time goggled in. Try a little Reality, man."
Notice that Reality is capitalized... within the context of Snow Crash, it seems to give reality a sense of significance, as a world separate from that other world - the Metaverse. (Its parallels with Second Life, from the astounding geography to the depth of Avatar creation, are unbelievably creepy. What's up with authors predicting the future? Philip K. Dick, William Gibson, and now Neal Stephenson... damn.)
Is Reality the reality in today's modern world? I don't think so. The world certainly has the capacity to jack in and participate in the already existing "metaverse," but they don't. Why? For one reason, see my post last week. For two, people are just too involved in the real world. Hyperinflation hasn't (yet) completely destroyed our government, incorporated the country, and rendered a wealth gap the size of the Grand Canyon. (Or, I'm just socially ignorant. So sue me.) We actually DO have better things to do than spend much of our time in an MMO... name 10 people you know that play Second Life, outside of this class (and OUTSIDE OF THE CS DEPARTMENT. Nice try.).
Finally, I think such an open-ended world may be a bit much for society to currently handle. As Barthe pointed out, much of our media is very consumption-oriented; we read through something, and then we move on. Manovich argued that navigable space can serve as a driving narrative force, but only to a certain extent. Place in too much freedom (without a sense of at least optional linearity, i.e. side quests vs. the main quest in RPGS - Gary Gygax, rest in peace), and you alienate people. For me, games are no longer about the experience alone, so much as they are about the story; the interface, and system, serve as part of the narrative for the most part, with few exceptions. (There are only so many times you can run over pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto before you realize it gets old.)
So yeah... Second Life is an amazing concept, an amazing entity, and an amazing subculture. It is, for all intents and purposes, a microcosm, a digital reflection of our real world. But honestly, it isn't for me. I've got way too much to do here.
Plus, the graphics in RL are wayyyy better... like DX 10,00 yo. (If you get the reference, more power to you - but you probably need to go outside more.)
As I entered college, I've become more and more involved in real life - RL for the l33t-speakers out there. No longer am I the marathon gamer I once was; gone are the days of planning 5-hour mammoth tank rushes, building monuments in Civ II, or going for that one...last...round... of de_dust2 in CS. Now it's all about getting that last angle, or landing that dance routine perfectly on music. Don't call me a Luddite, but I'm not as plugged in as I once was. As Y.T. said: "You spend too much time goggled in. Try a little Reality, man."
Notice that Reality is capitalized... within the context of Snow Crash, it seems to give reality a sense of significance, as a world separate from that other world - the Metaverse. (Its parallels with Second Life, from the astounding geography to the depth of Avatar creation, are unbelievably creepy. What's up with authors predicting the future? Philip K. Dick, William Gibson, and now Neal Stephenson... damn.)
Is Reality the reality in today's modern world? I don't think so. The world certainly has the capacity to jack in and participate in the already existing "metaverse," but they don't. Why? For one reason, see my post last week. For two, people are just too involved in the real world. Hyperinflation hasn't (yet) completely destroyed our government, incorporated the country, and rendered a wealth gap the size of the Grand Canyon. (Or, I'm just socially ignorant. So sue me.) We actually DO have better things to do than spend much of our time in an MMO... name 10 people you know that play Second Life, outside of this class (and OUTSIDE OF THE CS DEPARTMENT. Nice try.).
Finally, I think such an open-ended world may be a bit much for society to currently handle. As Barthe pointed out, much of our media is very consumption-oriented; we read through something, and then we move on. Manovich argued that navigable space can serve as a driving narrative force, but only to a certain extent. Place in too much freedom (without a sense of at least optional linearity, i.e. side quests vs. the main quest in RPGS - Gary Gygax, rest in peace), and you alienate people. For me, games are no longer about the experience alone, so much as they are about the story; the interface, and system, serve as part of the narrative for the most part, with few exceptions. (There are only so many times you can run over pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto before you realize it gets old.)
So yeah... Second Life is an amazing concept, an amazing entity, and an amazing subculture. It is, for all intents and purposes, a microcosm, a digital reflection of our real world. But honestly, it isn't for me. I've got way too much to do here.
Plus, the graphics in RL are wayyyy better... like DX 10,00 yo. (If you get the reference, more power to you - but you probably need to go outside more.)
Reality TV and Second Life Avatars: Our New Creature Comforts
Wendy asked the class on Monday if simulations of reality comfort us or if this “comfort” is another means by which power operates. In relation to that, she asks are not all representations of reality not virtual or referential. We have a powerful notion of nostalgia that does not welcome any thought that every thing can be reduced to code or a system of references. However, Wendy does point to this contradiction, especially in the example of the popularity of reality television. It appears the American public no longer wants narrative story lines, but the construction of a false reality. The use of the word comfort brings to mind Jameson’s discussion on the postmodern body on page 351: “whether wandering through a postmodern hotel, locked into rock sound by means of headphones….(the postmodern body) is now exposed to a perceptual barrage of immediacy from which all sheltering layers and intervening mediations have been removed.” The body here is the subject of an attack by the postmodern condition of space. Headphones are not just entertainment, but shields. Second Life not just a game, but an identity. Avatars have an interestingly diverse definition. In the computer realm it is a computer user’s representation of him or herself either 3-D, 2-D, or even text. Yet in the non-gaming universe the term implies a fanatic representation of oneself. How does an extreme, uncompromising simulation of oneself produce comfort? Is this distance and rest from the unrelenting nowness of the postmodern world not soothing a transition from one saturated space to another saturated space? If so why is distance so powerful, even when it is a virtual distance, for the body?
I Swear on my Cognitvely Mapped Honor, on my Network Name
Cognitive mapping is simulacra is art is media is video games is virtual reality? And there I go using the world ‘reality.’ Crap. (That’s one thing that cracked me up about Jameson: he decides to use a connotatively troubled word, ‘representation’ [p348], and even at one point ends a sentence with “… or whatever” (p349). Hilarious. What a rebel. Also, he goes on babbling in jargon and recognizes this in his repeated self-awareness and assures the reader that the ability to understand what he is saying isn’t at all likely because it requires a specific paradigm of knowledge and opinions. Once he finishes what it was he set out to say, he comes up with this gem, “In what has preceded I have infringed so many of the taboos and shibboleths of a faddish post-Marxism that it becomes necessary to discuss them more openly and directly before proceeding.” (p353) and goes on to do presumably just that, but seemingly makes no effort to simplify his language or recapitulate ideas.)
Anyway, Jameson is addressing cognitive mapping as a sort of misrepresentation of reality (if I can allow myself to be free to use such words,) and mentions art. I’m not quite sure what he means by it, but I take it to be to some extent a form of what I know to be artistic license and liberty.
Second Life, if applicable under the heading of cognitive mapping, is certainly a misrepresentation of reality, but posits the idea of alternate reality, one that can be seemingly as complex and intricate and consuming as the normal, original thing we’ve come to consider real reality. Characters can fly. Characters cannot drown.
This brings me to another point. I didn’t catch his name, but the fella who was a Second Life programmer/hacker who spoke in class on Wednesday, when asked about the value of this alternate reality, he responded that he had no idea why people bought his code, but that he did not question it. While I’m sure that he has questioned it, it’s a bizarre phenomenon that technology and new media can trick people into generating material, content, and product for which corporations can earn money. While he made money through Second Life, youtube users, no matter how many views they’ve got, don’t necessarily make any money. For video games in which knowledgeable, creative users can create ‘hacks,’ extensions, extra levels, etc. there is often times no monetary gain involved. Reputation is re-emerging in societal and cultural importance within the context of the internet. Being known for making the most entertaining levels, a user can earn honor and be recognized, which is in and of itself incentive to do these otherwise potentially thankless things. Sounds pretty retro to me. (Like family name and honor. Speaking of which, why the heck does Second Life impose a finite, pre-determined last name?! Maybe this too fits in with the idea of collective identity, reputation, and honor.)
Anyway, Jameson is addressing cognitive mapping as a sort of misrepresentation of reality (if I can allow myself to be free to use such words,) and mentions art. I’m not quite sure what he means by it, but I take it to be to some extent a form of what I know to be artistic license and liberty.
Second Life, if applicable under the heading of cognitive mapping, is certainly a misrepresentation of reality, but posits the idea of alternate reality, one that can be seemingly as complex and intricate and consuming as the normal, original thing we’ve come to consider real reality. Characters can fly. Characters cannot drown.
This brings me to another point. I didn’t catch his name, but the fella who was a Second Life programmer/hacker who spoke in class on Wednesday, when asked about the value of this alternate reality, he responded that he had no idea why people bought his code, but that he did not question it. While I’m sure that he has questioned it, it’s a bizarre phenomenon that technology and new media can trick people into generating material, content, and product for which corporations can earn money. While he made money through Second Life, youtube users, no matter how many views they’ve got, don’t necessarily make any money. For video games in which knowledgeable, creative users can create ‘hacks,’ extensions, extra levels, etc. there is often times no monetary gain involved. Reputation is re-emerging in societal and cultural importance within the context of the internet. Being known for making the most entertaining levels, a user can earn honor and be recognized, which is in and of itself incentive to do these otherwise potentially thankless things. Sounds pretty retro to me. (Like family name and honor. Speaking of which, why the heck does Second Life impose a finite, pre-determined last name?! Maybe this too fits in with the idea of collective identity, reputation, and honor.)
Hollywoodland
A Barthesian close reading of Snow Crash, rather than producing a series of hermeneutic codes, proairetic codes, etc., might look something like this:
1. Die Hard code
2. Kurosawa code
3. Bogart code
4. The Godfather code
5. Sergio Leone code
And so on. With respect to its plot and characters, Snow Crash as a novel seems to be a sequence of film tropes. Its choppy syntax reflects action movie editing styles.
Yet it wears its derivative-ness on its sleeve. On page 305, Stephenson writes, “After that – after Hiro gets onto his motorcycle, and the New South Africans get into their all-terrain pickups, and The Enforcers get into their slick black Enforcer mobiles, and they all go screaming out onto the highway – after that it’s just a chase scene.” He doesn’t need to describe the chase – we’ve all seen the movie.
This is obviously self-conscious on Stephenson’s part. I haven’t discounted the possibility that the book’s Hollywood qualities can be traced, at least in part, to a mediocre prose stylist exploiting his own deficiencies by crafting postmodern pastiche narrative. But in any case, the book bears an interesting relation to Baudrillard’s ideas on simulation. Baudrillard frames Disneyland as a colossal red herring, a fantasy that masks the simulation that is the United States. Snow Crash, by presenting an America that has been reduced to a network of film clichés, makes this same point in a different way.
1. Die Hard code
2. Kurosawa code
3. Bogart code
4. The Godfather code
5. Sergio Leone code
And so on. With respect to its plot and characters, Snow Crash as a novel seems to be a sequence of film tropes. Its choppy syntax reflects action movie editing styles.
Yet it wears its derivative-ness on its sleeve. On page 305, Stephenson writes, “After that – after Hiro gets onto his motorcycle, and the New South Africans get into their all-terrain pickups, and The Enforcers get into their slick black Enforcer mobiles, and they all go screaming out onto the highway – after that it’s just a chase scene.” He doesn’t need to describe the chase – we’ve all seen the movie.
This is obviously self-conscious on Stephenson’s part. I haven’t discounted the possibility that the book’s Hollywood qualities can be traced, at least in part, to a mediocre prose stylist exploiting his own deficiencies by crafting postmodern pastiche narrative. But in any case, the book bears an interesting relation to Baudrillard’s ideas on simulation. Baudrillard frames Disneyland as a colossal red herring, a fantasy that masks the simulation that is the United States. Snow Crash, by presenting an America that has been reduced to a network of film clichés, makes this same point in a different way.
Second Life & Halo
While playing Second Life, I found myself very frustrated for a variety of reasons. The choppiness of my movements. The graphics. The fact that I could only move straight, my actions limited by where I was looking. I'm not a big gamer by any means but I kept finding myself comparing playing Second Life with playing Halo. And I have to say, Halo is a much better experience. Better graphics, more realistic range of motion, an actual plot (i.e. Shooting aliens). I was disappointed and bored while playing Second Life. And this is from someone who didn't start playing video games till college! It makes me wonder just how much we expect from the virtual world. After all, Second Life is an extension of reality but in virtual reality. Do we expect it to be an exact copy? Realism in video games already has a huge market, considering the success of the Sims games. Maybe one day, we'll move all of our efforts into a perfectly realistic virtual world and just live there. But it really makes me wonder...why would anyone prefer a virtual world where you cannot smell, touch, or taste anything to the real world?
Transistors and neurons, in Snow Crash and beyond
In an earlier post, Jeremy mentioned the book The Mind’s I by Daniel Dennet and Douglas Hofstadter. I’m glad he brought that up, because although I haven’t read The Mind’s I, I do know another book by Hofstadter, Gödel Escher Bach (GEB). Hofstadter is professor both of Cognitive Science and Computer Science, and in GEB he explores (among a great many things) how intelligent, meaningful systems can arise from simple, perhaps even deterministic material. In the human brain, the lower levels include neurons and the higher levels include our thoughts. In the analogous case of computers, the lower levels include transistors and all those ones and zeros, and the higher levels include complex software – or maybe even AI.
Hofstadter goes to great lengths to make the analogy between human brains and computers, and suggests that what can be done with one system should be possible in the other. Artificial intelligence would be a case of accomplishing with transistors what has already been done with neurons (remember, both are just atoms). Snow Crash explores the other possibility, at least on the surface: creating a biological virus that moves and behaves like a computer virus. The story in Snow Crash goes on to suggest that this has already been done, as long ago as Sumerian times. Although this is a fictional interpretation of ancient history and legend, the idea deserves real consideration. Might there not be qualitative differences (aside from the materials) between the way brains and computers handle meaning? If so, this would have enormous implications for digital media. Taking inspiration from Snow Crash, there might even be the possibility for the convergence of digital media with not only other types of media, but with human thought itself.
SecondLife/Mapping
SecondLife got me thinking about cognitive mapping. Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but are programs such as SecondLife, Sims, and the like ways of helping us understand our places in hte totality of cities and the world in reality? By turning our society and cities into a program, it seems that perhaps we are mapping (or attempting to map) the world we inhabit. As with cognitive mapping, it is not possible to actually represent the totality of society, so these programs are only partial and always incomplete representations of what is far too complex to be mapped. Maybe the reduction of some aspects of society to computer code somehow helps us understand it better? Is is possible that these programs could offer us a way of understanding our place better? (Sorry that this post is rather disorganized and a bit of a ramble; I'm not so sure if I have managed to get my thoughts clear or comprehensible in my head either.)
Proto-Snow-Crash
Snow Crash reminded me of a story from an old AI book called "The Mind's I", where Daniel Dennet and Douglas Hofstadter set out to argue for the fundamentally mechanical nature of the human mind. They go about this by re-publishing a scattering of articles, essays and fictions, along with their accompanying notes. One of these stores is "The Riddle of the Universe and Its Solution", which describes a mental virus with effects similar to Snow Crash.
Although viruses that induce catatonia, unconsciousness or even brain death in the observer sound like science-fiction, we do have the strange precedent of visually-induced epilepsy, which seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon. By looking at brightly flashing colors, seizures (electrical thunderstorms in the brain) can be induced in people — the most famous case being a Japanese cartoon that caused 685 children (reportedly) across the country to seize. That sounds an awful lot like a kind of snow crash to me. The fact that the human brain can "reboot" after such an electrical storm is a testament to its resilience, but that epilepsy can be induced through sight is worrisome regardless.
Although viruses that induce catatonia, unconsciousness or even brain death in the observer sound like science-fiction, we do have the strange precedent of visually-induced epilepsy, which seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon. By looking at brightly flashing colors, seizures (electrical thunderstorms in the brain) can be induced in people — the most famous case being a Japanese cartoon that caused 685 children (reportedly) across the country to seize. That sounds an awful lot like a kind of snow crash to me. The fact that the human brain can "reboot" after such an electrical storm is a testament to its resilience, but that epilepsy can be induced through sight is worrisome regardless.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
hodge-podge post modern cultural collage
Once again, I'm not on the ball when the blog, for while I apologize. Tardiness/forgetfullness is not usually a problem I have.
On the bright side, I was able to hear today's lecture before posting. The discussion of patchwork and pastiche shed some light on Frederic Jameson's argument for our current societal schizophrenia and decentering.
Towards the beginning of the essay, Jameson says that post modern society involves "an insertion as individual subjects into a multidimensional set of radically discontinuous realities." (351) Add to this excerpt the definition of pastiche: an incongruous amalgam of styles and materials which has the collage-like effect that imitates other forms.
For me, this definition of pastiche brought to mind the world of haute couture. For many years now, high fashion has been a pastiche of concepts from bygone eras. Billowing, high-necked louses from the turn of the century are paired with 1960's mini-skirts and garish leggings reminiscent of the 1980's. This conglomeration feels to me like a collapsing of time in favor of a layered (or, as Jameson says, "multidimensional") space where we can be and experience everything all at once.
Also, I think it's very interesting the Jameson argues we suffer from a lack of originality. The idea that there is "nothing new under the sun" is an old one, but with the burgeoning awareness of recycling and reuse, I think Jameson's arguement can be applied across disciplines and may have implications for schools of thought as seemingly distant from new media and critical theory as the environmental movement, or, as Professor Chun pointed out, global climate change.
Finally, I have a question concerning Lacan. I can grasp his theory of orders, real, imaginary, and symbolic, but on a very literal practical level, where exactly is he getting the basis for this theoretical argument about the development of the self? Especially because Lacan is talking about infants and very young children, what is his basis for positing these ideas?
there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.
When Hiro Protagonist slices the Nipponese businessman to bits in the Black Sun, the body does not behave realistically.
As the passage mentions, the Metaverse dwellers enjoy fooling themselves into believing this digitial world is the real world. Many properties of the Metaverse have been engineered to mirror properties of reality. Gravity exists, people own property, you must physically move your body to get somewhere, etc. However, the Metaverse falls short of recreating reality in a few key places, such in its response to death.
Part of the reason for these shortcomings is a lack of programming. The avatars in the Metaverse (and Second Life, for that matter) can only respond to events they have been programmed to respond to. As no one bothered to program a realistic avatar response to being dismembered, the avatar behaved unrealistically. I experienced a similar phenomenon in Second Life when I walked into a "lake." My avatar fell through the blue lake-like surface. But underneath that surface, there was dry ground. I could look up and see the flat surface of the lake above me. I simply walked right up the side of the bank, through the surface, and back onto the shore. There was no swimming, and no simulated wet hair when I climbed out.
Will these shortcomings of reality be avoided in the simulacra of the future? Is it even possible? If every response to every possible action must be pre-programmed, than I believe the answer is no. Bizarre, creative beings that we are, we humans will always eventually push our simulated selves into situations they will be unable to deal with realistically.
Surprisingly (he looks so real when he's in one piece), no flesh, blood, or organs are visible through the new crossections that Hiro's sword made through his body ... It breaks the metaphor. The avatar is not acting like a real body. It reminds all The Black Sun's patrons that they are living in a fantasy world. People hate to be reminded of this. (102)
As the passage mentions, the Metaverse dwellers enjoy fooling themselves into believing this digitial world is the real world. Many properties of the Metaverse have been engineered to mirror properties of reality. Gravity exists, people own property, you must physically move your body to get somewhere, etc. However, the Metaverse falls short of recreating reality in a few key places, such in its response to death.
Part of the reason for these shortcomings is a lack of programming. The avatars in the Metaverse (and Second Life, for that matter) can only respond to events they have been programmed to respond to. As no one bothered to program a realistic avatar response to being dismembered, the avatar behaved unrealistically. I experienced a similar phenomenon in Second Life when I walked into a "lake." My avatar fell through the blue lake-like surface. But underneath that surface, there was dry ground. I could look up and see the flat surface of the lake above me. I simply walked right up the side of the bank, through the surface, and back onto the shore. There was no swimming, and no simulated wet hair when I climbed out.
Will these shortcomings of reality be avoided in the simulacra of the future? Is it even possible? If every response to every possible action must be pre-programmed, than I believe the answer is no. Bizarre, creative beings that we are, we humans will always eventually push our simulated selves into situations they will be unable to deal with realistically.
un/reality
Several passages in Snowcrash throw on ongoing conflict and symbiosis of reality and unreality into relief. On page 89, Stephenson introduces the surreal world of an Ng Securities guard dog; unlike the Street, the dog's virtual yard represents a real 'yard' which a real security robot defends.
On page 102, Stephenson writes people in the metaverse hate to be reminded they are living in a fantasy world. The inverse of Jameson's argument that unreality reinforces reality; on page 102 the reality of the avatar exposed unreality reinforces the unreality of the whole metaverse.
On page 126, Lagos describes another interesting interactoin between reality and unreality: Hackers, he says, are so effected by the unreality they work in (code) that it alters their own reality (their brains).
On 191, Stephenson notes an unreality that exists not in computers but directly nestled in reality; the 'loglo,' 'franchises,' and 'Burbclaves.' In a world of chaos groups have formed unreal order and consistency.
Pages 304 and 305 describe an interesting simultaneity of real and unreal as Hiro is at once fighting in reality and reading statistics in unreality. A similar situation occurs on 414 when Hiro's travel in the metaverse is "Dimly superimposed on Reality."
These different instances represent different perspectives on the same conundrum; the division of reality and unreality. Where does it lie? How does it change? Is there really a division at all?
On page 102, Stephenson writes people in the metaverse hate to be reminded they are living in a fantasy world. The inverse of Jameson's argument that unreality reinforces reality; on page 102 the reality of the avatar exposed unreality reinforces the unreality of the whole metaverse.
On page 126, Lagos describes another interesting interactoin between reality and unreality: Hackers, he says, are so effected by the unreality they work in (code) that it alters their own reality (their brains).
On 191, Stephenson notes an unreality that exists not in computers but directly nestled in reality; the 'loglo,' 'franchises,' and 'Burbclaves.' In a world of chaos groups have formed unreal order and consistency.
Pages 304 and 305 describe an interesting simultaneity of real and unreal as Hiro is at once fighting in reality and reading statistics in unreality. A similar situation occurs on 414 when Hiro's travel in the metaverse is "Dimly superimposed on Reality."
These different instances represent different perspectives on the same conundrum; the division of reality and unreality. Where does it lie? How does it change? Is there really a division at all?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Simulation and Civilization
For Baudrillard, simulation is the substitution of signs of the real for the real. He defines simulation first by explaining what existed before the “hyperreal” society, when reality was identifiable because of a difference between a representation and its referent. Simulation, on the other hand, “substitutes signs of the real for the real,” or as he says later, is a situation where a resemblance of reality destroys its “real” referent by becoming reality itself. This is a short summary of Baudrillard’s explicit definition of simulation, but I wonder if there is another layer to simulation that is implied but not defined. In his example of a simulated sickness, Baudrillard states that “Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms…. If any symptom can be produced, and can no longer be taken as a fact of nature, then every illness can be considered as simulatable and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning since it only knows how to treat “real” illnesses according to their objective causes….Truth, reference, objective cause have ceased to exist.” If a symptom is real, it is always (objectively) a sign of real sickness. A simulated symptom, then is defined by the anonymity of its origin, or its referent. I wonder, though, if another implication of this question of intent and causality is that the real is produced naturally and organically, where as a simulation originates from intended production. Another example of this unspecified difference between the organic real and the contrived simulation is in Baudrillard’s discussion of Disneyland. “People no longer look at each other, but there are institutes for that. They no longer touch each other, but there is contactotherapy. They no longer walk, but they go jogging, etc. Everywhere one recycles lost faculties, or lost bodies, or lost sociality, or the lost taste for food. One reinvents penury, asceticism, vanished savage naturalness: natural food, health food, yoga.” The differences, then between touching and contactotherapy, and walking and jogging, the modern and the savage are slight: they are the differences between the natural/organic and the contrived.
I also noticed traces of this contrived X in B’d discussion of power. Though power decidedly tries to protect itself from the threat of simulation, B writes that” “power itself ends by becoming a simulation of power (disconnected from its ends and its objectives, and dedicated to the effects of power and mass simulation.)” Power becomes a simulation when it becomes obsessed with strategies positing itself as power. Unlike “true power, a structure, a strategy, a relation of force or a stake” which proved itself as power by demonstrating its natural control, simulated power expressly produces signs of power, such as a Watergate or political figureheads, to position itself as controlling. So the power simulation is a contrived simulation of “true power,” yet the interesting point I think Baudrillard is making is that simulate power becomes true power because it is self perpetuating, self creating. Signs of power, even if they have no real referent, create true power.
So what I am really interested in is the relation of the real or the organic to simulation. In a way, simulation it reminds me of the discussion in snow-crash of a civilization’s emergence from a pre-conscious Sumerian society. In Snow Crash, civilization is the result of an informational virus that caused men to think for themselves, or in other words, to plan, to contrive, and to orchestrate their own languages rules their society. This informational virus is also a self-perpetuating, “recursive informational process,” (258) which pretty similar to the self-perpetuating, recursive notions of power that B discusses. Though Baudrillard defines contemporary civilization as simulated and “hyperreal,” could Snow Crash be implying that civilization itself is a simulation? This simulation is certainly also reflected and exaggerated in the "dystopia" of America and capitalism that is the contemporary setting in Snow Crash.
I also noticed traces of this contrived X in B’d discussion of power. Though power decidedly tries to protect itself from the threat of simulation, B writes that” “power itself ends by becoming a simulation of power (disconnected from its ends and its objectives, and dedicated to the effects of power and mass simulation.)” Power becomes a simulation when it becomes obsessed with strategies positing itself as power. Unlike “true power, a structure, a strategy, a relation of force or a stake” which proved itself as power by demonstrating its natural control, simulated power expressly produces signs of power, such as a Watergate or political figureheads, to position itself as controlling. So the power simulation is a contrived simulation of “true power,” yet the interesting point I think Baudrillard is making is that simulate power becomes true power because it is self perpetuating, self creating. Signs of power, even if they have no real referent, create true power.
So what I am really interested in is the relation of the real or the organic to simulation. In a way, simulation it reminds me of the discussion in snow-crash of a civilization’s emergence from a pre-conscious Sumerian society. In Snow Crash, civilization is the result of an informational virus that caused men to think for themselves, or in other words, to plan, to contrive, and to orchestrate their own languages rules their society. This informational virus is also a self-perpetuating, “recursive informational process,” (258) which pretty similar to the self-perpetuating, recursive notions of power that B discusses. Though Baudrillard defines contemporary civilization as simulated and “hyperreal,” could Snow Crash be implying that civilization itself is a simulation? This simulation is certainly also reflected and exaggerated in the "dystopia" of America and capitalism that is the contemporary setting in Snow Crash.
what they become
“The way you see someone is the way you treat them. And the way you treat them is what they become.”
-Goethe
This seems to bear some relationship to the precession of the simulacra as posited by Baudrillard. It makes wonder if perhaps, even before the most basic of technologies to help the human in his continual prediction and simulation of reality, something as basic as our identities as individuals could have been preceded by a kind of mental construct of the simulacra on the part of others. This kind of mental construct simulacra acts in the same way as modern forms of manifested simulacra. It is to a large extent the imagined version of ourselves by others which determines who we might be, and furthermore, we are necessarily defined by our relation to, acceptance of, and reflection of the many imagined, mentally constructed versions of ourselves which exist internally in those surrounding us. Goethe would have it that we inevitably assimilate to the real action based reflections of the construct of ourselves in others.
How does the precession of the self manifest itself in new media? One example that is obvious (though perhaps generally overused to exemplify phenomena in new media and the Web 2.0) is Facebook and similar social networking sites. Now, perhaps, the individual can craft themselves (though not in an organic or seemingly wholesome way as one might hope, but rather through a medium riddled with pointless applications hungry for “access to you personal information”) by giving the rest of their world a permanent, searchable, basis for their impressions of the individual. These impressions, which could be described as internally occurring simulacra, end up reflecting onto who the person in question actually becomes. This only works because while previously I may have been very free to form my own opinion of Bobby and treat him as such, I now have a profile which I accept (foolishly?) to be a more true representation of Bobby than the one I formulated on my own with much less information. Bobby, in turn, becomes his Facebook profile, which from the start was his simulation of self.
-Goethe
This seems to bear some relationship to the precession of the simulacra as posited by Baudrillard. It makes wonder if perhaps, even before the most basic of technologies to help the human in his continual prediction and simulation of reality, something as basic as our identities as individuals could have been preceded by a kind of mental construct of the simulacra on the part of others. This kind of mental construct simulacra acts in the same way as modern forms of manifested simulacra. It is to a large extent the imagined version of ourselves by others which determines who we might be, and furthermore, we are necessarily defined by our relation to, acceptance of, and reflection of the many imagined, mentally constructed versions of ourselves which exist internally in those surrounding us. Goethe would have it that we inevitably assimilate to the real action based reflections of the construct of ourselves in others.
How does the precession of the self manifest itself in new media? One example that is obvious (though perhaps generally overused to exemplify phenomena in new media and the Web 2.0) is Facebook and similar social networking sites. Now, perhaps, the individual can craft themselves (though not in an organic or seemingly wholesome way as one might hope, but rather through a medium riddled with pointless applications hungry for “access to you personal information”) by giving the rest of their world a permanent, searchable, basis for their impressions of the individual. These impressions, which could be described as internally occurring simulacra, end up reflecting onto who the person in question actually becomes. This only works because while previously I may have been very free to form my own opinion of Bobby and treat him as such, I now have a profile which I accept (foolishly?) to be a more true representation of Bobby than the one I formulated on my own with much less information. Bobby, in turn, becomes his Facebook profile, which from the start was his simulation of self.
No Touching! (science and observation)
I thought the most interesting part of Baudrillard’s discussion of simulacra was in relation to how scientists conduct research and model simulations while trying not to disturb their subjects. It is strange to think that the instant the Tasaday people were discovered, they seemed to lose their authenticity, so the scientists had to abandon them to have any hope of keeping them a subject worthy of study (someday). The whole situation reminded me of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle- when trying to measure the position and momentum of a particle in space, you can really only compute one of these values to an appreciable degree of accuracy, while the other becomes more and more unreliable. The very act of trying to measure the velocity of an electron, for example, alters its velocity and makes the measurement untrue. Although I can’t say this directly relates to the Precession of Simulacra, that’s what it got me thinking about.
During Monday’s lecture, the example of the lab mouse was also strange to think about. An organic creature that had become completely man-made through its breeding. A “copy without an original” that is meant to simulate real mammalian reactions. I guess we have done this with all sorts of species – from super crops and prizewinning roses to purebred dogs and racing horses. If I’m understanding the concept correctly, we are surrounded by simulacra. The size and sweetness of my apple can be a representation of Upstate New York’s precipitation over the summer, and the sounds of geese migrating at a given time can be an indicator of our changing climate, while the recent increase in Bagel Gourmet’s prices is not saying good things about the cost of raw goods and transportation….
During Monday’s lecture, the example of the lab mouse was also strange to think about. An organic creature that had become completely man-made through its breeding. A “copy without an original” that is meant to simulate real mammalian reactions. I guess we have done this with all sorts of species – from super crops and prizewinning roses to purebred dogs and racing horses. If I’m understanding the concept correctly, we are surrounded by simulacra. The size and sweetness of my apple can be a representation of Upstate New York’s precipitation over the summer, and the sounds of geese migrating at a given time can be an indicator of our changing climate, while the recent increase in Bagel Gourmet’s prices is not saying good things about the cost of raw goods and transportation….
this is your world on drugs
let me preemptively apologize for the length of my post, I just loved the discussion of communication and relations in Snow Crash.
Snow Crash––both in the “future” world which has truly become the capital-driven state of simulation that Baudrillard described (where everything is programmed, like the Burbclaves, and everything is driven by capital and protocol), and in the admittedly simulated meta-verse––raised some interesting questions and dichotomies about the nature of interpersonal (ie: human) relations in a simulated environment/world.
Back in the “real” world, which, just as Baudrillard described, has become a simulated environment due to the rise of capital’s power (consider the artificial, algorithmically-plotted, max-valued worlds of the Burbclaves, or the way in which companies have become programs, running via the protocol laid out in impersonal three ring binders rather than human decisions), communication is problematic. The “real” and the simulated intermingle and, au-Baudrillard, are indistinguishable. Consider Y.T.’s first conversation with the MetaCops in White Columns after she’s been apprehended (48). Human language seems to have lost all meaning. One MetaCop spits the impersonal binder protocol, the second refers to an older code that became naturalized through simulation (namely, movies and tv cop shows). They’re translating one protocol-driven sim-code into another (and we’ve already encountered a language called Taxilinga where language and franchise capitalism actually merge). Neither of them sound genuine (and both of them sound like idiots), and to top it off, they’re called MetaCops. The scene is hilarious.
Also just as Baudrillard described, “people no longer look at each other, but there are institutions for that.” Now what Snow Crash added was that those institutions have been replaces by computer programs, which can perhaps better adhere to the protocol of capitalism than can inter-human communication, which I suppose is more fallible from the franchise-capitalist perspective. Take for example the way in which people are scanned when they enter Burbclaves and welcomed by the PA systems. A better example is actually probably Y.T.’s encounter with the two jail receptionists after her capture in White Columns. The first discovers that she is female by reading his computer screen, rather than by looking at Y.T. (51). The second only glances at her right before leading her to her cell, “to make sure she is really a person, not a sack of flour” (53). On every level at the novel’s beginning sequences it is computers and interfaces that are enabling interpersonal/human interaction/contact/sharing and exchanging of information.
But that yearning for “real” interpersonal relations is still present as well. This is revealed in the by Hiro’s consideration of Juanita’s belief in the value of “real” human relations as “classy,” and in that the Black Sun is a favorite because in it, people are rendered more individually––well enough that their faces become expressive and they cannot in fact merge together.
Nevertheless, this world is tainted. First of all these revelations take place in the Metaverse, which is a pretty decent tip off.
Here, at the Black Sun, the greater quality of face-to-face contact is due to the programmers superior knowledge and understanding of code and computers, not a greater knowledge and understanding of humanity (consider the “bitheads” reaction to Juanita’s interest in faces). Also, the expressions that people are capable of having remind Hiro of Juanita’s and his own, on which she modeled the programming. The programming itself is still pretty impersonal.
Then there’s the unstated comparison between humans and computers––only that humans have organic interfaces (their faces) that better enable the transmission of information––”fact” was the word Juanita used, not emotion or feeling. (And people––their positions (the “Bigboard” reveals a large “Industry” meeting to Hiro while he’s at the Black Sun), their gossip (the actors give Hiro a tip about a director’s love of Bazookas), their lives, really––are considered sources of information.)
But the other result of this comparison is the idea that people do understand people than they do their computers––as Juanita discovered, “the human mind can absorb and process an incredible amount of information––if it comes in the right format. The right interface” (60). And the human face is the original interface (though unlike the computer interface it is not a simulation), and even in the computer world it still works the best. So it’s a breach of utility that people interact solely through protocol and programs (kids on the Street were on dates), which begs the question, in such an environment of simulation and protocol (evident in both the real world and in the Metaverse), is that lack of human interaction avoidable?
Snow Crash––both in the “future” world which has truly become the capital-driven state of simulation that Baudrillard described (where everything is programmed, like the Burbclaves, and everything is driven by capital and protocol), and in the admittedly simulated meta-verse––raised some interesting questions and dichotomies about the nature of interpersonal (ie: human) relations in a simulated environment/world.
Back in the “real” world, which, just as Baudrillard described, has become a simulated environment due to the rise of capital’s power (consider the artificial, algorithmically-plotted, max-valued worlds of the Burbclaves, or the way in which companies have become programs, running via the protocol laid out in impersonal three ring binders rather than human decisions), communication is problematic. The “real” and the simulated intermingle and, au-Baudrillard, are indistinguishable. Consider Y.T.’s first conversation with the MetaCops in White Columns after she’s been apprehended (48). Human language seems to have lost all meaning. One MetaCop spits the impersonal binder protocol, the second refers to an older code that became naturalized through simulation (namely, movies and tv cop shows). They’re translating one protocol-driven sim-code into another (and we’ve already encountered a language called Taxilinga where language and franchise capitalism actually merge). Neither of them sound genuine (and both of them sound like idiots), and to top it off, they’re called MetaCops. The scene is hilarious.
Also just as Baudrillard described, “people no longer look at each other, but there are institutions for that.” Now what Snow Crash added was that those institutions have been replaces by computer programs, which can perhaps better adhere to the protocol of capitalism than can inter-human communication, which I suppose is more fallible from the franchise-capitalist perspective. Take for example the way in which people are scanned when they enter Burbclaves and welcomed by the PA systems. A better example is actually probably Y.T.’s encounter with the two jail receptionists after her capture in White Columns. The first discovers that she is female by reading his computer screen, rather than by looking at Y.T. (51). The second only glances at her right before leading her to her cell, “to make sure she is really a person, not a sack of flour” (53). On every level at the novel’s beginning sequences it is computers and interfaces that are enabling interpersonal/human interaction/contact/sharing and exchanging of information.
But that yearning for “real” interpersonal relations is still present as well. This is revealed in the by Hiro’s consideration of Juanita’s belief in the value of “real” human relations as “classy,” and in that the Black Sun is a favorite because in it, people are rendered more individually––well enough that their faces become expressive and they cannot in fact merge together.
Nevertheless, this world is tainted. First of all these revelations take place in the Metaverse, which is a pretty decent tip off.
Here, at the Black Sun, the greater quality of face-to-face contact is due to the programmers superior knowledge and understanding of code and computers, not a greater knowledge and understanding of humanity (consider the “bitheads” reaction to Juanita’s interest in faces). Also, the expressions that people are capable of having remind Hiro of Juanita’s and his own, on which she modeled the programming. The programming itself is still pretty impersonal.
Then there’s the unstated comparison between humans and computers––only that humans have organic interfaces (their faces) that better enable the transmission of information––”fact” was the word Juanita used, not emotion or feeling. (And people––their positions (the “Bigboard” reveals a large “Industry” meeting to Hiro while he’s at the Black Sun), their gossip (the actors give Hiro a tip about a director’s love of Bazookas), their lives, really––are considered sources of information.)
But the other result of this comparison is the idea that people do understand people than they do their computers––as Juanita discovered, “the human mind can absorb and process an incredible amount of information––if it comes in the right format. The right interface” (60). And the human face is the original interface (though unlike the computer interface it is not a simulation), and even in the computer world it still works the best. So it’s a breach of utility that people interact solely through protocol and programs (kids on the Street were on dates), which begs the question, in such an environment of simulation and protocol (evident in both the real world and in the Metaverse), is that lack of human interaction avoidable?
"This is the story, of seven strangers, picked to live in a house..."
This week’s readings seemed pretty dense when I was reading through them; I think a trouble spot for me was understanding Baudrillard’s applications to real world examples – I feel like he wouldn’t appreciate my use of “real world” there… The Disneyland reference was intriguing however; being from the Los Angeles area, I can sort of understand his stress on these bizarre fantasy theme parks on top of the absurd luxury of the stereotypical LA lifestyle. Everything can seem so artificial at times.
Aside from my confusion, I really enjoyed Snow Crash, particularly the ideas of contagion and viral outbreaks in a dual digital/somatic form. People always talk about computer viruses wrecking havoc on their computers, but it’s odd to think of a computer virus, one that effects data and hardware crossing the digital barrier and getting inside your head to do god knows what. Especially if someone were to think of a cyborg, being vulnerable to both a computer and human disease would be incredibly unfortunate. As fictional and sci-fi as Snow Crash is, it’s interesting to think about the possibility of disease jumping “species” from computer to human and spreading throughout the world, either through a human vector or your trusty Macbook. I feel like this is a movie..
Aside from my confusion, I really enjoyed Snow Crash, particularly the ideas of contagion and viral outbreaks in a dual digital/somatic form. People always talk about computer viruses wrecking havoc on their computers, but it’s odd to think of a computer virus, one that effects data and hardware crossing the digital barrier and getting inside your head to do god knows what. Especially if someone were to think of a cyborg, being vulnerable to both a computer and human disease would be incredibly unfortunate. As fictional and sci-fi as Snow Crash is, it’s interesting to think about the possibility of disease jumping “species” from computer to human and spreading throughout the world, either through a human vector or your trusty Macbook. I feel like this is a movie..
A Vicious Cycle?
Simulacrum is used to describe the representation of another thing. According to Jean Baudrillard that representation, that simulacrum, is no longer a copy of the real thing, but rather becomes the real thing in itself, a hyperreal. Films such as, “The Matrix” and “The Truman Show” depict characters stuck in a world of simulation, a hyperreal. While my generation, the one seemingly obsessed with technology, begins to dive deeper and deeper into a world of simulation, while the characters within such fictional films about simulacrum struggle to break from such a world. While we continue to surround ourselves with more and more simulation, with our instant messaging, e-mail, Facebook, MySpace, etc., perhaps we’re simply heading to a world we’ll soon want to break free of as well. Then we’ll find ourselves stuck in an endless cycle, such as the characters in “The Matrix Trilogy” also found themselves in. They build the machines, and then the machines take over, destroy humans, but then repopulate them in order to use them as fuel, indeed a vicious cycle. Our society will create a hyperreal for ourselves, only to end up breaking free from it and then will only end up creating one again. From the films it seems humans simply don’t fit well in a hyperreal, perhaps because it is exaggerated, over and beyond as Jean Baudrillard stated. Why do we continue to create a hyperreal around us, when we claim that is a world we fear and strive to break out of?
Simulated Conversation?
All of the talk and reading about simulation got me to thinking about e-conversing, whether it be through email, facebook, or instant messaging programs, possibly even text messaging. Conversation used to be an action performed between two people in a personal, physically close environment. If the two could not be in the same place at the same time, there was either no conversation, or the two would write notes to each other, something inherently personal due to the use of one’s own etching makes and handwriting. With the invention of the telephone, the personal touch could still be considered to be there because people were using their actual voices when conversing. All of these types of communication use a medium which is inherent and personal to the two people who are partaking. However, now with cyber-life we have taken to conversing through email and facebook, instant messaging and texting and I can’t help but wonder, are these types of communications simply simulations of communication. There are some things that I get upset about when people bring them up over the internet because I feel like the subjects should not be discussed over the internet and instead in a more personal way. Is this me just being panic-stricken about the production of the real? Are these really simulations? Is that why people feel they can reveal more over the internet because on some unconcious level we know it to be a simulation and not something real? Can we write it off as something not real in our world?
Re: Da5id and the Iconoclasts
After clicking navigating to the interview with Baudrillard that you posted, I tried reading it, gave up (sorry Julia) and sent it through Alta Vista's BabelFish translator, and then tried to parse the poorly translated text to see why Baudrillard dismissed the attempt made by the Wachowski brothers to represent a simulacra rather than virtual reality (if that is what their intention was, initially). Regardless, I abandoned this and began thinking about Mulholland Drive, which I had always associated with lucid dreams. Then it occurred to me that, like the elaborate simulation in the Truman Show and pre-cogs' vision of the future in Minority Report, a lucid dream is a "simulation" that is not truly rooted in reality, but draws from some of the rules and situations that govern reality. Another example can be seen in the film Vanilla Sky, where the wealthy protagonist, portrayed by Tom Cruise, opts to "live" in a world where he is in a relationship with a woman with whom he had only a nominal relationship in the "reality" of the film. Like Mulholland Drive (but lacking the same subtlety), the main character of Vanilla Sky exists in both the reality created by the film (which is, itself, a simulation) and the reality created by their lucid dreams - a simulation with various ties to the real world. The encapsulation of the dreamworld is shattered when the Lucid Dream support technician shares with the main character (and the audience) what exactly has been going on, and he does the "right thing" and opens his eyes. The Matrix is, however, a simulation of a life familiar to the viewer, but not the characters. In the reality of the film, none of the characters had ever experienced a world with a clear sky and thriving human civilization, the machines simulated it based on the past and the audience connects with it based on our present. In that sense, to the characters of The Matrix, the Matrix itself isn't hyperreal, it's a virtual reality; it's not a simulation, but a construct in and of itself.
I'm not sure if I grasp Baudrillard's argument completely, but this reading, and the articles that Julia pointed out, led me to think about the simulations in these films.
I'm not sure if I grasp Baudrillard's argument completely, but this reading, and the articles that Julia pointed out, led me to think about the simulations in these films.
a few things
I had a lot of trouble reading both “Cognitive Mapping” and “The Precession of Simulcra.” I did notice however, a connection between the youtube video we watched in class and The Precession of Simulcra. The video we watched in class sparks the question, “Are we using the machine or is the machine using us?” Likewise, Baudrillard states, “’You no longer watch TV, it is TV that watches you,” (29) and “The TV watching us, TV alienates us, TV manipulates us, TV informs us” (30). This expresses the feeling of paranoia that increases with the growth and usage of machines and computers.
I don’t understand how/why were are supposed to think of the media as “a kind of genetic code that directs the mutation of the real into the hyperreal” (30). What does that mean? Does the media have ultimate control over a content? Can it not be manipulated otherwise? Is this a bad thing?
In Snow Crash, I found Juanita’s feelings about metaverse interesting: “But Juanita never comes to The Black Sun anymore. Partly, she’s pissed at Da5id and the other hackers who never appreciated her work. But she has also decided that the whole thing is bogus. That no matter how good it is, the Metaverse is distorting the way people talk to each other, and she wants no such distortion in her relationships.” I agree with her. I believe our version of the metaverse, the internet, and talking via iChat, AIM, or email does somewhat affect the way our current generation speaks and interacts with each other. First of all it has created ridiculous lingo, like “gtg,” “brb,” and “lol.” I cringe when I hear middle schoolers speak in internet language. Secondly, people are more inclined to share private information. Thirdly, teens who spend all their time on the internet will have a terrible time developing appropriate social skills. As of now, I wouldn’t say that simulations like Second Life is extremely popular, at least around the people I hang out with and as far as I know on the Brown campus. I wonder if it will ever get to the point where it will be a big thing and everyone will just hang out, or attend class and learn through computer simulations.
I don’t understand how/why were are supposed to think of the media as “a kind of genetic code that directs the mutation of the real into the hyperreal” (30). What does that mean? Does the media have ultimate control over a content? Can it not be manipulated otherwise? Is this a bad thing?
In Snow Crash, I found Juanita’s feelings about metaverse interesting: “But Juanita never comes to The Black Sun anymore. Partly, she’s pissed at Da5id and the other hackers who never appreciated her work. But she has also decided that the whole thing is bogus. That no matter how good it is, the Metaverse is distorting the way people talk to each other, and she wants no such distortion in her relationships.” I agree with her. I believe our version of the metaverse, the internet, and talking via iChat, AIM, or email does somewhat affect the way our current generation speaks and interacts with each other. First of all it has created ridiculous lingo, like “gtg,” “brb,” and “lol.” I cringe when I hear middle schoolers speak in internet language. Secondly, people are more inclined to share private information. Thirdly, teens who spend all their time on the internet will have a terrible time developing appropriate social skills. As of now, I wouldn’t say that simulations like Second Life is extremely popular, at least around the people I hang out with and as far as I know on the Brown campus. I wonder if it will ever get to the point where it will be a big thing and everyone will just hang out, or attend class and learn through computer simulations.
Simulation in A Christmas Carol and Greek Mythology
When reading Baudrillard's article "The Precession of the Simulacra" and after listening about models of global climate change in lecture Monday, I couldn't help but be reminded of numerous myths and stories in which predictions (simulations) tried to prevent events before they happened. Charles Dickens classic tale "A Christmas Carol" and the Greek myth of Cassandra are two great examples. Weall seem to be Scrooging away the environment, while these ghosts show us what has been and what is yet to come if we don't change our ways.
I think it's interesting how seemingly dissimilar means of communication (a scientific research study, an ancient myth, and a nineteenth century novella) can be entangled in similar issues. Granted "A Christmas Carol" hardly touched on global warming and though global warming may have its origins in the industrial revolution, it says very little on the subject of miserly behavior, but all deal with trying to stop some catastrophe before it happens with the power of knowledge. Are we all forlorn Cassandras, knowing the disasters ahead and unable to change them or will we eventually realize our errors like Scrooge? Then again maybe the models are just bogus, inadequate and insufficient as Baudrillard suggests in his article. Regardless of how the situation ends up, I think it's interesting how simulation had existed even before the digital age, if as nothing else, as ideas. Though they are old stories, their might be some message about simulations and predictions still relevant today embedded in these tales.
I think it's interesting how seemingly dissimilar means of communication (a scientific research study, an ancient myth, and a nineteenth century novella) can be entangled in similar issues. Granted "A Christmas Carol" hardly touched on global warming and though global warming may have its origins in the industrial revolution, it says very little on the subject of miserly behavior, but all deal with trying to stop some catastrophe before it happens with the power of knowledge. Are we all forlorn Cassandras, knowing the disasters ahead and unable to change them or will we eventually realize our errors like Scrooge? Then again maybe the models are just bogus, inadequate and insufficient as Baudrillard suggests in his article. Regardless of how the situation ends up, I think it's interesting how simulation had existed even before the digital age, if as nothing else, as ideas. Though they are old stories, their might be some message about simulations and predictions still relevant today embedded in these tales.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Da5id and the Iconoclasts
This week, I'd like to read religion and imagery in Snow Crash against "Simulation and Simulacra." I'm particularly interested in looking a Baudrillard's passage in which he writes about the Iconoclasts, and (perhaps ironically) suggests that their counterparts, the "iconcolates" were the first "modern minds" since they "enacted God's death in the epiphany of his representations." In other words, by forming an image of God, the icon worshipers create a model of an unrepresentable "reality," thereby rendering their images more "real" than the God that the images are meant to represent. God therefore becomes less significant than the signs indicating God, and the cycle of worship re-centers around an image.
In Snow Crash, the "snow crash" itself seems to be a sort of religion composed of images. Although it has been argued extensively that the Metaverse is Stephenson's most accurate representation of a simulacrum, it is worthwhile to consider that the "virus, religion, and disease" is the real simulated reality. The hacker has simply to look at snow crash in order to become infected- the series of ones and zeros that comprise the explosion of binary trigger a hardwiring malfunction in a hacker's brain like a computer. The difference is that merely showing some binary to a computer can't affect it- only processing the binary results in any activity. The hacker is thereby more computer-like than the actual computer; as Hayles wrote, code for the hacker in Snow Crash "is what it does," and snow crash the virus/religion/disease supersedes the knowability of learned language and body functions. Da5id can be damaged by snow crash because he has become a sort of highly sensitive computer, which is itself based on the concept of perfect mechanized processing. The referent has disappeared- man's skills (in this instance, looking at code to understand it) are now based on machine functions, and he is rewarded when his ability to mimic a machine surpasses that of the machine itself.
In this way, hackers fit the description of Baudrillard's icon worshippers and snow crash fits the model of the image of God. Both hackers and iconolates are "infected" with religion because of the visibility of its simulacrum.
(I hesitate to discuss the Matrix in this post, since Baudrillard stated in 2003 that the Matrix treated virtual reality- and not as skillfully as Lynch's Mulholland Drive- rather than simulacra)
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Sorry, this is a bit late...
When I was reading Kittler, I consistently thought to myself, "why is he writing this? Why does this matter?" It seemed so idiotic while at the same time so frustrating. It completely jarred with my perspective concerning information.
When I was littler, I would read books on particle physics and general relativity, because I was a precocious brat with no friends. Luckily I ditched the physics for music and friends, but the knowledge, and the perspective, remains. One of the rules of relativity is that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. A note of contention was J.S. Bell’s thoughts about quantum spin: if two particles begin to spontaneously exist, a particle and its antiparticle (this happens fairly often) and become separated, they will have different spins (“spin” is a nonliteral, theoretical construct that designates a certain quality of particles). So, if you catch one particle and find its spin, you will know the spin of the other particle immediately, no matter where it is in the universe. I don’t remember the resolution of the paradox, but the point remained: information was a discrete packet as real as any matter, and confined by the same rules.
Kittler, on the other hand, marginalizes the importance of information in exchange for the method in which that information is disseminated. To physicists, and myself, the very fact that particle A has spin B is a material object; to Kittler, the fact that particle A has spin B is immaterial. It needs to be written down, to have a physical manifestation, in order to be “real.” To Kittler, the fact that particle A has spin B does actually exist if you type it in a computer, but in a way that’s not able to be interpreted by humans; likewise, writing on a sheet of paper has physical presence and thus the information is real. But to me, the information has been real all along, unlike Bruce Willis, who has been dead all along.
The point that software is not real, that it’s all manipulations of hardware, seems so trivial. It reminds me of my little brother being scared of going to the beach: he learned that sand was actually crushed fossils and shells and didn’t want to go because he thought it was a graveyard. He’s not wrong, per se, but he’s not right either. Software is a construct to help us better understand the information we’re processing in our computers. Writing is merely a tool for conveying information: the information is just as real as the piece of paper or minute indentations on a hard drive. So Kittler’s not wrong, per se, but he’s not right either.
When I was reading Kittler, I consistently thought to myself, "why is he writing this? Why does this matter?" It seemed so idiotic while at the same time so frustrating. It completely jarred with my perspective concerning information.
When I was littler, I would read books on particle physics and general relativity, because I was a precocious brat with no friends. Luckily I ditched the physics for music and friends, but the knowledge, and the perspective, remains. One of the rules of relativity is that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. A note of contention was J.S. Bell’s thoughts about quantum spin: if two particles begin to spontaneously exist, a particle and its antiparticle (this happens fairly often) and become separated, they will have different spins (“spin” is a nonliteral, theoretical construct that designates a certain quality of particles). So, if you catch one particle and find its spin, you will know the spin of the other particle immediately, no matter where it is in the universe. I don’t remember the resolution of the paradox, but the point remained: information was a discrete packet as real as any matter, and confined by the same rules.
Kittler, on the other hand, marginalizes the importance of information in exchange for the method in which that information is disseminated. To physicists, and myself, the very fact that particle A has spin B is a material object; to Kittler, the fact that particle A has spin B is immaterial. It needs to be written down, to have a physical manifestation, in order to be “real.” To Kittler, the fact that particle A has spin B does actually exist if you type it in a computer, but in a way that’s not able to be interpreted by humans; likewise, writing on a sheet of paper has physical presence and thus the information is real. But to me, the information has been real all along, unlike Bruce Willis, who has been dead all along.
The point that software is not real, that it’s all manipulations of hardware, seems so trivial. It reminds me of my little brother being scared of going to the beach: he learned that sand was actually crushed fossils and shells and didn’t want to go because he thought it was a graveyard. He’s not wrong, per se, but he’s not right either. Software is a construct to help us better understand the information we’re processing in our computers. Writing is merely a tool for conveying information: the information is just as real as the piece of paper or minute indentations on a hard drive. So Kittler’s not wrong, per se, but he’s not right either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)