Human kind cannot bear very much virtuality.

I want to draw some connections.  The avatar isn’t a seperate creature, it is a different order of the self. Augmentation versus Immersion means nothing at this level.  The avatar is the self that I can look at, that I can make an object of physical intuition, thereby (apparently) rendering the self  complete, integrated, whole, something that can be ordered, understood, put in its place.  But this objectification is doomed to fail as the subject is always becoming what it is (in a sense, it is always already virtual), which is to say, that a “fixed” subject is never available for objectification except in a degraded form (although, virtuality provides the illusion of this becoming as a genuine experience, the inescapable realization that I am *not* my avatar always collapses the avatar-as-subject-become-object complex)  Nevertheless, the *desire* to experience the self as an object is always there and, for those of us who “enjoy” virtuality, that desire is more or less satisfied in Second Life.  If you have ever wondered about the prevalence of BDSM in Second Life, this is the place to start but, as interesting (or not!) as that analysis might be, there is a  more general relevance at play here.

Augmentation is an attempt to overcome virtuality by “grounding” one virtuality in another.  What we call Real World identies are no less virtual than our Second Life identities in the sense that insofar as they exist they exist only symbolically, in language.  Why is such a re-doubling of the virtual necessary for the augmentationist, what is being accomplished in this move?

once again, have to come back to this as I am working on my club which is becoming the ultimate cool looking explosion of light in SL

Code and Cathexis

I’ve seen the locution “code is law” so often that, like any good piece of propaganda, I believed it meant something but was never entirely sure what was being said!  So, what does “code is law” actually mean?  Here are some tentative ideas (the list is hardly exhaustive!):

Political – programmers make policy because programmers make stuff out of code.

Theological – “code” is a kind of substance that “makes up” the world, therefore, the “law” of that world is the “law of code”

Tautological – “code” and “law”are just two words for the same thing (what that thing is still up for metaphysical speculation!)

Performative -  the statement doesn’t really have a meaning in the traditional sense; rather, it performs a function (much like code itself!)

 

Ok, Scott, you got your wish.

I haven’t posted in ages, that’s true. I haven’t even visited this blog since writing my last post. I did say that the post was going to take a long time to write and it certainly has. I should point out that I have posted further instalments but they wound up on Dusan’s blog rather than my own. If you have read them you will know that I am confused and philosophically unsteady; it’s taking quite a lot to get my words together. Here are some cheap excuses for that. Firstly, I have been working 6 and 7 days a week for the past month; some half days, some double shifts (10 hours) and I haven’t had the time or energy for much SL related activity. The other reason is that I have been doing a lot of directed reading (some might even call it research!)

Rightly or wrongly, I have more and more come to understand virtuality in Hegelian terms; yes, even in the crude thesis-antithesis-synthesis form of the “dialectic”. Consider it for a moment and I think you will at least find the notion interesting, if not utterly compelling. I am not going to develop these notions much further here. Consider this a progress report more than a substantive post. My desire is to write a thesis length essay over the coming months; as such, I am not so interested in posting abortive ideas and flights of fancy as I am prone to do when writing on blogs.

So here’s a reading list:

Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
Adorno’s Negative Dialectics
Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory
Adorno’s Minima Moralia (Yes, quite a lot of Adorno!)
Lacan’s Ecrits (which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read what I posted on Dusan’s blog!)
Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus
Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus
Zizek’s Organs Without Bodies (a necessary companion to the Deleuze and Guattari books)
Zizek’s The Ticklish Subject

Ok, those are the main texts informing my current thinking about Second Life. I am not reading these texts systematically but, I like to believe, I *am* reading them deeply. Of these texts, only the Zizek is “new” to me and I am loving his writing as a counterpoint to my rather obvious attachment to Critical Theory. There is another work that influences my thinking here because its a book that has influenced my thinking in general ever since first reading it 15 years ago. I am speaking of Jane Jacob’s Death and Life of the Great American Cities.

What I want to do is consider Second Life (virtual worlds in general? Is it necessary to survey them all?) from the perspective of “classical” philosophy i.e. with respect to the classic problems presented by philosophical thinking and, when that perspective proves insufficient (insofar as it might answer the what but it can’t answer the why), shift to a psychoanalytic model of the avatar as the attempt (and ultimate failure) to re-subjectivize the reified subject. What is an avatar but an objectivization of the subject that is, neverthless, felt (and thought) to possess the spontaneous autonomy that is the mark of the genuine subject? Ok, I am spinning off into Pop-Hegelianism again. These words *do* have substantial meaning. More reading and more (offline) writing will, I hope, make this sound less like the product of an over-excited undergraduate drunk on sleeplessness and Heidegger.

This post is taking a long time to form. I have just woken up and my tea is still too hot to drink down in one gulp so I am writing this nonsense to get my fingers limbered up while waiting for my brain to sync. I suppose it’s appropriate for what I am trying to say that I approach the subject in a hypnopompic state. Dusan writes extensively on the metaphysics of Second Life, more, I think, than any other prominent SL blogger and, whenever I think about what he writes, there is always one category that insists on coming to the fore, namely, the psychoanalytic conception of desire.

My schooling in philosophy predisposes me to think my experience of Second Life through its traditional categories. It’s far too early for Heidegger but if human being is that being for which the question of the meaning of being is the fundamental condition for its being then the question of the meaning of the being of avatars, insofar as the avatar can be said to be an ecstatic mode of being, is a question begging to be asked (I’m sure that sentence would read better had I written it in German!) Anyway, I was trying to illustrate how easy and enticing it is to fit our Second Life experience into the grander philosophical situation. The problem is that the fit is never a comfortable one for me. If there is a world behind the scenes (as Nietzsche so eloquently dismissed the realm of metaphysics) at play in Second Life then its locus isn’t the in-itself of the prim, it lies elsewhere!

I am sitting, sipping my tea, and Heidegger is beckoning me, asking that I go on to flesh out what started as a quick example of how easy it is to speculate on Second Life using his language BUT I am going to stop where I am. It’s been a while since I formally studied him (and those thinkers most associated with him) but I remember that while reading Being and Time that I was only really being given an ontological taxonomy. I had a hard time finding the energy, if you will, that drove the whole thing. I seem to recall a disclaimer somewhere in the book to the effect that it was never his purpose to identify the agency but, merely, to document the structure of being.

Bugger, I hit Publish instead of Preview that time! I do have to break off now and go work in the real world for a spell (and just as I was getting into the groove!) I feel a powerful need to finish this particular trip, though, so I will file an update in the near future. I hadn’t even gotten near to where I wanted to get.

The Logic of Escalation

The Big Stick

My neighbours in Ravenglass have a “Soviet” submarine parked beside my house. It’s kinda small and grotty looking with all those exposed rivets but, you know, it’s *funny as hell* and I narf every time I see it. Anyway, they seem to be a playful group of kids so I built this thing. It’s called a Los Angeles Class Attack Submarine and was built by the Americans to hunt and kill Soviet missile subs. I thought it would make a nice match; the problem is that I built it almost life sized (that’s me poking my head out of the conning tower) and it’s far too large to fit in Ravenglass.

Losing My Religion (UPDATE!)

Err, my faith actually but anyway. That awful sex store has now moved closer to our parcel in Moraine so the freak responsible for it, you know, took the time to pick it up from one parcel and jam it down again right on the parcel boundary with ours. It’s been abuse reported several times over several days and nothing at all happens. I just don’t get that. It’s a clear violation of the law in SL and it goes utterly unpunished. It isn’t a resident to resident dispute, it isn’t some murky grey area where a Linden has to decide if someone is being “intolerant” or “disruptive”. It’s about selling nude pictures of age-unverified (I would like to point out!) “teens” in an area marked as Mature and not Adult (i.e. on the mainland, duh!) Maybe we should try reporting it as an ageplay violation although that seems bizarre since it is *already* a clear violation.

You know, with all the grief that Prokofy Neva has had to put up with since the SLCC chalking incident and the Lab’s total non-response to it, it’s really starting to look like the Lab just doesn’t care, or worse, is wilfully ignoring the legitimate concerns of its law abiding residents in favour of… in favour of God knows what – anarchism? I just don’t know. A fanboy would point out that they “just don’t have the resources” or some such other retarded claim that doesn’t require refutation. Anyway, I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that something has happened in Linden land and the TOS has as much meaning to the average Linden as the Bill of Rights had to Bush Co. Then again, I have a sneaking suspicion that if I were to invoke the law of the jungle and go after these abusers myself that I would be the one suddenly “worthy” of a TOS suspension. That’s how things roll, I guess.

Philip has said that the purpose of Second Life is to make a better world. We make things better by improving on all the good stuff we already have. I read an interesting rule of thumb (for telescope makers but which applies very well to software engineering also): “it takes less time to make a 4 inch mirror and then a 6 inch mirror than it does to make a 6 inch mirror” In other words, we iterate toward the “better”, we don’t smash everything down and then make “great leaps forward”. It makes no sense in any practise, not in engineering, not in politics, not in “better world making”. So, Philip, to make Second Life a better world, start with all the stuff that makes the real world better now than what it was, say, 70 years ago in fascist Germany – MAKE THE RULE OF LAW FUNDAMENTAL TO SECOND LIFE and then get the fuck rid of that creepy porn shop beside my parcel in Moraine! Thanks.

Update:

I just got an IM from a new neighbour saying “Hi, I got rid of that terrible mall belonging to the previous owner of the parcel beside yours” So the disgusting sex shop is gone and we now have a new neighbour who *gets* what it is to be a neighbour! I am so relieved and my faith in people is restored.

Oh yes, I created a new open group called Free Citizens Solidarity and I rented a parcel in Ravenglass (originally just to express solidarity with Prok in his struggle with the Woodybury University banalities) that is going to be our “headquarters”.

The End of Civilization (in Moraine) Update

I am going to name names in this update because my client crashes every time I try to abuse report this dipshit. Now, how can the Lindens make such a big deal about adult content and let this little shrine to the banality of evil stand after multiple abuse reports (from others)? The proprietress’s name is Tina Seymour and I would try to work this out in IM but I suspect she is too stupid to understand the issues.

Weito has been forced to move out of the sim entirely due to the combined grieftardery of these new “neighbours”. I hate people.

Antfarm Rising Redux

The End of Civilization (in Moraine)

Ah, the mainland. I truly do love it until someone moves in beside you. We had it so good in Moraine because our only real neighbours to speak of were Prok’s tenants in the Moraine Inlet and across the river from us and the only candidate eyesores in the whole sim were probably Jojo and my builds (who wants to live across from a gas station?) Well, ugly or not we always tried to make them interesting and attractive in the sense of “well-crafted”. Prok’s lease agreement for Ravenglass Rentals kept ground level ugliness to a minimum (actually there was none at all in Moraine) and kept the area free of banlines and security orbs. Life was good. The problem was that we couldn’t afford the tier on the almost 1/4 sim (or was it more?) that we had and so we sold off a bunch of it today and just kept the original parcel we bought from Prok. The estate agents showed up and cut the parcel into four sections all of which were promptly leased or sold.

Then, within the space of a few hours, a sex shop went up selling hud penises and picture packs of “real teen girls”. It went away fairly quickly sparing me having to write the AR. But then the Wall O’ Ugly Trees went up surrounding the parcel that used to house the COOLEST BUILD IN SL (i.e. antigrav) and my heart turned to ice. The trees are right smack on the parcel boundary so they are half in the surrounding parcels (not mine however so it’s out of my jurisdiction to report). I knew right then that this new “neighbour” was going to be trouble because she has no concern whatsoever for anyone around her. This was amply demonstrated this evening.

I moved the club back over the original parcel this morning. It sits at 4000 meters where nobody else has to see it or be affected by it. I make very sure when I build large structures that their footprint is entirely within my land and that they are far enough away from anyone else so as not to disturb the view. So, I teleport to the club this evening and what the hell do I see but a gigantic moon spinning 100, 150 meters away from me. Some ugly pre-fab “club” right where antigrav used to sit and big as life in the view of where antigrav sits now. Ok, so WTF? Antigrav is a large (50×50x50) sun so “gee let’s put a big moon right beside it!” I mean, WTF? Oh, did I mention that it’s owned by the owner of the Ugly Wall O’ Trees?

Here’s the question: what do you do about it? I moved antigrav down 250 meters and I hope that’s the end of that and I never have to deal with this person directly. Among other things, here’s why: read this person’s profile.

“Not Dealing With your Drama…. Want to get to know me hit me up……….

I can be as Sweet as can be and then again pushed i can be a Bitch from Hell …. YOUR CHOICE ..”

In other words, another blingtard drama whore. Geez, they are so freaking transparent, aren’t they? See how it works? I say “excuse me, was their some need for you to park your stupid prefab right smack in my view at 4000 meters?” and she replies “Not Dealing With your Drama”. Right? Isn’t that what she would say? We all know that it is. Some people are just very very stupid.

Not Possible in Second Life

To the extent that Not Possible in Real Life isn’t possible *without* real life (as the thing to be negated), Not Possible in Real Life will never escape the very thing it finds so repellent, the thing it claims to have overcome. As such, Not Possible in Real Life merely affirms the “things as they are.” If you hold up a mirror to an atrocity, the image may be reversed but the brutality persists.

The title of this post? Art, I’m sad to say.

Second Life, virtuality on the whole, isn’t infinitely malleable. It proposes the possibility of a boundless plasticity but does not and possibly cannot deliver on that promise and any aesthetic movement predicated on this false premise will remain forever *bound* to the realm of spectacle.. There is a kind of awe-struck freshman feel to so much of what has been written on this score and that’s all great and feels wonderful when you can share in it (as newbies are wont to do, as I did!) but there comes a time, seriously, when you have to leave behind the “golly-gee, isn’t it sooo cool” attitude and start to develop a more critical aesthetics. My beef with NPIRL is two-fold. I don’t like the way the “school” insists that theirs is the only valid aesthetic awareness in Second Life (but that’s a power and personality issue and is more or less contingent.) No, my main issue is that, as a theory, it is remarkably thin as all it really says is that art in Second Life is anything that isn’t possible in real life. I know, that sounds so obvious, right? They say so in the name of their group, Not Possible in Real Life. The problem is that when you say their name you have also simultaneously stated, in full, the entirety of their aesthetic programme! At least the word, Dada, made you think!

Anticipating about the only counter argument that can be made, I am sure there are further criteria for what NPIRL judges worthy of the name of Art. I suspect it has something to do with a piece not just being not possible in real life but actually being “good”. Insofar as good means “crafty” or well executed, I am happy to tag along; however, the criteria for “goodness” is never made explicitly clear. Does goodness mean the thing is super-dooper really really not possible in real life or is there another aesthetic category which hasn’t been revealed, is it really nothing more than a matter of personal taste? If it’s the former case then NPIRL as a theory is circular at best and really says nothing at all about what constitutes art. I will be generous and believe that it’s really about trying to make a school out of one’s personal preferences. And that’s all well and good except let’s not presume that one’s aesthetic idiosyncrasies are synonymous with the divine gaze that sustains this crazy little world of ours, yea, even beyond the log off button.

I must add that I have no beef at all with the people involved with NPIRL. I am not motivated by any “drama” in this regard and however critical (or not) I might sound, my criticism isn’t directed at any person or group. My disagreement is purely intellectual (such as it is!)