but, I wonder (in the context of introjection) about imbue by intent, vs imprint simply by proximity. AND can there be an ethics devised in our (users) intentional or unintentional imprint on avatars? can we relate to them as autonomous to us even if they grow and benefit (possibly they benefit, not necessarily, depending on what traits are introjected?) by way of how we imprint them?
First, really like this piece you put up - re: cosmic asterisks - can you say more about it?
ReplyDeleteThere _are_ real issues about the ethics of avatars but we're the ones ultimately responsible for them. There was a case involving the appearance of a child in Second Life, run by an adult, involved in sexual activity; it was nothing more than an avatar but obviously made people uncomfortable. I forget what the output was ultimately. All of this touches on the issue of _governance_ which has been critical in virtual worlds - Julian Dibbell's A Rape in Cyberspace - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_in_Cyberspace and http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle_vv.html go into the issues involved in a situation on a MOO (which is a text-based virtual world, now pretty much obsolete).
There are bots - still created by humans - that are autonomous agents, and can even ask and answer questions in virtual worlds, but the humans are ultimately responsible for them. And I wonder if we might not consider malware and viruses as autonomous agents of this sort as well? They do act independently, behave independently, and might or might not report back to their creators...
yes. consideration of viruses and bots is a great way to root what I was pointing toward, because I am interested in thinking conceptually (more than literally) about 'avatars' and what (if there were a community out there of ephemeral identities)those who are not of 'avatars' exact same species, but who are similar to them, might be like. is it not possible that I am very much like an avatar if I am someone who spends most of my time in astral travel, for example? or if I am in a coma? who knows what kinds of autonomies I have regardless of whether or not I am in a human body?
ReplyDeleteI guess I am saying that aside from the interesting above included ethics and considerations I want to imagine (as an ally to an avatar) as a way to change the seeming location of avatars as digital. in taking an avatar into my heart is it possible for it to fuse with me and grow into a hybrid of some sort?
these things.
btw--the cosmic asterisk piece: I made this as a way to root where a lot of my comments are coming from re these conversations. I am saying that I am interested in spaces where avatars and humans can share bodies (converge?) and in doing so come to a new kind or quality of equity.
I see where you're coming from (I think?) - I tend to see, though, avatars as projections or emanations, not literal embodiments. I think it's different w/ Krishna for example, but it's more similar to the deities in tantra. consider an avatar divided into 'two' - one tethered to the other, maybe one flesh-and-blood, and the other image - in which case, of course, our shadows could be considered as avatars as well. but the avatar has more independence, doesn't literally follow the body (or does it?), is or is not a stalker so to speak - just as the shadow is a stalker of the body.
ReplyDeletean avatar can be run remotely by a human as well. might a robot then be an avatar? the avatars are more psychological manifestations than that; they tend to have an 'uncanny' relation to the human. they might even be textual - on a MOO for example you could have an avatar that's literally a collection of programs, texts, and database, that doesn't exist as an image, except for text-as-image. and these, textual, avatars, tend to be more intense than you might think, since they don't have the cartoon qualities of most online virtual world avatars; they're read, they invade your consciousness differently. -
yes! the combinatory relations between them, those are what is of interest to me, b/c when we gaze at the tether between them, and not just at the thing that has been termed projection itself, we can start to consider various new gazes re intimacies. intimacies are where it's at for me.
ReplyDeleteI think in the second paragraph, the way you describe it is right. a robot can be an avatar--can it not also be a projection of a thing that it is in relation to?
thinking on text as avatar, well that is one of the way that I would refer to my own books, so that is great to bring in here and to add to the discussion.
Can you say more about your books? Would appreciate this. And yes, thinking about the tethering moves perhaps from thinking about the poles/polarity and more about 'relation' - so that the ontology moves from the problematic of virtual and physical to one of projections and introjections. I invented a word a few years ago to deal with the tangled (in)distinctions between projecting out and introjecting in - _jectivity_ - which refers to a state of transmission or thrownness, etc. - and that would encompass the idea of tethering and the processes within tethering -
ReplyDeleteoh my--did not see this response until now. thank you for asking! I also appreciate exposure to your invented term/ verbiage. I find that these created terms enable!
ReplyDeleteI would say that within many of my books text/ image enact avatar space (if we could imagine avatar-realm-ness as a sort of zone)...meaning necessary surrogates that are not stand-ins per say, but are more like enablers. slippery trap doors or what could lubricate trap doors toward slips of various kinds. in other words, what can be created 'out there' that is also a 'here'--
anyway, here are a couple of links:
http://ismspress.wordpress.com/jj-hastain/
http://www.esquemag.org/2012/02/01/jj-hastain/
Hi j/j - I quite liked the piece at esque - is that out of Naropa? And is the isms book available online anywhere? Your description seems really apt from what you're writing here and in esque.
ReplyDeleteBy the way do you know the work of Joel Weishaus? You might be interested in it - we've had a long and loose dialog over several years. His web work is at http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00282/
hey there. no--esque is not out of Naropa (Naropa's mag is called Bombay Gin)--esque is Amy King and Anna Bozicevic's mag. it is an exciting place, huh?
ReplyDeletere the ISMs press book, yes. it is available on line. you go to the link that I posted above and send them an email and let them know you are interested and they will send it to you. here are a couple others, since you asked (I feel that they also point a bit (in a sort of dilated way and not a sharp singular way) to what I was saying above re my approach to text as avatar realm)). thank you for asking!
http://sayitwithstones.com/?p=365
http://www.spuytenduyvil.net/poetry/prurientanarchicomnibus.html
great to hear about your convo with Joel. what has the base of the convo been? any shared ideas or pursuits?
Hi, I'm jammed somewhat during the next week but will be online as well, apologies; a curator/friend is staying with us. With Joel, we've dialoged about Jung, things like that; as you might suspect, we're on different sides of things, but very friendly. I love his site.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a look at the books if I can, and more later and thanks!