Week 6 - Virtuality
In regards to virtual versus real it?s obvious that multiple definitions of these terms exist; I?m still not certain that I see a pattern in what any one scholar determines to be virtual with another?s definition. Like Jordan mentioned regarding the never-ending definitions of ?new media? in Monday night?s class, how many definitions of virtual will be/can be created?
Within Silva?s dissertation chapter a statement struck me; that ?people consider virtual reality as a representation of reality, but also as something that could be better then reality? (Silva, 51). This argument of virtual over reality is played out more often then perhaps anticipated, for example, with the newest games for virtual pets. If the virtual pet allows you to have a companion without the potential for harm or neglect (when you just can?t find the time to walk the real dog or be home to feed the real him/her on time) how could it not be better then the real? But I question how a judgment can be made regarding what might be better if a person has only experienced one or the other. Can virtual truly give you a comparison for the real if you?ve never experienced the real? Is this comparing apples to oranges?
Another note I want to make regarding Silva?s chapter is the reference to Descartes? ?malignant genius.? Does the imagination have to be based on a reference from an external reality? In my previous work with children, and the hours I spent watching them ?play? in their own imagined worlds, I would have to argue that much of what they were describing from their worlds they had never experienced in an external reality, not even from a television show or other source. Their mental images were purely developed within their imaginations; does this mean they?re all malignant geniuses?
In autopoiesis, ?the observer could only observe because she was structurally coupled to the phenomenon she saw? (Silva, 61) but what if the observation is through an interface where there is a lack of physical presence? Are you separate if you observe something on television? Does this qualify as allopoiesis because the observation is then enclosed in another interface system?
Levy?s The Nature of Virtualization was the strongest reading for me this week; I appreciated the practical application of actual and virtual in regards to employees and corporations. I am intrigued by the ?Moebius Effect? ?the transition from interior to exterior and from exterior to interior? (Levy, 33) and how this differs between public and private and personal and shared spaces.
Levy also argues that virtualization ?reinvents the nomadic culture? (Levy, 29) but also states that a person is ?not totally independent of a referential space-time since they still must bond to some physical substrate and become actualized somewhere sooner or later? (Levy, 29). Does this stand for every virtual community where someone belongs? Do I need a physical location where I become actualized for my participation in the blog community for this class as well as my membership within my office community via my virtual office at home?
Had I begun my reading with Deleuze I would have felt like I was shoveling wet cement; by far the weakest article for the week in my opinion because of my frustration with his writing style. How can scholarly writing provide any source of valuable information if it?s so entirely dense that you want to poke your eyes out with a fork while reading it? Thank goodness for Silva?s interpretation of Deleuze otherwise there?d be no level of credibility in my book. I am more drawn to articles like Levy?s over Deleuze and Borges simply because of practicality; I have difficulty seeing the purpose of an entire article devoted to Adam as a sinner (despite the realization that I should have seen the discussion of virtual beyond the story of Adam!).