Sorry About the Videos
October 12, 2011 § Leave a comment
Janet Murray, “Digital Environments are Encyclopedic” (1997)
A digital library of Alexandria is now possible, thanks to the magic of cyberspace! And ushers in so many narrative possibilities! Via RPGs of all stripes! Games and MUDs and MOOs! All contributing to infinite hypertextualities! aka the “encyclopedic extent of the computer!” Course there are some downsides, for example lack of closure & inevitable plague of tl;dr. Still! Narrative possibility! Like in the Sims. That’s a story! A god-story of your own making! Which requires a different kind of reading/interpretive practice! It is a brave new world(s).
McKenzie Wark, “GAM3R 7H30RY” (2007)
Here’s this game called The Cave™, i.e. the Allegory of Similar only CYBERSTYLE!!! It is a world of pure argon. But not just a world of pure argon, one of many, infinitely many, worlds of argon. In which & cross-posted everything is a game, even reality! Especially reality! WHAT DOES REALITY EVEN MEAN. War, identity, faith, being, knowledge, theory, practice, meaning, notasinglething.jpg! Just play-play-play! Infinite play-narratives and play-lives! Gamer theory, excuse me GAM3r 7H30RY, begins when one recognizes one’s place in The Cave™ & chooses to live here anyway. BECAUSE LIFE IS BUT A DREAM. And by dream I mean GAM3! Also the blue pill.
Sweet internet god and jesus, this is seriously getting uncanny — I chose my selections for this halfheartedly dreary semi-sigh of a day completely at random, and what to my wondering eyes did appear? Thematic cohesion, and a shared affinity for the Sims! At this point things are so beyond statistical anomaly I might as well start sacrificing livestock. inb4 “START?” LOL GOOD ONE.
So. Life is but a dream (game). Yes! No! Who cares! -those are my answers, not necessarily in that order. Which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise; as I’ve made amply clear in other posts, I don’t have a lot of room in my head for ontological frettings. Which is not –and this may be a counterintuitive not– to say I’m uninterested in the experience of being (in this case being, /online). I totally am, that’s sort of what I do for a living. It’s just that I’m not worried about what really is (i.e. what really is, /online), and find the resulting discussions tedious and downward-stacking turtlesly. That there is mediation, that this mediation is mediated, that we’re always traipsing across one or another cluster of blurred boundaries — that’s enough, and I feel just fine.
I’m reminded here of a little project I have in the works, well one of them — namely the creation of a “person” who isn’t a person at all but who meets one of my favorite concepts ever, Wikipedia’s criteria of verifiability. Which is sort of like the rule 34 only epistemological. i.e. if you can link to something, it exists. May not be true, but in the citing becomes a Thing. In the same way the guy I God will be a Thing. Except not really! But that’s just details!
The other details is, I create the outline of someone who could be. I give him a place to live, and link this place to other places. As far as the second and third places are concerned, the guy is a real guy because if he wasn’t a real guy he wouldn’t be linked to the first place. Eventually his self, whatever that means, and however that might pull from or gesture towards my own self, whatever that means, will be supported by the weight of his other constituent pieces, i.e. the scaffolding provided by all these self (or whatever)-referential platforms. In English: if a person(ality) maintains active linked profiles on Facebook, on Twitter, on Tumblr, has a blog, has a LJ because why not (lol Frank), then who’s to say he doesn’t exist? He kind of does, right? Probably! At the very least this/his narrative –and it/he will become a narrative, just as Murray describes, as well as a game, just as Wark describes– will. I can’t wait to make/be/play/write him, and am counting the days till exams are over so I can start tinkering with questions whose answers don’t interest me.