Date: Monday, 7 April 2008 02:25 pm (UTC)
Nitpicking can be fun, but it's not what I'm up to; I think there's an interesting point here. You and [livejournal.com profile] strawberryfrog have got me thinking, and now I'm exploring my ideas by bouncing them back to you.

Clearly online communication isn't identical to face-to-face, but apart from the media involved (with their different communication capabilities), I don't see a categorical difference. Computers are connected to bodily reality - we type with our fingers and read with our eyes. Computers, and all their data, exist in the physical world. That data may need to be interpreted (by computers and by our imaginations) before it is useful, but other sensory data is electrically and chemically manipulated and interpreted in our bodies too.

We habitually speak about a "real" and a "virtual" world and I think that's an interesting model, but not a very sound one. If you hold to that distintion, where would you locate paper letters and telephone calls in it, and why?

the way in which their power resides

Surely the power of both online and offline communication resides ultimately in our imaginations? To the extent that we imagine they're different, perhaps they are, but when you look at what actually constitutes the communication, how is the real/unreal categorisation justified?

The problem with the words "real" and "virtual" is that they imply "real" and "virtual" when all I can see them referring to is "offline" and "online" (or maybe "analogue" and "digital", though there are problems with that too). I think it's a case of inaccurate labelling.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

December 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Page generated Saturday, 26 July 2025 01:50 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit