Crushed's Voyage to Second Life

I went for a bit of a walk yesterday evening to a neighbourhood I had not visited in- oh, about a year and a half.

Hence the ersatz posting of an incomplete post on Aramis. I fully concede it's a poor post, but I'm afraid my posts editor is full of incomplete posts right now, none of which are the final article.

Anyway, I had a little look round Second Life. I do have it installed on my PC, though I only really pop in at short intervals to have a look. Yesterday evening I happened to be in for a good few hours.
And it certainly leaves one speculating.

Is it a brave new world?

I'm not sure. At present I don't think it is what one day developments from the principle have the potential to be. It did certainly make me think of the post I had myself published only recently regarding a hypothetical situation between hypothetical individuals in 2525.
At the moment it fulfills several functions. For most users, I guess it's primarily entertainment. But for some- it's clearly more than that.

How to draw the line between what is and isn't healthy? I actually would use different criteria to some people. Some would say that one should really focus on First Life rather than Second Life and I think that's generally a good point- up to a degree. Interaction is interaction and it's a whole new form of interaction to be sure. I'm not sure how much time people spend in there is the issue.

I would say that if someone is using Second Life to do things not possible in First Life, or more cumbersome in First Life, then it is good use of the technology. There is, for example, the bedridden invalid who can never again go out and enjoy a normal life. Second Life gives her that chance.

But. Can someone please tell me the POINT of a cyber joint? Seriously. These things exist in Second Life. Are there really people who smoke pot, but only in Second Life?

And one hears that every niche that exists in First Life, exists there too. But I can't help feeling that there's a difference. I doubt very much that Second Life Swingers are Swingers in First Life. So people are actually using Second Life not just to live their fantasies, but to actually keep their First Life a stale lie.

And what are we to make of the couple who met in Second Life, married in Second Life and then got divorced (in a very REAL court of law) because- you guessed it- he 'cheated' in Second Life.

How can you CHEAT in Second Life?
Apparantly he was having a whole string of Second Life Affairs.
??????
I'm sorry, Earth calling Neptune!
'Cheating' is one of those things which no matter how amazing the technology is, will always require two people to actually be touching in the flesh. You cannot 'cheat' via the internet.
And I know I'm going to have people disagree here. I read a blog only recently about someone who felt deep angst about their partner (or ex-partner, I forget which) and her numerous online 'affairs'. Apparently she had an army of cyber lovers.
I guess there isn't much to be gained from pointing out to people in that situation- it's not real. A cyber lover is NOT a real lover. It's harmless fun. At worst, she's neglecting you to flirt online instead, but you can't call the people she chats to online lovers in a real sense of the word. Cybersex is not sex. It's simply people masturbating, nothing glamorous about it at all.

Now I can see how people get carried away by these things. Because over time, one can get to know people via this medium. There are several people I have come across through blogging I would count as genuine friends. And one can genuinely emote to people, even over a medium such as Instant Messenger. And those emotions are genuine. But since this is a totally new phenomenon within the human condition, mass emoting of people using modes of communication devoid of physical proximity, people are still struggling to interpret it.

People lose perspective.
I'm not disputing that people can indeed develop strong feelings for people in a place like Second Life. I'm not disputing that for a moment. What I am disputing is whether such a situation can ever be described rationally as a Romantic relationship.
And as I implied in my post, I'm not disputing that one day such concepts may well be rendered totally meaningless by human technology on the one hand, and the total collapse of the monogamous ideal on the other.

But whilst human technology remains what it is, unable to accurately replicate human presence and proximity, and whilst we have a concept of the Romantic relationship that is essentially exclusive, monogamous and ultimately has a view to people actually sharing their lives for a protracted period, owning property in common, etc, etc, then there are a number of conditions that must be in place before such a situation can actually be called a Romantic relationship.

And as far as I understand it- call me a traditionalist here- but for people to be in a Romantic relationship, they actually have to be having sex. Real live, actual sex. People who meet up in Second Life aren't having a Romantic relationship, they're simulating one. That doesn't mean a day couldn't come when they stop simulating and actually do it for real, but until their loins combine in a three dimensional way, then they are not having a Romantic relationship, they're imagining what a Romantic relationship with the other person MIGHT be like.

Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. Not if handled the right way. It's potentially quite a good vetting procedure, I guess. As long as both parties are aware it's a simulation and not the real thing.

But this of course, is part of a wider problem, not just with Second Life, but with the internet generally. And it even hangs like a cancer in the blogosphere.

Sadly, the internet was discovered first by people who used it as an escape. Now there's nothing wrong with that in principle, when normal balanced people do it. But the problem is, situations like the Second Life couple described above get circulated. And unfortunately, whilst the general perception of the wider world out there is that the internet is a place where social inadequates and misfits roam freely, a lot of people will give it a wide berth, not just in practise, but in terms of it's potential.

When I relate to people in Real Life some of the issues I've come across online I get responses such as 'Yes, but if you're actually responding to e-mails from people online, you have to accept that ninety percent of them will either be Sad or Loony' to 'But they're bound to be freaks, these people'.
And no, no, that's not true. Ninety percent of people who comment at blogs, or write blogs are neither sad OR loony. But a higher proportion of them are than one finds in one's local pub, by a long shot. Seriously, the craziness I have come across in the heads of some people online, one just does not come across in Real Life. And to be honest, it gives the internet a bad name.

Now obviously, some don't mind that. They want to keep this a kind of misfit medium used by socially inadequate males, balding divorcees looking for young Russian or Indonesian girls, fat bunny boilers and people who believe NASA is hacking into their electricity meter.



Now long term, that lot will go. Their doom is written, they will not be here in twenty years time. Their aim to make the internet their sanctuary from the rest of us, much as the Mormons moved to Utah, will fail in the end as the potential of this medium increasingly gets seen by the mainstream population. Facebook has already been taken over the socially adept, and blogging will be in a matter of time and ultimately the entire internet will be. And the misfits will crawl off somewhere else to be inadequate. Or maybe chatrooms will make a comeback and they can go back there and stay there. And leave the useful bits of the internet to people who've actually got a bit about them and can behave like grown ups.

Because until then, the real potential of things like Second Life will not happen.

And what is that potential?

Believe it or not, a side concept that exists in the plotline for my currently not-progressing-anywhere-at-all novel, foreshadows that.
An idea that I developed for my novel in it's original premise was an idea called 'The Construct'. Now this was really before I had come across the internet, or at least didn't really know much about it, but one of the reasons the novel is in stasis is I dreamed much of the plot up years ago and eight years of greater knowledge now leads me to be greatly dissatisfied with some of my first conceptualisations. But I think 'The Construct' will remain.
{Basically, the central premise of the book is it is set in a time where a fraction of the human race are born with telekinetic powers. And these can, with training, be used pretty much without limit. The user can manipulate particles at sub atomic level.
The result is, the galaxy is ruled by an elite quasi-religious military order, composed entirely of those possessing this ability, whose sole aim is continual expansion of their Empire, increasing the total number of lifeforms owing obedience to a God-Emperor who thus continually approaches closer and closer to total omnipotence. Their religion is based on actualising a deity.}


The Construct is actually created by the continuous conceptualisation of every member of the elite, the 'Servants of Order'. They are each able, as one might expect, to link thoughts with eachother. 'The Construct' is a shared thought concept, which has been built up by simply making every member aware of it on initiation. It exists, because everyone is aware of it. Since there are over a quadrillion 'Servants', it never ceases to be out of consciousness. It can be added to, altered, manipulated, but ultimately it exists as a kind of parallel reality, existing entirely in the collective minds of its creators. All of whom need simply to will their minds into it, and then they will perceive themselves to be in it. It's existence makes possible meetings and discussions in safety that would not be possible in reality. Because 'The Construct' is safe. And in 'The Construct' the laws of space and time can be ignored. And it can be used to plan and conceptualise, it is able to be used as a total simulation for reality.

One important reason for this, was I intended (still intend if I ever get on with it again) to have a mysterious child figure who the central figure will keep coming upon in 'The Construct'. At once all knowing and precocious, yet also curiously ambiguous in motive, sometimes callous and capricious, sometimes seemingly a friend. And as the novel progresses, the reader would get the distinct impression that the child was ultimately playing the central character for his own ends.

But I digress. The point is, Second Life could hold that function. Right now, it probably isn't developed enough for it to be possible, and things such as the Second Life marriage saga mean that seriously minded people don't consider it, but certainly it would seem far more sensible for board meeting of global corporations to take place in such a setting, in the future.

And for architecture and construction. For these sorts of purposes, creating virtual models that people can actually visit would seem eminently sensible. If the centre of a town is be redesigned, why not allow people to actually visit the proposals and interact with them? See which town centre they actually want to exist in three dimensional form?
There are in fact a variety of circumstances for which the existence of a simulated reality would be perfect, and we're not using it for that.

I can't help feeling that it's a real shame that the technology exists there and it's not being used. You don't need to go into Second Life to practice fetishism. E-mail me, and I'll give you a whole list of Real Life places you can go to. And smoking a Second Life joint won't get you high. If you can do it in the Real World, DO IT in the Real World.

But- can you or I go to the Rome of Tiberius?
Or the Athens of Plato?
Can we walk on the surface of Mars, can we stand on the hills above the Battle of Naseby?
Can we walk round the Palace of Versailles at the height of the reign of Louis XIV?

These are things I'd like to be able to do.

My guide had certainly made a good job out of his time there, but for him it is a place where he can find grounding in a life which involves much movement and very little time to hang up his hat. So he has built an island of constancy and stability to suit his tastes. He cannot be at home that often, so has a familiar place he can come home to at will.

And looking what he had done with his little niche that he had carved for himself, it occurred to me that there is nothing wrong with the principle of Second Life, if it is used to its potential. And that is, to enable people to conceptualise their dreams, to give form to our thoughts, our visions, to make real within the range of human experience what cannot be made real in our material universe. Such as our history. If you really wanted a Jurassic Park, here it could be, and safe it could be.

But as it stands, the attractiveness of concepts like that are lost. Because the visionaries who might be attracted to pursue that are not being drawn in. Right now Second Life IS being used to fulfill dreams, but the dream that is being dreamed of, is attainable reality in First Life. What is the point of going to a Second Life pub and drinking a cyber beer when there is a First Life pub down the road serving real beer?
It's a shame because I think that once the potential is realised, it will become really big. It has, from what I gather, an amazing amount of design freedom. You can pretty much design anything in there. And a lot of people are taking it up. But the general perception of the world at large is still that which comes across from the average user. And trust me, pop in at random and if you're not rescued within ten minutes by a friendly teleport from someone you know, you will meet some VERY odd people indeed. These people ARE living their dreams. It's just their dreams aren't very exciting. An ordinary Friday night in FIRST Life to you or I. It's just they can't have that in First Life.
And of course that isn't the character of the average Second Life user. But the average Second Life user won't be in there as MUCH as these people and so the average newcomer can easily be put off.

And yet, it seems to me that brave newcomers could really do something with it. People who don't need to go into Second Life to smoke a cyber joint. People who don't actually think two avatars canoodling bears any remote resemblance to human love making.
Because there are people in there who are fully grounded people and use it to push the boundaries, to make the impossible conceptually possible. They just need help in taking over the asylum. In fact, I think that sensible, grounded people are actually the silent majority of Second Life users, just as sensible, grounded people are the silent majority of bloggers.

But I did reflect how sad it was. The internet has such potential, in so many, many ways. And yet it has a bad reputation, it does.
I actually don't publicise my blog overmuch in Real Life, precisely because of that. Even if I mention it, I downplay it. Because of the reputation the internet has. Because of how it's seen. Because of the perceptions people have of it. And I know very well how the average person out there, the people I work with, the people who drink in my pub, people I meet at parties view people who have internet related interests. Sad or Mad, basically.

I only told one person in fact when I went to meet Haydee and we went round the National Gallery. It might sound shallow, and it probably is, but I am painfully aware that in most people's eyes, saying you were going out for the day with someone you met through blogging, has repercussions on your street cred. And in case you haven't noticed, vanity is my main vice.
But if anyone had met her, they'd have noticed what a normal, balanced, intelligent and beautiful woman she is. Not the sort most people would expect to find online.

But then again, nor am I. It amuses me how often people in the pub ask me 'You got internet, Joe?'
Because I don't really fit the stereotype. People are usually shocked when I tell them I actually have a website I update daily. But I downplay it for reasons of street cred, pure and simple. It's not 'cool' to admit to being a frequenter of cyberlife. For many people, it's about as cool as cottaging.
And it's a shame that that is what the perception is.



That the internet is the home of perverts, bunny boilers, conspiracy theorists and the new brand of train spotters. That's what the wider world sees.
And yes, they're here. The perverts. And the bunny boilers. And the conspiracy theorists. And the new brand of train spotters.

But so are an amazing majority of really cool people with a lot to say who are experimentally pushing the boundaries further.

And I concluded my voyage to Second Life by- well, by being booted out, actually. My PC decided to freeze Second Life.
But I found myself thinking, as I often do, that those of us who've come here to cyberland, in many ways we are pioneers. I guess we are fighting a kind of battle, laying roots to encourage other colonists to join us in this brave new world. And not be put off by the hillbillies and the trolls.

Maybe we should be out there shouting out the virtues of this medium. And we have to shout out loud, show the world that people like the Second Life couple, they're a minority. The social inadequates who troll blogs with their nasty vitriolic hateful behaviour, they're a minority. We need to be showing people out there who fear coming in because they believe it to be a home for the Sad and the Mad, that it isn't, that many great human minds are doing great things here, and there is so much potential for so much more to be done.

Tell them that the internet is the avant garde, the cutting edge, the conceptual frontier of collective human intelligence.

Because it isn't yet. But it can be.

If we make it so.