This Friday I ‘lurked’ at Orange Island - the big debate of Augmentism Versus Immersion. Though the discussion itself was largely inconclusive it, raised a number of questions I’ve been running into over the course of the Usability Versus Immersion debate as well. The Immersionists were given voice by blogger Gwyneth Llewellyn and Extropia Core hostess Sophrosyne Stenvaag, and the Augmentationists by blogger, conceptor and SL content developer Hiro Pendragon and Director of the futurist consulting group FASTRA Giulio Perhaps.
Despite my personal interest in the topic and respect for each of the participants the discussion itself drew a blank and there was little I could blog about. My take-aways where mostly my own interpretations and notes of the different point of views, most notably the Sophrosyne’s insights in being a virtual being. Here are my notes of the evening:
Immersionists point of view
Virtuality is… a new reality, a new world (or as Philip Linden/Rosedale once said - “A country”), a new frontier.
Most common issues: The Avatar as a person, new builds and ‘In-world’ developments, in-world authority, the community and underlying relations, the future (a long-term time frame of 10-25 years from now).
Key elements: Freedom, vision, escapism, trust, recognition, community, immersion.
Augmentionists point of view
Virtuality is… a tool - a medium, a game and an extension/evolution/continuation of the internet and communication.
Most common issues: Perception of mainstream media, elevating the platform of Virtual worlds as a tool/medium, how virtual worlds influence the real world - economic, education, entertainment for ‘real people’, the timeframe of now until 3 years from now.
Key elements: Adoption of Technology, opportunity, verification, research, return on investments, benefits of virtuality, cross ‘realm’ communication.
Three conclusions drawn from the debate
- Immersion and augmentism are not mutually exclusive. Though pretty self explanetory - this is really rule number one for a good debate. Immersion can be as much of a tool for the augmentists as the tools provided by augmentists can be used by immersionists. The gaming innovation is the best example of this, working both ways.
- Immersionists are a movement based on escapism. This seems to be the thing that gets avoided a lot, but its the very real context of the immersionist ‘movement’. Who are these people and WHY do they choose the virtual/digital world above the physical world? Is the virtual that much better, or is the physical that much worse. It’s not so much the answer of this question per person (actually not at all) but the question many unable to understand the ‘augmentists’ struggle with.
- Augmentists are opportunists. If you see the platform as a tool, it means you also see something that would require such a tool and use it. Especially in this early stage of development Virtual Worlds are used for (RL) profiling, a ‘Unique Selling Point’. Its the defining trait of the opportunist to seek and spot opportunities, and jump in ‘head first’ to gain some sort of advantage on ‘competition’ - however abstract ‘the competition’ might be.
These take-aways were still in the back of my mind but I didn’t consider them really ‘bloggable’ - however, my interested was piqued again this morning by a post written by Argent Bury - someone who I count as an Immersionist just to put her intelligent remarks on the topic in context (as my context is that of the Augmentist - even though the lines are blurring already after listening to Ray Kurzweil).
She makes the point these definitions are not something we are likely to agree on very soon, and are ‘missing the point’, and should start finding common ground. Though I think definitions determine the ever important context she makes a good start with the what the Orange Island debate had been missing. She lists 9 points of view based on the questions what we will and won’t take in-world, what does trust mean to us? Open statements about what we want out of SL and honesty about what (if any) FL (first life) benefit we are looking to take from the world. I’ll limit my list to 3 ways I experience Second Life (this seemed to be the focus point of the debate, rather than virtual worlds as a whole) from an augmentist point of view:
- I expect from Virtual Worlds a platform functioning as new level of communication. Communication captures all levels of interaction between human beings - expression, marketing, conversation, education etc. Key words are ‘new level’ instead of an entirely new platform (or world), I think of VW’s very much as a continuation of existing communication channels.
- My avatar in Second Life is by no means different from ‘me’ but the name (forced by linden labs) and looks (cheap matrix reference) - but an interface translating thoughts from the physical world into digital actions, who then get translated into physical world thoughts again at the other end. From one physical human being to another, and not ‘avatar on avatar’.
- My friends in Second Life are a network of people I like because of who they are, what they are and what they know as a person, 90% of these I know by real life name. However - It consider it outright stupid to ignore those who choose to out themselves strictly virtual in whatever shape or form.
As an afterthought on point 3 - I think this is really why the discussion at Orange Island drew a blank. There where no real opposites and only Sophrosyne Stenvaag represented one side of the extremes, stating she is strictly a virtual person and considers virtuality her home, however she is well-embedded in the business community and seems to feel right at home between the ‘army of opportunists’ in various ‘Ning’ networks. The mutual respect and understanding between participants resulted into too many nuances, and this was really Orange Islands fault. Apart from poor moderation on Oranges part, there are plenty of people to be found that shiver at the thought of ‘Virtual Love’ (they either don’t believe don’t agree or most commonly judge as not real) - you just won’t find these people in the user base of Second Life any time soon…
Posted on: March 3, 2008 | Share on:
Missy on 
Daniella Chronos
said on March 3rd
Hi Roy/Rick, interesting post - I was unaware of this issue - but outlining the differences of thoughts like this is insightful.
I guess I belong to the 10% that you don’t know the real life name of ;) (no one anyone does in Second Life) but I’m not sure that makes me an immersionist. I do recognise some of the views and issues you mention as being ‘typical immersionist’ issues and certainly don’t think of Second Life as a phone-line. I’ll give it some though and contact you in-world, I have some thoughts I’d like to go over if you time later this week (away for the evening).
dandellion Kimban
said on March 3rd
Debate on Orange went in no direction because it was based on false opposites. (I’ll skip moderation rant this time). Immersion and augmentation are not black and white, nor shades of gray. They are more like white and sweet. now, you try to discuss opposites of white and sweet and make a spectrum between them then inform me about the results.
But, one thing I really don’t understand is why are you insisting that immersionism is escapism? I don’t remember that anybody on the Orange Island drew that conclusion aloud (and I will not be lazy so I’ll check the chat log). Or that is your conclusion despite the contra-arguments on both your and my blog?
I am not sure if I understood yuor last sentence…. are you suggesting that “virtual love” (though that term is pointless, let’s keep a bit of sense and call it love in the virtual environment) will disappear soon?
dandellion Kimban
said on March 3rd
@Daniella Keeping your first life name is not a question of immersionism but of common sense privacy and security on the Internet. Actually, many of the points Rick is stating here are second grade characteristics. It’s about your feeling of the world, not whether you keep your name for yourself or seeking biz opportunities.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 3rd
Hello dandellion.
First, my conclusion is the immersionist movement (not immersion) itself based on escapism. If you want the extremes read Sophrosyne Stenvaag’s open letter. That is pretty hard core immersion and its my strong belief that its in some way or another, a direct result of escapism. I don’t judge that at all before we go down that slippery slope, but this is an extreme point of view that has to be taken into consideration and understood.
The ‘them’ in my last line is the people who don’t agree/feel comfortable with Virtual Love - the other end of the spectrum of immersionists, the ‘anti digital whatevers’ - two opposites you CAN put against each other, so once again we are saying the same - just in different ways.
** Edited the last line for clarification
dandellion Kimban
said on March 3rd
You couldn’t take worse example than Sophrosyne to show escapism. Yes, she is very immersed in second life. No, she is not an escapist. Let’s check (again) in Wikipedia what escapism is:
You cannot tell that Sophrosyne is running away from her daily stress or depression. Hardly that you know anything about her out-of-second-life life. Your strong belief has nothing to do with facts, right? I will feel free to analyze Soph as a dear friend and neighbour. Soph is creating a digital person, that is CREATING not escaping. Beside that, she is running a business that is, in some definitions, crossing SL borders. And she is doing it as a digital person. Which is something many of people that labels themselves as “augmentationits” are trying and fail. You and I cannot imagine the level of stress her business is giving to her. We don’t know anything about that. But, where is she escaping from that? Into WoW?
dandellion Kimban
said on March 3rd
And about escapism in the Orange debate:
Only mentioning of escapism, escaping or anything similar was:
That was said by Giulio who was, let me remind you, on “augmentationists” side.
Sophrosyne Stenvaag
said on March 3rd
Rick:
I agree with you that I’m about the farthest out on the spectrum of immersion of anyone participating in public discussion on the topic.
But, let’s look at the “escapism” label. You’ve defined my position quite accurately as publicly disclosing nothing about life in the physical world, whether you buy my claim that it’s a separate personality living that life or not.
So, what you have is no data. What anyone chooses to project onto that blank screen, honestly, says much more about them than me. Some want to believe that “I’m” the stereotypical 40 year old man in his mother’s basement, some that I’m an angry young political activist, some that I’m disabled. People are free to project anything they like onto that blank screen - I don’t care, as the people I consider friends and colleagues save that for private idle speculation, rather than making an issue of it in our relations.
But, let’s look at what evidence there is: my time inworld. It’s less than half of of the augmentationists in that audience that I knew. My hours inworld are a fraction of Giulio Perhaps’s, or IYan and iAlja Writer, of Alanagh Recreant, to name just a few. Logically, an “escapist” would be spending at least 40, and more like 60-80 hours a week in world. I’m around most all of Saturday, and catch as catch can during the week, for a total per week of well under 20 hours.
If I’m escaping, I’m doing a really terrible job - particularly considering that my job as marketing director for a six-sim residential/commercial complex really could use a consistent 40 hours a week of my time.
The story would make an easy sound bite if it were socially/physically crippled immersionists versus practical, hard-headed business-minded augmentationists. But, as you said, you haven’t found a single data point to substantiate that.
The few people I know who are “escaping” are augmentationists - nothing but quick to talk about their atomic-world problems and hardships. And most of us immersionists are fairly hard to find in-world: we’re blogging, designing, creating - and usually offline, while our other facets are living their atomic lives.
Of course, we can’t prove that and remain immersionists - I won’t be posting the Other Personality’s resume to prove they’re gainfully employed, or submit photos and testimonials from their family and friends. So that does leave us vulnerable to accusations of handicap and deficiency.
That’s why I stake out an extreme position, and participate in these events: most of us, quite naturally, try to avoid personal attacks they can’t refute. I’m a little thicker-skinned - I hope that I can change people’s perceptions, and failing that, at least be a distracting target to protect those less willing to expose themselves.
I hope this provides some clarity, as I fully agree with you about the frustrating insubstantiality of last week’s event.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 3rd
Okay, well I am so glad you posted that both Dandellion and Sophysyne, because its really at the heart of this debate. In the reply on your blog you asked me how you where alienating yourself in a similar way than those you accuse of alienating you.
“Thankfully, and surprisingly, there was not a bit of that prejudice expressed at the Orange Island event - which as Giulio says, gives some hope for humanity.”
Exactly like you say it actually, you alienate yourself from the ‘bubble’ of people thats so disrespectful to you this way - it’s not fortunate these people weren’t there- it was an opportunity to learn about each others point of views. If you feel your reasoning is inadequate because you can not reveal your real motivations, or prove the motivations aren’t like some claim they are, avoiding the confrontation would be the last thing to trigger understanding. Educate, inform them on the aspects that do draw you into virtuality this way (as opposed to holding a belief you should be pushed into virtuality).
Which is where we get to the second point. The wikipedia reference is nice, but its quite lame to just show that one piece, because this is from the same article, EXACTLY what I’ve been arguing, and arguing still:
“However, there are some who challenge the idea that escapism is fundamentally and exclusively negative. For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien, responding to the Anglo-Saxon academic debate on escapism in the 1930s, wrote in his essay “On Fairy-Stories” that escapism had an element of emancipation in its attempt to figure a different reality.”
I am one of these people that strongly believes the immersive lifestyle is driven by this escapism- it captures Sophysyne to the letter of what Ive seen of her as ‘Sophysyne’ (really sorry to put it like this, but there is no other way to point out I am not assuming to know anything about you beyond the way you choose to represent yourself over the web), and I get a feeling you knew that dandellion, as you’ve quoted that article 2 or 3 times now - but you find and take offense in that and I personally wonder why - and this is the language thing. To me escapism is not a flaw, or a mistake - it can simply be a choice because the virtual world is that much better, or/and the real world that much worse, both perfectly legitimate and understandable to me - infact, it can even be used to compliment facets in your real life the way no other ‘thing’ can.
“Drawn to what lies beyond the limits of the atomic world? Say Hello!”
I think escapism does work both as a pull and a push factor- some of it nicely documented in the book ‘Exodus to the Virtual world’.
The 4 participants on the Orange Island panel, and the Second Life crowd is not likely to push this debate out of the bubble, and reach out to those who do offend, and misunderstand the immersionists. Dandellion pointed out the SL augmented/immersive people are not oppositions (per definition) - one of the requirements of an insightful debate. You need someone that is intolerant of this level of immersion to start creating mutual respect and understanding on both ends.
I hope you don’t see this as a personal attack, because it isn’t - but if you want to open up the debate, bubbles are going to be broken if you want understanding and tolerance beyond the minority of immersionists.
Sophrosyne Stenvaag
said on March 3rd
Rick -
I think we’re talking past each other a bit. I had two comments on “escapism” - one, that the evidence indicates that *I’m* not an escapist, and two, that I believe that most people who *are* escapists are augmentationists rather than immmersionists, in part because they want the ability to talk about the situation they’re escaping from.
Whether escapism is good or bad, I didn’t comment on. I think Castronova’s argument is a very good one (though I have real issue with his analogizing from game worlds, but that’s a topic for another day). Likewise, I fully support anybody’s - immersionist or augmentationist - use of SL to leave unpleasant circumstances for better ones.
I just think you’re *factually* incorrect to link escapism and immersion, and a simple survey could settle that question empirically.
As to the other issue, you’ve chosen to label me as an escapist, even given evidence to the contrary. You’re free to do so, and I don’t take much offense - but there’s a point at which the discussion breaks down into “yes you are!’ “no I’m not!” And since *I* think I’m not an escapist, and that my time is at a premium, do forgive me if I don’t stick around for that!
dandellion Kimban
said on March 4th
No. :)
I don’t alienate myself. i alienated myself from a large part of the grid. I rarely step on the mainland (Topgol excluded). Rarely even shops I visit are there. Only in exploration of the cultural phenomenon or when I am in search for a photo of architectural disaster. But I don’t alienate myself from groups of people.
… so much about alienating.
No. I don’t feel my reasoning inadequate. Reasoning is supposed to stand firm on the demonstration process not on the side stories. If it needs my background then it is not reasoning.
On JRR Tolkien…. that is nice what he is saying but he is missing the term. Escapism is rooted in to escape. You cannot figure different reality in an escape from your (whatever that’s supposed to be) reality. If you are running from one reality into virtual one, you will not figure anything, you are f**ked up.Then you need a teleport to a professional consultant. If you are willingly go to explore, then that is not an escape… so it isn’t escapism.
I don’t understand this part
But you are ending with “understanding and tolerance beyond the minority of immersionists”. Now that is interesting, almost like a truce proposal. I don’t think (though I don’t have any stats but just a personal impression) that “immersionists” are in minority. Even if they (actually, I’ll take a side for pleasure of conversation)… even if we are, we are on our grounds. This is virtual world, before and after all. And the grid is huge. I don’t care which subculture lives all those thousands of meters away. I am quite happy that resources allow us all to live happily. But debates you are proposing are happening in immersionistic environments, so it is not me to come to the first visit.
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
Well.. since I’ve been singled out by Soph, I might as well post, too.
Digado: I like your blog post. You got a nice dig in both sides of the spectrum (if, indeed, it is a spectrum and not an arbitrary system of non-defined labels), which I think is fair :)
The main problem, as is so often true with internet debates, is in the semantics. Immersionism, as defined by Gwyn, is a state one achieves when one transcends the limits of the UI and starts communicating with other people. In such a context, it is only natural that feelings play a role, too. Soph’s position is different: she is a “digital person”, one with “no connection to the real self”.
I don’t mind the basic position of digital people: by all means, do what you want. There are some trust limits - I would never do business with a digital person, of course, as any agreement is non-enforceable. I do wish they’d stop with the “trodden masses” and “rightless minorities” attitude though..
Rick van der Wal
said on March 4th
@ Dandellion
If you don’t want to accept the full definition of wikipedia, then don’t use it at all as a reference- what you are doing is cherry picking the internet to find something that suits you best here. I used the exact same article and then continued to explain why I think escapism works both as a pull and push factor - and is used to ‘attempt to figure a different reality’ in which one is able to lose him/her ‘physical’ self.
(In fact - the article is pretty full of quotes I could use - I particularly like the one about a radical social change - which obviously relates directly to Second Life and a new level of interaction you certain can’t deny appeals to you, or within the context of the immersionist movement!)
If you want to use your own partial definition - that’s fine with me, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, this has been pretty fundamental throughout our debates and I hope at some point you will come to see this too. Escapism is not a flaw, and if you insist on calling someone who does so f*cked up - that’s your opinion and I really can not support it. It does explain however, why someone would have a problem with that label. However, I urge Sophrosyne to read this and tell me you don’t recognise any of that…
“I don’t alienate myself.”
Its not groups of people or mainland, its thoughts, opinions and prejudice - I quoted Sophrosyne on being fortunate to avoid these, later on she said she puts herself in the spotlight to protect others - I mean, that’s fairly obvious isn’t it? If you don’t recognise yourself in this that’s perfectly fine, but then again I think you pointed out you don’t represent the hardcore immersion point of view Sophrosyne does which I commented on.
“You need someone that is intolerant of this level of immersion to start creating mutual respect and understanding on both ends.”
If you want to learn you have to deal with both sides - you pointed out immersion and augmentists are not 2 sides of the same spectrum, so for a debate on this it takes finding the crowd that is at the other end.
I think the discussion ‘whose grounds this is’ is a fun one, but entirely different - either way what matters is you think it is yours, which is fine, - but in the context of this discussion one could also reason that make it your responsibility. Its not about excluding one or the other, its about understanding. (that was the point of the o.p. to which I replied, keep the context in mind).
dandellion Kimban
said on March 4th
iYan, I think you are having a distorted picture about doing biz with a digital person. (From my position) it is nothing different than working with a human. Sure, if I sign a contract, I do that with the name that is printed on my ID card. Otherwise it is pointless. Or I can manage with lawyers to make dandellion Kimban a name that can be on contracts, but in that case that name is responsible in front of the law as same as the one from the ID card. And in both cases you are in contract with the same me. E.G. my sontract with Linden Lab is signed with my ID name but that contract is valid for dandellion Kimban and all of the avatars I am using.
Same as with reasoning, it is not name that makes one trustable, it is what one do and say.
dandellion Kimban
said on March 4th
Rick,
Wikipedia is not a source of definition but (as any encyclopedia) a source of explanations. Definitions are in the dictionary.
I can’t see why are you are insisting on a “definition” that can be very misleading.
I don’t represent the “hard-core immersion” (tough I do insist that you are using the term wrongly here) as Soph. I am just not reperesenting the way of life that doesn’t allow any leaking between worlds. That is more about augmentation than immersion.
Sure, there are two opposites from me: non-immersionists: those who cannot recognize themselves in virtual environment, people who are wasting computer resources because they are, for unknown reasons, are using SL instead of Skype, FaceBook and a nice wallpaper. I can meet those people, of course, but, so far, they were not much interesting.
The other opposite are non-augmentationists, people who are (ab)using internet to gain a level of anonymity which can (but not necessarily) will be abused. This, as you see, can be further divided in two sub-groups: the one that is abusing anonyimity and the one that have its artistic reasons for not connecting avatar and human.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 4th
dandellion,
“Wikipedia is not a source of definition” - that’s just picking on words and avoiding the issue, its your source - if you value the source by quoting it and use it to create argumentation to your point of view, be prepared to recognise it when someone uses this very same source to point out to you you might be wrong on this.
The definition part IS what we are dealing with here, your and my definition of escapism, and the way we both have different interpretations. The fact that I base my interpretation on the entire article, experience and a very informative book called ‘exodus to the virtual world’ and you base yours on a snippet, a small quote is not a very persuasive argument to have your take on things, especially not given the somewhat prejudice conclusions (assumptions) you made based upon this interpretation.
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
Dandellion -
if I sign a contract with your real name and signature, I am not doing business with a digital person - I am doing business with the real you, even if the digital person is providing the services ;)
If and when accountability extends to avatars, this will of course change; but for now, this is the only way to do business - at least when non-trivial amounts of work and money are involved.
dandellion Kimban
said on March 4th
iYan, yes… actually I like to thing that you are doing biz with both of us :) (that is not immersionism, that is schizophrenia :) ) one (that uses RL name) is in charge on contracts and serious law stuff, the other is in charge of execution and creativity. no matter how different those two looks like, that is augmentationist position.
Rick, that is not picking the words, that is being precise and responsible of the terms I am using. Definitions are to be found in the dictionary and in the roots of the words. Encyclopedias are additional source of knowledge how those terms are used. Wikipedia’s article is giving us many uses and views on the subject. That is why Wikipedia is having discussion section.
I will stick with the definition of escapism as an escape. I am not going to accept JRR Tolkien’s diverge from the basic meaning of the word just because he wrote novels nor because he is quoted in Wikipedia. For the same reason, I refuse to use the words “immersion” and “augmentation” in the coloquial meaning while we can find out that those words have different meaning.
You are still hiding why are you insisting on escapism in virtual world.
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
It’s a position dictated by the current legal system ;)
—> IM ;)
Sophrosyne Stenvaag
said on March 4th
@IYan - I mostly agree with you, which is why I think avatar incorporation might be a good idea.
OTOH - you and I have both heard stories of prominent corporations with all the identity assurances anyone could ask stiffing SL service providers.
So, I can’t imagine when you look to do business in SL, you’re not weighing accountability on a different scale than just the theoretical ability to sue in some national jurisdiction. You have to be asking yourself, “is this corporation actully committed enough to doing business in SL that it’ll affect their reputation if they stiff a service provider here?” For many, maybe most, atomic world businesses, that answer is no, and your risk is pretty high.
By contrast, say hypothetically I came to you with a business deal. On the downside, no, you wouldn’t have the ability to sue me. But what are the chances that I would stiff you, when *all* of my available savings is invested in SL, and my return on that heavily dependent on my reputation within SL?
Which is the greater risk? Which offers the most bang for your buck and time in enforcement or retribution if things go bad - going after a bank in federal court in San Francisco, or going after me in SL and the SL media?
Suddenly the issues of identity and trust are more nuanced….
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
Soph -
what does “all available savings” mean, in terms of digital people? As the SS avatar has all the L$ in-world, it cannot be any other way - even if you had only 1 L$.
If you mean all RL savings, then it is you who is bringing real world credibility to the aid of your digital person - which is a bit of an oxymoron ;)
Another point I believe you are missing is that you all digital people. The question was not “Do I trust Soph?” but “Am I, as a RL business owner, comfortable with entering into business relationships with groups of pixels with no connection to an entity bound by laws?”.
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
Whoops - the “not equal” brackets didn’t post.
So: “Soph does not equal all digital persons”
Sophrosyne Stenvaag
said on March 4th
@IYan: “The question was not “Do I trust Soph?” but “Am I, as a RL business owner, comfortable with entering into business relationships with groups of pixels with no connection to an entity bound by laws?”
Come on, I *know* you’re more sophisticated than that! I can’t imagine that your decision matrix is binary: “atomic world address=trustworthy, digital only=untrustworthy.” I’ve heart that argument before, but from people I didn’t know to be smarter than that.
Doing business is *entirely* about specifics. Will this company pay me or stiff me? Will that subcontractor deliver on time or offer up excuses? Ability to sue is part of the mix, but it *has* to be a trivial part, given the expense, especially across national jurisdictions. Maybe your deals are large enough that employing a multinational law firm for a couple years is a trivial business expense - but I’d be surprised.
Short of that, you’re making *specific* decisions about reliability. Identity is one factor, sure - but anyone using that as their *sole* factor is a bigot, not a businessman.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 4th
“You are still hiding why are you insisting on escapism in virtual world.”
Please use quotes, I never did anything of the sort unless you mean something entirely different from what you write here…
If you mean why I link escapism and immersion, or the immersionist movement and escapism, I’ve explained this about 5 times now throughout our discussions.
And the thing is - I am perfectly happy to accept we see things different on the meaning of escapism, as I’ve pointed out a couple of times now - it really is your loss to look at it this way. You’ve said yourself you’ve ‘used SL for escapist reasons’ and by your definition and assumptions, that sounds pretty serious…
dandellion Kimban
said on March 4th
*sighs*
Yes, I am also perfectly happy that we see things different on the meaning of sugar, but it is still salt you are putting in your tea.
How comes that your 5 times repeated explanation is missed by me? Can you quote yourself please?
And keeping saying that you’re fine about different views is pointless. I am also fine that you invent completely new language and keep using only it. But we are trying to communicate here. Just the same, I am fine with any lifestyle you choose for yourself, as long as you don’t hurt any humans or animals in the meatspace. Sure, we all have our sims and that is one of the beauties of SL. I don’t see anything that can be my loss in this.
And , I did used SL as a place to escape two weeks ago. That is one of many uses I have in my over one year long history. having that in mind, I can safely tell that you don’t have a clue about differences of escaping and immersion.
IYan Writer
said on March 4th
Soph -
this is getting to bicker-y, so let’s agree to disagree. To each his/her/its own.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 4th
I agree, not going anywhere at this point, too bad :)
Feel free to contact me in-world dandellion, we can just talk it over off the record.
1.
dandellion Kimban said on March 4th | Edit
Hehe, once again you want to clutter yourself in terms. :)
Well, those upthere are not the same thing.
2.
Rick van der Wal said on March 4th | Edit
Don’t be so childish - I am not even sure what you are referring to but as this is simply a link/reference post I doubt its anything you’d normally consider replying to if it wasn’t for another certain discussion.
3.
dandellion Kimban said on March 4th | Edit
It is…. it is connected to other topic where we have a large quantity of text due to bad definitions. :)
4.
Rick van der Wal said on March 4th | Edit
Bad definitions have nothing to do with it, different definitions and internet cherry picking at best. Its amazing what you can find on google/wiki if you try to make an case for a subjective argument, which you did. It was you who used the wikipedia reference to support something you said, and then continued to be ignorant of the fact there might be other views especially int the context of the debate - as accidentally expressed in the very same article. Thats a fact dandellion, the rest is subjective and a basic difference of opinion.
These opinions however, are exactly why am writing the subjective articles sometimes to have these conversations and i genuinely appreciate your input on each of them (with the exception of this little snarky remark above) - I just wish you’d widen your perspective a little on matters that are this subjective.
5.
dandellion Kimban said on March 4th | Edit
OK, if you want to be stubborn, stay stubborn.
If you think you can widen my perspective,m you are welcome to try to do so.
The world Philip made « Rheta’s World said on March 7th
[...] testing Dazzle). But when my friend Rick van der Wal recently invited me to comment on the discussion going on about « immersionism » versus « augmentationism » he had kicked off (or rath…, I have been loath to comment. Particularly loath, I must say, not only because people I admire for [...]
Aleister Kronos
said on March 7th
Lawks…. I came to this post for a good read - which it is. Having not been into all this Immersionist vs Augmentalist gubbins, it was good to read a great summary.
To then find a heated debate - sounding a damn sight more interesting than the Orange Island event - was a bonus. I have no fixed views one way or t’other about this and I find it unnecessarily stressful to get involved in arguments about things over which I have no strong opinions. I’m half-inclined to write a post-modern critique of the critique on the critique… but as that would only spread the argument I won’t bother. To be honest, I glossed over the last N parries and ripostes, on the grounds that (a) I have low attention span and (b) the same things appeared to be getting said a dozen different ways.
So at this point… I shall make my excuses and leave.
Rick van der Wal
said on March 7th
Thanks for commenting Aleister :) Think you summarized it well in point B anyhow, and this won’t be the last of this debate but I’m just waiting for new insights to freshen up the discussion at some other point. Rheta made very interesting post on the topic though Its safe to assume you followed her link here :p
If not, and still interested, visit: http://rhetasworld.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-world-philip-made
Wayne Porter on Virtual Reality, Business and Society » Blog Archive » Virtual World Immersion and Augmentation said on March 7th
[...] you can get past the emergent nomenclature I suggest you read his entire take-away on immersionism and augmentation and the [...]
Aleister Kronos
said on March 7th
Damn you, Mr van der Wal !
You’ve now sent me off down new roads of enquiry.
I actually arrived here following a tweet from Aliza Sherman.