Re: [-empyre-] topology and real "inside" vr

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

And certainly the morphing of electronic space is qualitatively
'different' than what we are used to in ordinary reality - we depend on
the stabiity of the latter.

I wonder if Freud might be of greater use here - for one thing, one might
consider vr in relation to the dialogic (or lack of it) in primary
narcissism...

What happens when one wanders in a somewhat abandoned MOO, with objects
often for the taking, abandoned dynamics, half-programmed spaces...

- alan

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Christina McPhee wrote:

> hi genie, alan, troy, saul, roya,  henry et al
>
> re those Lacanians!
>
> me, too. It has been very engrossing to try to imagine
> the world of vr from a Lacanian pov  and to situate
> myself as an artist (and as a performative site)
> inside the world of vr quite literally.  Then to carry
> out the logic to its inevitable conclusions and see
> where we come to .
>
>  I mean that i am in, i am the vr, the cyborg is a
> live subject.  and I/she am nothing, there is
> 'nothing' there to gaze on.  I /she am/is the user
> interface.  I/she feel/s real.  kinaesthesia.
>
>  It's like the Lacanian position defeats itself or at
> least ends up just feeding on itself.  Outside that,
> 'hors serie', is what Stephen Melville calls the place
> of jouissance.
>  "It is thus that the real is distinguished.  The real
> cannot be inscribed except as an impasse of
> formalization…."
>
> what's behind or outside the impasse? a landscape, a
> topology; a big field...
> as Troy wrote to me recently, :" It is not only the
> perception
> of the space that changes in the mind of the
> player/user, but an electronic
> space can literally change / mutate / reform / loop
> around etc."
>  Topology the logic of place meets its end as its
> beginning ..
> in artifice and affect....?
>
>
>
>
> Christina
>
>
> > > Again I'd like to argue that there is no
> > difference between vr and pr
> > > except for ontology -
> >
> > i agree completely - but try telling this to a
> > lacanian - there are still
> > loads of 'em out there, insisting that his model is
> > workable in analyzing
> > VR.
> >
> > e
> >
> > on 8/10/03 5:55 AM, Alan Sondheim at
> > sondheim@panix.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Except perhaps that Bergson's view of vision is
> > outmoded; from Land and
> > > David Marr on, vision has been shown to be
> > pro-active - ranging from
> > > retinal processing (Pribram) to saccadic movement
> > - there is constant
> > > sampling and perceptual reorganization going on.
> > Vision is no more passive
> > > in the world than touch - in fact, considerably
> > less so, given the amount
> > > of processing necessary.
> > >
> > > I'd argue that vision in this sense is also a
> > reciprocity, an engagement
> > > with the real that goes far beyond passivity.
> >
>
> =====
> <http://www.naxsmash.net>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com