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

[Troy Innocent <troy@iconica.org>]

Following up an older thread...

The potential agency of a space certainly does change the relationship 
between the subject and that space.
This can be seen in the way that the AI of a game adapts to new 
strategies of the player, the way that game spaces can, in part, be 
created by the player through the creation of objects, their actions, 
manipulation of the space etc.

So, the players perception of the virtual world is shifting, the 
virtual worlds perception of the player is shifting, the players 
actions are shifting as a result of this relationship, and potentially 
the virtual world is also adapting its behavior to the new strategies 
of the player.This could be the feedback that Christina has mentioned.

Potentially, this can go much further in that a new space or virtual 
world can be generated for each individual player/user - so that every 
experience of that space is quite literally extremely subjective.

Troy.

> 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
>>> Troy Innocent : troy@iconica.org : iconica.org