From: Tagi@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: MUDs and Reality; Reply to Tom (4)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:03:26 PST
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



[Part 4 of a 4 part response to t. zier]

Thyagi's model:

> Neither position can be said to be in the real world as we have defined
> it here.  Both MUDs are subsets of  that superset, identified as such by
> the PRESENCE of abstraction within them.   'Abstraction', or that quality
> which admits of disUnity, is an indication of incompleteness, of a MUD
> which is not the real world.

t. zier:

Abstractions can NEVER enjoy the status of presence! You seem to
devalue the notion of presence in a foolish manner here.

Response:

This is not about valuing or devaluing anything.  It is about
describing the role of 'abstraction' within the model here presented.
Whenever we can call ANYTHING abstract (as can you, from your
perspective, call 'justice' an 'abstraction') then the MUD from which
we speak is not the real world.  This is very clear to me, though I
don't expect you'll see it easily.

Thyagi's model:

> InterMUD studies are therefore the study of ALL MUDs and their origins,
> differences and similarities.  While they may begin in cyber realms, of
> necessity they shall permeate noncyber worlds as well, linking the video
> MUDs of the picture, movie, television and arcade/pc games; the lingual
> realms of the letter, telephone, cb, short-wave and internet; the sporting
> gameworlds of dice, boards, words, role-playing, and 'MU*'; the realms
> of personal expression such as lecture, conversation, music, concert,
> dance, sports, war, romance and sexuality.
> 
> Moreover, interMUD studies may be considered interdisciplinary studies
> of Art in general.  The realms in which we 'do' things each have their own
> specializations and techniques.  Over time they develop into what are
> called 'spiritual disciplines' (those which we may use to reach the real).
> In very old and rich spiritual traditions we can see this manifested quite
> readily.

t. zier:

Do you profess that this paper is representative of "inter-MUD"
studies? I hope not, because it sure doesn't rate a comparison with
the Japanese tea ceremony.

Response:

In some ways it is an examination of interMUD studies, yes.  It
therefore itself qualifies as an 'interMUD study'.  Actually your
question leads to very interesting logic-loops.  Where does one MUD
end and another begin?  The MUD of this paper is different than the
MUD of this posting, which is again different than the MUD of Usenet
which is....  There is a concentricity of MUDs which may also be the
focus of this paper.  Is this paragraph an example of inter-MUD
studies and therefore of itself an example of itself?  Watch out, we
might have to call in Hofstadter. ;>

Thyagi's model:

> The japanese 'tea ceremony' is an artform which has been developed into
> spiritual practice.  So are Chinese and Arabian calligraphy.  Martial arts
> in the East and West have grown along similar lines, and, while the martial
> arts of the East have seen greater popularity (being of the body), those of
> the West (called 'ceremonial magick') have integrated both Western
> and Eastern esoteric concepts as elements of their foundation.
> 
> These particulars are less important than what they imply in general:
> Art is a process of coming to the real and Science in its most
> relevant form is the study of Art and that Source toward which we may
> return.  The science of Artistry, in its broadest sense, is what such
> interMUD studies comprise.

t. zier:

When you say "Art is a process of coming to the real" you are patently
incorrect.  The word you are looking for is 'techne' which is archaic
Greek which means; causing things to come to be. There is a vast
difference between art and technique.

Response:

I suspect you may have something to teach me here.  How is it that you
can be sure that I am 'blatantly incorrect'?  Why do you think that I
am looking for 'techne'?  Isn't there a difference between 'coming to
be' and 'coming to the real'?  Please elaborate the difference between
true Art and technique.  Certainly people distinguish between 'mere
art' and 'stylish technique', but at their root are they really
different?  How?

t. zier:

The 'science of art' is an acceptable term, as is the 'art of
science'; but "science of artistry" as used above is a very
problematical term. This owing to the definition of 'artist'; a person
who is fanatical about any given portion of the art process. 'Artist'
could mean critic, gallery owner, fashion designer....anyone.
Admittedly, this linguistic construct has been bastardized by popular
culture, but we must maintain some linguistic standards in these
discussions for the sake of clarity.

Response:

This seems rather over-generalized.  My dictionary says that 'artist'
means, roughly, 'one who engages in art' and 'artistry' means both
'artistic ability' and 'the practice of an artist'.  My usage is very
standard as I see it, though I appreciate your evaluation and will
keep it in mind.

Thyagi's model:

> The real world that such a science seeks to reveal is beyond its
> capacity to describe in language, yet well  within its power to make
> available by direct experience.  The metaphor of the MUD and its
> application to the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, religion
> and mysticism are monumental and breath-taking in scope.

t. zier:

Let me also caution you on use of the word 'direct' ....  This word
has specific meanings within the perceptual psychology field not
appropriate to your argument....

Response:

Oh?  What are its meanings within the field of perceptual psychology and
why would anyone assume that I was implying them?

Some of Thyagi's inspiration:

> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Books proving inspirational to this essay included: [books omitted]

t. zier:

Proving?

Response:

As I said, and for the last time, it is a model, proving nothing.


t. zier:

Closing comments:

...If you would like to continue this conversation in the future I
would suggest, as John has, that it not be done on the list. Or wait
until the APPS group comes on-line, and maybe people won't care. I AM
sure that this sort of thing won't make it on APPS.

Response:

I don't see how APPS applies, so to speak, to PHILosophy.  I haven't
seen a menu as to how my assertions and engagements ought be handled
within the sci.virtual-worlds newsgroup.  Perhaps the Moderator can
give me guidance here if it seems I stray from the 'appropriate path'.
As I see it this is perfectly placed, even if it does not conform to
your ideas about 'truth' or 'appropriateness'. ;>

Thyagi

(Part 4 of 4)

[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Since you ask, I found this an interesting ramble
of two very active minds.  Very provocative.  Unfortunately, I could
not easily tie the abstracted discussion to my common experience, even
allowing for its detestably objective focus these days. But thanks to
both Thyagi and Tom Zier for a nice joust. -- Bob Jacobson]