From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: MUDs and Reality (Theory, LONG)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:35:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

Well Jason takes this to be a view of personae and Lazarus takes
this to be a view of FRP personae.  Just to prove that we are all
in different MUDs, I take this to be a view of perceived reality.

I think that the dichotomy between cyber-MUDs and non-cyber-MUDs
is not sufficiently illustrative.  It glosses over important
distinctions and misses a very important one.

There are fully artificial MUDs (of which cyber- is only one 
example).  People are capable of operating in these MUDs (as
Jason and Lazarus pointed out) but any argument that these
MUDs are on an epistomological par with directly perceived
MUDs is pure sophistry.  The artificiality of these MUDs does
not render them useless, but the distinction is none-the-less
important.

People who operate in an artificial MUD know (at many levels)
that it is artificial and so gain great freedom to act in ways
that (for many reasons) they would not use in the "real world".
Artificial MUDs have great recreational and pedagogical value.
The former because of the freedom.  The latter because they can
be contrived to exactly meet the needs of each situation.


There are "sincere MUDs" which derive directly from perceived
reality and are regularly subjected to independent corroboration.
This is the "most objective and most real" MUD in which we can
operate.  Enlightened people of good conscience will acknowledge
that

	(a) their MUD is only a fabrication based on an
	    admittedly incomplete perception of "reality".
	
	(b) other, non-congruent, sincere MUDs can exist
	    and have (a priori) equal validity to their own.

The western scientific method holds that when two non-identical
sincere MUDs exist, it is necessary to explore their differences
and reconcile them in order to derive a better MUD.

Eastern traditions are more comfortable with alternative view
points, and strive to appreciate the value and limitations of
each MUD separately.

In either case, sincere MUDs are distinguished from others in
that they are subject to test, and theories that fail their
tests must be banished from them.  In some sense, this gives
"sincere MUDs" an epistomological high ground, but the advantage
is only applicable when dealing with "the objective world".


Then there is the great middle-ground of "less discriminating MUDs".
This is where most of us operate most of the time.  We did not
set out to create an artificial MUD - but neither do we subject
our assumptions to continual scrutiny.  The interesting thing
about these middle MUDs is that even though they are "less well
founded" than a "sincere MUD", we often cling to them more
tightly than we would to a "sincere MUD".

This is easily understood ... since a "sincere MUD" cannot derive
from an ego - as the ego would compromise its sincerity.  Less
discriminating MUDs are the realm of egos, and this makes them
less flexible and less conformant.


Indeed people can and do operate in each form of MUD.  To a large
extent, peoples' behavior is dictated by the form of their MUD and
not by its basis - so in that respect all MUDs have equal validity
(predictive value).  On the other hand, I do not accept the premise
that "any perceived reality is as good as any other" - since most
MUDs cannot make a strong claim to be well (or perhaps at all)
connected to the "objective universe".


>
>
>4. Reality, Virtual Reality, and Real Life (RL)
>
>The term 'reality' is commonly used as a substitute for 'realm',
>yet we reserve it for a specific meaning.  Here the phrase
>'virtual reality' is an oxymoron, and this will become apparent
>below.
>
>The common assumption is that cyber realms are MUDs and NONcyber 
>realms are NOT (i.e. that NONcyber realms are 'reality').
>However, given the definitions above we can posit that what most 
>people call 'real life' (RL) is actually an experience within a 
>NONcyber realm of subjective or objective dimensions. 
>
>We have multiple selves, arising from the combined complex of our 
>social roles, that vie for supremacy within the dimension of our 
>personal mindspace.  This is the subject dimension, the 'me-MUD'.
>It includes feelings, thoughts and the entire range of subjective
>experience.
>
>There appears to be a world of shapes and objects around us.  We
>maneuver, physically, through the familiar subrealms of 'height',
>'width' and 'depth' and manipulate or interact with entities and
>objects within them.  This is the object dimension, the 'space-MUD'.
>It is the one which people assume to be more 'real' based upon their
>perception that it contains cyberMUDs and gives rise to the me-MUD.
>
>Taking one (NONcyber, space-MUD) as pre-eminent based 
>solely on the grounds of origin (cyber realms seem to originate 
>from NONcyber technologies) is quite commom.  For example,
>many people  assume that NONcyber personalities are somehow 
>more 'real' than their cyber counterpart, even if these personae
>(socially imagined constructs deriving from communication
>styles and appearance) are comparable in all respects save origin.
>
>That they distinguish one as 'real' and the other as 'virtual' or
>'imaginary' displays the bias toward the default dimension
>(quite reasonably), but tells us nothing about what 'real' means
>aside from 'preferred' or 'longer-lasting'.
>
>
>5. The Real World and RL
>
>We shall here take for our definition of the 'real world' that 
>realm which is a superset of all MUDs.  That superset upon which 
>all other dimensions depend is logically the 'real'.  Plato
>claimed that the real world is the world of Forms or Ideas, and 
>many other philosophers offer their own speculation as to what
>constitutes the 'Source Code of Existence' as we know it.
>
>'The superset of all MUDs' is not an easy concept to understand.
>It transcends both the MUD of our subjective experience and
>the MUD of 'space' (I leave 'time', which connects and/or
>interweaves these two, for future speculation).   It is easy to see 
>why any aspect of RL in THIS context must be beyond words to some 
>extent, especially when attempting to ascertain information about 
>'you' or 'me', or indeed any isolated object/subject.
>
>To say 'I went shopping in RL' would seem not only fallacious, 
>but completely dishonest.  No separate 'individual' can ever 
>'do' anything in 'RL', not when we take it to be this superset, 
>this Unity which includes all dimensions of subject and object.
>
>A note about Unity seems necessary.  When speaking of 'Unity', it
>is not meaningful to compare this with 'Diversity'.  The reason for this
>is that the unity here implied transcends all lingual expressions.
>For the same reason that 'Spirit' cannot be compared with 'Matter'
>because in the nondual realm Spirit and Matter are One, so also is
>Diversity identical to Unity and vice versa.  The term is only a useful
>indicator of the realm or dimension (that superset) to which we refer.
>
>Given this, the real world is a subject/object Unity, toward which 
>many religious paths point and about which we shall never
>obtain a completely accurate lingual expression (due to the
>disunitive nature of language). 
>
>Comments about RL, therefore, are of a MYSTICAL nature, within 
>this context, rather than a 'practical' one. They apply, perhaps 
>abstractly, to that superset which some Christians call 'Heaven' 
>and some Buddhists might call 'Nirvana'.
>
>
>6. RL and MUDs
>
>RL is mystical experience, since it occurs in the dimension of
>Unified nonduality and it would seem to depend upon the QUALITY of
>its manifestation rather than on the location of particular objects 
>or subjects.  We may thus find RL in any MUD, since all MUDs are 
>contained by the real world and may include Unitive experiences.
>
>A MUD is a world of flux, where the real is in some ways beyond change,
>enveloping a 'becoming beingness' that is not usually perceived in 
>ordinary states of consciousness.  To encounter RL, therefore, is to 
>become unified with the divine, the God of Platonic and Hermetic 
>Christians, who is both beyond and within the MUD experience, at once 
>transcending and subsuming it.
>
>A MUD is the equivalent of  Carse's 'finite game', in which we assume 
>for the purposes of the game that certain rules are unbreakable 
>(i.e. the subject/object division) and that our goal is to somehow 'win'.
>Carse speculates that the goal of the infinite game (the real world)
>is to continue playing, and no foolish notions about 'death' or 
>'morality' or 'identity' get in the way of an infinite player.  
>
>
>7. InterMUD Studies
>
>The 'real' would seem to be approachable by examining all experiences 
>and coming to some determination as to their source.  Modern 
>Science's objective examination of the nature of matter is one aspect 
>of this search.  Mystical exploration and experimentation in the world 
>of the subject is another.
>
>Searches of these types are limited by the techniques used within the
>particular MUD.  We shall not determine a purely physical source
>for experience because experience is not entirely objective.  Likewise,
>we shall not discover a purely mental source because experience 
>is not entirely subjective.
>
>InterMUD studies such as those by Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav, 
>popular  scientific explanations  of the comparisons between objective 
>and  subjective explorations, are quite important.  They point out the 
>boundaries and connections between MUDs (not only the subject/object 
>MUDs but also those of academic and popular cultures).   
>
>They indicate the paradoxes, the eddies and vortices that arise 
>as a result of entering one particular finite game and looking at
>another.  They show us the similarities between worlds, how one
>can be used to understand another, and how the real world surpasses
>our ability to explain.
>
>
>8. Entrenchment and Abstraction
>
>Of course those who entrench themselves within one particular MUD
>(such as those who argue vehemently for the 'reality' of the object
>MUD, for example) will not understand such interMUD studies, nor will
>they acknowledge the meaning and accuracy of terms which apply to
>realms outside their entrenchment.  This is to be expected.
>
>When my 'reality' is comprised solely of objects, of surface tension 
>and physical principles, I cannot then see the veracity of descriptions
>regarding subjective referents.  'Soul', 'spirit', 'emotion' and even
>'mind' are to be described in physical terms if they are to have any
>meaning for me.  
>
>Those who speak of objects in 'abstract' terminology as if they 
>were in any sense 'real' are either mistaken or confusing to me due to 
>their 'abstractness'.  'Abstraction' is indeed a relative qualifier which 
>describes one's position and one's relationship to the qualified noun.  
>
>If I say that 'mind' is an abstraction, then the MUD of my entrenchment
>does not contain direct associations with what is being called 'mind'.  
>If I say, on the other hand that 'brain' is an abstraction due to the 
>relativity of subjective experience, then I find my position identical
>yet I am inhabiting a different MUD (the subject-MUD).  
>
>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. 
>
>
>9. The Science of Artistry
>
>The challenge, therefore, is to find our way into a 'Concreteness' which
>admits of the Concrete not because of arbitrary definition (as we may 
>obtain by denying the existence of 'mind' by virtue of its abstraction), 
>but because there is no other alternative.  RL is that experience which 
>penetrates all known MUDs, that concentration of indescribable 
>perfection which is implied but never described by language.
>
>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.
>
>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.  
>
>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.
>
>Drawing on the concepts of the 'worldview' and 'paradigm', the MUD
>both exemplifies (in its cyber forms) and symbolizes (within the
>mystical model herein portrayed) ordinary experience and its relation
>to the real.  May we each use it to move closer to our source and 
>begin to live what can truly be called Real Lives.
>
>-----------------------------------------
>
>Books proving inspirational to this essay included:
>
>Games Theory
>_Finite and Infinite Games_, by James P. Carse, Ballantine, 1986
>
>Platonism
>_A History of Philosophy: Vol. 1, Part 1, Greece and Rome_,
>   by F. Copleston, S. J., Image Books, 1962
>
>Modern Scientific Views of Mysticism
>_The Tao of Physics_, by Fritjof Capra, Bantam, 1980
>
>_The Dancing Wu Li Masters_, by Gary Zukav, Bantam, 1980.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>9212.16 e.v.
>Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
>Tagi@Cup.Portal.Com
>871 Ironwood Dr.
>San Jose, CA 95125-2815




Newsgroups: alt.magick