From: ziert@beloit.edu (Tom Zier)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: MUDs and Reality (Long Theory)
Date: 21 Dec 92 08:29:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec21.105109.788
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



To the moderators and other readers;

This is an exceedingly long post, my appologies for that. But it may
be worth-while, instructive, or even entertaining. The tendency of
many 'cyber-philosophers' like Thyagi is to adopt the classic
arguments of Plato as a foundation for the structures in VWs, or VWs
relationships to reallity.  It is a very reasonable thing to do I
suppose. I am not a pedigreed philosopher, but I have done my best to
evaluate his submission and inform him (as well as anyone else who
decides to wade through this BS) of the flawed and/or severely limited
propositions which he puts forward.

Sorry to honor this with a full writ John, but it may prevent
foolishness of this sort from occuring in the future more surely than
flames. At least submissions of this sort will be better written. In
the future amateur philosophers will understand how close the scrutiny
can get. (It could have been much more ruthless Thyagi.)

The suggestion has been made (by John as a matter of fact) that we
take portions of these posts and create an FAQ on this topic. It may
prevent many Flames from erupting. We can list Thyagis' address as a
contact point, or whatever............

> From: portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET
> Subject: PHIL: MUDs and Reality (Long Theory)
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:28:29 PST

Perhaps this ought to be referred to as "Virtual Philosophy". 

> 9212.16 e.v.
> 
> It has come to my attention that some people hold rather
> tightly to the notion of a 'real world' or 'real life' (RL),
> and that this is often distinguished from places known as MUDs
> or things known as 'virtual worlds'.
> 
> When I first encountered this (in cyberMUDs) something struck me as
> strange and ill-conceived about it.  How could people be sure what
> was 'real' and what was 'virtual', especially the better educated
> of the lot, when philosophers had argued the point for ages and
> countless mystics had suggested that what we take for 'reality' is a
> mere reflection, a fragment of the real.
> 
> I took to challenging people regarding these notions and eventually,
> through socratic dialogue with a few MUD philosophers, came to develop
> a theory which uses the model of the MUD for modern psychology/mysticism.
> Below is the present form of this theory, and I'd appreciate any feedback
> that might be offered.  Review, comments and disputation are
> enthusiastically requested.

I have to ask; Where have you been?

This is an ancient debate, predating "cyberMUDS" by over 2000 years;
and part of the reason, Thyagi, that this debate is so long lived is
that everytime someone begins this discussion, they begin with a
primary reference to reality. It seems unavoidable, and ought to be
unnecessary for you if this thesis were valid.

Further, don't bring Socrates into this; he would never have argued
with other "cyber philosophers"(?). His methodologies were based upon
disputation among diverse viewpoints rather than agreement among a
small group.

Neither are you engaging in Socratic method now; as you make
statements rather than asking questions.

> -------------------------------
> The MUD as a Basis for Western Mysticism

More Appropriately; Western Mysticism as a Basis for The MUD

> Contents:
> 
> 1. Realms and Worlds
> 2. Multi-User Dimensions (MUDs)
> 3. The CyberMUD or Cyber Realm, and the NONcyber Realm
> 4. Reality, Virtual Reality, and Real Life (RL)
> 5. The Real World and RL
> 6. RL and MUDs
> 7. InterMUD Studies
> 8. Entrenchment and Abstraction
> 9. The Science of Artistry
> 
> ------------------------------------
> The MUD as a Basis for Western Mysticism
> by Thyagi NagaSiva
> 
> 
> 1. Realms and Worlds
> 
> 'Realm', 'world' and 'MUD' (Multi-User Dimension, to be defined below),
> are here synonyms.   They describe a bounded sphere of perception.
> A 'virtual world' is a realm which is apparent to some senses but
> not to others (whether or not they appear within all dimensions of
> sensation).

You should always avoid stating the eventual conclusion within a premise as
you have done here; it creates a tautology of sorts. Philosophically
speaking this is called begging the question. Also, your assertion that "A
'virtual world' is a realm which is apparent to some senses but not to
others (whether or not they appear within all dimensions of sensation)"
seems to be internally inconsistent, devaluing its definitive nature.

> 2. Multi-User Dimensions (MUD),
> 
> More specifically then, by MUD we refer to a realm of measurement
> (dimension) which makes possible or allows more than one (multi)
> locus of change (user).  Where 'realm' and 'world' are fairly ambiguous,
> MUD is a technical term with specific meaning and synonomous
> application.

You're kidding, isn't this a contradiction; "specific meaning and synonomous 
application"? Unless, of course, meaning is distinct from usage. Oh boy. You
better explain this one more thoroughly.

> 3. The CyberMUD or Cyber Realm, and the NONcyber Realm
> 
> A cybermMUD or 'cyber realm' is one which is reached via
> a computer (by whatever definition). It may be contrasted with
> a NONcyber realm in two major ways:
> 
> A) The cyber realm seems to depend upon the NONcyber realm for
> its existence (but this cannot be proven), and
> 
> B) The cyber realm is dependent upon some computer for its
> ultimate form (whether or not this computer is NONcyber-based).

I must, out of courtesy to the author, allow these definitions to stand;
but......

> 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.

By whom is "the term 'reality' ... commonly used as a substitute for 'realm'
" ? No one that I know of; except yourself. Give us a reference to a
community, intellectual or otherwise, which could serve as an example.

> The common assumption is that cyber realms are MUDs and NONcyber
> realms are NOT (i.e. that NONcyber realms are 'reality').

Again, whose common assumption is this? There are many exceptions to this
ill-formed RULE; paintings, drama, good literature.

> 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.

In the above reference to a "subject/object" dichotomy it is inappropriate
to use the word "or"; in this context you must use "and" because they are
mutually dependent posits, that is to say, complimentary elements of a
philosophical schema.

> 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.

Isn't this a straight-forward Freudian interpretation? (Could a real psych
person help us out here?) If it is, you ought to site him.

> 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.

What? Not clearly stated or developed.

> 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.

Not acceptable grounds to me, that they are "pre-eminent based solely on the
grounds of origin", and not acceptable to any responsible philosopher
either. You clearly haven't demonstrated this in any particular (even
general) respect; or to whom it is common.

> 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'.

The sensible and the rational realms are confused here when you say "(quite
reasonably)", be specific. You ought to spend some time differentiating
between the two for your readers or you will never make any progress in this
work. Consult Parmenides' original work - - NOT Copleston.

> 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.

Your definition here of the "real world" in terms of MUD supersets is
necessary for your argument, but obviously not sufficient. Stating the same
proposition in reverse order as you do is simply a reiteration, and cannot
improve your argument even if you do take the name of logic in vain.

I assume that your Plato reference is from Copleston. PLEASE read Platos'
original works, a translation is fine. (Do NOT accept any substitutes!)
Plato does use the notion of perfect forms or ideas as a basis for perceived
existence, but these forms were created by a god; they did not come into
existence on thier own account. Did this god write the source code? Who
wrote the source code for this god? Indeed; here lies the fundamental flaw
in the foundation of Platonopolis. AND western intellectual culture.

What about perceivable elements of existence we don't yet know of? Must we
assume, as Plato and western culture demand, that all existence is dependent
upon our 'knowing' it? And then only the perceptions which quallifiey
according to Platonist ontologies?

I think not (And then he vanished). A little Cartesian joke for you to
ponder in establishing a meaningful relationship between knowing and
existence (or reallity).

> '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.

Well, I did, and I bought Trix for my kids, and a gallon of milk, hot dogs,
potato chips, oh............. and hot dog buns. And we ate em, and I'm not
hungry now. Nothing falacious about that, oh, and I got coffee too. Be right
back           ; -)

When you say "No separate 'individual' can ever 'do' anything in 'RL' " you
have stumbled into what is called Zenos' paradox. It is a paradox which has
only been patched up over the millenia, and I'm not sure on the disposition
of it recently.

> 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.

Is this Zeno, or Taoist? Give us a reference. It certainly isn't original,
and if you would have us understand, we must be given a reference.

This note about unity is not necessary within the context of your current
doctrine, as a matter of 'fact', you are getting into yet another classic
blind alley by raising the topic at all. AND you have attempted to resolve
it through yet another tautology. 

I would, however, agree with your statement that the unity embodied by
reallity IS beyond the definitive abillities of either letter OR number. You
might be well advised to bundle these two modes of rational expression
together in future speculations.

> 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).

The failure to arrive at some degree of analyticity in other than Platonist
terms is due entirely to the dogmatic paradigms which we inhabit culturally
(that are embraced here in your paper); but if we can accept SOME
ontological methodologies other than Platos', perhaps not dependent on
letter and number, we may very well come to know at least SOME other things.
However, it does get messy when you abandon the linear Euclidean-Platonist
constructs; the first thing to go is predictabillity, and Chaos becomes
evident.

> 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'.

This all depends on what you mean by "practical", do you mean sensible? or
profitable? I believe that you mean 'reasonable', and if that is correct,
O.K. But here is where you get to the 'angels on the head of a pin' thing
(look out for the flames!), and you got there for the same reason the romans
did; by following Plato down this rosy little, very profitable, path. When
we lose sight of the distinct characteristics that the rational and the
sensible realms (Parmenides) posess, then suddenly we believe that we ought
to be able to count angels. This is patently absurd. If there are angels,
who says you ought to be able to count them?

PLATO.                    Plato schmato.                      

We CAN know some things about the sensible realm, I can show you things that
are arguably representative of things we can know about the sensible realm.
(How about an apparent negative dimensional value?) But I don't think I'm
going to waste my time on angels.

> 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.

When you say "the dimension of Unified nonduality .......would seem to
depend upon the QUALITY of its manifestation rather than on the location of
particular objects or subjects" you subcribe to a Newtonian (Platonist)
doctrine which is demonstrably inadequate for a robust description of
natural phenomena since uncle Albert did his thing at the turn of the
century. See Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Page
149, PP 1 for a momentary mention of Albert. (Unless you really want to work
at reading the original documents.) At any rate.......Yes, indeed, 'things'
do determine the nature of space; and let me add, they also affect the WAY
AND THE WHAT of our seeing. But these things are no longer mere things, or
social constructs; they are "things in the world as things as they are". 

But MUDS have nothing even  R E M O T E L Y  to do with it!

Remember Parmenides? Or does that come after this?

> 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.

Precisely the position encountered by early Greek philosophers who then had
to explain how 'change' might be possible.

> 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.

Wow! Life is only a game? Somebody hit the RESET button. I want another
chance at ............

Your unbreakable rule of subject/object division is clearly a Platonist
dogma which is VERY suspect at least. See the Scientific American article
from this fall on quantum mechanics observations (Heisenberg principles?).
So much for the finite game. And the products of this hypothetical infinite
game are, culturally; hunger, poverty, and deprivation in general for all
who do not win. 

Unacceptable rules I say, let's rewrite them to establish, at least
intellectually, an ecological relationship with the world (and with
each-other).

> 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.

Determinism of this sort, and predictability in general, is an assumption
which cannot be empirically demonstrated in any complex dynamical system;
Chaos theory will offer you one example of this assertion, but a more
acceptable example would be evolution (of the Darwinian sort). The Platonist
(Euclidean) linear methods, which you obviously subscribe to, are but a
single strand of predictability accross a sea of Chaos that can only be
embraced descriptively by letter or number. Your subject /object dualism
won't float out there, of course, you could go to sea in a sieve.

Please don't put this label of "mysticism" on all 'other' than the rational
realm of Plato; it marginalizes rather than endorses. Which is fine, I
suppose, if you hope to dominate the sensible realm through obfuscation (as
the Catholic church did).

> 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.

Please loose the imperious language here. "We shall"; indeed.

But think; if we abandoned our (your) intellectual attachment to the
subject/object complex, then we might actually be able to develope the
necessary techniques (tools), and come to a more thorough understanding of
experience.

> 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).

I have read 'The Tao of Physics', for entertainment, and I don't recall
anything about MUDs. Details on this citation please.

> 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.

Who do you mean by they? Ah, Capra and Zukav; have you consulted them on
these interpretations? 

I don't believe that our abillity to 'understand' must remain in stasis
though; unless we retain our attachment to this subject/object dualism.

> 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.

This, above, is the last resort of the rationalist enterprise; which
explicitly disenfranchises all who disagree with thier (the rationalists)
self serving conclusions.

> 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.

This network of inferences is your baggage I believe, Thyagi; not mine.

We MAY (soon) come to some understanding of 'emotion' and even 'mind'
through an empirical examination of the sensible realm not subject to the
ontological requirements of Platonist doctrine, don't be surprised when it
happens. 

But fret not; we will leave for you (and your mystical domain) the notions
of soul and spirit intact. Churches of all kinds will continue to profit on
the poor through thier marketing of mystical truth.

> 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.

You certainly ARE confused here.

> 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).

First; Mind does not exist within the subject/object dualism EXCEPT as an
abstraction. And WHAT do you mean by direct?

Second; The brain is clearly NOT an abstraction, given that it is concrete
and biological. The 'word' brain may be but....................so what? All
words are.

> 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.

Again, the royal WE, more correctly, 'this as YOU have defined it'.

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

> 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.

Arbitrary definition is rampant in this paper, and this in itself calls all
of your arguments into question.

And please keep all of your masculine fantasies to yourself; what is this
"penetration" stuff? Pretty quick you're going to start talking about
'vessels' of truth like Plato did.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Let me also caution you on use of the word 'direct' since you subscribe to a
computaional theory (at least that is my first approximation of your
theoretical basis due to the extensive use of subject/object dualism). This
word has specific meanings within the perceptual psychology field not
appropriate to your argument.

When you say here "The metaphor of the MUD and its application to the
disciplines of philosophy, psychology, religion and mysticism", you have
certainly turned things around, because your metaphor of the MUD has
obviously been founded on classic systems of philosophy, psychology,
religion and mysticism; and because of this I see no "breath-taking results"
in the works.

> 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.

Majestic self-acclamation noted.

> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Books proving inspirational to this essay included:

Proving?

> 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
> 

Closing comments:

This is the sort of stuff that people love to publish in popular literature,
and I am sure that it will PROVE to be very profitable for you
(successfull). 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.

Best of luck Thyagi.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
t. zier                                                 ziert@beloit.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds