Third Strike

With regards to this week's blog, i shall discuss the experience of 'playing' (well, perhaps role-playing would be a better term but can one role play himself/herself?) Second Life as a whole.



Arendt mentioned the Aristotelian idea of the 'beautiful'. That is the concerning and doing things that are "neither necessary nor merely useful" but rather doing for the sake of the bodily enjoyment. I would also propose that the word 'bodily' not only encompass the physical body but the mental and psychological body. In that case, i would argue that the activity (not the distinction as made by Arendt as i will not be discussing the distinction of work, labour and action; just merely the act of doing) of playing Second Life pretty much encompass the Aristotelian idea of the 'beautiful'. With my experience of Second Life, I can see different people playing it differently but mostly all (those ardent players at least, myself not included, for me, 'playing' Second Life is the Arendt's definition of Work) do it because they enjoy it. Some choose to become another personality altogether, some stay true to their own personality, some go into the virtual world seeking companionship, not unlike going to a new city or new country to make new friends, some go into the virtual world just to design and 'publish' the various skins and models that they have made, showcasing their talent and ability while some just go in with the intention of making money. Some do it as an escape from their physical world (their real life so to speak) while some see it as an extension of their physical world, but most do it because it is 'beautiful'.



Connected to the last sentence is Arendt's idea of the private, the public and the social. However, there are challenges when trying to apply those concepts on virtual worlds such as Second Life. Perhaps virtual worlds should not be seen as analogous to our present physical world but a different entity altogether. Arendt mention the 'seeing and hearing' as what constitutes our reality. However, 'seeing and hearing' has a different dimension in virtual worlds. One don't see the physical and hear the physical but see and hear the representation ( i.e. the avatar) of the physical. If what one saw or heard is secondary to what one and everyone sees and hear, what does that make of the things that one saw or heard via Second Life? In addition, Second Life (or virtual worlds in general) is unique because it messes up the boundaries between private, public and social and meshes them together. It is at once private and public. Private because ultimately the person controlling the avatar is deprived in the physical world as well as in relation to the virtual world. Public because despite the 'privacy' the user's action is immediately visible. The user can participate in the public domain of the virtual despite the lack of a household. Even if the user gets married in Second Life and owns a house in it, ultimately that marriage is not legal and recognized if it is has no physical world relation (that is the couple also gets married in the physical world) and the ownership of the house does not belong to the user as it is ultimately a set of data and the set of data belongs to the company that owns Second Life.



Thus if one were to apply Arendt's concept into the virtual world, one should exercise extreme caution in doing so.