March 28, 2007

• I feel blurred, this morning.

  The day before yesterday I ate something– not too sure what– as a result of which I spent the evening, night and much of the next morning dealing with the ravages of food poisoning. Praying to the Great White Porcelain God, and other items from the TMI Department.

  It occurred to me, this morning, that I have only felt really, really, really sick four times in my 46 years. All four have been the consequence of eating something… a bad oyster when I was nine, not-sure-what when I was in boarding school at 17, some sub-standard sushi about 10 years ago, and now this. Measels and even malaria (yes, I had that, once) have nothing on food poisoning.

  I feel like I’ve been dragged backwards through a combine harvester. Then a bunch of thugs spent a couple of hours beating me with onion-filled socks.

  Why the phuck am I sitting here, writing? It allows me to be mostly still, and upright. And the fever/pain combination tends to make for some interesting thoughts, in a strangely acid-trippy way.

  But at the same time, I am feeling rather blurred.

  When I feel like this, it reminds just how much of my self-perception is tied up in being “a physically healthy person.” I feel fortunate to have been given a mostly very functional and low-maintenance “biological container” to go through this iteration of life with. Which makes it that much more “wrenching” on the the rare occasions when something does go wrong.

  Somewhere in my stupor, I was thinking about the blurry lines of life… or is it lives?

  Many moons ago– back in the infancy of the Internet and “Virtual Communities”– it was only the deep nerds who explored the electronic worlds. There was a popular conception that people were online in “communities” simply because they “didn’t have a life.” These days, “virtual life” has become a household concept, yet the subtext that people who spend time online (engaged in any number of activities– I spend a LOT of time online, trying to make a living) are “out of touch with reality” and “need to get a life.”

  [Of course, we say that, but I often wonder how we categorize the pen pal craze of the Victorian era. 100+ years ago, there were 1000's (if not millions) of people who kept up decades-long correspondences with people they never met. I wonder if they were ever told to "get a life?"]

  I am not going to get into philosophizing along the standard arguments as to whether or not people we met online are “real” or not– that debate has been running since before Cod invented dirt. I am more interested in looking at wants and needs, and their bearing on how we choose to live our lives.

  In my new town here, I have become part of the local “Conversation Cafe,” in part as a way to get to know a few people in this town. The Port Townsend branch of this organization is one of the oldest and longest-lived in the nation– and there are certainly some nice people there. I really enjoy this group of people, and the way we sit down and talk about something a little more “real” than Sanjaya’s hairstyle. Our “Intrepid Leader,” Jim Rough, is actually of the belief that we can change the world for the better by creating forums through which the world can rebuild its lost sense of community.

  That’s all fine and good, if you happen to live in a place shares values predominantly consistent with your own. Many people don’t. And it can be a lot more work to find “fellow tribe members” in random groups of people, than to find them with the use of the vast array of prequalifying and “sorting tools” the web allows. Which leads me to question the assertion that we really do “not have a life” when we look for our sense of connection with the world, through virtual communities.

  Established paradigms are extremely resistant to challenges, as is anything/anyone whose continuation and existence is threatened by change. Many people of a more… “traditional“… mindset seem to feel threatened by the idea that a person might be able to take care of part/most of the social interaction needs through the Internet. In sense, the subtext of their assertions suggest that “we should be happy with what we can GET, rather than go looking for what we WANT.” Maybe that’s an unfair spin I’m putting on it… but that’s how it comes across, to me.

  It reminds me of one of the quotes in my big quotes file: “Those who have lost sight of their own dreams will often discourage yours.”

  Ultimately, this begs the question “What is it we really WANT, in interaction with others?”

  It also begs the secondary question “Is there really a measure for what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ways to connect with other human beings?”

  I think the basic fallacy behind the assertion that those who join online communities need to “get a life” is that we’re “all the same.” We’re not all the same… and thank Cod for that. I grant you that there are some people who simply can’t see a connection as “real” unless it involves sitting in a smoky room, holding a bottle of beer. Fair enough. But please don’t apply that standard to me.

  Bottom line here, I feel, should ultimately be “Are my needs being met?” And that comes with the debate as to whether “I” or “society” gets to be the judge and jury as to whether said needs are being met. And frankly, I vote for the former.

  Isn’t it more important THAT people are reaching out and forming connections than HOW they are doing it?

   

  • 6:54 pm
  • 15 Comments