?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
the Integrated Man - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
the Integrated Man
Apple patents touch screen technology created at NYU. (From Cult of Mac Blog)

Blah blah blah want Mac tablet blah blah blah.

Had a lovely night with lady_fox last night when she got home. There were samm'iches and much watching of House - season 1 and other adult themed activities. It was nice. As expected all is well and she had a good weekend but was quite pleased to see me. Best you can hope for, I think. :) Absence does make the heart grow fonder if last night was any indication. There was much hugging adn cuddlng. it was nice. We even chuckled over some things that happened on her trip - both tame and explicit - which I'll let her relate in her own journal. She even managed to inflate my ego a l'il bit which was nifty.

Tonight I am on my own again as both my ladies are going out with each other. I think I'll be heading to State to do some craft shopping and Coffee Shopping. Mm... wireless at Fair Trade. I'm hoping as well to start learning illustrator as I found my CD images, they were hiding on my external hard drive - right where I put them. I realized this weekend that my computer will be incapable of handling raster art at 300-600 dpi at anything bigger than a few inches square. This makes it very hard to create goodly sized prints, prints that are worth printing adn selling. So, I'm hoping that I can figure a way to paint in Illustrator smilarly to the way in Photoshop and then edit a monster-sized image in Photoshop. Probleatically, donig that ensures huge files when I convert to photoshop to edut adn then print. I really want Illustrator to figure out how to Photoshop style painting and save as vectors so I can do everything in one program. Theoretically, Live Paint is a step in that direction. Of course, I don't have that version of Illustrator....

Eh. I'll figure something out.

Otherwise, I got little else. I'm now sitting at 38.8% of the comments in this journal. I also picked up a few new readers, which is nifty. Got to remeber that posting to communities brings the people in.

Edit:Also - to new people. I have a sex filter. If you want in, comment. I have no qualms having you read it, I just don't want to "force" it on you.

Ah, other topic.

Online Personas: do you have one?
aetrix9 asked me on Sunday if it bugged me that people knew me as ABM online, that there existed two different sorts of people. I thought for a minute and said, "no." When I was younger I tried to develop an online personality, something that was who I wanted to be rather than who I was. In fact, the same was very true when I started this journal. I chose the name The Piecemeal Man because I always felt fractured when writing online because I was attempting to put forth a different persona than I was.

I've found that acting doesn't work. Writing not as myself was a pain in the ass adn felt exceptionally fake. I don't like brewing falacies, which is what I was doing. I think the penultimate Bad Thing a person can do is be hypocritical. Writing as a different person, as I see it, is hypocricy. Thus, I evolved into writing as myself - that or I became the person I was writing as.... I suppose what you read in here is who I am. I can't really do it any other way. I've tried. It doesn't work for me.

I do not mind being called ABM (or other permutations) online. I've even responde to it in real life. It's just another name calling the same person. I can't escape who I am.

What do you say? Online personas good thing or Bad Thing? Do you try to be someone different, exotic, interesting online? Why?

Tags: ,

6 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: February 14th, 2006 07:02 pm (UTC) (Link)

Fake Names Bad, M'kay...

Awww...you'll always be honkey cracker to me.

Actually OL/IRL split bugs me to no end. Specifically the names part. Specifically when people don't even know the real names of people they have daily (or often) interactions with. It plugs into a greater issue with a public adversion to certain personal features and an active push to escape those features. There's a host of them, but "name calling" is prominant. Names are something inhereted as a part of communal continuity, and it's integral to the bonds of society that the historical continuity is perserved. When that's buked it has a collectively negative impact on that historical continuity.

The internet has given us a way to freeform our own creation. Persons spring to life from the imagination, instincts, and desires of people at keyboards across the world. Which presents a slew of moral challenges. However, to be about as blunt as a chainsaw in an opporating room, more often than not, these questions fall down on the side of morally prohibted because of either the intention of consequences of those acting (both the inventor and those the invention interacts with).

To throw it up to a secondary source, I'm drawing on a distinction made by Windgo when dealing with the ethics of public presentation. He points out that if you compare certain kinds of public presentations (his book "Vail Politics" was actually talking about the publics interaction with politics and political leaders, but his point works here"), you see a dramatic difference in the way the moral implication falls down based on precursory knowledge on the part of both parts. For example, in football, it's not unethical for a runningback to fact the defense in order to sprint past them for the touchdown because it is understood by both parties that deception is a part of interaction. However, deception isn't implicit in many other social interactions, and therefore the "rules of the game" permit highlights an ethical issue with a lack of precursory knowledge on one or more parties parts.

Anyways, I've probably already run out of comment room, so I'll stop there, but it's something I've actually written some on and so have an opinion or three already formulated.
abmann From: abmann Date: February 14th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
So, you seem to be saying (in the first patr) that the problem is that what we are on the internet is self defined. Because we are all really blind in this context, we have no community? I think that's an interesting point but has little to do with naming, unless you are thinking of names in, say a Native American tribal way where names are given after a persons character is demonstrated well after birth. Sure, then the self naming becomes absolutely pointless because it isn't an indication of character, personality, Who We Are etc.

I fail to see what yuo mean about the historical continuity. in this case we do lose a bond to progenitors becaue there are no parents in cyberspace. How does that fit with internet personas? Historical community isn't possible because people aren't "born" to a community.

Now, interestingly, in the early days of LJ when you had to get invited to join, that would work. You could, in fact, birth the additions to the communitiy because they couldn't get in without you. Thus, you artificially create a digital progenitor. Theoretically, the person sending the invite would have some ampount of quality control over the people creating live journals.

Would it,, then, be more likely that a person invited to an exclusive community - assuming they didn't exist elsewhere online beforehand - would act more like themselves? Would there be a sense of history and connection between the people that builds human-like structures, personas that aer Who We Are?

Interesting thoughts... I think you were getting at that with the third paragraph a little, the blind communitiy and its progeny.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: February 14th, 2006 07:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
There's a difference between having a community and having a communial continuity. As it stands, naming is the primary non-biological connection between generations. I bared the name bestowed on me from birth by my parents. Obviously it's not the case in all situations, but it is far more common than any other highlightable social traite, ablity, quality, ect that is passed from parent to child. So the point that I'm trying to make is that when we IRL cast aside given names, it's turning a cold shoulder to that inheritance and ultimately has a damaging effect on the continuousness of a certain type (and most common) community.

Also, I think the reflexive quality of birth-assigning names does give the action some kind of impact on my life. Not to say that the name is either controling, or has a similar status as the earned-name ritual, but just from personal experience, I'm sure that a different name would have altered some actions and situations in my past. It's something akin to the "Max Power" episode of the Simpsons.

My comments were directed to disapproval of OL names being used in real life or the replacement of real life names by OL names. (As a side note, I've never fully resolved how I feel about earned-nicknames.).

Unless you're a hippy like Rich and belive in a fully causal universe, cyber-communities are devoid of a significant historical framework. Even the most rooted groups go back less than twenty years, and arguably, there is not a distinct generational cycle. My only point in the previous post in highlighting the ability to freely create a persona online (because of this nature) is to segway into the realm of moral assertion when it comes to the very question of "what is the moral status of creating this personality?" The rest of the post is then a fast and dirty response to this question. Historical continuity is up on the board because its one of the important factors in our moral framework, as well as in the developement of community (comunity definitions being another important fact -- though, again, I'm not a hippy and won't shoulder society with the burden of defining morals).
evilevi From: evilevi Date: February 14th, 2006 09:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
I am just my written self online. I probably come off differently to some extent because there are certain things that are easier or more difficult to get across in writing, but I just don't have the energy to maintain an entirely separate persona.

Reading about other people's online personas can be interesting, but most of the people I have on my fl are people I either know at least in passing IRL or who I have known online for years, and almost all of them read like themselves as far as I can tell.

Also, if it wouldn't be too weird having a co-worker on your sex filter, I always like reading about other people's sex lives. One of these days I might even get around to writing some about mine, though I tend to haphazardly add people to my filters (mostly I just remove the spouse-boy's friends because I figure they don't want to know too much).
abmann From: abmann Date: February 15th, 2006 01:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
Added. You're fine. What's weird is knowing that a bunch of the people I work with a reading this without telling me. I've been hearing rumors about my journal and blogs in general.
annan_dum From: annan_dum Date: February 15th, 2006 06:49 am (UTC) (Link)
I think online personas can be a valuable tool for exploring one's self, although I've never had one. You could argue that Annan is a persona, since I never allow my real name to be used, but I think Annan is just more myself than I; without having to worry about what people will think of me, I am liberated to write what I want, having no expectations to meet. So Annan isn't a persona, she is the absence of filters.
Whether I am "different, exotic," or "interesting" is entirely a matter of opinion from my meagre audience--but I don't write for them. I write for me.
6 comments or Leave a comment