The Real Halley
Halley is wondering if maybe online relationships are worse than mere shadows of real world ones. Maybe online we paint a false but convincing picture of who we think we are or who we’d like to be. (Halley puts it a lot better than this.)
I guess I’d agree, except that I think the same is true of the full spectrum of human relationships.
We aren’t simple objects defined in their apartness. We are our relationships. We present ourselves and comport ourselves with a sense of how we look to others. We are social selves and Rorty describes it well, but not as well as Shakespeare, Flaubert or Roth. (In fact, Rorty writes that it’s progress that novels are where we now work out moral issues.)
We write ourselves into existence online, but we dress and primp and inflect and gesture ourselves into existence in the real world.
IMO, there is no real self that’s a core behind the public views we present. There’s only relationship. Online selves are just one more type of relationship, with their own truth, deception and play.
Euan Semple points to an article about software under development that will automate the process of making your email sound like it comes from someone with a personality.
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Halley’s Reality (And Secret Post)
Friends, tomorrow morning I am going to change the content of this post to something entirely different. No, I don’t anticipate any of the pernicious acts that we’ve argued over so often and so vigorously in the past (editing posts after th…
imho:
“I guess I’d agree, except that I think the same is true of the full spectrum of human relationships.”
I agree with both. Except that’s it’s a lot easier to paint a (false and/or larger-than-life) picture in words, than over the phone, and much easier than meeting in person. None of above any comparison to actually living with a person 24 hours a day, though.
“We are our relationships.”
Primarily our relationship to ourself, as it effects all the other relationships both so intimately and so unconsciously.
“We present ourselves and comport ourselves with a sense of how we look to others.”
Mmmm. Some more than others. Not saying it’s just vanity, as this is also how we find mirrors to reflect our deficiencies and qualities back on ourselves, in my experience.
We write ourselves into existence online, but we dress and primp and inflect and gesture ourselves into existence in the real world.
“IMO, there is no real self that’s a core behind the public views we present.”
To the extent there is divergence between one’s public self and private self (and no matter how much a person put’s themselves out there, there is usually a fair bit of private self left) it’s some difficult to distinguish a “real” and “unreal” self. At least that’s my experience thus far.
“There’s only relationship.”
Perhaps. Perhaps “only” goes a little too far. Relationship implies, to me, a connection between a self and other. Yet close relationships are defined by the lack thereof, and solitude is another kind of relationship altogether, I believe. Agree that “no man is an island”, if that’s what you mean.
“Online selves are just one more type of relationship, with their own truth, deception and play.”
What need of deception? Don’t the other two suffice?
Thank you for post.
Anonymuse, suppose you were to give up the notion of there being a private self. What would you be giving up? It’s a notion that I find makes more conceptual trouble than it’s worth.
Good morning, good Dr.
As it would happen, recent events have given me the notion to give up the notion of there being a private self, to an extent. A wise man of current era has said “events are the Teacher”, but I sometimes feel like a snake molting. And the old dried up dead skin is being pulled off prematurely.
Be that as it may, I would ask you to tell me (a near-total stranger, as I don’t frequent your neighborhood as much as I’d like) how much money you make, when the last time you had sex and how was it, and what you tell your wife (if any) or significant other about what you really think of people, for example Doc Searles and Rageboy.
If you choose to do so, and I hope you don’t, then I would suggest that if what you tell me is even one word different than what you’d tell your significant other, or Doc Searles or Rageboy, or what you tell yourself internally, then you have a private self.
So I would say that what I would be giving up, in totally and completely giving up the notion of there being a private self would be reality as it exists. But at same time, appreciate that people should, and can, only give up their privacy and such notions to the extent they are comfortable, so try to make few suggestions to others about what they should give up and what they should attach to.
New Age thinking often revolves around getting in touch with one’s sub-conscious. One can infer many things by careful self-observation, yet these inferences immediately become a part, then more-and-more a part of, one’s conscious awareness. It is, by definition, impossible to know one’s sub-, or un-conscious attitudes.
So, again, I do not currently see giving up of a private self as a notion which meets squarely with the reality of existance.
But I also assume icbw, so try to express some subtle humor in regards to both the question and the answer.
In that vein, I find conceptual and trouble to be like a flying fish.
Like to base my comments on valid assumptions, as I’m sure you and most do, Dr. Weinberger.
Beg pardon, but I mispelled the other good Doctor’s name.
“He would utter opinions on all passing affairs, which being seen to be not private, but necessary, would sink like darts into the ear of men, and put them in fear.”
Otoh, I believe it’s a sad day when ‘men’ fear opinions.
“Who has done his day’s work
and will soonest be through with his supper?”
Of course, “a ‘man’s’ work is never done”, also.
I think you’ve shown that we have multiple public selves, not a private self.
I believe I’ve shown both, but icbw and it’s probably a pov thing anyway. To me, people are much like diamonds, and unlikely to show all facets of all of themselves all the time, or even at any one time.
“If you choose to do so, and I hope you don’t, then I would suggest that if what you tell (others) is even one word different than what you’d tell … yourself internally, then you have a private self.”
I have not met anyone, personally, who has no “skeletons in their closet”, and who has absolutely nothing at all that they wouldn’t keep from their closest friend. Being as one’s closest friends change over time, it would seem an uncautious approach. Plus, it would require one to be both unashamed and unafraid to share absolutely everything to another, with the full confidence that these kinds of private views of oneself could not, at some point, be used against one’s perceived best interests.
I have met neither the person who shares absolutely everything, nor the person I would share everything with, myself, in the flesh. But I haven’t met in person with nearly the number of people that you, or probably most people, have.
Perhaps you’ve been luckier, Dr. Weinberger and, if so, you are a lucky man indeed!
But I would still wonder if there is anything you would “choose” to not see about yourself (given the semi-mixed-conscious-subconscious state that people are, most times). If so, that sounds like a “private self” that you are keeping “from” your own self.
Regardless, I consider you exceedingly lucky if you’ve found that person with which you would share all aspects of your somewhat-different public selves. Or if there is, generally speaking, absolutely no difference in thoughts, words, or actions you express in public as in private.
I’m not that lucky, but even if I was we would still be different in other respects. Nice “chatting” with you briefly, for that very reason.
Aha! I’m not saying that we are the same public person to all people. Not at all! I’m just saying that among all those selves that I am, I can’t find one that is my private self.
Good evening, Dr. Weinberger.
I apologize! I shouldn’t have carelessly thrown that banana peel on the ground: Apparently, I slipped up when I wrote “Regardless, I consider you exceedingly lucky if you’ve found that person with which you would share all aspects of your somewhat-different public selves. Or if there is, generally speaking, absolutely no difference in thoughts, words, or actions you express in public…”
As is often, or essentially always, the case with words, to emphasize any point is to ignore an equally valid point. So I apparently under-emphasized this point: “To me, people are much like diamonds, and unlikely to show all facets of all of themselves all the time, or even at any one time.”
So I would assume you are gifted at showing many of the different facets of your diamond. And even though I’ve not heard you speak in public, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that you rotate the diamond around very effectively, to different people in the audience, and are able to connect with many on many different levels simultaneously.
But would also point out that it is up to the audience to choose a pov from which to see you, or a frame of reference.
I’m guessing, having no experience myself, that in public speaking in any size group at all, some may catch a reflection of certain colors, depending on where you and they and the lights are positioned. Others in the same audience would catch an entirely different reflection, and some would prefer to step back a few paces to view the diamond of your presentation as a whole.
Others are more concerned with the details, and inspect through a jeweler’s glass to see what flaws they find.
So I do not actually believe that you would be the same public person to all people, even all those witnessing the same presentation! Nor do I believe you could be the same public person, even if you wanted to be.
A Mentor once told me that “a good manager learns how to deal with each individual in a unique way”, and that confused me a lot. How could anyone be consistent, yet deal with each in a unique manner. But fortunately I was too busy to concern myself with the problem although, perhaps, may have learned a bit by accident, through trial-and-error, in spite of myself.
Two btws: I am not unaware of the honor you bestow on me with this fencing/psuedo-conversation, at all. It appears that others would prefer to “spit a chaw o’ tabacky” in my general vicinity, though I could be paranoid/schizophrenic, of course. If my Momma could see me now!
Well, someone else’s Momma, because my Mother would ask if I’m getting my paying work done, which I’m not!
Also btw: I would ask where did you look for your private self, Dr. Weinberger?? Did you look in the closet!
But would add that most find many “private selves” before they find one, anyway.
Good night, Dr. And hope you’re enjoying this as much as I am, but other duties beckon. Had a quote of a story I read from someone but, while the stories are endless, life-time is somewhat finite.
Perhaps above was somewhat more non-ymusing than anonymusing, as was intended, Dr. Weinberger.
I actually do think a bit before writing, but usually omit to write something I’d intended:
I generally admire people with skills I don’t have, and have never met a person I couldn’t learn a lot, or at least something, from. May agree with some more often than not, and disagree with others more, but will steal an idea from anybody if I believe it will be useful.
Don’t know whether that came across, above, but know I can be a bit of a piss-ant. Particularly when I get frustrated I don’t make a whole lot of money. But then some is more than zero, and being lucky enough to make any money these days is more luck than some get.
Not having an education and the options it provides is my own fault, of course.
Ah well. Have enough to go out to eat tonight, which is more than most on the planet. And, again, lucky to share some quasi-conversation via the marvels of today’s technology, Dr.
No, there isn’t anyone with whom I share the complete “inner me,” the totality of my private self … not even me. That’s a big part of why I don’t think there is such a thing as my private self. We’re all facets and no diamond.
IMO, of course.
Morning, Dr. Weinberger!
“We’re all facets and no diamond.”
Interesting frame of reference, considering how deeply you apparently experience (from what my lame eye can tell, anyway).
If I have time to follow-up later, I hope I don’t come across like I view your POV as “superfacial”, at all!
But first, have some code to decipher (pun intended).
we’d all like to be known as the 3-D person we are
eu até pensaria em traduzir se soubesse que seria capaz de atingir uma porcentagem de compreensão tão próxima ao que david weinberger escreveu. na verdade eu poderia conseguir se tentasse, mas a construção dos parágrafos não seria a mesma, apesar…
“IMO, there is no real self that’s a core behind the public views we present. There’s only relationship.”
Oh yeah… AKMA bowed to this and I do so beside him. Well, slightly to his rear, and only as a sign of respect, you understand…?
David, please speak to Frank. He’s desperate to add to the blogosphere’s relational database. Since RageBoy’s trashing of my spiritual advisor’s (Father Christopher’s) interview, he’s been like a bare-fanged hound on heat.
In my honest op… oh, bugger it, sorry… As far as I’m concerned, we all need a good whack of your pithy wisdom to realign the many skewed facets of our slowly evolving yet increasingly evident self.
I last saw a flying fish when Father Christopher was forced to discontinue feeding the masses for a short time… but that had nothing to do with the dog. Or Frank.
Yes, please, do Paynter… I don’t wish to hold a gun to your head, but should you decline, it’ll be a good day for banana fish for all of us.
Metaphorically speaking, of course :).
And, yes, excuse me for barging in… I didn’t mean to interrupt this fascinating conversation.
Well, I did actually, but you know what I mean… eh? Please continue. I’m off to shed some of my conceptual troubles. In private. Yes… Mmm…
Dr. Weinberger, Apologize for the delay. Sometimes “the Long Now” drags on a bit too long. Sat down about this time yesterday too continue the discussion. But some “technical” reading, and then Jeneane’s blogs just blew me away.
And Mike, When I took a break this afternoon and read your piece, I had all kind of comments come to mind. Now I can’t find them.
Lol when I saw into the real self behind all the doors of the Frigidaires earlier. Pleasure talking with you both, though I’m not saying anything.
I’ve looked for the Full Professor’s views on this subject twice now. Is this the one?
http://www.cardhouse.com/heath/2003_10_05_archive.html#106537112307634327
Either way, will have to read it tomorrow evening, probably, and perhaps must try to look up the other FP’s interview with Father Christopher.
Bowing out for this evening, to maybe shed some conceptual troubles in private (and tomorrow will show it’s face tomorrow, but looks to be busy during the day).
Gassho y’all.
I saw into the real self behind all the doors of the Frigidaires earlier.
Is that Eric Idle inside that Frigidaire? Music, Maestro, please!
“Just remember that you’re standing
on a planet that’s evolving,
and revolving at 900 miles and hour…”
Those Python boys put this all in perspective from me. Hey, from 93 million miles away, nobody can tell the difference between your public and private self.
“You can’t please everyone, so you’ve got to please yourself.” (Ricky Nelson didn’t specify public vs private, so you get to please yourself in which one you please….)
It’s me.. semi-amusing m’self.
I like to laugh at human foibles, particularly my own! I looked on Mr. FP-AKMA’s sight and read “I’d have devoted another long-winded essay to my reasons for disagreeing with Halley, but David Weinberger gave his typically persuasive case for the social constitution of identity in his own blog today.” a time or two.
But I missed the “‘d”, so spent a bit of time searching for a non-existent post!!
Reminds me of the story I “heard” told by “Rum Dum” (the nickname given to Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, by his Father), in relation to searching for one’s self: (paraphrased, and see also imho an unfortunate paraphrasing “Master Foo” dialogue in ESR’s latest book…)
A guy (Hindu in version I read, iirc) sees his a bunch of his friends scrounging around under a streetlight. “What are you doing?” ‘So-and-so lost his housekey, so we’re helping him find it.’
First guy starts helping, and asks “where’d he lose it??” ‘He lost in on the porch, but the light’s better here.’!!
:
Working backwards in time/space:
@Betsy: I believe I’m getting Eric Idle (Monty Python?) confused with Billy Idle (who sung “Children of the Sun”??). But, yes, it’s often easier to relate things in poetry and music, at times.
Saw a comment, can’t remember whose, wrt Semantic Web (something like) “If deductive logic was easy, it could be done in Sanskrit just as easily as KIF.” And, actually, I read Ram Dass say that it was, and the “vibrational quality” of Sanskrit was one of the primary benefits.
Funny, there are those who say English doesn’t have this quality, but I believe “it’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools”.
@Halley: I hope you perceive this as my laughing with you, or to you (rather than at you):
“So can I integrate the person who writes erotic fiction with the person who makes lunch for her 8-year-old son, who writes about technology, who writes about the death of her father, who serves wine and wafers at communion in a mid-calf grey pleated wool skirt, white “good girl” blouse and school marmish grey cardigan with the woman who plays Scrabble with her 95-year-old shut-in lady and the same woman who gives speeches at Harvard and sometimes appears in photographs half-clothed and publishes case studies in The Harvard Business Review?”
This reminds me of a non-written comment to Shell, regarding integrating (or “reconciling”) assertive writer with non-assertive talker inside herShelleyNess.
I would suggest they are reconciled, at all times. If you believe they are integrated and reconciled, if you can get to that mind-heart-space, then at that semi-time/place just *try* to un-reconcile them, and see how far you get!
“Is there a benefit to having all those personas live here at Halley’s Comment?”
Pros and cons to everything, I believe.
“Is there something wrong about wanting to hide one or the other of them?”
I don’t know that right or wrong comes into play. But what I do know is that it isn’t “wrong” or “evil”, but it is merely incorrect to believe that it would be possible to *not* hide one aspect of your-self, whilst expressing another.
“And I wonder where you are
And if the pains ends when you die”…
Well, who knows this with certainty? Anybody that claims to eliminates themselves from an honest debate on the subject.
I imagine it is just different.. just a different kind of pain/pleasure response, not having a physical body to experience this with.
That’s assuming there is anything akin to pain or pleasure after death, which I don’t necessarily assume.
@Mike: I understand some of what you’re saying, perhaps very little, but am comfortable with that.
“Oh yeah… AKMA bowed to this and I do so beside him. Well, slightly to his rear, and only as a sign of respect, you understand…?”
I did finally find where (Full-)Professor AKMA said, “So I’m left with nodding and affirming, “What he said.””
But, as Dr. Weinberger said himself, “No, there isn’t anyone with whom I share the complete ‘inner me,’ the totality of my private self … not even me. That’s a big part of why I don’t think there is such a thing as my private self. We’re all facets and no diamond.”
I liked many parts of WOE, but thought it was a bit rushed. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the points made about “Net-like” behavior, and spheres of influence and all that.
But viewing something anywhere even close to all the facets and friendship-circles (spheres) and all, by definition, defines a mid-point.
Travelling along at 900 miles an hour, when in just in relation to the Earth.
I don’t know if that figure includes the speed of the Solar System, or the speed with which the Universe is expanding?
Mebbe later, but doubtful.
If not, wanted to point to interesting trackback, of which the translation changed the English from “no place to hide” to “in place to hide”.
(Sorry, never used ‘shorter link’)
http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/translate?wl_lp=PT-en&wl_glossary=gl1&wl_fl=2&wl_rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meltoni.com%2F&wl_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meltoni.com%2F000952.html
And, to me, even more interesting:
http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/translate?wl_lp=PT-en&wl_glossary=gl1&wl_fl=2&wl_rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meltoni.com%2F&wl_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meltoni.com%2F000954.html
That’s no “bug”.
“Lower” animals feel, and they seem to get along in life fairly well!
(Don’t know who coined the phrase, (Gary Turner??), but this is “Golbyesque” in quantity, if not quality!)
Perhaps an easier way, if you’re interested in trackingback, is trying Portugese (Brazil) to English on:
http://www.worldlingo.com/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html
(which is apparently what Google uses to translate?) using the trackback above:
http://www.meltoni.com/000952.html
My comments were WRT (with regard to) http://www.meltoni.com/000954.html and 000951.html
As I said, somethings are going to be lost in translation (even if communicating in same language).