Well, seeing all the crap that seems to pervading the web, I figured it was time to cast my thoughts into the void. Against my general instinct to preserve anonymity, I'll attempt to preserve my sanity against the inane dialog social communities seem most adept at regurgitating for public consumption. I'm not doing this for anyone other than myself. Some of the posts I see out there are so asinine that they require comment; even if it happens in my own unobtrusive corner of the web.

There's a gold rush for your celluloid 15 minutes of fame and this whole Web 2.0 thing just seems to have capitalized on everyone's insecurity of being forgotten or overlooked. Is it me, or is a lot of the Web 2.0 superstars simple vehicles for the insecure to relive the popularity they were denied in high school? It's ironic that what's labeled technological progress facilitates retrograde social change. The Facebooks and YouTubes of the era of “innovation” feed off the almost pathological need of people for some form of acknowledgment; the need to stand out from the rest of the crowd.

In return, we achieve our identity only through consumption. Consumption in turn leads to cultural intolerance by heightening our ability to differentiate the 'haves' and 'have nots' by what they own and the dissimilarity of their possessions to our own.

“The singularity of fact; the multiplicity of truth.”

As I scrutinize the world around me, this simple dictum reveals the beauty that has been obscured by superficiality of our existence. What happened to skepticism as a path to truth? What happened to beauty? Question the world around you and discover the deeper truth. A truth that is not manufactured, a truth that is informed by context.

We are being deceived by numbers. Something quantified becomes fact. But simple fact itself does not reveal truth.

You know that scene in Jurassic Park where they are trying to account for the number of dinosaurs and they find that they have an extra one? We apply a reality filter to the numbers we see and only when we question the assumptions behind these figures do we see the fallacy of the "truth" we've been misled by.

Radiohead top UK album chart | The Register

The "In Rainbows" promo by Radio highlights an important aspect in digital content distribution - that of tangibility and its implicit association with people's idea of "purchase". As Yorke claims in the article " ... it's really important to have an artefact as well". This idea that content and physicality are inextricably linked is something that is missing from digital media purchases. Although the music itself is ephemeral, new digital distribution techniques should address this by alternative "artefacts". The art of digital the sell will mix self promotional materials with the content itself. The paraphernalia usually reserved for concerts, or concert tickets themselves can be marketed directly to fans on a global scale and help solidify an artist's "brand" image and putting control of the artist-fan dialog firmly in the hands of artists and NOT music labels.

Only one question remains ... how to promote album awareness? By its very nature radio stations are self selective and really only provide a fractional glimpse of the entire artist's oeuvre. This cornerstone of the music distribution industry must be revisited in order to truly expand the dialog between an artist and his/her potential fan-base.

When you watch television, do you ever wonder why you should be watching a show in the first place? Not the passive consumption that constitutes the majority of television viewing experience, but the active engagement good programmes illicit from their viewers?

I've been a long time fan of LOST, and the episode, "The Constant" reaffirms my belief that the not only is this series an exemplar of modern epic story-telling, but that it approaches what can only be defined as Art. At the heart of all compelling modern fabrications is an archetype formed from our "collective unconsciousness", as Jung put it. All of the main characters in LOST exhibit this characteristic. Kate, embodies the proverbial "Girl-Next-Door", Sawyer embodies the "Bad-Boy", while Locke is "Prophet" archetype.

Desmond, the character whose story is revealed in this episode embodies one of our most important collective archetypes; the "Hero". We've corrupted the idea of "Hero" with muscle bound stereotypes devoid of the essential character of what "Hero" means. The physicality of the "Hero" is obviously important, for it allows our idea of "Hero" to surmount worldly obstacles, but the obstacles themselves are existential in nature. We associated the superhuman to the "Hero", but by embuing the archetype with a power rooted in the human experience as Desmond is, allows him to use it selflessly instead for self-aggrandizement.

The fact that Desmond's power is over time itself gives context and scale to the depth of his achievement.

For the "Hero" archetype to truly achieve universality, the "Hero" must also embody the idea of sacrifice. In Desmond's case, his sacrifice was Penny.

The Desmond in the past that was aware of the Future and the 2004 Desmond that was aware of only 1996 understood the circumstances of his displaced selves and accepted the unfolding years without hesitation. The realization that the apparent contradiction could only be resolved through 8 years of journey only made his sacrifice even more heroic in proportions.

Heroism is confronting an unequivocal outcome and having the courage to accept it. Desmond's story resonates for this reason; at the heart of all heroic acts is the promise of Hope. That the creator's of LOST managed to capture this essence of this conflict and express it in a 38 minute television episode is sheer artistry.

I must admit, that sometime ago, I was addicted to Diablo 3. Something about the game occupied my every waking moment and for two weeks solid, I was glued to my computer. No ergonomic mouse was ever designed for this type of prolonged use and by the end of it, my hand was fixed in a rictus of mouse clicking. (You know you've been over doing it when you develop calluses where your palm rests on the mouse.)

After this extended bout of insanity, I had an epiphany that has dulled my enthusiasm for such fare - I had been a dupe at the end of an elaborate Skinner black box. Nothing cramps desire like coming to the realization that you've been manipulated into giving in to your inner monkey. The obsession with the game fed off the primal need for a reward completely disproportionate to the effort expended, but somehow, I had managed to rationalize the effort as "fun". What was I thinking???

There is something else that I should admit which is related to my fascination with video games; that I am a long time RPGer of the Dungeons & Dragons variety (the pen and paper, polyhedra wielding, geohex terrain loving, leaded miniture painting kind). I suspect that few people could claim that their RPG group has lasted some 25 years other than those involved in the industry itself. We've played (and continue to play) every game under the sun from Tunnels and Trolls and Paranoia, to our (relatively recent) work-horses of Earthdawn, ShadowRun, and TORG.

I always associated my love of video games and role playing as coming from the same source - my fascination with the fantastic (as evident from the SciFi/Fantasy ladened literature of my youth) and the acknowledgment that the collective engagement of our imaginations produced some of our most memorable moments of "the Game". The collective conscious fed by books, arcades, movies, and comics, contributed in no small part to the absurd hilarity and outright originality that permeated our gaming sessions.

It's taken me a while to be able to articulate my misgivings regarding the direction of computerized RPGs, though it's been steadily building. Not that I'm completely oppose computerized games, but there are a variety that certainly deserves the "heroine-ware" appellation.

My problem with these games is what lies at the heart of the game - why do gamers play games in the first place? I think the answer to this question highlights a fundamental difference between two genres of gaming which are superficially similar, but are governed by different motivations.

Part of appeal of RPG is the creative act of imagination that computerized RPGs literalize to the detriment of the whole experience. To overcome this limitation, game designers replace this void with artificial reward systems to entice players into continuing to play. The problem with these environments is that by introducing the phantom reward of level advancement, players never achieve the true reward of role-playing - catharsis. In a sense, delaying catharsis or completely eliminating it allows for players to become entrapped in the button clicking unreality where reward is dangled tantalizingly just out of reach.

What exactly do I mean by catharsis? From Wikipedia:

meaning "purification" or "cleansing" derived from the ancient Greek gerund καθαίρειν transliterated as kathairein "to purify, purge," and adjective katharos "pure or clean" (ancient and modern Greek: καθαρός).

How important is catharsis to the RPG experience? I think for any serious ( non-psychopathic) player, the ability to exercise their imagination in an environment that unconditionally accepts the suspension of disbelief and judgment while allowing a drama to unfold that could not otherwise find expression in daily life IS the REWARD. All gain in role playing lives only in the imagination. It is the feeling we take with us after we've played "the Game" that provides the motivation for the true RPGer.

This place we create for ourselves in the imagination that we use for cathartic release is implicitly a place that it meant to be occupied for only a limited time. It is the reality we use to escape from the everyday. It is not meant to replace our the reality of our daily existence. By allowing allowing us to enter periodically, it provides a means to enrich our daily existence by framing our struggles in more metaphorical terms and hopefully providing a means to come to terms with them.

This brings us to the question : Can the computerized RPG experience emulate catharsis that great collective reality based RPGs are capable of rewarding their players with?

I think that despite the increasing sophistication of virtual worlds, they will ultimately be limited by the vision imposed by their game designers. MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft will never be able to provide the essential ingredient for successful RPGs - catharsis. The real crux of the matter is the question of whether or not this is by design. There are are games out there that capture the essence of the RPG (Ico and Shadow of the Colussus come to mind), but WoW is not one of them. Players should question the what master the game serves - is it the players who benefit from being perpetually entrenched in the accumulation of "legendary" rewards, or the company that requires a subscription to enter this virtual world? How does "the Game" subvert our daily lives when so much actual time is required for the commitment of maintaining a virtual life? When does the "the Game" become "Life"?

When you return to reality, I'll be waiting with my dice.

Experiment : To create a Persona Non Grata that exists only in the virtual world. Dialog would consist of insightful and pithy comments on the existential nature of Unreality. Identity to be manufactured through the creation of digital effluvia and given cultural significance through its distribution on obvious celebrity-whoring meme factories such as YouTube and Twitter (all of course, delivered from the Virtual).

Unlike Neo, the protagonist portrayed in this experiment does NOT have SKiLLZ (unless augmented indirectly through an AimBOT) and is NOT the expression of some manifest destiny clothed with messianic overtones. He/she is however, imbued with the super-human capacity for being able to be completely NON-EXISTENT (meaning the persona has the ability to exist two-dimensionally in the confines of the imagination of believers).

Would the creation of this meta-identity qualify for one of Hofstadter's self-referential "Strange Loops"? At what point does the persona become "real", or more importantly "meaningful"?

How long before the need for masturbatory celebrity gratification forces the creator to reveal his/her true identity? Is the creation of such a persona a subconscious cry for celebrity in the mind of the creator?

Any takers?

You would have to be in the Heart of Darkness not to have heard of Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child initiative and the various spin-offs by other players (Intel's Classmate PC / Asus's EEE) suddenly crowding the marketplace. What to make of all this maneuvering and its potential impact on the global digital landscape?

Despite the "altruism" motivating this apparent movement, the cynic in me perceives a fundamental hypocrisy in the whole enterprise. Why are we spending money and effort promoting something that does nothing to address basic human necessities of the 3rd World? How can a computer, no matter how well intentioned, address factors that impact mortality rates? What is the good of having universal accessible media to a mass of illiterates? What is the use of mesh capable networked devices where electricity is so scarce that they still rely on tallow for lighting? What's the use of being able to search for health related information, when the water you drink is likely to transmit communicable diseases that are for all intents untreatable due to lack of basic health care? How do you address the potential environmental impact of creating 100 million electronic devices and the externalities of recycling the components when they inevitably become obsolete?

I think this is an initiative of the "haves" for the "have-nots". It is similar to the Western feminist movement expounding their ideological agendas without regard to cultural circumstances surrounding the state of women they are trying to emancipate. At best, the movement is misguided and well intentioned. At worst, it is a cleverly disguised commercial venture out to extend the grasp of consumerism to those who have nothing else to loose. The numbers point to scales of economy suggesting a potential global market that could be quite lucrative. The naked greed displayed by for-profit corporations suggests that they've brought out their bean counters and come to the same conclusion. But can this movement stand for any "meaningful" change in the lives of the majority of the people in the world?

Instead of using technology to manufacture artificial "necessities" for self-congratulatory purposes, why not address problems affecting fundamental human needs such as the following:

1. A way to create potable water. Something that can be manufactured locally to create a self-perpetual cottage industry. Something not patent encumbered to allow the widest possible dispersion amongst those who need it the most.
2. A way to provide light to areas with limited electricity. By extending the amount of time the printed word is visible in a given day, illiteracy will eventually recede as productive educational time increases. Light will provide the opportunity for true illumination while reducing the dependency on fossil fuels.
3. A way to break the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies on the manufacture of life-giving medicines which afflict the poor in the 3rd World. Medical research ungoverned by commercial viability allows the poorest to benefit from advances without being victims of commercial exploitation and enslavement. Erectile dysfunction or malaria? The choice should be obvious.
4. Educational systems that transcend local delivery. The sum of human knowledge would be better served by allowing the best educational institutions to be accessible by anyone, any time, any where. The ultimate goal will be the internationalization of these sources of knowledge and learning.

If you look around, progress is already being made on these initiatives. The question remains however of why very little media coverage is given to these movements.

Instead of commoditizing the opportunity to empower the globally impoverished, maybe we should address these fundamental needs so that they can build their own computers.

There seems to be a certain sense of indiscriminate labeling applied to online character based games and Role Playing Games of yore which, admittedly, share a lot of similarities, but are fundamentally quite different experiences. Granted, a lot of online RPGs derive their inspiration and content directly from pencil and dice based RPGs, but the difference I'm talking about has more to do with the experiencing of gaming, not the game itself. I personally think that it is misleading to label these games as RPGs for the simple reason that by definition, you MUST actually be engaged in Role Playing. Simply selecting a character class then acting like every other jackass who use the veil of anonymity to engage in infantile name calling does not qualify a game as an RPG. As any experienced RPGer knows, playing a character well involves making decisions in the game world from the perspective of the character. To do this well requires the complete engagement of a player's imagination. It is this complete dissociation of the imagination which separates old school RPGs from their digital equivalents. It's as if by explicitly depicting the game world, a player's imagination is stifled. At the very least, imagination is homogenized. Until this disconnect is addressed in current virtual game environments, the experience will always be a pale imitation of what our imagination's can conjure up.