[HerenIstarion]

We seem to discuss two topics mainly:

1. Freedom of transfer of information over the net as opposed to ‘real’ conversation
2. Self-identification on the net

Here we go than:

1. Freedom of transfer

Aiwendil, you have praised our very discussion as a means of ‘pure’ exchange of ideas, and yet, and yet – though we do ‘exchange ideas’, do we talk about the same thing? Can anyone be sure that those s/he communicates with understand what s/he has to say exactly how s/he said it? I was not implying the internet communication is bad, and the possibility of ‘lying’ over it does not form the gist of my post at all. It is possible to lie in ‘real’ conversation too, employing very same mimics that are so useful for the transfer of emotional messages

On the whole, my prolix discourse (and impersonating) was caused by the word ‘osanwe’ in your post previous but one. As far as the concept of ‘osanwe’ is rooted in my mind, it is not exchange of data in the form of mental dialogue, with advanage of being free of ‘lie’, neither merely some analogue of conversation per se, but something more – more intense stream of information, package including concepts and emotions likewise, maybe even mental visions/pictures too. In this case, internet can not be wieved as some kind of ‘osanwe’ at all.

The ‘freedom of mind’ you seem to claim for internet is limited by the very medium said ‘freedom’ has to operate through. The very language, being a medium, forms a barrier for ‘free’ transfer:

1. Levels of mastery of language between those who communicate may vary
2. Certain meanings of certain words, given different locations of those who communicate may also vary
3. Same words may have manifold different meanings

(But in this we agree, it seems)

Personal difference: for me, ‘pure’ idea lacks when it is stripped of emotion rather than gains from its ‘purity’. I’m passionate about some things, and that is why I am fond of discussing them on the net in the first place. That passion, though sometimes may shine through, is hard to communicate through keyboard and screen

(‘Love’ is an idea. But how different is the set of emotional ‘clothing’ which accompanies the word ‘love’ for each of us?)

Or, to come down to definitions:

A. Information (for me) is: concept plus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it

B. Information (for you, as far as I’m allowed to guess) is: concept minus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it. (Or minus the bearer?)

Now, in real life, less of a concept and more of the emotion is transferred, over the net, more of the concept and less of the emotion. (to read ‘I’m frightened’ is less emotionally impressive than to see actual widening of an eye and hair standing on end)

Where we differ, it seems, is in evaluation – you hail the lack of emotion-communicating capacity on behalf of the net-conversation as ‘purification’ of data transfer, I complain of it as of its ‘deficiency’

Still another angle – even though we have only words and no faces to talk to, the words are born in an actual, physical brain, which is located in actual body, which actually sits and types with actual fingers. And all this has an impact on what the thing I call “me” inside the body has to say here and now. I have a headache right now – how can I be sure that had I had it not, the words I chose now to embody my thoughts, or the thoughts themselves would have been the same?

2. Self identification

But Aiwendil is I; I am Aiwendil

And I am HerenIstarion . Nice to meet you.

On more serious note – if one sunny day (stormy night, starry evening...) you haven’t made the intentional choice of the name, would you have said that now? I address the following:

But Roggie is intentionally a mask

So Aiwendil is. So HerenIstarion is. But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

And here we come down to the concept of name itself:

1. I’m George Lashkhi for reasons external. If my father were not Lashkhi, and if my grandfather were not George, I, with equal success, may have been John Smith. George is ‘farmer’ in Greek. Lashkhi means ‘one from Lashkheti’, the region in the western mountains of Georgia. But I live in the city, and do not till the earth. How does my name define me, apart from being a convention adopted by authorities to tax me efficiently?
2. My name is a convention, yet for people apart from myself, it does define me (to an extent). Yet it defines me not by its lettering (it is not g+e+o+r+g+e that they think of me), but by a whole bunch of memories and visual images they associate with it. ‘George is the chap I’ve been sitting with in school, one with a long nose and spectacles’, ‘George is that horrible chatterer who always tires me with some Tolkien chap and his writings’ etc. Funny thing is, not one person has the same association, and, though generally they may agree in some (long nose, spectacles), sure as Gandalf’s beard all their conventions will vary between themselves (good chap/bad chap, like/dislike, smart/silly) and all will differ from what I call myself

(The clause 2 is of importance. If I were alone in the world, it would matter less how I identify myself. The word ‘I’ would suffice.)

My internet name is also a convention, but reasons now are not entirely external (though not entirely internal likewise). Same entries for internet names:

1. I (you) would not have been HerenIstarion (Aiwendil) if I (you) haven’t read Tolkien. I may have been Johnny Bravo, and you Mistress Weatherwax (I won’t bet a dime on actual choices apart from paragons given, though). Yet mine (your) own choice was involved, so I (you) am (are) HerenIstarion (Aiwendil) and no other. I am H-I, and you Aiwendil for some internal reasons (see posts above – about beast-loving etc)
2. Screenname may also bring forth associations in other people apart from the bearer of the name, but now they are based less on visual images, but on bearer’s words only. (Gandalf’s beard sentence applies here as well)

Yet the person under the name HerenIstarion exists on the net only. It is a mind with no hands, no body, but words only. I believe medium impacts the thing which operates through it – hence, HerenIstarion is different from what George Lashkhi usually is.

And the core: If the person has the distinct identification (online nickname), acts in certain mode (words) in a certain medium (internet), and has no means of acting otherwise, is it not a different person?

It may be put another way round: of course I agree that with the same efficiency it may be said that it is a certain aspect of my own personality. But than it may be said that George Lashkhi is also only certain aspect of said personality, that, in its wholeness, is more than mere sum of its names. So, you are Aiwendil, but Aiwendil is not you – you are more than Aiwendil. You are Aiwendil + your ‘real’ name + something more (which I usually tend to call ‘will’). But for people you interact with online – you are Aiwendil, which is less (or other) than what you see as yourself)

The importance of each adopted name is though as follows:

It may be argued that George Lashkhi always will express himself through the medium of the net in the same mode, under the screenname H-I or any different one, but there is a ‘but’ that comes into play here:

Choice is a tricky thing. Any choice is intentional at the time of its making, but the road chosen may grow in on you. It was a choice – to choose HerenIstarion or some other name, and first few days it was easy to switch. Coming back to clause 2 up there – associations that start attaching themselves to the chosen screenname start to matter for the person under the name too, and on two levels – 1. When on the net, s/he ‘supposedly’ somehow identifies her/himself as her/his nickname, and 2. Others start to identify her/him likewise

Check-point question – would you seriously consider changing your screenname to something else on this point of its ‘online development’? For myself, I would not

An Internet Screenname looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care - and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip.

And as a final note:

But short of this, I really think that the internet does more to unmask us than to mask us. It gives all its users a chance to share ideas and to share in the ideas of other people.

I agree heartily.

But here is another instance of deficiency of ‘sharing ideas’ through internet (or any other medium apart from ‘pure’ osanwe). The emotion I see (I may err) under your handling of word ‘mask’ is negative – you seem to imply your evaluation of the word ‘mask’ is that of something ‘bad’, ‘negative’, which should be ‘unmasked’. ‘Unmasking’ than is the thing good. I tend to believe the ‘masks’ of the internet are things natural and neutral at that (apart from instances when masks are adopted with the intention of messing things up/trolling), but may modify the behavioral patterns of a person which adopts them.

There was a parable of an ugly man, who, for some reasons, was forced to wear a beautiful mask for a long period of time. When he finally took it off, he discovered that the features of his face were changed and resembled his beautiful mask now.

cheers