Utopia?

[Ally C]

The idea of the Internet as a state, and thus requiring state control, can be read in three ways. Firstly, there are the powers-that-be, in this case the various chat site hosts and moderators, who are in turn governed by national and international legal requirements. Therefore, we may initially think of Literotica as a semiautonomous state (domain) where those who enter have in effect moved from one state to another, but discover that many of the same rules still apply, in principle. This movement is more than a metaphor for travel. The Literotica user has instantaneously 'travelled without moving', and in this second state (a 'state of mind', 'of consciousness') confronts the possibility for altered states of existence. All three 'states' - the law of the 'land', the 'land' itself (or the journey through this 'land'), and any individual (or group of individuals) - are constantly impacting upon the construction of (cyber) identities, but:

The constructed character of identities is not asserted here as opposed to something presumably more 'real'. From my point of view, the proposed dilemmas 'real vs. imagined', 'authentic vs. false', or 'genuine vs. spurious' are simply not pertinent. Asserting that identities are socially constructed does not imply that they are false or arbitrary, but that identities are not things, but matters of social dispute. -- Daniel Mato, "On the Making of Transnational Identities in the Age of Globalization: the US Latina/o - 'Latin' American case," Cultural Studies 12:4 (October 1998) 604.

In the case of Literotica, the same reasoning can be used, but only to a point. The very nature of Internet technologies means that, perhaps more than ever, identities are 'matters of social dispute', with the added twist that the 'society' where disputation takes place (on-line) could be thought of as being an entirely different paradigm compared to that used in the preceding quote. I see no value in collapsing arguments into the dilemmas described therein. Given this, if Literotica is to be viewed as offering an 'alternative', as utopian in some way, we are presented with a curious (and thus paradoxical) dialectic; identities (in cyberspace) are not only 'matters of social dispute', they become / are also 'things'. Of course, this claim regarding so-called 'postmodern identity' is not restricted to the Internet, but Literotica does offer opportunities for the postmodern subject to effect a (personal) paradigm shift:

Diversity is the key to both time and space ... As always, there is a utopian idea that the wiring of the world will allow the global connection to provide the ability for all persons to exchange mimetic information and thus reach a level of sharing in some form of universal harmony of learning. Yet the wisdom of the age tells us that we can never close Pandora's box nor can we undo what has been wrought in attempting to construct the Tower of Babel. -- Tom P. Abeles, "The Academy in a Wired World," Futures 30:7 (1998) 611.

This highlights both the utopian and dystopian elements of the Internet, yet while at Literotica one can indulge in 'universal harmony' safe in the knowledge that the destruction of the Tower of Babel was the very moment (/metaphor) when we did not all speak with one voice / language. The new technologies can be seen to provide access to the ruins of the Tower where, while inside / on-line, one immediately becomes 'hidden from view', and logging on can become a virtual 'coming out', not (necessarily) in the sense of sexuality, but more in a way which formulates entirely new ideas about how we define sexual pleasure in the first place. Access to erotic poems, for example, opens up a psycho-sexual experience, gives a (new?) pleasure which can be lacking in RL. An obvious example here would be the act of 'cybering' in the Chat Room:

He was two men: the one inside fusing with her in total cellular communion [on-line], and the shell who sat casually on a stool at the bar [computer], elbows on either side of his drink [keyboard], fingers toying with a swizzle stick [mouse]. Smiling benignly into [cyber]space. Calm in the cool dimness. ... They were mating, and no one knew. [my insertions] -- John Shirley and William Gibson, "The Belonging Kind," Burning Chrome, William Gibson (London: Voyager, 1995) 74-5.

Is Literotica Utopian? A suburb of a greater electronic Utopia perhaps? Please check your 'thought-policed' thoughts at the door and come in. Discussion is welcome.

 

[Ambrosious]

Where are the stories?

 

[Ally C]

Hi Ambrosious

Weave some written words.

 

[Cheyenne]

Felix? Is that you?

 

[DarlingBri]

The new technologies can be seen to provide access to the ruins of the Tower where, while inside / on-line, one immediately becomes 'hidden from view', and logging on can become a virtual 'coming out', not (necessarily) in the sense of sexuality, but more in a way which formulates entirely new ideas about how we define sexual pleasure in the first place.[/B]

I think the issue of identity is key here. If your desire is to have your cyber identity connect with someone else's cyber identity on a purely digital level, then yes, Lit and all places like it can be considered a binary utopia if we put the question of governing aside.

Since, as you point out, "one immediately becomes hidden from view" upon entering the Tower, the question of authenticity becomes key to the whole cyber experience. SlaveMaster has cyber sex with DaddysGirl. It is an authentic experience in that these two people connect and share a sexual space through their virtual identities; the eroticism, reactions and words themselves are real.

I would argue, however, that the experience is authentic only to those willing to accept this as the digital paradigm. Given the ease with which people can build cyber-erotic alter egos, there is a very good chance that DaddysGirl is in fact a 55 year old male. On one level, that of two computers connecting and exchanging data, it makes no difference; on another level, that of two humans beyond the machinery creating two head spaces based on their virtual space, the experience is false. One of the players is lying, and therefore the experience is confuted.

At the end of the day, it depends on how you wish to define and build your Utopia: on the basis of fantasy fiction, or on the basis of truth.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Your question is interesting, if somewhat badly asked (it helps to put your question, theory or theme in the first sentence), and I have two responses:

1) I reject, completely, the concept of Utopia, so I can say right off that Literotica is not any kind of Super-Phallanx community, or even a suburb.

2) The answers about the future are almost invariably found in the past.

The Internet isn't as "new" as we'd like to think. Speedy global communication has been around for centuries. And it doesn't matter if we're talking pony express or fiber optic cables, unless two people are sitting across a table there will always be an emphatic distance associated with the communication, leaving plenty of wiggle room for nuance, interpretation and political subterfuge. Walls of miscommunicaiton and propoganda still exist in the www age. In other words, we aren't becoming all that "global".

So, if you look to the past you'll see that great social upheaval and discoveries of the mind have always accompanied advances in communication, but no utopias.

[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 03-30-2001 at 10:25 AM]

 

[DarkAngel]

And I say

Meow

 

[Ally C]

there is a very good chance that DaddysGirl is in fact a 55 year old male. On one level, that of two computers connecting and exchanging data, it makes no difference; on another level, that of two humans beyond the machinery creating two head spaces based on their virtual space, the experience is false. One of the players is lying, and therefore the experience is confuted.

At the end of the day, it depends on how you wish to define and build your Utopia: on the basis of fantasy fiction, or on the basis of truth.

I agree in most part with you DarlingBri. I was trying to push back the theoretical barriers here. It's harder than I thought, as most everyone else seems happy with them. I'm not trying to deal in absolutes, well not entirely[!], but I'm puzzled at the way any respective merits seem to be forever 'black versus white', which ends up being read as 'black and white', i.e. patently obvious. It's nice to deal in certainties, or is it? [ -- to use the same double logic again]

Originally posted by Dixon Carter Lee
1) I reject, completely, the concept of Utopia, so I can say right off that Literotica is not any kind of Super-Phallanx community, or even a suburb.
2) The answers about the future are almost invariably found in the past.

The Internet isn't as "new" as we'd like to think.

So, if you look to the past you'll see that great social upheaval and discoveries of the mind have always accompanied advances in communication, but no utopias.

1) I know what you mean, and often feel that way too; but is it prudent to dismiss all utopian writings, theories and theorists en bloc? Is critical engagement better than criticism and dismissal? I didn't know what to expect when starting this thread, but as 2) The answers about the future are almost invariably found in the past - as you say - then surely it cannot be wise to share the rationale you use? The search for 'Utopia' has always underpinned human endeavour. It's about a search for a better place as much as actually ever getting there.

As for the rest of your post, I am aware of your argument / explanation. But who are you arguing with / explaining to? At no time on my initial post do I 'date' my proposal, except perhaps by recourse to the "moment (/metaphor)" of 'the Tower'! Using Lit as an example was purely to keep my post topical and encourage debate. From the 'then' of the 'Tower' to the 'now' of Literotica is a long time after all. Whenever I mention so-called 'new' technologies, I tend to refer to them as so-called, and place 'new' in inverted commas. So we seem to be in agreement here, except you choose to reject entirely the concept of utopia, saying that answers to our future can be found in our past. I say that utopian thinking is an important and vital part of that past, and would advise extreme caution when deciding which part(s) of History we decide to edit / erase.

Originally posted by Dixon Carter Lee
Walls of miscommunicaiton and propoganda still exist in the www age. In other words, we aren't becoming all that "global".

There is all sorts of room for misinterpretation here! It does repeat the second quotation I used after all ...

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

LOL You can't ask a subjectively defined question and then narrow its definition later. I answered as broadly, and as out of context, as the spirit of your "let's get chattin'" question permitted.

The search for Utopia has alwasy been different than the search for Betterment. Heaven's Gate was a search for Utopia, whereas America was a search for Betterment. Utopia seekers are invariably zealots, or, at the least, humanist fools. They add little to the dialogue of humanity. On the other hand, Betterment seekers are philosophers and social scientists, and are the advancers of civilization.

I understand your point about the journey being as important as the goal, but for Utopia seekers the journey is, invariably, one taken while wearing rose colored glassed -- a pointless venture in which very little is learned.

As for the Internet -- well, if you're going to be THAT broad about what "age" you're discussing what point is there in forming any arguments at all?

 

[Ally C]

LOL You can't ask a subjectively defined question and then narrow its definition later.

Too late, I already have! Anyway, you seem to be fond of narrowing what any search for Utopia might mean ...

The search for Utopia has alwasy been different than the search for Betterment. Heaven's Gate was a search for Utopia, whereas America was a search for Betterment. Utopia seekers are invariably zealots, or, at the least, humanist fools. They add little to the dialogue of humanity. On the other hand, Betterment seekers are philosophers and social scientists, and are the advancers of civilization.

... like I said; and I have to disagree with your definition of 'Utopia seekers': the avant garde in arts movements through the ages, philosophers of all persuasions and especially social scientists have tended to be more Utopian than you give them credit for. I'm fully aware of the definition of 'utopia' too ... surely those who make a living out of scientifically measuring and describing society seek to affect its outcomes in a manner that is entirely synonymous with the whole idea of Utopia? God [whatever flavour you subscribe to] knows that most every human attempt to make some sort of order out of humankind fails to do so ... an attempt to make and define a 'good place' invariably comes to be counter-defined as 'no place', sometimes within the very knowledge protocols that formed the attempt in the first place [as well as from within a counter-group or groups].

I understand your point about the journey being as important as the goal, but for Utopia seekers the journey is, invariably, one taken while wearing rose colored glassed -- a pointless venture in which very little is learned.

LMAO -- Sounds very much like like this thread! "The future's so bright I gotta wear shades" as the song says [can't remember who by]. I'd rather share a brighter picture about the future than obliterate thoughts about it all together. It's easier to see the way ahead, that's for sure. Having said that, the decisions by Bush regarding the Kyoto summit (on another thread) might just make me reach for the 'shades of Betterment'...

As for the Internet -- well, if you're going to be THAT broad about what "age" you're discussing what point is there in forming any arguments at all?

You miss my point! Or perhaps you've missed your own ...? I'm not being THAT broad about what "age" -- if I am, then so are you (sorry, that sounds childish, I know). You invoked the term 'www age', and then went on to say that there is however less difference between 'now' and 'then' than some might think (sorry if I'm paraphrasing poorly!). Of course, each 'spirit of the age' is / was defined and reacted to (and / or against) differently, but my *ahem* 'broader reference' isn't broad at all - it was referring to the self-same narrow view of 'how far we have come' (which you seem to be hinting at too).

----------

This thread was brought to you courtesy of Tomato's Inc, a subsidiary of Tom-ahto's Ltd. I like to incorporate other ideas, but this ends up limiting my views. Paradox or what?