Virtual Insanity
If the self that uses locative technologies can indeed be an assemblages of many “selves” then do these selves influence how virtuality is actualized by the viewer? I really appreciate the idea that interactions with virtuality are not transportation into a mirrored, shadowed, or less substantive realm but indeed constitute a process of becoming where the physical environment becomes informed by virtual interactions. Sociality then comes to bear on this exchange so I’m wondering if the negotiation of selves that we find in interactions without locative technologies are also important to social interactions with locative technologies. I’ am especially thinking about strategic essentializing or code switching through social interaction—choosing which self is expressed to which viewer or participant. How is the viewer of your use of locative technology figured into this processes of becoming?
To whom is the virtual a problem or “something we must always experiment and work with in order to see it (Rajchman, 116). Is there a limit on ones ability to see the potential of different possible worlds based on their location within a social hierarchy?
House is used to point the construction of certain “arrangements that determine our nature (Rajchman, 118).” The construction of the virtual house would seem to allow for the most complex number of arrangements within it. But does the virtual house need technology? I’m confused as to how other metaphors of home, that don’t necessarily rely on a house (as a normative thing that is constructed, has a plan, and is laid out in a certain way to contain) wouldn’t fit into this virtual house.
Space: A infinite processes whereby interconnecting systems of global, social, cultural and embodied knowledges inform the value of place. Space is a right.
Place: Fixed in the material and moving freely. Facilitated by place marking objects like maps.
Identity: How you make sense of places’ relationships to the idea of individualism.