
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: PHIL: MUDs and Reality (Long Theory)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:28:29 PST


9212.16 e.v.

It has come to my attention that some people hold rather
tightly to the notion of a 'real world' or 'real life' (RL),
and that this is often distinguished from places known as MUDs
or things known as 'virtual worlds'.

When I first encountered this (in cyberMUDs) something struck me as
strange and ill-conceived about it.  How could people be sure what
was 'real' and what was 'virtual', especially the better educated
of the lot, when philosophers had argued the point for ages and
countless mystics had suggested that what we take for 'reality' is a
mere reflection, a fragment of the real.

I took to challenging people regarding these notions and eventually,
through socratic dialogue with a few MUD philosophers, came to develop
a theory which uses the model of the MUD for modern psychology/mysticism.
Below is the present form of this theory, and I'd appreciate any feedback
that might be offered.  Review, comments and disputation are
enthusiastically requested.

-------------------------------
The MUD as a Basis for Western Mysticism

Contents:

1. Realms and Worlds
2. Multi-User Dimensions (MUDs)
3. The CyberMUD or Cyber Realm, and the NONcyber Realm
4. Reality, Virtual Reality, and Real Life (RL)
5. The Real World and RL
6. RL and MUDs
7. InterMUD Studies
8. Entrenchment and Abstraction
9. The Science of Artistry

------------------------------------
The MUD as a Basis for Western Mysticism
by Thyagi NagaSiva


1. Realms and Worlds

'Realm', 'world' and 'MUD' (Multi-User Dimension, to be defined below),
are here synonyms.   They describe a bounded sphere of perception.
A 'virtual world' is a realm which is apparent to some senses but
not to others (whether or not they appear within all dimensions of
sensation).


2. Multi-User Dimensions (MUD),

More specifically then, by MUD we refer to a realm of measurement
(dimension) which makes possible or allows more than one (multi)
locus of change (user).  Where 'realm' and 'world' are fairly ambiguous,
MUD is a technical term with specific meaning and synonomous
application.


3. The CyberMUD or Cyber Realm, and the NONcyber Realm

A cybermMUD or 'cyber realm' is one which is reached via
a computer (by whatever definition). It may be contrasted with
a NONcyber realm in two major ways:

A) The cyber realm seems to depend upon the NONcyber realm for
its existence (but this cannot be proven), and

B) The cyber realm is dependent upon some computer for its
ultimate form (whether or not this computer is NONcyber-based).


4. Reality, Virtual Reality, and Real Life (RL)

The term 'reality' is commonly used as a substitute for 'realm',
yet we reserve it for a specific meaning.  Here the phrase
'virtual reality' is an oxymoron, and this will become apparent
below.

The common assumption is that cyber realms are MUDs and NONcyber
realms are NOT (i.e. that NONcyber realms are 'reality').
However, given the definitions above we can posit that what most
people call 'real life' (RL) is actually an experience within a
NONcyber realm of subjective or objective dimensions.

We have multiple selves, arising from the combined complex of our
social roles, that vie for supremacy within the dimension of our
personal mindspace.  This is the subject dimension, the 'me-MUD'.
It includes feelings, thoughts and the entire range of subjective
experience.

There appears to be a world of shapes and objects around us.  We
maneuver, physically, through the familiar subrealms of 'height',
'width' and 'depth' and manipulate or interact with entities and
objects within them.  This is the object dimension, the 'space-MUD'.
It is the one which people assume to be more 'real' based upon their
perception that it contains cyberMUDs and gives rise to the me-MUD.

Taking one (NONcyber, space-MUD) as pre-eminent based
solely on the grounds of origin (cyber realms seem to originate
from NONcyber technologies) is quite commom.  For example,
many people  assume that NONcyber personalities are somehow
more 'real' than their cyber counterpart, even if these personae
(socially imagined constructs deriving from communication
styles and appearance) are comparable in all respects save origin.

That they distinguish one as 'real' and the other as 'virtual' or
'imaginary' displays the bias toward the default dimension
(quite reasonably), but tells us nothing about what 'real' means
aside from 'preferred' or 'longer-lasting'.


5. The Real World and RL

We shall here take for our definition of the 'real world' that
realm which is a superset of all MUDs.  That superset upon which
all other dimensions depend is logically the 'real'.  Plato
claimed that the real world is the world of Forms or Ideas, and
many other philosophers offer their own speculation as to what
constitutes the 'Source Code of Existence' as we know it.

'The superset of all MUDs' is not an easy concept to understand.
It transcends both the MUD of our subjective experience and
the MUD of 'space' (I leave 'time', which connects and/or
interweaves these two, for future speculation).   It is easy to see
why any aspect of RL in THIS context must be beyond words to some
extent, especially when attempting to ascertain information about
'you' or 'me', or indeed any isolated object/subject.

To say 'I went shopping in RL' would seem not only fallacious,
but completely dishonest.  No separate 'individual' can ever
'do' anything in 'RL', not when we take it to be this superset,
this Unity which includes all dimensions of subject and object.

A note about Unity seems necessary.  When speaking of 'Unity', it
is not meaningful to compare this with 'Diversity'.  The reason for this
is that the unity here implied transcends all lingual expressions.
For the same reason that 'Spirit' cannot be compared with 'Matter'
because in the nondual realm Spirit and Matter are One, so also is
Diversity identical to Unity and vice versa.  The term is only a useful
indicator of the realm or dimension (that superset) to which we refer.

Given this, the real world is a subject/object Unity, toward which
many religious paths point and about which we shall never
obtain a completely accurate lingual expression (due to the
disunitive nature of language).

Comments about RL, therefore, are of a MYSTICAL nature, within
this context, rather than a 'practical' one. They apply, perhaps
abstractly, to that superset which some Christians call 'Heaven'
and some Buddhists might call 'Nirvana'.


6. RL and MUDs

RL is mystical experience, since it occurs in the dimension of
Unified nonduality and it would seem to depend upon the QUALITY of
its manifestation rather than on the location of particular objects
or subjects.  We may thus find RL in any MUD, since all MUDs are
contained by the real world and may include Unitive experiences.

A MUD is a world of flux, where the real is in some ways beyond change,
enveloping a 'becoming beingness' that is not usually perceived in
ordinary states of consciousness.  To encounter RL, therefore, is to
become unified with the divine, the God of Platonic and Hermetic
Christians, who is both beyond and within the MUD experience, at once
transcending and subsuming it.

A MUD is the equivalent of  Carse's 'finite game', in which we assume
for the purposes of the game that certain rules are unbreakable
(i.e. the subject/object division) and that our goal is to somehow 'win'.
Carse speculates that the goal of the infinite game (the real world)
is to continue playing, and no foolish notions about 'death' or
'morality' or 'identity' get in the way of an infinite player.


7. InterMUD Studies

The 'real' would seem to be approachable by examining all experiences
and coming to some determination as to their source.  Modern
Science's objective examination of the nature of matter is one aspect
of this search.  Mystical exploration and experimentation in the world
of the subject is another.

Searches of these types are limited by the techniques used within the
particular MUD.  We shall not determine a purely physical source
for experience because experience is not entirely objective.  Likewise,
we shall not discover a purely mental source because experience
is not entirely subjective.

InterMUD studies such as those by Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav,
popular  scientific explanations  of the comparisons between objective
and  subjective explorations, are quite important.  They point out the
boundaries and connections between MUDs (not only the subject/object
MUDs but also those of academic and popular cultures).

They indicate the paradoxes, the eddies and vortices that arise
as a result of entering one particular finite game and looking at
another.  They show us the similarities between worlds, how one
can be used to understand another, and how the real world surpasses
our ability to explain.


8. Entrenchment and Abstraction

Of course those who entrench themselves within one particular MUD
(such as those who argue vehemently for the 'reality' of the object
MUD, for example) will not understand such interMUD studies, nor will
they acknowledge the meaning and accuracy of terms which apply to
realms outside their entrenchment.  This is to be expected.

When my 'reality' is comprised solely of objects, of surface tension
and physical principles, I cannot then see the veracity of descriptions
regarding subjective referents.  'Soul', 'spirit', 'emotion' and even
'mind' are to be described in physical terms if they are to have any
meaning for me.

Those who speak of objects in 'abstract' terminology as if they
were in any sense 'real' are either mistaken or confusing to me due to
their 'abstractness'.  'Abs