Kim, if you wonder about the lack of response to your posting, take a look
at the strange date your system stamped on the envelope: April 28th 1918.
And, even stranger, in the header it was:
>To: "xmca listgroup" <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Deviance
>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2097 10:58:13 +1000
What happened in MY mailbox was that your message slipped under the pile of
old messages from several months: you were lucky I did some housecleaning
today and discovered an unread one at the bottom (actually it's top, but
function's the same). Other mailers may do other deviant things with it.
Now, I think you are assuming a bit much about what we are assuming -- the
tiny islands of what is mentioned in a conversation like this always swim
on oceans of things not mentioned. For example another assumption could be
that most of us who take to the internet are in some sense non-typical, if
not neurologically so at least socially. Wherever THAT line is drawn.
In order not to insult others I can use myself as an example. I have always
admired Sherry Turkle's books (*The second self* and *Life on the screen*)
-- not least her way of telling gripping (and grounded) stories about
people for whom computers and cyberspaces have existential importance. And
I am a little envious at how skilfully she has obtained these experiences
vicariously. Myself, I feel all too related to the autist woman who wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "the giving of support involves being> >>>>>>>>>> with
>someone, and that's always draining for me. If> >>>>>>>>>> someone does
>give me support in person, I will have to> >>>>>>>>>> spend some time
>recovering from the experience of> >>>>>>>>>> receiving that support."
So I like it in Cyberspace, and I don't feel that I can come clean away
from my virtual experiences -- to me they are all too often all too real.
Well, the weird things, I sure can tell apart from real-life. Like spending
Midsummers Night somewhere in a MOO letting some freak try to move "me" (my
textual "body") like any other object. In defiance of MOO rules for
conduct//programming functions, that are are supposed to treat "people" as
privileged entities, governed only by their proper owners. This guy
teleported me (with my consent and complicity) to various places (to Hell
among others -- I'd already been there, so wasn't as startled as he must
have hoped) but wasn't satisfied with the result -- finally I logged out at
his request, so that he could move my husk when I wasn't in it: I logged
back in as a Guest and watched. Out-of-body experience!! I had constructed
that character of mine nicely, and sort of cared about her fate... But
onthe virtually real side: having (had) so many of my closest relationships
through this medium... well, that tells me something about myself that I
cannot easily get rid of.
When I think of what I can contribute to the general Activity with the
Motive of education, I thus come at it from a perspective of
non-typicality, acknowledging that to those mythical typical people my
experiences may be just as alien as the ways of "neurologically typical
people" are to the autists. And just as carefully, I try to reckon the
distance and angle to get the communication right, to be able to translate
something meaningful, hopefully even valuable.
Eva