Freedom (or lack thereof) in Second Life

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

are we leaving?

are you done?

or just beginning?

or can't you even tell?

wwwwwh?

The mirror functions as a heterotopia in this respect: it makes this place that I occupy at the moment when I look at myself in the glass at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass through this virtual point which is over there.

* The impossibility of passing through to the other side acknowledged here and yet the singularity between the real and the unreal is interesting to ponder upon. This delicate balance of being-within-unbeing-within-being and the echoing representations are also quite reminiscent of waves to me because a wave ends when it crashes and yet you can’t identify a wave until it’s about to crash. The perishability of the wave (and the utopia) depends on the realization and the consequent definition of its being. Since heterotopias are essentially countering utopias, their functionality only comes into play when we are tearing the utopias down. So a heterotopia is a crashing wave. Defined and real and yet dispersing and unreal .

could you repeat that?

But it is also a heterotopia in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort of counteraction on the position that I occupy. From the standpoint of the mirror I discover my absence from the place where I am since I see myself over there. Starting from this gaze that is, as it were, directed toward me, from the ground of this virtual space that is on the other side of the glass, I come back toward myself; I begin again to direct my eyes toward myself and to reconstitute myself there where I am.

*A mirror is merely a tool, a reflector. We cannot contest the existence of a mirror. We can touch it, see it, and feel it. However, our reflection, although is visible, does reside in an “other” place. However, by looking into this otherness, we see ourselves in reality, in real space. In this passage, Foucault shifts his perception to the other side of the mirror, reenacting Alice’s adventure in "Through the Looking-glass". Alice journeys to the mirror’s other side and looks back at her living room and acknowledges its presence. Although I can’t travel to the other side of the mirror, I can look at myself through my reflection because my reflections eyes will be looking at where I am looking at. Therefore, in this infinite tunnel vision of a gaze, I can confirm my existence. This reconstitution of reality out of unreality is repeated yet again and is very fitting with the metaphor of the mirror. Reflectrepeat. Reflectrepeat. Reflectrepeat!? Reflectrepeat?

what am i? revisited

The mirror is, after all, a utopia, since it is a placeless place. In the mirror, I see myself there where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space that opens up behind the surface; I am over there, there where I am not, a sort of shadow that gives my own visibility to myself, that enables me to see myself there where I am absent: such is the utopia of the mirror.

*A mirror is merely a tool, a reflector. We cannot contest the existence of a mirror. We can touch it, see it, and feel it. However, our reflection, although is visible, does reside in an “other” place. The reflection does exist, but the world that it resides in does not. It is a projection of a reality and it becomes an unreality since the reality does not exist in the projection. This is how utopias function; they stem from realities and yet they don’t exist. By forging a physical manifestation, Foucault manages to fortify his definition and to ensure a clearer understanding of it. The follow up of unreal with virtual also reminds us of the cyberspace and its supposed inaccessibility. The idea of using one’s shadow to remind and confirm one’s existence piques interest because I have always assumed that I exist whether or not I had confirmed it. The idea of using an unreality to confirm the existence of a reality comes up again.

why am i?

Because these places are absolutely different from all the sites that they reflect and speak about, I shall call them, by way of contrast to utopias, heterotopias. I believe that between utopias and these quite other sites, these heterotopias, there might be a sort of mixed, joint experience, which would be the mirror.

* The definition of heteretopias in relation to utopias, which are themselves defined in relation to societies, brings up the delicate web of relationships they all have for one another. By putting “the other” on top of an unreality, Foucault essentially challenges their existence since they don’t seem to be standing on any firm ground. And yet, by logic, the contrast of an unreality would be a reality. This time, instead of creating a paradox, Foucault brings in the metaphor of the mirror and tries to show us the blending point of these sites.

where do i reside?

There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places - places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society - which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted. Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality.

*The presence of “probably” in this statement poses a problem because it shakes the hypothesis’ credibility. And yet, at the same time, the probability adds on to the elusive nature of the discussed subject matter, therefore creating a paradoxical situation of both weakening and strengthening the essay. This also contrasts with the certainty Foucault has when he is including every culture and civilization into this debate; his repetition of “civilization” after saying “culture” is not redundant, it is just a tool to emphasize the certainty. He then introduces the idea of “counter-sites” and their existence again juxtaposes with the unexistance of utopias in his previous statements. The fact that they are formed along with the birth of a society is a indicator of their vitality; it suggests that they are bound to the same umbilical cord and they share the same blood and, more so, that they feed each other. This seems to suggest that societies actually need them. The mention of the enacted utopia is further emphasizing this connection, since Foucault has established that utopias are dependant and bound to a society. The simultaneous representation, contestation and inversion resonate with the idea of the paradox and further intricate this relationship between the society, the utopia and the counter-site. ...