The masks of inscrutability, or are you really you?

[Mithalwen]

Oh I hope my god daughter doesn't feel like that about me ..... but I have the advantage of having been very young (to be a godparent) when she was born and so being between her and her parents in age..... I was so happy that she liked Lord of the Rings (even to the point that I don't grudge too much her having so much of my stuff in her custody ....dvds, CDs books..... and I took her to the LOTR exhibition in London last year)... the relationship I have with her is about the best thing in my life.... and I feel privileged that she lets me in to her life a bit - given that she is a perfectly normal teenager with all that usually entails for communication with people over twenty....... it keeps me young.....

But yes.... it is a strain keeping everything "light, bright and polite" for work etc..... phatic language all day every day..... I mean you might as well admit to spending your evening torturing small furry animals as admitting a fondness for opera..... I once did find a mainstream newsagent that sold "Opera " but it was on the top shelf with the magazines for those with less cerebral predilictions..... mind you some modern stagings can be a bit risque.....

Even in and undergrad lit class, I received a filthy look for saying that Vivaldi wasn't a classical composer but baroque .... ok..maybe that is a bit pedantic.... but....

Maybe I should go back to France... wonder if I can remember how to speak the lingo..... but the consequences for my liver could be dire.... .

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

You must understand, I love my godmother dearly, because not only is she that, but also my mother's eldest sister and the mother of one of my best friends. She is very supportive and is a good, caring person... but it occurs to me that she isn't ready to see her daughter and I growing up. Which I think is why she gives us "masks". What she sees in us that she doesn't like, I believe sometimes that she pretends does not exist. Or, of course, I could just be hitting entirely off the mark and my godmother understands me perfectly and is just trying to make me a better person. Whatever.

Fea

[Mithalwen]

Sorry I didn't want to imply a lack of affection ..... more that I hoped I had a slightly different relationship with my god daughter - less parental more friend... I no longer feel qualified to give religious guidance I suppose I would hope to support her to realise her full potential and become as fulfilled as possible..and to realise she is growing up and treat her accordingly not as a child but as a bright young person - just with less experience of the world .... but I do tell her if I think she is being a brat ... but mainly I want her to get well and be able to lead a normal life.. but because I am not her actual parent or indeed a parent it is easier to adjust maybe.....

I think it is hard for parents to let go - I mean they spend so long paranoically watching every step and trying to let go ..... and they also find it hard to get rid of their long established "labels" - I was the youngest in my family for 16 years and they get so used to you being the one who knows nothing...... It happened that I had to renew my passport when I was in France and I met a newish friend just after collecting it - and he was horrified when he saw from that I was 2 months younger than his youngest sister. He assumed I was older, .... not because I looked older but because having met me as an adult he thought of me as such, whereas she was still in his mind his baby sister .....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

A series of thoughts that I will try to articulate before they disappear on me:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Allegedly, coming around here we all wear masks – our nicks. Come to think of it, are we really we when posting here?

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredil

I suppose my point, although slow-coming, is that we are not the only ones who apply masks to ourselves. Other people, for whatever reasons, see us how they want to. Its as if they past a mask of their own creation over our faces, and forget that there is more behind it.

I was just reading through one of my favorite threads, How Do You Imagine Other BDers, and a thought struck.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I'm always trying to form mental images of other BDers.

Is our allowance of others to picture us how they will another way of masking ourselves? I believe it is. But more applicable to my last thought on this thread, are we encouraging others to mask each other? By allowing, even encouraging, fellow members to come up with amazingly inaccurate images of us, are we subconsciously letting them make masks for us? Rather than letting the true 'you' show through (forgive the rhyme), we are letting people create labels for us.

According to others who will like as not never meet me, I am currently a rather tall girl, a rather short girl, a boy (!), a blonde, a brunette, short hair, long hair, long fingers, artsy style, sneaker wearing, etcetera. Is this a good thing? Speaking sensibly, yes. We are online, and it is never a good idea to tell all to people you don't know. In my opinion, it is never a good idea to tell all to people you DO know. But speaking in a more... I don't know... say... psychological/moral sort of way, is it a good thing to allow others, or even ourselves, to mask us? By doing so, do we deny who we are, or do we allow for sheer creativity on the part of others?

Fea

[the phantom]

But more applicable to my last thought on this thread, are we encouraging others to mask each other?

Maybe some people are, but on that thread you mentioned I usually tell people if they are right or wrong. I don't tell them they can't picture me the way they want but I also tell them the way I truly am in case they want to be closer to reality.

I don't think I care either way. If you want I suppose you could picture me as a glowing, man-eating squash from Neptune or you could just go to Alka's picture page and get an idea of what I really look like and picture me that way.

If the phantom is wearing a mask, it is because you put it on him.

(kind of ironic that "the phantom" of all people doesn't bother to wear a mask)

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

If you want I suppose you could picture me as a glowing, man-eating squash from Neptune

Radioactive alien produce it is.

I've not yet come to a conclusion as to what my thoughts are in regard to other people's potential imaginings of me. I suppose that I like to allow a little bit of artistic license on their part and a little bit of mystery on my own part.

Is this creating another mask (or series of masks) however? Just as Feanor of the Peredhil is one of L*'s masks, so, apparently, are the images other people project of Fea. L* has her masks (or my masks, to be grammatically correct), which each, in turn, have their own. But do masks that other people give you count as masks you give yourself, simply because you allow them to exist?

Fea

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

By allowing, even encouraging, fellow members to come up with amazingly inaccurate images of us, are we subconsciously letting them make masks for us? Rather than letting the true 'you' show through (forgive the rhyme), we are letting people create labels for us.

It's always interesting (and funny at times) to know how other Downers see you, but we always have the choice whether we shall tell them who we really are or not. As the phantom said:

Maybe some people are, but on that thread you mentioned I usually tell people if they are right or wrong. I don't tell them they can't picture me the way they want but I also tell them the way I truly am in case they want to be closer to reality.

In my case, my avatar misleads some people into thinking that I look like Eowyn, but I tell them that I don't. We just happened to have quite similar stories, but I was not lucky enough to be as beautiful as her.

But just because others see me in the way they do, it does not necessarily mean that I should create a mask out of it. If people perceive me as a certain person, then that's their personal opinion. I don't think I would call it a mask if what they see is how I really am (or at least the mask I wear ) . But if I know that is not the real me (or the mask), yet that is how they see me, then I have just let them create a mask for me, which I accept unless I tell them they are wrong. In the end, all that matters is that we know if what we're showing people is who we really are, or at least the mask we want them to see.

That is quite confusing. I don't think it made sense.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

That is quite confusing. I don't think it made sense.

It did, no worries.

I was not lucky enough to be as beautiful as her.

Or more likely you are just as beautiful, and just don't think you are. That's usually how it goes.

So the feeling that I am getting is along the lines that the images other people give us are only masks if we accept them as such? The second we deny it, we wear the mask no longer. I think...

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

So the feeling that I am getting is along the lines that the images other people give us are only masks if we accept them as such?

Just as in real life, people base their image of you on what you give out to them (consciously or subconsciously). And they may be way off, or they might be more accurate than you'd care to admit ...

[Guinevere]

I've only just discovered this thread - great idea, Heren Istarion! And very interesting to read all those posts.
As for me, I don't think I am "wearing a mask" in this forum at all . My character is basically much the same as in real life. It's just that here only a part of my person shows, the one that is concerned with Tolkien. In real life, I don't have much opportunity to talk about that which really moves me. And I am usually mute as a fish in a discussion with several persons since I don't have much self-confidence and am neither eloquent nor quick-witted. While I struggle to find the right words, the discussion has moved on. I can express myself much better in written language (be that in my mothertongue or in English) because it gives me time to find words for my thoughts and feelings.

[Encaitare]

Hmmm... deep question. I'm pretty much the same, only here you can't see me making funny faces.

Seriously though, the only thing that's different about me here is that I'm less outspoken. If I believe something I will argue for it, but I won't go crazy. My outspokenness has gotten me in trouble before, and it's good that here I have time to think about what I say before I click the little "Submit Reply" button.

[elronds_daughter]

Hmm.... I suppose "elronds_daughter" may only be one of my many alter-egos. Online, I have many; most stem from various RPGs. Offline, I also have several: a Vulcan, a girly-girl, a frazzled author, and an over-confident, tough, skeptical former CIA agent have all taken up residence in my person. I manage to suppress the girly-girl most of the time (Thank heavens! Though subtle, unintentional things tend to draw her out--those get on my nerves). "elronds_daughter" (or Eddy, as Fea calls me) seems to be a combination of all of them--the healthiest combination that has occurred so far. Much of the time, "elronds_daughter" seems to mirror my real life self. Though there are times when deviation occurs, they are rare. Therefore, I can honestly say that what you're getting through the medium of "elronds_daughter" is pretty much me.

[Neurion]

The differences between Neurion and James? Well for one, Neurion cannot decide whether he is an Elf or else a human who is like an Elf, while James worries whether he is Slovak, Italian, Ukrainian, French or Polish or something else entirely. Both of them look alike, which is to say stunningly handsome (truly ), although Neurion's ears are likely pointier than those of James.

Like the phantom and Phillip, Neurion is almost entirely concerned with the history of Arda, while James' interests include WWII, comic books, Star Wars, Star Trek, 1/6th scale military action figures, the works of Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton, Paleontology, and Military, Church, Political, and Medieval history with emphasis on the Crusades.

Neurion and James both tend to become rather heated should what they hold to be true be challenged, but Neurion does not have James' unnerving stare and thus is probably less threatening. Both of them are rather odd pragmatic idealists. Neurion is somewhat less modest than James and has a tendency to talk about himself a little more than he knows he ought to. James tends to be less cheerful than Neurion depending on what world crisis he is currently analyzing.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

After all, TP never has to see anyone face to face so he doesn't care if he angers them.

How true, Phantom, because I do believe that is how we really started talking here. You said something that angered me, and then the wit ensued. Haha. In fact, I've start many online friendships through debates.

Okay, so on to me, now (we can't have Phantom steal the spotlight, now can we? )

I guess it's hard to say, because Melanie is someone whose career involves putting on masks and becoming other people. I think that Tigerlily Gamgee is probably more expressive than Melanie is, because I'm much better and typing things out than forming them into coherent words and phrases by tongue. But, it seems that I've become Tigerlily, or she's become me, because I have a close group of friends who first met me online using this name, so now I actually am called Tigerlily, or rather "Tig," in real life. Tigerlily is really a part of me, now. It's the only online nick that's gone into real life, though. I'm also known online as Psyknife in some places, but Tigerlily is the main one... Psyknife and Tigerlily are pretty much the same, only Tigerlily lives in Middle Earth, and Psyknife lives in the Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. Two different fandoms, two different aliases.
I have so many different sides to myself anyway, I am a Gemini afterall, and Tigerlily is just one of them She needs to start talking more again, though, because Tigerlily has been rather mute around here lately... she's been talking it up over at LadyofRohan.com, though, and she's crazier over there because she's the moderator... haha.
Tigerlily on these boards is much more respectful and less crazy, whereas other places online she swears like a sailor and says some very random off subject things.
I adjust to the atmosphere, I guess.

[Ainaserkewen]

I've only just discovered this thread - great idea, Heren Istarion! And very interesting to read all those posts.

Here, here.

After some thought I came to some interesting conclutions concerning this thread. Ainaserkewen is actually a surviving personality from my past. Obviously 3 years is not that long for most adults but for a teenager who is constantly learning about herself everyday, it is a long time. When I first signed up for this forum I was a huge loner. I didn't like the people I went to school with. Living in a small town meant that I didn't have many people to choose from in terms of association. I had just recently been riveted by the second installment of LOTR. My attitude then was unsure, shy at times and extremely self-conscious. Myself as Shannon now, in grade 12 is far different as I have grown to love and accept myself. But that shy, self-conscious 15 year old survives here on this site. She is slow to respond to threads because she thinks she might say the wrong thing or carefully word each post so that other posters will like her. Analysing this is actually a shock to my present Shannon, who has a big mouth and, though over analyses everything, talks too much. My uncertainty lives on in Aina, and I think that's a beautiful thing because it's a reminder of where I came from.

Will Aina be catching up to Shannon in terms of security and self-confidence? Probably not. I'm still sheepish in my posting and try to stay humble. I guess I care too much of what all of you think of me. Strange...indeed, very strange.

[THE Ka]

Sometimes I wonder about this...

Is THE Ka, really like me? Does everyone find Ka to be a better personality than if I were to personally poor all of myself into this aspect, or has everyone had about enough of the moments when the true character comes out...

That second one troubles me sometimes, but I will have to admit, crafting Ka has been fun... It's like an art project. At first it seems someone else painted the picture, but then you go in and make it fit your true identity. Only thing is, I think it's been crafted so far that when I do put more of myself into it that other members think that it has snapped or something...

All in all, I think that I'm gradually slipping more of myself, and personal aspects into my other ego. Not as if there wasn't alot already there, I mean I put alot of reality into it at the beginning, but now i'm finding that I should put more into it before it becomes dull... Or in other words, not like myself. In an aging terminology, anyone can see Ka has drastically developed over the last three or so years here, I think it might be because i'm not as afraid of saying something stupid (not to say that I don't continue to do... ) on here and be shunned for my mistakes as I was before.

Ah! this has become a brain twister! And now I feel very embarassed with no explanation why. I hope I haven't scared anyone, I really don't want to...

There is one thing I have to say, and if you know Qantum Physics, you'll understand. All of us are mysterious in a way that even ourselves cannot fully comprehend...

~ True Self (Not Ka)

[THE Ka]

Sorry to not be completely on-topic, but I couldn't help but to point out that this thread completely reminds me of the movie What the Bleep Do we Know?!

If you haven't seen it, please do. It is so much like this topic in it's explanations of identity that I couldn't pass it up.

Or visit: http://www.whatthebleep.com/synopsis/

once again sorry!

~ true self

[Aiwendil]

This is an interesting thread, and one that touches on an issue I have sometimes thought about. Does the internet mask us or does it take our masks away?

The general view, and one that I daresay this thread takes for granted by its very nature, is that when using the internet, one is somehow cut off from the other users. An internet personality with whom one interacts is "inscrutable". It could be anyone. It could be a teenager, or an old man, or a middle-aged woman, or any manner of person. And people on the internet, I often hear it said, are capable of lying. A forty year old man can say he's a fifteen year old girl. In short, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the internet obscures people. Perhaps internet users can indeed get to know each other, but in doing so they are overcoming a barrier. They are "masked".

My view tends to be quite the opposite. Sure, I don't know what anyone else on this forum actually looks like. But, quite frankly, I also don't care what any of you look like. In many cases, I don't know your ages; in some cases, I don't know your sexes. But again, I don't care. Maybe (far-fetched as it seems) some of you in fact lie about these things. A third time: I don't care.

You see, the way I look at it, the internet doesn't mask us. Rather, it takes away the masks we wear elsewhere. In the physical world, people dress differently; some people are old and others are young; some are male and some female; some are attractive and some are ugly. When two people interact, they can't help but to notice these things, and inevitably judgements are made; preconceptions arise. On the internet, all that matters is what one says. Here, it is a person's mind that counts; the physical guises that we wear in "the real world" are stripped away. It's almost a kind of osanwe.

I'm not saying that the "dangers" of the internet are fictitious. People can lie on the internet - but then people can lie in real life too. Nor is the communication it affords absolutely direct and uninhibited; the language into which we must translate our thoughts before we share them can often be cumbersome. But I would say that someone who interacts with me only through the internet probably knows me - that is, the real me, my mind - better than someone who interacts with me in the real world for a comparable amount of time.

Of course, in practice, such relationships suffer in comparison to real world ones for the simple reason that most people spend less time on the internet than they do off it.

[HerenIstarion]

The title is a joke, of course . Butty but:

My view tends to be quite the opposite. Sure, I don't know what anyone else on this forum actually looks like. But, quite frankly, I also don't care what any of you look like. In many cases, I don't know your ages; in some cases, I don't know your sexes. But again, I don't care. Maybe (far-fetched as it seems) some of you in fact lie about these things. A third time: I don't care.

Goody one, I agree heartily

and inevitably judgements are made; preconceptions arise...the physical guises that we wear in "the real world" are stripped away. It's almost a kind of osanwe.

But physical guises are replaced with guise of words. And words may give rise to preconceptions likewise. It is easier to make a judgement on the unfortunate occassion of ill-chosen sentence here. Besides, physical 'guises' are as much a guise as the means of communication? Gestures, smiles, wink of an eye can make a better impression, emotional message may be of more importance at certain moments than 'bare' words, transfer of information, or 'meaning'?

But I would say that someone who interacts with me only through the internet probably knows me - that is, the real me, my mind - better than someone who interacts with me in the real world for a comparable amount of time

But is it the real you or rather an impression, a copy, a shadow of your personality your words left on the mind of the reader? Do your photographs all resemble each other in a way giving complete stranger a chance, seeing them for the first time, to have no doubts that it is the same person on all of them? Does not your 'you' change with the times considerably? Or even the morning and the evening of the very same day? (Analogy: rereading my own posts of 3 or 4 years ago, I'm completely sure I would not have written the same thing (not the data handled, its handling rather) if I were to write the post today. At times I feel that I would not have replied at all, if it were today that the discussion took place)

Can you bet from my words only even whether I do seriosly discuss the issue with you, or secretly do laugh my head off right now, behind mine and yours screens?

[Roggie of Morgoth]

yep, i agree w u 2, awendul and herenistericon, yeppi yep!

[HerenIstarion]

Would you have known the post #100 is posted by yours truly as well as one preceding it, if you haven't had the evidence of certain post in the Top Reputation Givers thread to back you up in your reasoning?

Or to look at my point from another angle - HerenIstarion and Roggie of Morgoth both being online 'masks' of George Lashkhi, are distinct all the same. George Lashkhi is unable to force HerenIstarion to do tricks or pranks, George Lashkhi is forced in his turn to create alternate Roggies in order to do the business. HerenIstarion has certain amount of independence, there are certain patterns H-I follows GL is already unable to break, there is a certain reputation (not the one expressed in number of green squares) H-I has in GL's mind to live up (or down) to. GL would not have been able to make H-I write in "i agree w u 2" manner (even now GL have typed commas around the sentence) unless in the form of a joke, and GL would have taken some pains to make it distinctly clear H-I is joking writing thus.

Yet both Roggie and H-I are aspects of GL's person, aren't they? Else, would they both be born at all as GL's online accounts?

Yet another angle:

Even the sound (and visual impression) online name makes is of consequence. The mere choice of the name may be forming certain mental impression in the mind of the reader. Per instance, name Aiwendil tells me (even if it is not so indeed) that the real person (whatever the gender, age etc behind it) behind the name:

1. Loves animals
2. Views him/herself as a kind of slacker
3. Values him/hersef all the same as person of great potential
4. Is attracted by the 'magic' of 'old things' - else, why not choose more common Radagast instead?

I may be completely off the track of course, and the name was originally chosen for the sound of it. But even the sound may differ in the ear of the listener, and associations that are roused by the name may be quite different for other listeners

(As a paragon, see Over my dead (gorgeous) body by Nilpaurion Felagund. The thread, at large, has it's source in the choice of the screenname made on 04-01-2003 (supposedly), when he joined the Downs. I.e. - have Louis Ortal not had made 'son of Finrod' choice of his online name, would he occupy himself choosing his imagined location with such a precision and attention to detail now, two years thence? Would discussion of tombs and burials arise at all?

The influence goes both ways )

***

All things said, can anyone still be 100% sure GL, apart from time online when he is either H-I or Roggie, does not entertain himself sawing people in his basement? (God forbid and save from, of course, that being theoretical supposition. Still more GL has no basement at his disposal. But suppose he would have had?)

***

And a conclusion: the longer one pretends to be some kind of a person, the stronger is the chance of his/her actual becoming that kind of person. George Lashkhi has now more of HerenIstarion about him than he himself could have imagined on September 2000, when the name was chosen almost accidentally.

Are not we all almost like dungeonmasters driving and being driven by one, mostly beloved, paid heed to, but still a character online?

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

But physical guises are replaced with guise of words. And words may give rise to preconceptions likewise.

Indeed; hence my point that "the language into which we must translate our thoughts before we share them can often be cumbersome."

Besides, physical 'guises' are as much a guise as the means of communication? Gestures, smiles, wink of an eye can make a better impression, emotional message may be of more importance at certain moments than 'bare' words, transfer of information, or 'meaning'?

All right, we lose winks and facial expressions and all manner of non-verbal communication. Have we really lost that much? Good riddance to them, I say! Sure, in some cases these things are truly communicative. A sarcastic tone of voice certainly carries a piece of "code" without which the intended message could not be correctly deciphered. So again, there is a problem with translating thoughts into mere words; certain physical aids to that process (e.g. tone of voice) are lost when we switch to words alone. But I think words alone are more expressive than they are sometimes given credit for being. Sarcasm can in fact be translated into words, with the proper phrasing and perhaps italicization. The whole medium of literature, in fact, is dependent on the notion that ideas can be accurately translated into words.

Further, I'd say that a lot of non-verbal communication is not really communication at all. A lot of it simply transmits no information, no meaning. If you're interested in acting out stereotyped social behavior patterns then perhaps these things are important; if you're interested in sharing ideas then I say words are at present the best we can do.

Yes, I am a bit of a Vulcan.

But is it the real you or rather an impression, a copy, a shadow of your personality your words left on the mind of the reader?

Can you bet from my words only even whether I do seriosly discuss the issue with you, or secretly do laugh my head off right now, behind mine and yours screens?

Those are questions that could be addressed on several levels, including the deepest metaphysical one. But they're also questions that could just as easily be asked of real world interactions. We can only interact with that which we have access to, in real life or in here. Since I don't have direct access to your consciousness, all I can do is interact with your words. It would be no different in real life - non-verbal communication offers no more access to a person's inner mind than does verbal.

Or to look at my point from another angle - HerenIstarion and Roggie of Morgoth both being online 'masks' of George Lashkhi, are distinct all the same.

But Roggie is intentionally a mask. I don't deny that people can lie, on the internet as in real life. Undoubtedly, there are certain things that are easier to lie about on the internet. But for the most part, those are (as I see it) unimportant things. If you wanted to create several different personas and hide the fact that they were all in fact you, I would say "go ahead, knock yourself out."

But what we are talking about there is outright lying. Certainly, one could adopt a false persona (in real life just as well). But short of this, I really think that the internet does more to unmask us than to mask us. It gives all its users a chance to share ideas and to share in the ideas of other people. When I read your words, I am interacting with your ideas - not with your appearance, or your choice of clothing, or your tone of voice.

Are not we all almost like dungeonmasters driving and being driven by one, mostly beloved, paid heed to, but still a character online?

I continue to think of it quite differently. Perhaps it's different for different people. But Aiwendil is I; I am Aiwendil. We are the same - the only difference being that Aiwendil spends all his time talking about Tolkien, whereas I occasionally do other things. As I see it, it is in the physical world that I am masked and in this abstract world of words and ideas that I am not.

[Formendacil]

The internet takes away the "masks" we wear in everyday life, eh?

But what if the everyday mask is the REAL self, and not the more ambiguous self-projected mask that is seen online?

For myself, the real-life Michael A. Joosten (variously known as Michael, Mike), is a bit of a lazy character, is a reader, is known for his dry humour, and his fondness for getting dressed up (be it in suit and tie or in sword and scabbard). People who know him well would tell you that these are parts of what makes him who he is, that he wouldn't be Michael without them.

But do they evidence themselves in Formendacil? Not fully. How many of the users here can see Formendacil swinging a wooden sword into air-orks (who might well be playing air-guitars), building LEGO castles, and having heated discussions on the validity of priestly celibacy? The last might seem compatible with his online self, but the others?

Who we are is not HIDDEN by the "masks" we wear, rather, we are DEFINED by our masks. Beneath our choices, looks, ideas, and values, we are all the same. These "masks" are what make us unique, what present us to the world as individuals worthy of each others' interest. Without them, the differences between us are nil. If our masks are different online and in "real" life that is perhaps because of a difference in perspective, and because online we are more able to "hide" our masks, to conceal ourselves, should we so desire it.

[HerenIstarion]

We seem to discuss two topics mainly:

1. Freedom of transfer of information over the net as opposed to ‘real’ conversation
2. Self-identification on the net

Here we go than:

1. Freedom of transfer

Aiwendil, you have praised our very discussion as a means of ‘pure’ exchange of ideas, and yet, and yet – though we do ‘exchange ideas’, do we talk about the same thing? Can anyone be sure that those s/he communicates with understand what s/he has to say exactly how s/he said it? I was not implying the internet communication is bad, and the possibility of ‘lying’ over it does not form the gist of my post at all. It is possible to lie in ‘real’ conversation too, employing very same mimics that are so useful for the transfer of emotional messages

On the whole, my prolix discourse (and impersonating) was caused by the word ‘osanwe’ in your post previous but one. As far as the concept of ‘osanwe’ is rooted in my mind, it is not exchange of data in the form of mental dialogue, with advanage of being free of ‘lie’, neither merely some analogue of conversation per se, but something more – more intense stream of information, package including concepts and emotions likewise, maybe even mental visions/pictures too. In this case, internet can not be wieved as some kind of ‘osanwe’ at all.

The ‘freedom of mind’ you seem to claim for internet is limited by the very medium said ‘freedom’ has to operate through. The very language, being a medium, forms a barrier for ‘free’ transfer:

1. Levels of mastery of language between those who communicate may vary
2. Certain meanings of certain words, given different locations of those who communicate may also vary
3. Same words may have manifold different meanings

(But in this we agree, it seems)

Personal difference: for me, ‘pure’ idea lacks when it is stripped of emotion rather than gains from its ‘purity’. I’m passionate about some things, and that is why I am fond of discussing them on the net in the first place. That passion, though sometimes may shine through, is hard to communicate through keyboard and screen

(‘Love’ is an idea. But how different is the set of emotional ‘clothing’ which accompanies the word ‘love’ for each of us?)

Or, to come down to definitions:

A. Information (for me) is: concept plus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it

B. Information (for you, as far as I’m allowed to guess) is: concept minus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it. (Or minus the bearer?)

Now, in real life, less of a concept and more of the emotion is transferred, over the net, more of the concept and less of the emotion. (to read ‘I’m frightened’ is less emotionally impressive than to see actual widening of an eye and hair standing on end)

Where we differ, it seems, is in evaluation – you hail the lack of emotion-communicating capacity on behalf of the net-conversation as ‘purification’ of data transfer, I complain of it as of its ‘deficiency’

Still another angle – even though we have only words and no faces to talk to, the words are born in an actual, physical brain, which is located in actual body, which actually sits and types with actual fingers. And all this has an impact on what the thing I call “me” inside the body has to say here and now. I have a headache right now – how can I be sure that had I had it not, the words I chose now to embody my thoughts, or the thoughts themselves would have been the same?

2. Self identification

But Aiwendil is I; I am Aiwendil

And I am HerenIstarion . Nice to meet you.

On more serious note – if one sunny day (stormy night, starry evening...) you haven’t made the intentional choice of the name, would you have said that now? I address the following:

But Roggie is intentionally a mask

So Aiwendil is. So HerenIstarion is. But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

And here we come down to the concept of name itself:

1. I’m George Lashkhi for reasons external. If my father were not Lashkhi, and if my grandfather were not George, I, with equal success, may have been John Smith. George is ‘farmer’ in Greek. Lashkhi means ‘one from Lashkheti’, the region in the western mountains of Georgia. But I live in the city, and do not till the earth. How does my name define me, apart from being a convention adopted by authorities to tax me efficiently?
2. My name is a convention, yet for people apart from myself, it does define me (to an extent). Yet it defines me not by its lettering (it is not g+e+o+r+g+e that they think of me), but by a whole bunch of memories and visual images they associate with it. ‘George is the chap I’ve been sitting with in school, one with a long nose and spectacles’, ‘George is that horrible chatterer who always tires me with some Tolkien chap and his writings’ etc. Funny thing is, not one person has the same association, and, though generally they may agree in some (long nose, spectacles), sure as Gandalf’s beard all their conventions will vary between themselves (good chap/bad chap, like/dislike, smart/silly) and all will differ from what I call myself

(The clause 2 is of importance. If I were alone in the world, it would matter less how I identify myself. The word ‘I’ would suffice.)

My internet name is also a convention, but reasons now are not entirely external (though not entirely internal likewise). Same entries for internet names:

1. I (you) would not have been HerenIstarion (Aiwendil) if I (you) haven’t read Tolkien. I may have been Johnny Bravo, and you Mistress Weatherwax (I won’t bet a dime on actual choices apart from paragons given, though). Yet mine (your) own choice was involved, so I (you) am (are) HerenIstarion (Aiwendil) and no other. I am H-I, and you Aiwendil for some internal reasons (see posts above – about beast-loving etc)
2. Screenname may also bring forth associations in other people apart from the bearer of the name, but now they are based less on visual images, but on bearer’s words only. (Gandalf’s beard sentence applies here as well)

Yet the person under the name HerenIstarion exists on the net only. It is a mind with no hands, no body, but words only. I believe medium impacts the thing which operates through it – hence, HerenIstarion is different from what George Lashkhi usually is.

And the core: If the person has the distinct identification (online nickname), acts in certain mode (words) in a certain medium (internet), and has no means of acting otherwise, is it not a different person?

It may be put another way round: of course I agree that with the same efficiency it may be said that it is a certain aspect of my own personality. But than it may be said that George Lashkhi is also only certain aspect of said personality, that, in its wholeness, is more than mere sum of its names. So, you are Aiwendil, but Aiwendil is not you – you are more than Aiwendil. You are Aiwendil + your ‘real’ name + something more (which I usually tend to call ‘will’). But for people you interact with online – you are Aiwendil, which is less (or other) than what you see as yourself)

The importance of each adopted name is though as follows:

It may be argued that George Lashkhi always will express himself through the medium of the net in the same mode, under the screenname H-I or any different one, but there is a ‘but’ that comes into play here:

Choice is a tricky thing. Any choice is intentional at the time of its making, but the road chosen may grow in on you. It was a choice – to choose HerenIstarion or some other name, and first few days it was easy to switch. Coming back to clause 2 up there – associations that start attaching themselves to the chosen screenname start to matter for the person under the name too, and on two levels – 1. When on the net, s/he ‘supposedly’ somehow identifies her/himself as her/his nickname, and 2. Others start to identify her/him likewise

Check-point question – would you seriously consider changing your screenname to something else on this point of its ‘online development’? For myself, I would not

An Internet Screenname looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care - and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip.

And as a final note:

But short of this, I really think that the internet does more to unmask us than to mask us. It gives all its users a chance to share ideas and to share in the ideas of other people.

I agree heartily.

But here is another instance of deficiency of ‘sharing ideas’ through internet (or any other medium apart from ‘pure’ osanwe). The emotion I see (I may err) under your handling of word ‘mask’ is negative – you seem to imply your evaluation of the word ‘mask’ is that of something ‘bad’, ‘negative’, which should be ‘unmasked’. ‘Unmasking’ than is the thing good. I tend to believe the ‘masks’ of the internet are things natural and neutral at that (apart from instances when masks are adopted with the intention of messing things up/trolling), but may modify the behavioral patterns of a person which adopts them.

There was a parable of an ugly man, who, for some reasons, was forced to wear a beautiful mask for a long period of time. When he finally took it off, he discovered that the features of his face were changed and resembled his beautiful mask now.

cheers

[the phantom]

But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

There is no reason to. Your name only means something to people who already know you. If I would've signed up as "Philip" on this site, it wouldn't have meant a thing to other members. Since that's the case, why not pick some other name that sounds cool, tells something about you, or is Tolkien related?

Yet the person under the name HerenIstarion exists on the net only. It is a mind with no hands, no body, but words only. I believe medium impacts the thing which operates through it – hence, HerenIstarion is different from what George Lashkhi usually is.

Maybe that's the case for you, but not really for me. the phantom has a real physical body that exists outside of the net. I have real life friends who call me "Phantom", and I have met a few other Barrow-Downs members face to face and they still call me "Phantom". In my case, my screen name seems to be synonymous with my real name.

That passion, though sometimes may shine through, is hard to communicate through keyboard and screen

That's what smilies are for, silly.

[HerenIstarion]

What d'ya mean, it's only a smile?

[THE Ka]

That's what smilies are for, silly.

Sorry phantom, they can only portray a single emotion at one time, when let's say you are feeling one or two at the same time. Which is fairly common. If there was a limbic system for the internet for smilies I think you would be right, but alas that has yet to happen. Also, you might have to take into consideration of facial expressions. The brain does not carry around a dictionary of facial expressions from birth, it has to be imprinted upon the mind over and over for the brain to recognize that this: is sad, and that this: is happy. Facial expressions cannot be expressed as like in what we consider the physical world, through 'emotiocons' on the internet. Simply put, not everyone smiles with the same creases in the face, it is how you imagine the person behind the words and their emotions that really tells you what you would like them to say...

Sorry if that was confusing, I was trying to explain this information in a quantum physical sort of way.

If you are interested in how thoughts effect us and emotions, follow this link:
Dr. Masaru Emoto

~ Ka

[the phantom]

they can only portray a single emotion at one time

Then use multiple smilies, silly.

Also, you might have to take into consideration of facial expressions

Oh, yes, I definitely agree that facial expressions are vastly superior to smilies. I absolutely hate talking on the phone because I can't stand hearing someone's voice but not being able to see their face. But at least in writing, you don't get the voice either, so the lack of facial expression doesn't bug me so much. I just focus on the words, and the more words I've read from a specific individual the better idea I have of what their facial expression is when they post certain things.

[Guinevere]

I agree very much with Aiwendil in post #98, but as H.I. said, this may perhaps not be true for everyone.

For me "a mask" means a conscious disguise to hide one's real personality and to pretend to be someone else. My internet personality is certainly not a "mask" in this sense! It is rather a part of me that doesn't show so often in daily life. In real life I often feel , well, not behind a mask, but rather like in a cage, not being able to talk about things that really matter to me, because either I am with people with whom I can only talk about trivial things, or if people are clever and eloquent, I am just too slow and shy to express my ideas.
What I find so wonderful in such an internet forum is how we can share thoughts with other people across half the world, regardless of superficialities , just mind to mind.
Of course it's not like getting to know people in real life, it's only a part of them, but a very important part . I've read so many posts here that express much of the writer's personality and world view, I feel I know them better than my neighbours with whom I share only smalltalk.

[Kath]

But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

In my case H-I I did not adopt a nickname. When I first found this site I only read the posts rather than looking at the names of the posters and I had so many monikers going that I needed something I could definitely remember, so choosing a shortening of my own name seemed the obvious choice.

This would then suggest that even in my original incarnation as "a pile of bones" I was myself and only myself as I had no alter ego.

But Aiwendil is I; I am Aiwendil

So this should, in theory, work for me. However, I have noted recently after reading this thread that I am a slightly different person online than I am in real life and I wonder if this is due to a subconscious fear that being myself will cause offense to others. This is in fact likely as my usual greeting to people takes the form of an insult and those who did not know me would probably wonder why I was greeting them so nastily.

This led me to thinking that yes the internet does allow us to create a 'mask', we can put out a form of ourselves that we think is acceptable to others and so stops them from seeing 'the real me'.

However at the same time it does allow an insight into a person that everday conversation does not give. On a site such as this you can watch a person grow over time. For example like myself. I began in the quiz thread saying very little and feeling terrified that I would say or do something to offend others - and in that respect I am different to my real life counterpart who speaks a long time before she thinks! Now I tend still not to talk much but I have migrated to the book and film discussion threads and in my mind that is indication of growth both in confidence and in myself as a person.

Screennames are not so much something to hide behind as they are a creation that allows us to develop and become them. Once this has happened I believe that the screenname and the real person are conjoined and compliment each other, making a better person out of them.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I am Feanor of the Peredhil. But Fea isn't me. Just like Grace isn't me, Red isn't me, Jack isn't me... you get the idea. Just like you all have said, Feanor is an extension of myself, but it does not go directly back and forth.

Here is my thought: I love the internet. I honestly believe that some people on this website know me better than some of the classmates I have spent 12 years of school with. They have preconceived notions and see the same person they saw eight years ago. Y'all didn't know me eight years ago, or even four years ago, and so the only things you see are pieces of who I am NOW. You take my words at face value, not spending an overt amount of time trying to figure out my ulterior motives, or wondering why I'm talking to you because "God, she thinks she's so perfect. What does she want?" (I assure you, I never said I think I'm perfect until years after they refused to believe my modesty. Then I began saying "Yeah, you're right. I am better than you. Don't forget it.")

What I am trying (and perhaps failing) to say is that in RL, people give us masks, and online, we give them to ourselves. It is my belief that any mask we choose for ourself is a much more honest portrayal of who I see when I look in the mirror than any mask somebody else has given me. Mind you, I can tell I've been spending too much time on this site when the voices in my head start saying Fea instead of Laura. It's the most entertaining thing when a random set of words that I found a few years ago become such an important part of who I am.

Fea

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

On the whole, my prolix discourse (and impersonating) was caused by the word ‘osanwe’ in your post previous but one.

"Osanwe" was certainly an exaggeration. There is of course a huge difference between osanwe in Tolkien's world and conversation via the internet. I did not mean to suggest that what happens here is anything like a direct experience of one another's mind. It is, as you have pointed out, not pure; it is only language. What I did mean was that, as with osanwe, the internet allows its users to interact with each other's minds and their minds alone. Like osanwe, it dispenses with the merely physical and it operates without respect to distance.

A. Information (for me) is: concept plus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it

B. Information (for you, as far as I’m allowed to guess) is: concept minus emotion the bearer of the concept attaches to it. (Or minus the bearer?)

Hmm, I'm not sure what exactly to make of this. To me, information is information. An emotion is information. A concept is information. Actually, I could throw us into quite off-topic realms and go on about everything being information, but I won't.

Quite a separate matter is the question of which information is important. I would say that sometimes information concerning a particular person's occurrent emotional state is important. Such information can generally be verbalized, albeit (of course) not with perfect accuracy.

I would say that, for the most part, emotions are far from the most important concepts. But then I did warn you about my being a bit of a Vulcan (though, alas, without the pointed ears).

And all this has an impact on what the thing I call “me” inside the body has to say here and now. I have a headache right now – how can I be sure that had I had it not, the words I chose now to embody my thoughts, or the thoughts themselves would have been the same?

Indeed - they surely would not have been the same, since you wouldn't have written that you have a headache (unless you decided to lie about it). But I really don't think that's relevant.

So Aiwendil is. So HerenIstarion is. But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

Yes, I take your point that the names with which we choose to identify ourselves give others some information about us; and I agree. This hardly strikes me as "masking" anyone - on the contrary, by offering information about the user, it takes a step toward "unmasking". It seems to me that a self-chosen name is less a mask than one's given name, for the self-chosen name is more likely to correspond well with one's inner state. I am "Steven Linden" - the name says something about my sex and perhaps a little bit about my nationality, but as I see it neither of these things have much to do with what I would say is fundamentally me. When I try to identify as particularly as possible what "I" am, the answer I get is that I am my mind; I am the total of my thoughts and perceptions. The name "Steven Linden" tells you little about that "I" - I suppose it tells you what I believe my name to be, but not much else. "Aiwendil" tells you, as you surmised in your previous post, several things about me. Each is of course only a name in the end, but my point is that if anything the self-chosen one is less of a mask than the other.

So, you are Aiwendil, but Aiwendil is not you – you are more than Aiwendil. You are Aiwendil + your ‘real’ name + something more (which I usually tend to call ‘will’). But for people you interact with online – you are Aiwendil, which is less (or other) than what you see as yourself)

I see what you mean. I think we differ in whether we would call this a "mask". You leave certain things out of your equation. You are HerenIstarion plus George Lashki plus a number of other things - including, but not limited to, a voice, a body, an age, and other physical attributes. If you ask me, it would be more apt to describe these things as a mask. The HerenIstarion that we see does not encompass all aspects of your mind, but it also does not encompass anything which is not of your mind. Every word, every idea, every aspect of HerenIstarion that we on the forum encounter has its origin in your mind and your mind alone. In contrast, those who know you in real life experience aspects of you whose sole origin is not your mind. It is in this sense that I see the internet as "unmasking".

[Formendacil]

Mask or makeup?

Both hide your real features, but one obscures it completely, the other highlights specifc parts.

Which is your Internet identity?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

As I was painting today, I happened to glance over at my companion's masks. Drama masks. Elaborate creations made to completely block your identity. Then I looked into the Art Room (we were in the hall) and saw little kids making masks. They were opaque, but you could still see the obscured features, and you could tell who they were. Are those the masks we wear? Or do we go to great lengths cultivating certain images that we want imbedded in the minds of others...

Then I went out to eat. I chatted with a friend I met up with there. She wears all kinds of makeup, including foundation, eye shadow, blush, lip gloss, mascara, eyeliner, and God only knows what else. We asked her one time how long it takes her to do her hair and makeup... Much longer than I would care to spend. I went into the bathroom and glanced in the mirror, taking in my pretty much invisible gold eye shadow and my mascara. My hair is short and choppy, so it was doing its own thing. Her makeup shows who she is, but rather than simply accentuating the positive, she makes it a point to completely hide the negative. If that girl had a zit, you would never guess.

What I'm saying is, there are different ways to wear your makeup, and there are loads of different masks. On this website, I wear a pair of horm-rimmed specs over lightly powdered eyes with long blacker-than-black lashes. And some chapstick. However, at first, I had a pair of sheer pantihose pulled over my face, obscuring my features and hiding everything of import. When I realized that I didn't have to put on a show to be accepted in this community, I reverted to myself. With an occasionally intellectual aire.

Fea

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Perhaps what the internet does, rather than take away or add a mask, is take away a stereotype. So many times in real life we judge people before we even hear them speak based on their age, race, religion, hair color, etc. Here, since we can't see one another, there is no way that we can label each other as geek, jock, freak, etc. Instead, we hear one another speak first, and our opinions are based on our words rather than our looks. In that case, is the internet, in fact, removing the mask of preconception?
Our names can give the person an idea of who or what we may be, but not in the same way that our whole physical being can. Our names are one dimensional, usually, but our words are multi-dimensional. It seems that our internet names are chosen more so to protect ourselves because of those who can lie online and pretend to be things that they are not. By hiding behind a screenname we are able to fully be ourselves without actually revealing who we really are.
My internet name is just another name to me now, because it carried into real life. There are just as many people who call me on the phone and ask for "Tig" as there are those who ask for me by my real name. Weird, no? I actually kind of like it, because it reminds me that I am still real here, as I am everywhere. The name is just a name, but I am still me.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

It seems I have to elaborate on this first (judging from reaction the sentence was followed with) - it was rhetorical question, folks. Still more it was dealt with in my previous posts .

Let me tease you a little, would you?

'What? In riddles?' said Gandalf. 'No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying.'

For the sake of democracy, I do not put the claim of [superior] wisdom forth, but the rhetorical question causing such a storm was addressed to Aiwendil mainly, who reacted in a way expected

Now onward we move:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

To me, information is information. An emotion is information. A concept is information. Actually, I could throw us into quite off-topic realms and go on about everything being information, but I won't

Though I can sign my name right down under your statement, it is not the mind per se I value as the focus of personality, nor do I believe that the sum of my thoughts and emotions makes me myself, but rather is vehicle where my "I" resides and expresses itself by means of. I've let the slip of the tongue reveal it in my previous - it is my will, not my mind (will - the thing which chooses from numerous thoughts and emotions produced by my mind (which may be dependent on external irritants) and sent up to its judgement, supresses some, upholds some, makes a choice).

The core of our disagreement must be the fact we simply label the same things differently - I call informational imprint your (internet) words left on me just another ‘mask’ of yours, you – the ‘unmasking’ since it removed to an extent the preconceptions I may have had about you have I seen you before hearing you out.

But let me argue that the mind (definition – physical brain and emotions/thoughts produced by it) is just another ‘mask’, on a different level (mask of my will, even?). Suppose I suffer damage to my brain (God save from, theoretical computation) and loose an ability to type or even express myself verbally at all. Am I not a person anymore? (afore this is followed by storm of replies, I’ll answer myself – of course I am) But certain aspects of my person, one of my ‘masks’ is lost – there will be no more HerenIstarion around.

but my point is that if anything the self-chosen one is less of a mask than the other.

I see what you mean. Again, we differ in evaluation of the same things on minor level. I don’t label ‘mask’ as thing bad, I don’t imply it is for hiding things. But going back to ‘everything is information’ statement, I see it fit to coin the following definition:

Mask [as it is used here by yours truly] is a certain mode of self-expression person chooses at each given moment.

The curios thing which caused my re-participation (apart from osanwe, which was a catalyst) in this thread was evidence that ‘mask’ - certain mode of self-expression (that is, internet forum account), once defined with the name (with a screename) may become somehow independent, apart from the person which expresses itself through it, even modify the personality which expresses itself – i.e. grow certain features of personality and become dear in itself, not as a mode, but as a [kind of a different] person. (Personal evidence – on this very thread – my post #106 before editing was a bit nasty (my apologies, TP, but I expected something more serious in return ). Than I caught myself thinking – this is not the way HerenIstarion (!) should write, and edited it). Now that may be I’m overtly prone to analyzing things.

And on general level:

My initial post of the thread was about Are we really we here. Now I think it was unfortunate choice of wording, I may restate it as follows: Are we wholly we here? and answer it accordingly – No, here, as elswhere, we are partly we only. By this I don’t mean that we lose the parts that are other than expressed by words. They are here with us. But what each of us sees of another member is an imprint, a ‘mask’

I.e. I may know more about Mr.X’s mind, whom I talk about theology online with every night, than his immediate neighbour knows, whom he ‘smalltalks’ to every morning, but I know less then the neighbour in some other aspects. The will, however, as I see it, expresses itself in ‘smalltalk’ as in ‘bigtalk’ likewise. I and his neighbour may both know him for generous chap, I – as I’ve read his views on the subject, neighbour – as he lets him have his extra milk. But the thing is, as neither I nor the neighbour may boast of having direct access to Mr.X through osanwe, or whatever we choose to call it, for all we know, his generosity may be a natural thing to him or a result of great self control and worked out habit of beating his greed down. It is a ‘mask’ we see in both cases. And it is the mask that matters for us, as we have no means of access to his ‘real’ self. And another point of mine (parable of masked man) was that the longer the ‘mask’ is on, the more ‘real self’ resembles it)

[Lhunardawen]

the longer the ‘mask’ is on, the more ‘real self’ resembles it

Or is it, "the longer the 'mask' is on, the more it becomes a part of your 'real self' "?

[Nimrodel_9]

Or is it, "the longer the 'mask' is on, the more it becomes a part of your 'real self' "?

I sometimes find that to be true.
I tend to wear a mask around certain people, but here I don't think so. Nimrodel and Chelsie are the same people. Except I am more confident on the Downs than in "real life," and I tend to let my logic, 4.0 self go. Lets just say I am more bubbly here. When I am at school I am bubbly but there's a little more to me. I can't explain it.

[Holbytlass]

I am who I am. I would find it hard trying to keep up with a persona on forums where I'm posting opinions and thoughts. And I wouldn't want to either. To me, that's the whole point of a user name, to freely express one's true thoughts. My user name is fun (to me) and gives others enough info to go on. I shall never be mistaken for male and it tells who I liken myself to in Middle-earth.
If someone, for some odd reason, had to do a profile on me, they could get lots of personal info from my posts. But, as HerenIstarion pointed out about people in our own lives knowing different things about us, it would be just stuff related to this forum and not everything about me.
By the way, my given name is Rebecca. Just like Gandalf, I am called many names depending who you ask.