eLife

"Shared experiences create a sense of reality". Hmm, do they?

Meadows (2008:51) argues that experiences create a grounding of belief. “People in virtual worlds build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them. When another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about it, and then sells it – this tells me there is something real happening. The suspension of disbelief has become a grounding of belief."

While on the face of it I do agree with Meadows statement (i.e if people believe it how can we question what they feel; it all relative, is it not?) I still question how such can occur. How do people get to the point of having a reality outside what is real? In order to discuss this point the online game of Second Life will be used as a reference.

Second Life is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on the 23rd of June, 2003, and is accessible via the Internet. Residents of Second Life (know as Avatars) can explore,

meet other residents, socialise, form 'relationships', participate in individual and group activities, create and trade virtual property and services with one another, and travel throughout the world (as it exist in Second Life).

Personally I am somewhat sceptical to the reality of what occurs in Second Life, or to what extent a 'sense of reality' can even occur. Surely participants are aware of the unrealistic essence of the world they are interacting within? Despite suspending their disbelief, a grounding in belief must still be hard to come by due to the fact the the 'true reality' of the situation hits them once they have existed the game? Thus I question how a suspension of disbelief can in fact become a grounding in belief, as Meadows argues.

By analysing the definitions of 'real', 'reality' and 'virtual' we can establish that Second Life is not real, and nor is it plausible for it to create a grounding in belief:-

• 'Reality' is defined as a real thing or fact that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
• 'Real' is defined as an actual thing, with objective existence; genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation.

The above definitions contradict all that is Second Life. Second Life does not exist independently of ideas that concern it nor does it have an objective existence; it is an imitation (of the real world).

In comparison:

• 'Virtual' is defined as something which is existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name; Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination.

This term can more realistically be associated with Second Life. Second Life exists because of people imaginations; it exists in essence, it is not a factual.

From this understanding I now find it more difficult to support Meadows statement in all of its entirety. Second Life is not real and therefore I find it difficult to argue that it could create a sense of reality by definition of the word. Subsequently I propose that Baudrillard's theory on hyperreality and simulations is the most appropriate theory to apply when interpreting the 'reality' of the online world.

The following excerpt (which was taken form here) explains Buadrillard's ideas on simulations and there relationships to the real:

"Representation starts from the principle that the sign and the real are equivalent (even if this equivalence is Utopian, it is a fundamental ax~om). Conversely, simulation starts from the Utopia of this principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as reversion and death sentence of every reference. Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. These would be the successive phases of the image:

1. It is the reflection of a basic reality
2. It masks and perverts a basic reality
3. It masks the absence of a basic reality
4. It bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum.

In the first case, the image is a good appearance: the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance: of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance: it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation."

Simulations help create hyperreality. Hyperreality is not genuine reality but a blurred line between what is real and what is not. Individuals can thus think something to be real but in truth it is the 'blurriness' that causes them to have this belief, not the fact that what they are experiencing is in fact reality. So from this, and referring back to Meadow's statement, I guess 'sense of reality' could occur, but I do not see how a suspension of disbelief could possibly have a grounding in belief.... people have a greater sense of reality than that, don't they?!

eExtremists

Extremism is characterized by dogmatic intolerance, expressed mildly or violently, and inclines toward an inflexible obedience to an excepted authority, shaped by a common ideology or sense of group unity (Gardener, 1997).

Extremist groups are commonly driven by factors such as:

• Racial Purity
• Anti-Semitism
• Political Hegemony
• Anti-Liberal sentiments
• Anti-Government sentiments (Conspiracy theorists)

‘eExtremists’ can be defined as extremist groups who have a strong online presence. Many extremists groups do in fact have websites (see list provided by Southern Poverty Law Centre); websites are easy to create and update, and offer power to spread views on a world scale. As it stands “extremist groups were among the very early users of electronic communication networks that eventually evolved into the Internet (Gestenfield, Grant and Chiang, 2003:1).”

Given the definition of extremists groups (provided above) the Australia First Party could, by way of classification, be deemed an extremist group utilizing the internet to spread messages and recruit new members.

The Australia First Party is registered political party in Australia. It is known to have very strong views against multiculturalism and a desire to limited immigration into Australia.

Why do I classify the party as an eExtremist group?

The Australia First group promotes views, opinions and policies embedded with aspects of Racial Purity. For example, one of the eight core policies of the Australia First Party is to ‘Abolish Multiculturalism’. The simple fact that the Australia First Party this as one of their core policies demonstrates their extreme and narrow-minded (even fanatical) hegemony and lays bare the core of their extreme views.

In addition to what the group promotes via the internet they do also recruit members. The official website for the Australia First Party advertises they are “Fighting for the future of Australia” and asks views to “Make a difference. Join us now!”

While I do not claim to place the Australia First Party in the same category as eExtremists such as Stormfront or Aryan Nations, they do still encompass qualities of an extremist group (as per the definition provided above) and as such I stand by my assertion that it is an eExtremist group that uses the internet to spread messages and recruit new members.