The Social Ontology of the Metaverse

The social ontology of the Metaverse – Mark Carrigan

• The author is a sociologist from Cambridge.
• Yeah, this English text is kind of difficult to read.
• So, what exactly is social ontology?
  • It’s a social ontology, I see.

These developments need to be seen as continuous with the intoxicating lure of the (phone/computer/television) screen and the conditions under which immersion comes to be alluring for the first place.

• I want to adopt this idea of viewing these developments as continuous.

The inevitably with which questions about the ‘human’ emerge when we subject the normative claims about the metaverse to any level of analysis mean these debates intersect in interesting ways with the conflict between neo-humanism, transhumanism and posthumanism (see also postdigital humans).

• Exactly.

I share his scepticism about the possibility of a good life within the Metaverse on roughly similar theoretical grounds. To live well is a relationship we cultivate with the world rather than a subjective feeling of wellbeing. Are what Archer and Donati call relational goods possible within the Metaverse? Can we build trust with others and work together?

• I want to organize the theoretical basis for this skepticism.

  • It might not be very promising, though (blu3mo).

• Relational goods are goods that are created and consumed only through interaction with others.

• Problem awareness:

  • If we’re leaving neoliberalism and entering something worse the disruption of the last 2 years should be seen as a foreshadowing of future upheaval rather than an exception to the norm.

  • The concept known as Reality privilege should be seriously considered here.
  • Marc Andreessen:
    • Only a minority believes that physical reality is better than other realities.
      • The privilege of considering virtual things as inferior/escapist/dystopian is held by that minority.

      • The Reality Privileged, of course, call this conclusion dystopian, and demand that we prioritize improvements in reality over improvements in virtuality. To which I say: reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don’t think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build — and we are building — online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in.

        • I agree (blu3mo).
  • The author:
    • Well, I think it’s dystopian.
      • Oh, really? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
      • I want to hear more about that (blu3mo).

    • This is why I find Sacasas’s approach so valuable in beginning to interrogate the possibility for a good life within the metaverse, the technological conditions which frustrate it and what this reflects about the nature of human beings.

      • What does that mean (blu3mo)?
        • I might want to pick up on how it relates to the nature of human beings (blu3mo)(blu3mo).
        • Refers to the book Reality + in The Dream of Virtual Reality.

    • The inevitably with which questions about the ‘human’ emerge when we subject the normative claims about the metaverse to any level of analysis mean these debates intersect in interesting ways with the conflict between neo-humanism, transhumanism and posthumanism (see also postdigital humans). I don’t usually find Braidotti an interesting thinker but I’m genuinely fascinated to see how she responds to the idea of the Metaverse.

      • It’s saying that when we discuss the normative debates about the “metaverse,” questions about the nature of human beings also come up.
        • Why? (blu3mo)
        • Read Postdigital Humans: Transitions, Transformations and Transcendence.

• (blu3mo)

  • Well, I feel like this binary thinking is kind of strange. It’s similar to the thinking of Niantic, maybe? (blu3mo)