"With even the farmer in rural India able to “follow” other viewers around the globe through micro-blogging vehicles like Twitter, that website’s co-founder, Biz Stone, says we can expect “the first two- or even three-screen” inauguration”. WTF! First, Twitter is so niche that only geeks (or wannabe geeks) use it, not only in India, but also in United States. Second, farmers in India aren’t going to watch Barack Obama’s inauguration on three screens, or even one, because there’s no electricity in their villages"
we are not who we were.
we are always who we are becoming.
The "disconnected" space you reference could be arguably called hyperconnected space, where many have the freedom to be "realer" than they are in the "real" world.
Interactive identity, which I assume you mean to be the digital manifestations of your "self", is neither extension nor fulfillment, but a facet of the totality of your identity, which is, after all, a fabrication, fictionalization, projection and mutual agreement with society.
We all (people and brands) play roles, don't we?
And if achieving "Nirvana" means being a brand, Buddha blew it.
Posted by: renny gleeson | 2009.01.21 at 18:53
But. . .
People have an identity that precedes their "interactive identity," i.e. they are a defined "someone" before they express themselves in disconnected space.
Is their "interactive identity" an extension and fulfillment of their "primary identity?"
Or, is it a fabrication, a fictionalization, a projection of desire and id?
A bit of both? Meaning, the "interactive identity" is NOT to be trusted on a personal level.
If someone eventually reaches Nirvana and "becomes the embodiment of their interactive identity," what have they lost? Then again, at that point, perhaps they are a Brand?
Posted by: ninetyseventyeight | 2009.01.21 at 17:09