[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.