The masks of inscrutability, or are you really you?

[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.