1
The idea of privacy and morality expressed over the Internet is pretty interesting...so I am placing myself back into the livejournal community.
I think the first assumption that is going to motivate this journal is that everyone that I don't want to know about it is reading it, so I have to put in nothing that I don't want everyone reading. Which turns out to be pretty hard. There are certain things that I want to present to certain people, and this thing (lj) seems to force me to globalize how I am constructing myself, or it forces me to choose those events that can be presented globally , or it forces me to assume that I can control who is reading what (which I can to some extent, but there are definite limits to that. I am relatively sure that with enough effort, i could access all the things that someone has put up for private (in the lj sense of the term) viewing on the Internet.) So, in order to think through this, I will put a link up on my facebook profile, which is relatively accessible to those I do not know, and will never write a private entry. I am also going to try and present all those events that I do not want to present (though there will be some exceptions, especially at first) while holding the idea of global appeal in mind. This may be impossible (in fact probably is impossible) and I am going to eventually have to decide if it is worth the time and effort to present motivations, of just to present actions in trying to attain this goal.
X and I got into a “friendly” fist fight over the weekend. It was friendly because it was mutually consented to, and there was no motivating event behind the contest. I felt pretty bad about it, but figured that I could cope, and one day later stopped feeling bad about wounds inflicted, despite a chipped tooth and a very black eye. But there were videos taken of the event and once they were put on youtube, I felt much worse about the whole thing. Of course, this was partially motivated by remembering the event, but more importantly there was the sense that this particular fight was not an event that I wanted anyone to be able to access. There was a sense of pride at having won the match, and my dick absolutely loves that I participated. These motivated the quick dismissal of feeling bad, because I could regulate very easily who has access to those things that made me prideful, but one the ability to access was taken out of my hands, those feelings nigh well vanished. The ability to allow others to see an event is then incredibly important for how I actually feel about that event. Which makes intuitive sense, I can do an action that may be shameful in certain contexts (like farting) that would not be shameful in other contexts. But in such situations it seems that the context in which something would not be shameful are limited, and the contexts in which something would be not shameful are always broad. There is an easy objection to raise, that certain things only look shameful not knowing the full context of the event, but the full context seems to me to be included in the idea of a broad conception. That is to say, there is the idea that presenting an event to a community requires that community to know the context of the action fully, and that knowing the context fully justifies certain actions. But there is a contradictory idea that there are some actions that when presented to the community are unacceptable, but must be justified for the individual performing the actions because of certain contexts. I could tease this out into an argument about the contradictory nature of a judging community, but that might be pretty boring. I think that the access that the Internet provides makes this problem much more important, so I am going to try and think through the ways in which I am juggling the ability to control those who have access to what I say contributes to not only forming what I say but my reactions to those things that I might say/do.
I think the first assumption that is going to motivate this journal is that everyone that I don't want to know about it is reading it, so I have to put in nothing that I don't want everyone reading. Which turns out to be pretty hard. There are certain things that I want to present to certain people, and this thing (lj) seems to force me to globalize how I am constructing myself, or it forces me to choose those events that can be presented globally , or it forces me to assume that I can control who is reading what (which I can to some extent, but there are definite limits to that. I am relatively sure that with enough effort, i could access all the things that someone has put up for private (in the lj sense of the term) viewing on the Internet.) So, in order to think through this, I will put a link up on my facebook profile, which is relatively accessible to those I do not know, and will never write a private entry. I am also going to try and present all those events that I do not want to present (though there will be some exceptions, especially at first) while holding the idea of global appeal in mind. This may be impossible (in fact probably is impossible) and I am going to eventually have to decide if it is worth the time and effort to present motivations, of just to present actions in trying to attain this goal.
X and I got into a “friendly” fist fight over the weekend. It was friendly because it was mutually consented to, and there was no motivating event behind the contest. I felt pretty bad about it, but figured that I could cope, and one day later stopped feeling bad about wounds inflicted, despite a chipped tooth and a very black eye. But there were videos taken of the event and once they were put on youtube, I felt much worse about the whole thing. Of course, this was partially motivated by remembering the event, but more importantly there was the sense that this particular fight was not an event that I wanted anyone to be able to access. There was a sense of pride at having won the match, and my dick absolutely loves that I participated. These motivated the quick dismissal of feeling bad, because I could regulate very easily who has access to those things that made me prideful, but one the ability to access was taken out of my hands, those feelings nigh well vanished. The ability to allow others to see an event is then incredibly important for how I actually feel about that event. Which makes intuitive sense, I can do an action that may be shameful in certain contexts (like farting) that would not be shameful in other contexts. But in such situations it seems that the context in which something would not be shameful are limited, and the contexts in which something would be not shameful are always broad. There is an easy objection to raise, that certain things only look shameful not knowing the full context of the event, but the full context seems to me to be included in the idea of a broad conception. That is to say, there is the idea that presenting an event to a community requires that community to know the context of the action fully, and that knowing the context fully justifies certain actions. But there is a contradictory idea that there are some actions that when presented to the community are unacceptable, but must be justified for the individual performing the actions because of certain contexts. I could tease this out into an argument about the contradictory nature of a judging community, but that might be pretty boring. I think that the access that the Internet provides makes this problem much more important, so I am going to try and think through the ways in which I am juggling the ability to control those who have access to what I say contributes to not only forming what I say but my reactions to those things that I might say/do.