If you’re reading this, I think you might have two ghosts inside you. One of them is you, now, here with me. I can be here with you because of the rules of this place we’re in.

The other will possess your body when you look up. Not in an evil way, that’s just its domain. We live here, and they (I have two ghosts too) live there. But, they are not us and we are not them.

This belief seems to be out of vogue. In the writings of 20th century philosopher-futurists like Timothy Leary and John Perry Barlow, the emergence of a full personal identity in cyberspace alongside an equal, distinct presence in meatspace (the “real” world) held weight against the concept that our powerful souls remain whole while immersing into the technologies of our age.

With the turn of the millennium and supremacy of the internet, it seems a victory has been won. Cyberspace and its citizenry are mandated to be extensions of their meatspace counterparts. Any attempt at differentiation--labeled “anon-” or “pseudo-nonymization”--is considered theatrical, impolite, and dangerous.

I find this disingenuous.

Cyberspace exists in a context and persists in a state unique from that of meatspace. There are different mores here, there is a different (younger) history, we have rulers here who are powerless there. Here, our behavior is different, our morals are different, as is our language; I am prone to grand lists so will stop here, you get the idea.

You control the eyes of the body and share that essential life force of that other, but are they you? When you disengage from this world of light, where do you go? I have more to say, but it’s for another time.

If you’re reading this, I think you might have two ghosts inside you. One of them is you, now, here with me. I can be here with you because of the rules of this place we’re in.

The other will possess your body when you look up. Not in an evil way, that’s just its domain. We live here, and they (I have two ghosts too) live there. But, they are not us and we are not them.

This belief seems to be out of vogue. In the writings of 20th century philosopher-futurists like Timothy Leary and John Perry Barlow, the emergence of a full personal identity in cyberspace alongside an equal, distinct presence in meatspace (the “real” world) held weight against the concept that our powerful souls remain whole while immersing into the technologies of our age.

With the turn of the millennium and supremacy of the internet, it seems a victory has been won. Cyberspace and its citizenry are mandated to be extensions of their meatspace counterparts. Any attempt at differentiation--labeled “anon-” or “pseudo-nonymization”--is considered theatrical, impolite, and dangerous.

I find this disingenuous.

Cyberspace exists in a context and persists in a state unique from that of meatspace. There are different mores here, there is a different (younger) history, we have rulers here who are powerless there. Here, our behavior is different, our morals are different, as is our language; I am prone to grand lists so will stop here, you get the idea.

You control the eyes of the body and share that essential life force of that other, but are they you? When you disengage from this world of light, where do you go? I have more to say, but it’s for another time.