If directed at the ladies, as it usually is, you would be run out of town nowadays for this obvious act of malevolent toxic masculinity. I mean it is misogynistic ocular violence; you can be healthy at any weight etc etc.
I think it is a positive sign that the immersion conveyer belt may be reaching its peak. I think we have all watched as less immersive media has given way to easier, more immersive and feel something gets lost along the way as the immersion itself becomes the point. Compare a well crafted film to a video game, for instance. The game is interactive and exciting, but with a minimal plot and by necessity wafer thin characters.
I am sure some theater goers view movies as the end of civilization, only fit for peasants. And no doubt some readers view plays as only fit for illiterates.
But the reality is the more the medium does for the end consumer, the less they have to bring. Shakespeare is challenging for us because the language is archaic, just as this essay would be challenging for people frazzled by social media or Tik Tok addiction.
I think some people gravitate towards richness or depth, and find something that provides this, reading a book or even hiking out in the real world. Others want novelty and ever more immersion to lose themselves.
Now that I think of it, this might go like LSD. In the '60s it was huge but since then it has plummeted in popularity. Besides the exorbitant punishment, there is also a less addictive quality to LSD than even weed let alone liquor.
Similarly, gluing something to your face may feel transcendent but it takes a lot out of you. Acid and mushroom trips may be euphoric, but their energy draining nature ensures you do it now and again. Besides which, most normies fear the loss of control.
VR/AR, even with such a slick interface, requires a trust in your environment that is just not popular right now.
You could be right. What we are calling immersion is really losing control or losing contact with reality. Perhaps that is inherently offputting. Interacting with a screen, a phone or laptop, maintains the barrier.
I have another view which is the harder it is to immerse the harder the producer must work to make it worthwhile, so the quality is higher. Some kind of Matrix-like embedding with a neural plug is hyperreal; a movie on a screen is 2D. Reading words on a page is ultra low immersion as the reader must do all the work to imagine environments and characters.
However, the corresponding kickback is higher effort on the part of the consumer means higher investment. A video game is easy, the whole thing is there. A challenging novel requires work.
I think drugs are another example. Most don't partake. Booze requires more effort than popping a pill. So perhaps humans just mistrust ease. It seems less real when it is easy.
In college we spoke of “beer goggles,” which now seems almost as quaint as 3-d glasses.
If directed at the ladies, as it usually is, you would be run out of town nowadays for this obvious act of malevolent toxic masculinity. I mean it is misogynistic ocular violence; you can be healthy at any weight etc etc.
All due, beer goggles are a very dangerous epidemic. Many wake up with a reality overdose
I think it is a positive sign that the immersion conveyer belt may be reaching its peak. I think we have all watched as less immersive media has given way to easier, more immersive and feel something gets lost along the way as the immersion itself becomes the point. Compare a well crafted film to a video game, for instance. The game is interactive and exciting, but with a minimal plot and by necessity wafer thin characters.
I am sure some theater goers view movies as the end of civilization, only fit for peasants. And no doubt some readers view plays as only fit for illiterates.
But the reality is the more the medium does for the end consumer, the less they have to bring. Shakespeare is challenging for us because the language is archaic, just as this essay would be challenging for people frazzled by social media or Tik Tok addiction.
I think some people gravitate towards richness or depth, and find something that provides this, reading a book or even hiking out in the real world. Others want novelty and ever more immersion to lose themselves.
Now that I think of it, this might go like LSD. In the '60s it was huge but since then it has plummeted in popularity. Besides the exorbitant punishment, there is also a less addictive quality to LSD than even weed let alone liquor.
Similarly, gluing something to your face may feel transcendent but it takes a lot out of you. Acid and mushroom trips may be euphoric, but their energy draining nature ensures you do it now and again. Besides which, most normies fear the loss of control.
VR/AR, even with such a slick interface, requires a trust in your environment that is just not popular right now.
Good morning btw.
Good morning,
You could be right. What we are calling immersion is really losing control or losing contact with reality. Perhaps that is inherently offputting. Interacting with a screen, a phone or laptop, maintains the barrier.
I have another view which is the harder it is to immerse the harder the producer must work to make it worthwhile, so the quality is higher. Some kind of Matrix-like embedding with a neural plug is hyperreal; a movie on a screen is 2D. Reading words on a page is ultra low immersion as the reader must do all the work to imagine environments and characters.
However, the corresponding kickback is higher effort on the part of the consumer means higher investment. A video game is easy, the whole thing is there. A challenging novel requires work.
I think drugs are another example. Most don't partake. Booze requires more effort than popping a pill. So perhaps humans just mistrust ease. It seems less real when it is easy.