Arseniy Khitrov: Structure of net communications: remote interlocutor in blogsphere

Arseniy Khitrov
Moscow State University
Department of philosophy,
chair of history and theory of the world culture,
post-graduate student.
State University of Humanities, professor.

Virtual space is becoming a subject matter of linguistic, psychological and media-culture researches. As the realm of online diaries, or blogsphere, is part of virtual space, we can expect that blogsphere has the same properties that virtual space has. John Suler, well-known scientist in psychology of cyberspace, lists specific properties of Internet communication like these: limited sensory experience, anonymity, identity flexibility, equalized statuses, transcended geographical distance, temporal flexibility, social multiplicity, permanent fixation of online activities, feeling of “black hole”[1].
These generalizations may be transformed to ontological postulates. At the same time the agents who operate in cyberspace may also be considered in ontological viewpoint. This approach was used by Eugene Gorny in his article “The ontology of virtual personality”[2]. Many of these properties of cyberspace Gorny attributes to virtual personality. A virtual personality in his conception is incorporeal, anonymous, plural, autonomous, and exists in paradigm of invention itself. Gorny emphasizes that we see it like something composed of signs and acts, in other words like semeiotic constitution. As it is possible to use not only electronic media for transfer of signs, then the properties of virtual personality aren’t concerned with the properties of cybersphere. In this case “it is important the effect that complex of sings makes in the mind but not a nature of media”[3].
This approach lets us to compare virtual personality examined as model with others models of personality in European modern culture. Our thesis is: virtual personality isn’t an extraordinary thing in history of culture. Its basic properties (self-design, incorporeality and plurality) were showing up in philosophy and in literature scores of times. These characteristics reveal ideas dominating in the European modern mentality and now they have new technological capabilities for manifestation.
It seems that it is also important to note one more property of virtual personality – its dialogicality. Author of online diary takes an interest in reaction of remote interlocutor, if we paraphrase the Mandelshtam’s words[4]. These users take an interest in reaction not only of friends but also of Another, of alien consciousness. And that fact that many users locate their profoundly private posts in easy access verifies this idea. Alien consciousness is valuable for me because it makes my consciousness alien for me. An Alien estranges me from me, gives me a chance to take pleasure in my proper profundity and abruptness. Then it recovers me, changed, to me, surprised. A personality constructed by blogs author in not only dialogic but also is auto-dialogic. A net personality is impossible without another net personality. A blogs author addresses to himself, to Alien and to himself as Alien.
At the same time it is interesting to consider net communication as auto-communication par excellence. Thereupon an alien consciousness is producing and constructing by blogs author in himself.
It is obvious that any communication takes place between two interlocutors minimum: between sender of message and its recipient. Situation in which semantic fields coincide partially is ideal for communication. Healthy consciousness has practically complete identity of personality in small period. A consciousness estranges itself in practices of net communication. It passes through active reception of another consciousness and reverts to author as object that doesn’t coincide with content of his consciousness. Consequently net communication is a practice of self-alienation which result is the opportunity to find the Interlocutor in itself.
It is possible to connect the subsequent prospects of studying this problem with complex of phenomena titled “Web 2.0”[5]. The conception of “Web 2.0” was born in answer to problems of “classic” Internet (“Web 1.0”), which is slow-moving, static structure with minimal possibilities of feedback. Dialectic of “Web 1.0” and “Web 2.0” is also dialectic of consumption and communication. A passive consumer of “classic” Internet becomes actively communicating. But forms of network communication are so various that communication becomes action as well.
Constant evolution on Internet calls for permanent giving a more and more precise definition to web ontology. Another important aim is theoretical working up the separate phenomena of network communication not only in the context of natural or technical science but also in the realm of the humanities.

[1] Suler, John, The Basic Psychological Features of Cyberspace, Elements of a Cyberpsychology Model // http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/basicfeat.html%20/ Сулер Дж., 1998, Люди превращаются в Электроников: основные характеристики виртуального пространства // http://flogiston.ru/articles/netpsy/electronic
[2] Горный, Евгений, Онтология виртуальной личности // http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/texts/ovr.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Мандельштам О., 1987, О собеседнике // Мандельштам О., Слово и культура: Статьи. - М.: Советский писатель, с. 48-55.
[5] Тим О'Рейли (Тim O'Reilly), ЧТО ТАКОЕ ВЕБ 2.0. // Компьютерра (Москва), 11.10.2005, C.60-64 // http://www.oreilli.com/pub/a/oreilli/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html