** I Won't Be Posting Anything New Here For A Little While **

The reason is because my computer has broken and I am currently in the process of trying to save up as much money as I can and then buy a new one.

In the mean time, I will brainstorm some new topics that I might want to discuss here and jot some notes down for myself.

Please continue to read the posts that I have made so far and comment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
-- Charles I. Kim

Harry Potter

* I am in no way a big Harry Potter fan. I am a casual fan so I may get some technical aspects of the series incorrect.
* I do not own any part of the Harry Potter franchise. I do not own any part of the documentary being referenced here.
* Harry Potter and the documentary are just being referenced for discussion purposes only.

Do you enjoy Harry Potter? Do you believe that it is a harmless story of magic and wizardry?

Believe it or not, there are some who believe that Harry Potter is a detriment to society. Honestly, I don't believe that this is the case.

If anything Harry Potter is actually something positive for the youth of this generation as it gives something to related to other people, enjoy themselves, learn not to fear being able to express yourself, and gain an sense of appreciation through others.

I stumbled upon this documentary which is where this Harry Potter topic came from.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62149/we-are-wizards

"It just kinda gave me a place to belong. It gave me a group of people I'm part of. I probably have more friends through Harry Potter than I've made anywhere else."

Much of this documentary is riddled with fandom brought to an extreme and where fans and corporate "owners" of the Harry Potter documentary battle it out.

In all honestly, I fail to see the significance of this controversy.

The fans of the franchise are expressing their enjoyment out of Harry Potter, yet the corporate owners of the IP (initially) go after them for many reasons only to eventually decide that maybe it's time to re-evaluate things.

In the beginning portions of this documentary, the woman claims that Harry Potter "...entices children to dabble into the ocult." and that it "...ultimately will destroy society."

How so? I understand where she is coming from in regards to the occult issue, but that's really taking it from a surface-only point of view. If one were to read the books or watch the movies, one would quickly realize that there are more themes and morals that are discussed in the movie. In a sense, the magic and wizardry are just the icing on a cup-cake (for lack of a better metaphor). The "core" cake portion of it (i.e. the themes and morals) are what is important.

However, I will acknowledge that this woman who made the comment may be getting at something that is possible. Many of Harry Potter fans are younger children. Children, especially at the younger age, tend to take things that they see, hear, and experience from a face-value perspective; that is there is little to no processing of underlying meanings.

Even still, I believe that as life progresses, and as long as the child has a relatively stable childhood and is able to progress into young adulthood without much turmoil, the child will develop into a mature individual who is able to differentiate between "good" and "bad" morals.

It's quite shocking how something that may appear to be "just a movie" or "just a book" to cause such a ruckus. But, in the society that we live today, imagination is nearly crossing the boundaries of what appears to be real.

Most are capable of being able to distinguish what is moral & amoral, and what is "real" and what is "imaginary".

But, we see here (with the documentary) that there is always room for discussions and interpretations of the ramifications of massively popular items in a culture; of which can be extremely impressionable on an individual.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Fads

You know what fads are. They're synonymous with popular trends; things that people, or rather groups of people, believe are some thing of worth that without, their social standings are somehow diminished.

What is it about our human need to feel like we belong to something, even if in the back of our minds we may (or may not) be aware and understand that this "thing" is going to be short-lived and another "thing" is going to be the thing to own, to do, to be like, and associate the self with.

From a business type of point of view, fads are an excellent way to sell products quickly to the masses. But that's not what we're here to discuss.

We're here to look at fads from a psychological point of view. These fads specifically are technology related (in some way, shape, or form even if not directly a tech item or good).

What tech related trends are the thing to be involved in lately?

World of WarCraft? Second Life?
FaceBook? MySpace? Twitter?
YouTube?
BlackBerry?

What are the things that you need to own or be a part of to be "cool"?

First, I would like to begin by emphasizing that none of this existed a few years ago. It's only recently that this technology boom really escalated to the point where these things are a necessity (seemingly) in our day to day lives.

Imagine what would happen if all of a sudden, none of these things existed tomorrow. People would probably freak out. It would be a mess.

Now, let's take a more purposeful insight into these fads and trends. Essentially, these are all OCTs (online communication tools). Why do we rely on them so much? Maybe it's because the real world seems a bit lacking or some is is of lesser importance in our everyday lives. But, none of us are willing to really admit that and these fads develop; in a sense to substitute and relieve ourselves of these feelings.

For all those who have a FaceBook account...Let's think about it. Why exactly did you join FaceBook? Personally, I created my FaceBook account before I went off to college in an attempt to have 1 way to communicate with people that I know of and went to school with. It was also a way for me to get into contact with people who I have not seen in quite some time.

To this day, I'm a bit surprised at how many "Friends" are listed under my FaceBook account. Are these really all my friends or are they more like acquaintances?

But there seems to be this sense of belonging as the number of "Friends" listed in my FaceBook account grows.

A pertinent article can be read at:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/university/ut-s-psychology-department-studies-multiplayer-games-1.957105

It is a psychology study done on online multi-player games.

An interesting bit is a quote taken from the article that states...

"I think the main goal of the game is the socialization...That goal definitely applies to other people who play World of Warcraft."

On the outside, some may see this type of OCT as a game and only a game, as that is what World of WarCraft (and some others) are marketed as.

But what some fail to realize is the real life applications and values that can be derived from being involved with these OCTs.

Of course there is a potential for getting addicted as with any thing in life. Things happen and you get more involved in it and feel that you should spend more time with it.

Even then...I do feel that there is much value to be learned.

And with fads, there is also much value. We get a general overview of the things or subject matter that the individual has at least some interest in, and, the means by which the "fad" is done (be it in the form of a game, owning a certain item, being part of some group.

Clearly if there are so many fads and many members of such fad, we can't all be "wrong", now can we? As virtually all of us are or have followed a fad. To be labeled as "abnormally unique" would be something that would apply to everyone in a sense.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Piracy

Greetings. I know it has been quite some time, but I decided that it was about time that I posted something new here.

Anyway, let's back on the topic of discussion.

Piracy.

What do you feel about this issue of piracy? There are many different opinions about the matter.

Some believe that it is beneficial whereas others (majority of whom "own" the product) believe that it should be completely dealt away with.

From a business mindset, piracy is a bit of a nuisance in that potential profits are being lost. However, from another perspective, piracy can somewhat be viewed as a form of free advertising for the product.

In general, there is nothing really "lost" per say as it's not like (in most cases) the "pirate" is not directly profiting (as in monetary terms) off it the use/acquiring of the product itself.

In many cases, the "pirates" are obtaining such items for personal use. Others feel that maybe the product that they have interest in is a bit overpriced and maybe the means by which one were to obtain a "legitimate" copy of the product is time consuming as well relative to using whatever mediums are out there and "obtain" the products at no direct cost via the use of the Internet.

What we are facing in modern times with "piracy" should really be taken a bit more seriously but only after giving it more thought.

The authors of products (that are being pirated) often do not require as much monetary gains as many profit via other means.

Let's take an example.

Musicians (as music "piracy" is often the bigger issue). As many are aware, there are now services where you can download music at a small charge. This includes applications such as the iTunes. Though the prices are within affordable range, the price on each music, video, TV episode, etc are a bit pricey.

Yes you are receiving a "legitimate" digital copy of the product but it is understandable that many people would probably consider (at least for a brief moment) if there was some way to have such media file without paying any money?

This is not far fetched.

This inquiry we have is often without the intention of profiting monetarily. The intention is for personal entertainment.

That's the key here. INTENTION.

There are of course people who "pirate" and then amass a large library of such media files and sell them to people at a decent asking price.

Realistically, that scenario is really what should be confronted. The intention is to amass large quantities of media (various types), and sell such media to people for a monetary profit.

If the intention is just for personal entertainment, what harm is there? Not much really.

It would seem that this apparent issue with "piracy" is a bit vague on how the laws would deal with it. Not much thought has been put into it so a decision is hastily made; often in favor of the "author" of such product.

If the intention is to make money by "pirating" data, then that is understandable to bring about some kind of a punishment of some sort.

If the intention is for personal entertainment, there is no "pirate money" being made. The only profiting made here is strictly personal entrainment.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 2

Now we move on with part 2 of this topic.

Here, I would like to discuss this idea of a shroud of some sort that many perceive exists between the monitor of or computers and the self while interacting online.

This shroud that I am referring to is this feeling of anonymity that seems to just be there. From this, there are assumptions that we are more free as opposed to more direct interactions that some refer to as f2f (face to face) communication; something that is "real".

In a "real" world situation, there is the whole aspect of body language, atmosphere, and other people that yields a heavy influence on the way we act, think, behave, as well as the things that we choose to say. In an online situation, many of these variables that we encounter in an f2f situation are nullified.

We are only faced with a computer monitor, the keyboard, and the text that is typed out.

With that said, it would seem that the situation that one is placed in plays a large role in our level of interactivity with another; be it f2f or in a virtual world setting.

Now, let's take a look at this with some simple examples.

Party (or any other similar f2f scenario)
When we, ultimately, choose to take part in some social activity that involves f2f interaction with others, we are thrown into a situation where there is this over-arching belief and assumption that the goal of this setting is to be able to mingle with others and to give off the impression that you, the individual, is someone that is trustworthy, gregarious, and amicable.

Maybe that is sincerely, the type of person one may be, the in virtually all cases, we do tend to go off in slight tangents and sometimes exaggerate ourselves on others.

People tend to do this unconsciously as if we all yearn for this mysterious something in life. Maybe it's friendship, love, or simply the quest for "truth". Whatever it may be, it is something that we do.

These rules, for lack of a better term, are roles that we play given the situation. But are these roles really who we are? Is this how you would behave all the time, or do you behave slightly differently given the situation and the people that you are involving your self with in such situation?

Each of us, essentially play a role and continue to modify this role as the situation changes.

Now, let's move on to the virtual aspect...

What we are faced with in a virtual setting is the removal of the physical self (i.e. removal of f2f contact) by replacing it with something more meta-physical; our mind if you will.

When we choose to put ourselves into the role of the self without the f2f situation, there is more of an opportunity to be more honest if you will. But that does not necessarily mean that everyone is honest online as many of you probably are aware.

The users are all starting on a more level playing ground in a non-f2f situation.

With a real wold, f2f scenario, we are dealing with the mind of course, but the f2f variable tends to be a bit disruptive in our normal patterns of behavior. We see who other individuals surround themselves with, what they are wearing, the types of topics being discussed, the way that the people speak with each other, the body language given off...all these variables lead us to creating schema to which results in our output (i.e. behavior & actions) to the people we are associating with.

So why exactly is it that with an online situation, we tend to either be more open, or tend to be completely secretive or anonymous?

The variables that once confined our selves and our minds to this perceived required set of actions are believed to be removed.

Online, we are not really there, but still exist in a more meta-physical way. This is done so through our minds. What we communicate via virtual means, has a more direct-to-business type of manner whereas a f2f situation has more interpreting involved. The fact that the interpretation step is taken out of the situation, yields a level of perceived freedom.

With this, we are able to be more honest and direct, or we can choose to completely deceive another, by keeping our identity anonymous to the recipient of the interaction.

What exactly do you supposed creates all this? The shroud of anonymity...why is it that many of us perceive that it exists when comparing virtual to f2f scenarios?

Or better yet, why is it that many of us are unable to communicate in a more direct-to-business type of manner in f2f situation, and instead opt to include all these superfluous steps that require analyzing and interpreting?

Life is complicated as it is. So why are we further complicating it? Why not be more clear-cut?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

FaceBook Friends...Real Or Fake?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/15/friends-with-benefits-do-facebook-friends-provide-the-same-support-as-those-in-real-life.aspx?GT1=43002

There's an article. Read it. Take it for how you see it.

Some people may find that people with "virtual" friends are odd, but many should (after some thinking) realize that "virtual" friends may be better than no friends at all. Sure, these FaceBook "friends" tend to create more acquaintances than what many would consider "friends", but what it is that most consider to be "real" as opposed to "virtual" impedes some; from some of the more viable applications in life, that is through virtue of "virtual" reality.

Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 1

This begins a small mini-series of blog entries that I will make over the next few days~weeks. It is strictly coming from a paper that I had written in a philosophy course that I had taken.

I will be dividing up the paper into parts and seeing what other people have to say. I am not literally copying + pasting the actual paper here obviously as that would provide no further insight for me.

First off, many of you are aware of the terms "real" and "virtual". But what do those 2 words really mean to you?

Is it far fetched to say that something "virtual" has no "real" existence merely on the premise that it does not physically interact, but is an interaction between 0s and 1s being processed inside of a computer as a result of the input that you, the user, gives while on a computer?

Quite possibly that in itself could be enough to justify some people's belief that "virtual" is in no way "real". However, others would disagree that even though it is not physically in existence, it does have some "reality" applications.

When someone explicit tells another to "Get a life." What do they mean, really? The "real" world life that people physically embodies is what is most likely being requested to do when one gives the statement, "Get a life."

But, there is actually a "life" from a virtual point of view. This "life" though not physically viewable, requires thought, care, and some level of basic skill for one to begin being involved with.

How one may ask?

Well, such things include FaceBook, YouTube, MySpace, AIM, Twitter, World of WarCraft, Second Life...and even this blog.

From a social point of view (speaking in regards to the "real" world), a life is often comprised of individual inhabiting an area among others. These individual gather to form a community, and within this community many activities occur every day.

Strictly from that point of view, a "virtual world" is quite contrary to its name. If we consider it from that point of view, the "virtual" world is actually a "real life setting".

There are:

a. individuals (in the form of users)
b. there are communities (blogs, forums, chat rooms, World of WarCraft, Facebook, etc)
c. there are activities (chatting, posting messages, playing games, sending emails)

What do you think about this? Please comment below.