Without getting into the details, I was baffled yesterday by being asked if I thought someone, whom I consider a friend, was "real". Apparently, if you have an online presence, you have something to prove. People are completely disregarding the fact that you CAN have online friends and acquantances who live thousands of miles away that you are never likely to meet. But it can still be a personally gratifying experience to talk with them. It's just the nature of the game.

Not wanting to get into any deep water debate on the philosophical constituents of reality, I still want to ask what is the breaking point. At what moment can you know that somebody is "real" and not just some pretentious online profile?

When the red light on your bullshit detector doesn't go off.

The moment you meet them in person. Other than that, who cares?

I would second this, based on six years of internet socialising and meeting people from it.

As we all know, the Internet is just a series of tubes filled with ones and zeros. What makes anyone real is his personal accomplishments in the real world.

If this sort of thing is interesting to you, I can recommend Baudrillard and Turing and you haven't already read them.

At what point can you tell anything is real?

"At what moment can you know that somebody is "real" and not just some pretentious online profile?"

The moment you start to question someone, they will forever be on trial. You will constantly find yourself playing the role of Judge, when in interaction. It is when these moments occur that I have found it best to decline interaction, sit back, and let said person sink or swim. I do the same in real world situations. Stratify.

I take the person they say they are for granted.
I don`t realy care for them beeing male or female or whatever, I classify `em for their behavior and, if it`s a game, skills.
It`s not usually like I`m ever gonna meet most of `em in IRL.

Aye. This is it. That's what I do.

I will also say that much of the time it is of no consequence to me whether they are "real" or not, as this is simply none of my business - and it doesn't change diddely squat for me. The question is rather whether they are amusing and/or a source of useful information. As we say in Norway: "If this isn't true it is at least a good story".

I have "The Distinction" in my shelf but I haven't opened it yet. Next out is "World Hypotheses" by Stephen C. Pepper, subtitled Prologomena to systematic philosophy and a complete survey of metaphysics. Yes this is indeed an interesting question to spin thoughts around. I find that Schopenhauer had it pretty much covered though, with "the world as will and imagination" - as much of what we acknowledge in terms of "reality" is preposterous, if you subject it to scientific standards for evidence.

All online personalities are ficticious until proved otherwise by flesh and blood experience. Take for instance the way a person "speaks" on here. It might look nice and well done, but in reality they can be a really horrible speaker unless given hours to think of a subject or rebuttal. Or, it could be vice versa and the person is a proficient speaker, but has no computer skills. So until they back up their goods with flesh and blood or sweat and tears; eat their words with a salt shaker conveniently at hand. HS!

I'd say it's the same breaking point when it comes to accepting anything else as real: when any alternative explanation seems so elaborate and ridiculous to make any sense. It's not just a single document that establishes fact, but enough accumulated data that all fits together.

People can hear my voice every week on my on-line radio show. They can see photos of me with other people. And they can see video clips of me where the voice matches up with the image. Numerous people on-line can attest to meeting me in person. And I've made countless internet posts over many years that are consistant with the hobbies I list, etc.

Is there a chance that maybe, just maybe, I'm not really Bill M.? That somebody has hacked my account, or somehow made a fake scan of my COS card to set up the account here in the first place? That maybe all of the people who have claimed to meet me are really just all in on a big secret, that Bill M. isn't real? And that I have somebody else who stands in for those video clips and records The Devil's Mischief every week? Or maybe I've been dead for years and none of my real-life friends have said anything about it?

Yes, I'm sure these crazy things are all possible. It's always possible to imagine some weird hypothetical situation that gives different explanation. But you have to ask: why would somebody go out of their way to do this? And how likely is it that I got everybody to go along with it and never let the cat out of the bag?

Is being "REAL" on the internet really THAT important?

One might conject (since solipsism is one of the Satanic
Sins) that I am real, at least to the extent that there
is a force (whether encased in a shell of protoplasm, or
not) that has taken the necessary steps to produce the
words that have appeared on this post.

Is what you are asking Max Faust, "How does one adequately
or accurately represent themself in a forum where other
participants have neither prior knowledge or visual
confirmation of their presence; and are the messages
said entity is expressing, consistent with how they would
appear to you were they in the same room with you at
that moment: "Does the poster have INTEGRITY ?"

What I would suggest Max Faust, is that what is real is not
nearly as important as what is useful. The words that are
read here (and the ideas that they relate) are much like a
piece of Impressionist Art: What you see, is what you get;
the greatest part of that coming from YOUR interpretation of
what you have read, and how YOU relate it to YOUR life.

Obviously, I am not a female meerkat nursing her pups; if this
were the case, I would probably be too occupied with foraging
in order to provide milk for the pups, keeping the home well
kept, and being on constant alert for possible predators.

Having said that, I have been as forthright as I possibly know
how to be:

I was once affiliated with the Church of Satan,
(at least to the extent of filling out an application, paying
the required amount of money, and getting a letter of acceptance
and a membership card in the mail).
I was reckless in my pursuit of magic:
I had what I believe (to this day) to be
an involuntary OBE: I came into contact with something which
terrified the living daylights out of me, and I somehow managed
to snap back into my body.

Sending in my letter of resignation
was both stupid and thoughtless on my part.

I lost all concept
of rational thought, and simply reacted. I had become then
what I now detest: the herd!
What I had experienced, I would
compare to anyone who has had the distinction of staring down
the barrel of a loaded gun while they are being robbed: who
you are, and what you believe at that moment are GONE.

None of this was the fault of the Church of Satan, in ANY way.

It is all on me:

I fucked up.

I was stupid.

I admit it.

It may sound psychotic to say that I have "taken control of
his body", but in my thinking, I am simply NOT the same entity
that I was back then. I am OLDER. I am somewhat WISER. And
I am still among the living-- this is what is MOST important
to me.

SURVIVAL IS THE HIGHEST LAW.

For the record, the material that I was using at the time of the
incident was not published
by the Church of Satan. It was a book by someone who identified
themself as Dr. Christopher S. Hyatt.

I think that this person is a wonderful author; and anything that
I may have experienced is certainly NOT his fault.


An example:

If I produce proof that I am a legally licensed driver, I pay
the funds necessary to buy an automobile, and then I take that
car out on the freeway and crash it (or more dramatically, drive
it off of a cliff), I don't blame the autodealer, and I don't
blame "God" or nature because gravity pulled the car towards the
center of the earth, making the car crash.

Acquiring the license; purchasing the car; starting the ignition;
putting the car in gear; and drivng (however recklessly) the
car off of a cliff are all willed acts.
"It's nobody's fault but mine."

For the record, if there is any way that I can gain readmission
into the Church of Satan, then I would like to do this very much!

In Closing:

I can say, first and foremost, that the Church of Satan is
the "Real Deal".

Magic exists (please use responsibly).

And that I am very happy to be alive.

AND

I am most delighted and
honored to have access to this forum;
both with you Max Faust, as well
as the other Esteemed Members of the Satanic Community.

This is my experience; (to the extent that I can be deemed
a "reliable narrator").

If that is not "REAL", then I don't know what "REAL" is.


GCaesarWhiskers

What does your resignation from the Church of Satan and supposed 'out of body' experience have to do with this topic?

What is considered "real" in the first place?