An excerpt from the fictional tales of The Daily Beacon.
Dear Rich, is disassociation from reality a concern of yours in regards to your practice of virtuality?
I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove a definitive reality. The varied descriptions of existence by everyone throughout the world as well as throughout history should be proof enough of this. Nobody seems to agree on what’s real. Arguments could not happen if everyone witnessed the same things — yet we even argue with those closest to us. What we call reality should really be called a personal interpretation of shared concepts.
So in that sense, no I don’t think disassociation is a concern of mine. If I chose to engage in this topic, I’d be more concerned that people define a concrete reality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even at the most physical interpretation of existence, people are regularly fooled by unintentional illusion as well as deceit. In other words, what we see is not what we get.
Virtuality essentially defines this world as illusionary. In some sense, that aligns with the spiritual view of life, an outlook I used to be diametrically opposed to. I used to define reality as the random alteration of molecules drifting through space, and thought existence happened by accident — but now I find that viewpoint grossly pessimistic.
Additionally, randomness is a very scary proposition. Under that belief, any of us could die at any second under the most horrific circumstances. It’s a great recipe for anxiety. Whereas virtuality is an effective tool for eliminating anxiety. So not only does virtuality map better to our actual experiences than the popular definition of “reality”, but it improves those experiences.