artificials manifesto: one.

you are a channel, and reality is consensual delusion.

Starting with the latter, I mean that common belief determines what is true, at least within a society. While I recognise that truth is a less incendiary term to use, I choose reality, because truth is accepted as relative. Reality is supposed to be without bias, and I suppose, with enough people acting in determining it, it still can be. Reality is dictated by what most people believe. When everyone thought the world is flat, they were wrong, from a scientific perspective. But, in that society, the reality was of a flat world with edges you could fall off. Consensual Delusion.

As a consequence of this, you, as a person, are defined by the perceptions of others. This is the power of bias and stereotype; they decrease your involvement in the construction of your own identity, instead causing others to create all or some of it for you, without your input. The construction of your identity is arguably the most important thing about you, in the social world. Definitions set limitations. And you cannot escape being defined, in part, by others. All you can do is be a participant in the perception of your identity by others.

In this way, you are a channel. Who you are, in the social sense, is defined for others by the web of signifiers you carry with you and broadcast to everyone. The things you do, the things you say, how you say them, the references you use, how you dress, body language, who you associate with, facial expressions, the books and music you listen to and like, how much you tip, all of this meshes together in the interpretations of those around you. And, like it or not, those around you define who you are in at the least, a level comparable to that which you do. Your behaviour defines you, and everyone knows this. This is why behaviour changes with context, from small ways (pretending to like a band because you are trying to win someone over), to larger ways (defining your musical taste by the social group you wish to be a part of). I'd argue that everyone does this, to some extent. You essentially have to. You can't participate actively in society without finding, and at times creating, common ground with others.

That identity is contextual, that the person you strive to be perceived as is situational, doesn't mean that identity doesn't exist, or that people aren't real. Perceived identity is powerful enough that it shapes actual identity. Attaching this to the earlier point that reality is consensual delusion, pretending to be someone is functionally the same as being them, assuming a simulation of high quality. (This point ties to Baudrillard's Precession of Simulacra, if you're interested.) If identity is not a constant, if it is socially defined, then it has to be malleable. And this happens both consciously, and unconsciously. But it happens.

Persona, or perceived / projected identity, is a medium, and it can be used far more actively than most people bother to consider. Moreover, it doesn't have to be used in isolation, and it has benefits that almost no other medium does. However, in life, and in individual use of persona, we generally act on the assumption that persona are genuine, or are manipulated either visibly, or only partially. What makes this so? And beyond that, why are we so steadfast in the assumption that the truth of a person is in the projected signs and identity?

We live in a world where people hire entire teams to manage the public image of individuals, and of corporations. We are likely not far from living in a world where this is done internally, on an individual level.

[This was part one. I'll be expanding on this, and discussing other elements of my ideas in relation to persona as an active medium, in later 'artificials manifesto' posts. This is going to be edited and updated in response to critique, and as my own ideas shift. I am (I hope) open to being told where my rationale falls short, or falls apart.]