Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet

Relationship, Spirituality, Technology Comments (37)

globaltechlg

In the past year, I’ve found myself speaking often at conferences about social media and the online world. I’m not sure how this has happened since I don’t consider myself to be a social media expert. There are plenty of people who do this much better than I do. :) I regularly communicate to people that I simply try to use the internet as a tool for  engaging people and implementing the various passions in my heart.

I’m writing this post because of a common kind of question that arises in most places I speak. The question goes something like the following:

  • Can we really be “present” with people online like we are in person?
  • Doesn’t online presence diminish “real” human interaction?

Whether these kinds of questions are birthed out of curiosity, concern, or even skepticism, one must engage metaphysics (a philosophical discipline that studies such things as the nature of existence and reality) to navigate through possible answers. I will do my best to keep it as simple as possible, especially for those who may not have a background in philosophy.

My Presuppositions and Frame of Reference Entering This Conversation:

  • I hold to substance dualism. This means that I believe that human beings have both physical (i.e., body) and immaterial (i.e., soul) properties.
  • My immaterial soul is who I am. My physical body is the medium through which I interact with the physical world. Although my body is continually changing [ask my wife :)], my soul is what allows me to have a constant identity. My physically body is less essential than my soul when it comes to issues of identity. For example, say that John, who recently got in an accident, had to amputate his legs. Would he be less John than before? I doubt that any of us would ever dare to make that claim. John’s primary identity is not the accumulation of his physical parts. His souls gives him identity.
  • I also recognize that people may define “presence” differently and carry various criteria for what constitutes presence. For the sake and context of this conversation, I’m referring to a common understanding of presence where people sense that you are with them to varying degrees of intimacy. Whether it’s intimate love or deep friendship, it’s the sense that the person you are being “present” with understands to some depth of who you are and what you’re going through.

My Hopes for This Conversation:

  • I would like to make the case that our physical bodies are not necessary to be “present” with another human being in a “real” way. In fact, in some cases, separation by physical space can actually heighten our presence with one another.
  • I am NOT making the case here that one kind of presence, whether in person or through a medium like the internet, is necessarily better than the other. My point here is that people can be “present” with another in a real kind of way without having to be spatially or temporarily (i.e., in real-time) there.
  • I hope to at least rebut this notion that it is not possible to have “real presence” online as in person.

Presence and Space

In approaching this conversation, I think it’s important to consider the relationship of presence to space, time, and extension.

First of all, I believe that presence does not require us to be spatially present. I’m sure most of us have experienced a genuine sense of being “with” someone without physically being with them. Whether it was a phone call, video chat, voicemail, tweet, text message, status update, prayer, or letter, we have experienced a deep sense of connecting with another human being who may not have been physically present with us. In fact, has distance away from a loved one ever caused you to become even more endeared or present with those you love?

In addition, for those who hold to a theistic worldview, consider God’s presence. God the Father, who is by nature Spirit, does not have any physical properties. Therefore, is God able to be fully present in our lives? I would venture to say that most of us believe that he is in fact fully present. Therefore, presence is not limited to space.

(I am not arguing here about whether or not we are just like God. Although I do believe we were created in his image, which includes our ability to connect at an immaterial level, I’m simply pointing out the fact that presence does not necessitate space.)

The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Colossians wrote, “For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.” (Phil 2:5). In this case, Paul emphasizes how shares how he is present with the churches at Colossae even though he is not physically with them. I’m sure many of us have experienced a similar kind of present endearment with our loved ones, even if they were half-way around the world.

If you so desire, you can flip the scenario and give examples of times when we have been physically present with someone yet and fully there. Anyone? :)

Presence and Time

The beauty of presence is that it can be experienced after the fact. In other words, it doesn’t have to be real-time.

I was speaking to a friend of mine today reflecting on God’s goodness and presence in his life during his years of military service. He shared how he didn’t realize at the time of how God had protected and guided him several years ago. He came to realize later on, in a real way, the depth of God’s presence in his life.

Quite honestly, I don’t think most of us realize until after the fact of how present God or any other loved one was in our lives. Consider those who reflect on loved ones that have passed away. In many ways, the significant presence of a person is rarely recognized in its appropriate magnitude while the individual being honored is alive.

At a much smaller scale, consider all of the day to day points of information or news about people that reach us after the fact. And yet, it’s commonplace to be moved by people’s thoughts, events, and images as if they were physically near us. I would say that these could be (not always) genuine points of presence.

I’m sure that many who read the letters of the early Apostles felt their presence and connection. The technology of letters allowed them to connect in a real way.

Presence and Extension

I believe that a soul’s presence can be extended through physical objects. Here’s what I mean…

Our souls use our bodies as vehicles through which we extend our presence. For example, my voice is an extension of my presence as a soul to the external world. My voice, a physical sound wave, allows me to connect with those outside of my body. Do I need a voice to connect? Not necessarily. Nevertheless, the physical body can definitely impact the soul’s experience with the outside world.

In a similar way, the internet can function as extenders of our presence in a real way. The tools we see online can function as healthy or unhealthy extenders of our being.

(I’m not advocating for anything like pantheism here. I’m simply making the point that physical objects can function as vehicles for the soul’s expressive extension.)

Closing Thoughts: What are the Implications for the Online World?

The following is an abbreviated list of some of the implications I see for engaging the online world if indeed my perspective is true:

  • The conversation must move beyond whether or not we should engage people online. The better question is “How will we engage others in a real way online?” and not “if we can engage…”
  • If real presence is possible in an online setting, we must consider the weight of responsibility that comes along with presence. Online activity can and will have real ramifications for reality.
  • The online conversation can no longer just be a side conversation or addendum to culture or even ministry. For example, those who brush off online presence as a secondary kind of presence will miss out on the numerous true/real opportunities and genuine friendships that await them.

I am not, in any way, saying that we should get rid of physical presence. I’m just hoping that this blog post will allow some to see that real presence can take place online, whether independently or as a compliment to physical presence.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Pin It

» Relationship, Spirituality, Technology » Why Presence Does Not Necessitate...
On September 14, 2009
By
, , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses to Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet

  1. theideacamp says:

    New Blog Post: Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2SSbq9 (Long but hopeful worth it)

  2. charlestlee says:

    New Blog Post: Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2SSbq9 (Long but hopeful worth it)

  3. jessegiglio says:

    Thank you professor, much to think about : ) The irony is that often oneʻs “online” expressions are actually closer to “real” than that which occurs when sharing physical space. Iʻd assume terms like “virtual” will eventually disappear as paradox and the life we live will be one whether physical or via distance communication mediums.

    Always appreciate your insights, hopefully Iʻll see you on the 10th for UnleashingBeauty.
    Cheers.

  4. Charles says:

    Thanks for the note Jesse! Man, I haven’t heard that word “professor” in a while…feels funny :)

    Good point about the evolution of words…It will be interesting to see how language develops.

    See you on the 10th!

  5. Dave Ingland says:

    Interested to know how you carry this over to the discussion of church online vs physical fellowship. Can someone gather with others virtually in fellowship and really experience the type of relationship that satisfies the inner soul?

  6. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by charlestlee and theideacamp. theideacamp said: New Blog Post: Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2SSbq9 (Long but hopeful worth it) [...]

  7. charlestlee says:

    @biotrom Here’s the link: http://bit.ly/2SSbq9 #tweetcwc Love to hear ur thoughts.

  8. Thanks for the insightful post. I’m someone who is generally against online church, but I at least agree with you that online presence should not be abandoned. I appreciate the thoughtful case you’ve made here. Hope we have you back at CWC next year…

  9. Charles says:

    Hey Dave!

    Good question. I suppose it really depends on the criteria for inner satisfaction. The scope of my post is primarily making the point that presence and moments of presence can be achieved without spatial or temporal immediacy. I suppose it gets more complex as you add people and a season of time.

    Nevertheless, I think there could still be genuine moments of presence in a virtual setting. [I know we've experienced this :) ]

  10. Charles says:

    Thanks for your note Roger. I really appreciate your intellectual honesty and humility.

    I’m glad you were at CWC this year. My time there helped to spur on this post. In regards to online churches, I definitely think there are limitations in some areas.

    I hope conversations like these will allow us to learn from one another and move towards collaborative care. Thanks again.

  11. charlestlee says:

    Some light reading b4 bed :) – Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2SSbq9

  12. Dawn Carter says:

    Charles:

    Wow. In your spare time you tackle such fluffy stuff!

    Actually, you articulate beautifully the philosophical assumptions behind the “is online presence real?” debate. Thank you for explaining these so plainly for the non-philosophers out here.

    I think there is a mystery to presence… especially God’s presence, that defies human understanding. As a student of how God heals broken hearts, I’ve seen how emotionally wounded individuals (with the help of a godly counselor) can go back in their memories to a traumatic event, re-experience feelings, but interject God’s presence into the trauma. This exercise has restored, healed and released many. This shows me that although asynchronously experienced (e.g. traumatic event at age 7, healing prayer at age 30) the beauty of presence is no less real. And it is certainly a mystery.

    Thank you for this conversation, Professor :-)

  13. charlestlee says:

    Blog Update Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet:
    In the pas.. http://bit.ly/2pbMDp

  14. Jon Tyson says:

    I agree with a lot of your thoughts here, and really encourage you to continue to develop this further, particularly with reference to scripture. In my option, that’s where the real strength of arguments lies, not in the pragmatics (eg, Paul would use the internet if he was here etc)

    So thanks for these thoughtful comments.

    Also, a couple of points to be considered.

    Is it possible that a real relationship and depth has to be established FIRST before a person can then be truly present with someone without physical presence? For example, the relationship i have built with my wife over the last 12 years in person, enables the non physical presence to be a reality. That physical presence lays the foundation for the online extension of presence.

    Secondly, authentic online presence almost always seems to long to be reunited to physical presence. Eg, if you really connect with someone online, ultimately you will want to meet them in person, even if casually at a conference for coffee etc. Also, an online relationship that is established, has a hint of pain at the disconnection from physical presence. Most of Pauls letters have a tinge of longing to be physically present and reunited with the people he was writing too. ( I am thinking of Pauls “when I could stand it no longer language from 1 Thess 3)

    Just some thoughts.

    Anyway, love what you have written here, please continue to develop this out for the rest of us. I personally see you as a lead thinker in this area, and welcome more thoughts.

    Cheers.

  15. RT @charlestlee Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2pbMDp

  16. First, your session at the Christian Web Conference was incredible. You gave us so much to think about. This post gives me a lot to think about too.

  17. charlestlee says:

    Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet http://bit.ly/2pbMDp (Join in on the Conversation)

  18. Charles says:

    Dawn, thanks so much for your input and example. I think life is full of asynchronistic experiences. Consider even the experience of salvation. The beauty of memory and even the recreation of memory could invite God into the midst. Man, you’re really getting out there with several layers of thought. :)

    Jon, thanks for your note. I definitely agree that a prior physical relationship can definitely heighten one’s online experience (as in your example about your wife). I suppose the struggle here is whether or not spatial presence is foundational/necessary/essential. I’m not sure yet. Although I have not had the level of intimacy with people online as with my wife (and I hope I never will), I have experienced of late growing depth of relationship with people I have never met physically. Now with that being said, I have communicated via video chats, phone calls, emails, etc. to nurture the relationship. (Nevertheless, this is probably beyond the scope of what this post is trying to convey. I think this topic would be a great follow up.)

    Also, great point about the desire of connecting after meeting online and the pain of not being able to do so. I definitely see it in Paul’s letters. I know that in hermeneutics, there are references to fictional presence (primarily a reference to non-spatial presence of people like the authors of Scripture). Just thinking out loud…probably need to process more.

    In any case, thanks for your input. It was good to briefly chat during Q in Austin. I hope our paths cross more often in the future. I love what you’re doing. It’s also been great to run into Erick Bauman the last few months here and there.

    Marcus, I’m so glad to hear that you are thinking intentionally about some of these issues that have some significant ramifications for life and ministry. Blessings on you as you continue to engage.

  19. charlestlee says:

    Enjoying the feedback coming in for my blog post: "Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body" http://bit.ly/2SSbq9

  20. Joy says:

    I appreciate your articulation of this issue and your thoughts about it. I have definitely struggled with the idea that I am “wasting time” on social networking sites or blogs.

    It is difficult for me to have this conversation without it leading to the idea of which form of “presence” is better than the other. Maybe not in a this-or-that way, but in my awareness of the fuller, richer, and deeper nature of physical presence and fellowship versus non-spatial presence (given that the same necessary qualities of and effort toward intimacy are there.)

    Personally, I often feel a sense of loneliness after spending a significant amount of time participating in online social networking. It often highlights my alone-ness, the reality of myself sitting in an empty room. Sometimes this loneliness can lead to a destructive pattern of isolation and withdrawal, because it inflames a sense of rejection, therefore causing me to avoid physical presence with others and all of its scary possibilities of awkwardness and further rejection.

    It is dangerous for one to ignore the unhealthy escape factor of relating online more than face-to-face. Part of building intimacy and attachment with others is familiarizing oneself with (and sometimes learning to endure) their little physical mannerisms, facial expressions, and habits. I think these are also extensions of a person’s “presence as a soul”, as you put it. If one can avoid these, one misses out on a certain layer of knowing and being known. Perhaps the reason spatial-temporary presence feels richer is that one has the opportunity to experience a greater number of the other’s “soul extenders”, i.e. body, voice, expressions, humor, style of affection, etc.

    If a traveler visits Paris and sees the Eiffel Tower, he experiences the city at a certain level but probably leaves wanting more. If he visits Paris and sees the Eiffel Tower and dines on escargot and Brie, his experience is heightened. Now, if he sees the Eiffel Tower, dines on fine French foods, tours other parts of the city, and lives in a flat with three Parisians for a year, he will experience the city in a much fuller, richer way. When we have relationships solely through the Internet, we are exposed to one or two facets of a person; maybe their intellect and humor. But if we like what we see, we are left wanting. Silly analogy, but you get the point.

    Great post, as always Charles. Thanks for sharing and for leaving the forum open for our own thoughts-in-process.

  21. Charles says:

    Wow Joy…thanks so much for your rich insights into this conversation! You articulate your thoughts so well. I’m thinking now that you should have wrote this post and not me. :)

    I definitely agree that the more extenders you have, the richer your experience can be. I think my only real point of contention was that people should not discount online interaction as being a lesser kind of interaction or “not as real”. I personally believe that all of these different ways we connect add to our engagement with others. The point being that it is neither just in person or just online. Both paths have real ways in which we connect with one another.

    It’s interesting you mention some of the alone-ness you feel after social networking. I sometimes feel that even after a gathering of spatial networking.

    Great thoughts. I feel privileged that you regularly visit this blog.

  22. Hey Charles,

    Great post, interesting thoughts. I wish I had more time to devote to this comment, but I will have to be concise.

    My main concern with the acceptance of cartesian dualism is that it inherently leads to a desire to ‘overcome’ the body. Like we talked about before, I wouldn’t go as far as Wendell Berry does, but I do think that our metaphysics needs to take into account the Biblical concept of bodily resurrection. In our perfect state we will have a physical body (Phil 3. etc.). It also doesn’t take into account the Biblical rite of eucharist. I realize there are a multitude of opinions on this issue, but in some way we participate with Christ’s physical body in the eucharist. Both Christ and Paul emphasized as much.

    Where exactly does that leave us in regards to ‘extending’ our bodies through media such as the internet? I think we both agree that one has to be aware that the mode of communication inherently and fundamentally alters the message being communicated.

    Additionally, I think we have to be careful about confusing ‘spiritual’ communication (such as prayer) with ‘extended’ physical communication (such as the internet.) Not sure exactly where I’m going with that, but I think there might be a category problem there.

    Sorry, I’m raising more questions than offering answers!

  23. daniel so says:

    Charles – Thanks for the great post! Sometimes, I struggle to articulate to those who are not familiar with social media/networking how it is a real and valid form of communication and relationship-building — this post gives a great framework for explaining those thoughts. I’m just going to refer them here next time! :)

    I have been loving the comments & conversation so far — deep insights and questions being raised (and all online!).

    Hope you’re feeling better!

  24. [...] Charles Lee has pointed out, of course, that were I to lose one of my legs I would still be “the same person.”  But there the notion of ‘person’ seems, again, too thin.  While the one-legged Matthew would clearly have some continuity with me right now, the change in my body would dramatically alter my interactions with the world and the world’s interactions with me.  It would be problematic as if people continued to interact with me as though I had two legs.  Clearly, what it would mean to be “Matthew Lee Anderson” would be significantly altered. [...]

  25. [...] resulting in several thought-provoking conversations both offline and online – see, for example, Charles T. Lee’s post arguing that one may be really present without being physically present.  Unfortunately, Andrew [...]

  26. Charles says:

    Thanks Stephen for the note! Also, appreciate all of the links you’ve emailed me. Very helpful :)

    I really appreciate your questions. Although your questions are outside the scope of what was meant to be covered here, they are definitely worth exploring. We probably have to work through the ways we develop categories of thought. Let me think about some of these things and we could pursue it at a later time. Thanks friend.

    Daniel, you’re too funny :) I too have been enjoying this conversation. I like all of the parallel or splinter conversations this has and will create.

  27. charlestlee says:

    "Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet" http://bit.ly/2SSbq9 – Great convo happening here!

  28. John Dyer says:

    Charles, Thanks for a great post. Here’s my two cents: Along with the great points that you’ve made about some form of “presence” without being physical proximity, I think we want to still say something more positive about physicality.

    For example, the Scriptures say that the fullest revelation of God to mankind was the incarnation of the Son of God as Jesus Christ, the God-man. Although God as Spirit is certainly present in some sense, the Bible calls out his physical presence as something distinct and more complete. Also, throughout the New Testament the Apostles refer to their desire to be physically present with the recipients of their letters and that being physically present (or “face to face”) will make their joy “complete.” In fact, both 2 John and 3 John contain statements that essentially say, “I would much prefer to be in person, but only since I cannot, I will use the technology of writing.” They don’t deny the importance of technological communication, but they still seem to think that physical presence offers something more than that which is mediated by technology.

    So while the Scriptures affirm a kind of presence without physicality, I think they also say that for humans, physical presence has the capacity to be more complete and full than non-corporeal senses of “presence.”

  29. Aaron Friesen says:

    Thanks for the post Pastor Charles. I definitely agree that real presence is possible and sometimes even enhanced (i.e. when we feel more freedom to be honest and open) in the online world. I also agree with you and other posters that Paul embraced and encouraged the idea that real human/soul connectedness could transcend physical presence, especially when two are united in Christ.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the benefits and potential problems with online relationships and there are two that worry me the most in my own life (but are by no means unavoidable). These may not apply to everyone, but there are things I’ve been thinking about:

    1) Online environments are (in my opinion) easier for me to control and manipulate so that I can project a false image. Obviously, I can manipulate and be fake in real relationships as well, but I think it is much easier to manipulate and be in control of your projected image when you use photos, text, and sometimes video to communicate and you can always pause and think a little before you upload and ask, “What might so and so think of such and such?”

    2) I’m concerned that social networking technology sometimes limits who I build deep relationships with. What I mean is it often leaves out the elderly, those that have difficulty expressing themselves in writing, and those who can’t afford internet connections and/or computers. Maybe this won’t be as much of a problem in a few more years, but at least right now, I feel the need to balance my time online with building relationships with those that don’t go online. Otherwise my sphere of friendship and influence will be limited to those I connect well with online, and (at least for me) that is only a segment, albeit growing, of the people I think I should be present with.

  30. Jesse says:

    Great conversation! Latest thought and admittedly not online specific…the spiritual phenomenon known as sports. Walk into any given sports bar during a big game and physical presence is the last thing thatʻs needed to share experience. People across the world united remotely in electricity. Not exactly “church community” but certainly deep commonality, passion and purpose.
    Being at the game will always hold a special place but itʻs far from the only way to be a true fan. (written by the guy in the NY hat)

  31. [...] and the brawn behind IdeaCamp. And he posted his own indirect response to the event in the article Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet where he [...]

  32. [...] resulting in several thought-provoking conversations both offline and online – see, for example, Charles T. Lee’s post arguing that one may be really present without being physically [...]

  33. [...] resulting in several thought-provoking conversations both offline and online – see, for example, Charles T. Lee’s post arguing that one may be really present without being physically present.  Unfortunately, Andrew [...]

  34. Paul Miller says:

    As a new “voice” to this conversation, I have been noticing that some of the basic elements of actual physical conversation have either been tacitly assumed or perhaps not deemed as relevant. We need physicality in conversation. We see the eyes, hear the tone of voice, see subtle hand movements, that go far beyond the words. Here, in cyberspace, we rely on our dexterity with words. However, if I were clumsy with them, awkward in explaining my thoughts, my “presence” would no longer be one to enjoy, but might even be ignored.

    For nearly eight years, I have participated rather actively in a messageboard community and noticed the shifts of communication change when people who have not met before
    do meet. A subtle shorthand of expression emerges, terms appears, one shares a commonality of experience having “been” with someone, as opposed to having exchanged thoughts and words.

    I often tell people how I wish they could actually sit down with me and hear the cadence and tone on my voice; how my eyes and facial expressions, far beyond emoticons, share my deep caring and concern.

    I believe that some sort of physical presence, whether in voice, or in body, is absolutely critical to life-changing experiences. We may chat and converse hear, but my ears want to “hear” you, my hands want to shake yours, and, there should we step into the glorious realm of friendship and deeper community, I would not even mind a hug.

    Can that take place on the internet?

    Your premise is exciting, I must admit that. I felt tingles of excitement coursing
    through me at all the implications of your thoughts. However, as a new voice to
    this conversation, I hope you will sense, indeed, I hope you will hear, both a
    passion to dialogue and an interest in physical community…even if we iChat.

  35. Charles says:

    Thanks guys for your comments. I took a little breather but I’m back :) Here are my thoughts:

    John, I appreciate your thoughts about being more positive about our physical nature. I most wholeheartedly agree that there is a unique experience of presence connected to being physically in the sphere of someone else. The focus of this blog post was really about showing readers that various actions made online can be real connection points, even as real (at times) as physical connections. I am in no way saying that these two are the same. I’m simply emphasizing that they are both legitimate and “real” in different ways. I use the analogy of the soul just to rebut the common notion that physical property is a necessary characteristic of presence.

    Aaron…always appreciate your thoughtfulness! I agree with you…the online world can be an environment where we can project a false image of who we really are. I think that’s what tools do. I’m sure that when the printing press came out, those who could afford it had the opportunity to use it for good or to project a false image. In fact, go way back to hand written letters of antiquity, people still had access to the technology or medium of letter writing to manipulate one’s public image. In fact, in Greco-Roman culture, we find examples of letters that exaggerate the accomplishments as well as genealogies of those who could pay for such services. In other words, tools will always afford an option to exaggerate and misrepresent. Is it easier now to do this? Not sure. But definitely, the average person has a lot more contacts of influence that ever before. Great points!

    Also, love your thoughts about who we ostracize because we function online. I’m hoping people have enough sense to not solely live their lives with only people who have internet access. May that never be said of us.

    Jesse, first of NY!!!! :) Love the analogy of mutuality and presence. I’ll need to process the implications a little more before I speak. Thanks for making me think!

    Thanks for the note Paul! My hope and intent was never to put our souls up against our bodies. I too believe heavily in actual physical engagement. As mentioned above, I’m simply pointing out that space and time is a necessary condition for legitimate engagement. It doesn’t follow logically from here that we should no longer engage physically just because we can have real points of presence online. Of course it’s a much better/fuller experience to be physically present with someone. All I’m saying is that one should not downplay the actual engagement that happens online as something unreal or not “present”.

  36. Paul Miller says:

    Charles, thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments. I appreciate the feeling of inclusiveness that you generated by your response. I understand your position quite well. In fact, I am very interested by this entire conversation. It has been one I have been having with my own colleagues at a mission school where I am teaching here in Japan. Your thoughts and your insights are ones I would like to bring back to lay before my co-workers here. Though I have been at the business of teaching for over 25 years, the innovations around me, the tantalizing wonder of all that the internet could do for my students, prods me to keep up with these sorts of dialogues. Thank you for the insights you have articulated here.

  37. [...] Why Presence Does Not Necessitate Body and Its Implications for the Internet [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« »