The value of art or any other commodity is quite uncannily aligned to the acquired significance (as structural endpoints) of meaning in language, of nodes in networks and of neurons in brains. That is – value is a function of where and how an artefact (or word) sits relative to all other artefacts, of the integrated network it inhabits and that equally and inversely, implicitly inhabits it. As soon as those artefacts are no longer overtly material, similarly so for value.
Virtualisation of phenomenological experience and commodity presence is not an absence of value so much as it is the emergence of a different kind of aesthetic or commercial value, reciprocal subjectivity and distributed meaning. I don’t question the reality of virtualised, abstract value so much as I do the capacity for human subjectivity to successfully cognitively track the implicit complex high-dimensionality of these new systems. The disconnect between technological system and human experience comprises the vacuum that compels us forwards.
Sociotechnical (as much as neurolinguistic) paradigm shift is not mandatory but, hanging from the cable on the trailing edge of this accelerating technological vessel as we all are, I do expect that it is inevitable.
The Metaverse seems bound to and anchored upon the possibility of what it might be, more than (only) what it is. That said, this discontinuity between embodied experience and possible future is the invocation of a difference and differentiation that compels many other technologies and much more besides.
Whether or not the ignition takes hold and widespread uptake occurs is always a stochastic matter but I would be as interested here in what is not said as what is. How does the possibility of an integrated abstraction of phenomenological virtualisation reflexively shape us and in what ways does this influence what the subjective transmission medium of technological implementation and effect or presence may (or may not) become?