I'm still interested in Chun's use of space as example of her control/freedom discussion. In the second half of the book, she identifies the paranoia of bodily space as the point when "the boundary between self and other, self and self, freedom and control, begins to collapse" (245). In seems ironic that the Cartesian reason for separating the self from the other—gaining *truthful* knowledge—is the very division that is being troubled by the knowledge/information that was gained. Chun notes that this dissolving of boundaries occurs when "orienting the reader/viewer, enabling him or her to envision the world as data. This twinning sustains--barely--the dream of self-erasure and pure subjectivity" (195). Not only are we challenging the notion of spaces, but we are also challenging the notion of our body as space.
How far can you take this "self-erasure"? Erasing your body? Erasing cognitive synapses that constitute you? But doesn’t there always need to be some amount of filtering or designating? Otherwise there is only raw data, bits of us and our spaces that are unmoored. So, is she saying that one aspect of the paranoia is losing the conception of ourselves? I suppose that her idea of agoraphobia being not about spaces but about identity politics of public spaces means that the answer is, yes (247). I wonder how we will deal with this. Perhaps re-imagine the Cartesian model. Or, perhaps come up with some new, more fluid way of constructing the self. Is it the fact that we have physical bodies that we feel the need to spatialize and divide one space from another? But this is changing: "Significantly, the Orient is first and foremost a virtual space. Said contends that the Orient is not a 'real' space but rather a textual universe (that is, created by supposedly descriptive Orientalist texts)" (192); or, it's all in our heads. But can't this be said for all spaces? A place is nothing more than what we designate it to be, and because of this it function as much more than it physically is. Digital spaces solidify for us that to be some place is only to imagine it.
"Technological empowerment and the threat of being left behind are no longer benign" (255). Is this a new fear? How does this compare to how people felt post-WWI and industrialization when the machines that promised new and fantastic lives actually caused massive death. Then, people felt betrayed, but now? Her big argument here, the paranoia being left behind technologically is what drives us to acquire and master new tech. But she’s also saying, every technology has a dark side, don't be fooled by the sappy advertisements. I would be interest to explore contemporary feelings of technological betrayal, and how we are responding.
Honestly, the thing that struck me the most was how few people I saw in-world. As I was logging in there was a banner claiming that 53,746 people our also online. I think I saw about a dozen. Where was everybody? And the people I saw were sitting on a bench that, I think, would pay you for sitting on it. I bet those people were out to a movie or eating dinner. Assuming the numbers are true does lend some credence to the enormity of SL. However, I find it troubling for my ability to appreciate the environment as a space without other people around. I think that socializing and connecting are the biggest parts of how I define space. The biggest question/critique I've heard when talking to folks about SL is, What the heck do you do there?! Answer: the same stuff you do out here in physical space: work, socialize, explore new places. It's a space if you want it to be, if you dive in and participate. 
