About half the time I use the term 'Real Life', I get corrected by a resident who prefers the term 'First Life'. The implication being, I suppose, that Second Life is just as 'real' as one's meatspace life. There is something to this argument. The person driving the avatar is the same person driving the physical body. In both instances, there is a living personality making the decisions, being emotionally affected by the stimuli. So, yes, in this case, you could get away with saying 'First Life'. However, I think it's well-understood at this point that either term is merely a referent to one's physical space. Call it what you want, you're just making the distinction between the two, as is sometimes required. Such further definition is unnecessary, really. Perhaps if, someday, SL approaches the complete complexity and all-senses nuance of the physical realm, these terms might acquire some more substantial meaning, but is it really necessary to be so pedantic about it? What do you think, O Constant Readers? FL or RL?












1. Actually, some people believe that their first life is actually their second life to make it even more complicated :)
Posted at 3:49PM on Jun 4th 2007 by Yo Brewster