http://www.p2c2e.de/cyberhobbit/clairvoyant.htm#4
http://www.google.co.kr/search?aq=0&oq=paul+viri&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=paul+virilio#sclient=psy&hl=ko&newwindow=1&source=hp&q=paul+virilio+VIRTUAL&pbx=1&oq=paul+virilio+VIRTUAL&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=839333l842888l0l843178l14l11l1l0l0l1l237l1480l2.6.2l10l0&fp=c6ae198d2a4b7fa&biw=888&bih=445
there will be two realities: the actual and the virtual. Thus there is no simulation, but substitution. Reality has become symmetrical. The splitting of reality in two parts is a considerable event which goes far beyond simulation."(WWW: Cyberwar, God and Television: 3) So people will live in two kind of realities, in two kind of times: "Some people, those in the virtual community, will live in the real time of the world-city, but others will live in deferred time, in other words, in the actual city, in the streets." (Virilio quoted by Robins 1995: 154)
What is being effectively globalized by instantaneity is time. Everything now happens within the perspective of real time: henceforth we are deemed to live in a 'one-time-system'. For the first time, history is going to unfold within a one-time-system: global time. Up to now, history has taken place within local times, local frames, regions and nations. But now, in a certain way, globalization and virtualization are inaugurating a global time that prefigures a new form of tyranny. If history is so rich, it is because it was local, it was thanks to the existence of spatially bounded times which overrode something that up to now occurred only in astronomy: universal time. But in the very near future, our history will happen in universal time, itself the outcome of instantaneity - and there only."(WWW: Speed and Information: 2)
Hans-Ulrich Obrist: Pierre Levy, in his book on virtual reality, says that this contrast between virtual and real is false, he talks about the actualisation of virtual programs.
Paul Virilio:Virtual is not the opposite of real, its the opposite of actual. Its classic tenet of philosophy, reality has two faces, one actual, proceeding to the act, and one virtual, that which is potential. Virtual is the opposite of actual, not real.
This is basic, theres no need to have a philosophical culture to make virtual the opposite of real. That said, the virtual /actual antithesis raises the question of what is real. Hans-Ulrich Obrist: By mutating it.
Paul Virilio: Precisely. Its the problem of perspective. The world view of the Renaissance is a virtualisation, a reorganisation of the act of seeing, a geometrification of sight. It goes without saying that nowadays with the new technology there is a reactualisation of reality coming from virtual technologies. Thats what I was trying to say when I was talking about a perspective of real time that was going to replace the perspective of real space.
Hans-Ulrich Obrist: If we look at how the Internet is perceived in the press and in the mass-circulation dailies, this is where the big misunderstanding lies, there is always this antithesis between virtual and real.
Paul Virilio: What has misled them is the idea of simulation. This word, which was brought up by my friend Baudrillard, is what I would say has caused the confusion. Virtual reality is not simulation - though it can be - its potential reality.
Virtual reality has the potential of being, so it is not necessarily simulation. But virtual reality has been identified with simulation and this has masked the relationship between virtual and actual.
Hans-Ulrich Obrist: At the same time Mike Davis warns us of the ever increasing black (w)holes of the non-wired population.
Paul Virilio: Here again we should drop the phrase black holes , it smacks too much of Baudrillard.
Speaking as a town planner, I would say that we are going to organise cities so as to leave room for virtual spaces. A virtual space is a space that is transitional, between one act and another. There are transitional spaces in architecture: the vestibule is the airlock between the private and the public sphere. If we take a telephone box, its sound vestibule. This space is a calling space for another persons voice, its space that is at once virtual and real, its very interesting.
What we are seeing the beginnings of today, with virtual reality, is virtual spaces which will be inside real space, bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens which can be used to call the spectres of your visitors, your televisitors. So we could say that to the real vestibule where I receive the postman who brings me letters will be added a virtual vestibule to which, when the bell rings, will come the visit of my clone, the visit of my virtual visitor, and I shall go in with sensors and be able to receive the other person, feel his body, shake his hand, talk to him, see him. The problem of architecture and the city of tomorrow is how to house these virtual spaces in real spaces.
Hans-Ulrich Obrist: Its like Russian matriuschka..
Paul Virilio: Precisely, and I could give you some ancient examples.
The alcove is a virtual room, its not a room; if we take the Breton cupboard- bed - I am breton on my mothers side - there used to be cupboards that were used as bedrooms, you lit the heating stove underneath. It was a piece of furniture in a room that was a room in its own right. Its just like the Russian dolls.
We are going to have to invent spaces of the same kind to house these calling rooms for other peoples bodies. With teletechnologies its no longer a question of calling up the voice, as with the telephone, or calling up a visual image as with television, but of calling up the other persons body to meet him. Hence the threat of telesexuality, in other words the invention of a universal contraceptive.
I would remind you today that the protective against AIDS is at one and the same time necessity and a considerable threat, namely the separation of bodies that virtuality is going to bring. Appalling prospect!
Hans-Ulrich Obrist: This brings ups back to the discussion of the most basic house there is, the cell of a single Absalon.
Paul Virilio: Personally I became interested in those kind of spaces when I worked in bunkers. A bunker is a confined space, a survival space, where I had to isolate to survive. Its like a submarine.
Hans-Ulrich Obristhttp://www.ljudmila.org/scca/urbanaria/txt/e/pvirilio.htm