**3. Cyber experience in the internet dimension, values and risks that come along**

In the cyberspace living world, we cooperate with others, communicate and create (virtual) societies. Here, we are, as Deuze notices, more that ever interconnected medially with other people and we cannot overlook and disregard other people's lives [10]. We become part of a specific social cyber experience as intersubjectively communicating individuals. This cyber experience that becomes both individual and collective at the same time seems to be rather attractive for us. However, in what way does it become really valuable?

General good, a value hidden in humane communication, can generally be found when communication meets its mission, in other words, where it contributes to closeness, reciprocity and understanding between people, where it helps individuals manifest their feelings, intentions, where people look for mutual understanding, which is, as E. Višňovský points out, the nature of humane communication [14]. We can say that communication that favours intersubjectivity based on our own understanding of what is valuable and meaningful means general good for us. Such communication constitutes society that is based on mutual closeness and shared experience. As Rankov points out, communication on the internet brings satisfaction, positive feelings triggered by content that we communicate, but also by sharing other people's experience and communication as such [15]. Joy, happiness, pleasure and meaningful communication that the cyber experience of communication offers are a few of the qualities that we associate with "good life". However, is there a place for real mutual understanding, or its importance?

Višňovský notices that starting an interaction through the internet and finding mutual understanding and fellowship are two different things [14].4 Also Bauman and Lyon warn in this context, when they say that rather than fellowship, we often find just the net itself. However, this net does not interpret true human community, because it does not look after us and is unreliable [16].5 In this perspective, communicating community cannot win over offline non-network communication, and it seems that its cyber experience cannot compare to real human understanding that is relevant for healthy social bounds or society.

However, we can use also another approach to virtual communities, network communication and values that come with it. For example, Deuze explains that here social bounds are not based on mutual experiences or history, but chiefly on information exchange and talking about life. Here, sociability means lively and fleeting interactive social relationships, ephemeral but intense communication sessions. It is a specific kind of network sociability that seeks for contact and interaction, but also sensitive passionate and emotional communication and conversation. Offering emotional intimacy and credit, it is not meaningless. Deuze believes that societies

**43**

it brings.

this way we declare our meaning of life.

*Cyberspace as a New Living World and Its Axiological Contexts*

that use virtual dimension to communicate may constitute more fragile communities, but these are still meaningful and offer rather coherent understanding of the individual ME that should not be underestimated [10]. It is obvious that collectives of people who communicate in the internet cyberspace really constitute a totally

We should not overlook that it is the already mentioned sociability that makes new forms of media, especially the internet, attractive [10] and that it is also virtual communities that serve now as engine for flourishing and surprising life in this universal dimension that was born of contact [17]. However, this does not detract from the fact that the very cellular detachedness of individuals presents a risk for cyber experience within the network-based internet communication. Kováč and Gyén state that the internet, as a social technology used primarily for communication, can ignite social isolation in individual people, bring feelings of loneliness and depression and destroy their well-being [18]. Brožík notices that we witness people who become loners, people sitting in front of computer screens, losing grasp of their own life because their virtual partner actually drags them further and further from the real world [19]. Furthermore, let us notice for example anonymity, a specific determinant of communication in the internet cyberspace. As Rankov notices, along with neutralisation of social status, anonymity also triggers disinhibition, or unrestrained behaviour. We can on the one hand see that there is probably a connection with growing bravery to express ideas. We are more open, more sociable and capable of expressing what we think. We are less stiff and more inclined to joke and dare to be unique. On the other hand, however, feeling protected by anonymity, we are prone to breaking the norms, telling lies and being aggressive and vulgar when we deal with others [15]. Disinhibition in the context of relative anonymity and physical safety can hurt our self-confidence and favour intimacy that may open the gate for anger and hatred and thus make us aggressive and violent [18]. We can therefore state that anonymity and disinhibition pose individual and social risk in our cyber experience on the internet, which influences the whole value that

We should also notice the cyber experience of construction of ME, or our identity, online. As we have already mentioned, together with Deuze, we routinely create a vast variety of versions of ME on the internet. We project and develop one or a number of versions of ME, but to be more precise, we do this in cooperation with others when we constantly share these versions and self-presentations of ME [10]. We thus offer our self-image for others, even though not completely. We all, yet each of us individually, show what it means to be a human, what values are important to us, how we distinguish what is good and what is evil and what it actually means for us to be alive. We share our ideas and visions when we co-create and present our identity. We can say that whether intentionally or non-intentionally,

Obviously, our image on the internet depends on how we (intersubjectively, or publicly) self-project our position [13]. In the light of this, the internet, or communication using the internet, can surely also deconstruct our subjective identity, as, for example, Kuzior [20] notes. Bystřický warns that media reality as relation reality on the one hand brings a new paradigm into development stages of the extension of ME, but on the other hand, it also brings a risk of copying someone else's attitudes and ways of constructing a social, mental and aesthetic pattern. Relation-based character of media-presented reality may imply states of multiphrenia, individuals splitting to non-homogeneous segments, or multiply our own and private investments into empty and useless forms of self-presentations, false expression of hypothetical possibilities of one's own development [21]. In the context of cyber experience, we then face a risk of losing identity and depersonalisation, and this

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91907*

new kind of society [15].

<sup>4</sup> According to Višňovský, one often looks for community, or communication, because it is needed but not found. In day-to-day life, we only find interaction, contact. The possibilities of virtual communication with the whole world are, Višňovský believes, utterly inadequate for us [14].

<sup>5</sup> Bauman and Lyon believe that the real, trusty community in sociological sense is reliable, our position here is more stable as we are confronted with duties and restrictions; we are watched and punished when community thinks it is necessary. Network, on the other side, lets us disconnect any time we want, so we are much freer to do what we like. Plus, and this is very important, network offers entertainment [16].

*Cyberspace*

communication.

**come along**

living world and that cyber experience as such is very attractive. As a next step, we will explore potential of values and risks that come with internet

**3. Cyber experience in the internet dimension, values and risks that** 

However, in what way does it become really valuable?

there a place for real mutual understanding, or its importance?

because it does not look after us and is unreliable [16].5

is relevant for healthy social bounds or society.

mutual understanding and fellowship are two different things [14].4

In the cyberspace living world, we cooperate with others, communicate and create (virtual) societies. Here, we are, as Deuze notices, more that ever interconnected medially with other people and we cannot overlook and disregard other people's lives [10]. We become part of a specific social cyber experience as intersubjectively communicating individuals. This cyber experience that becomes both individual and collective at the same time seems to be rather attractive for us.

General good, a value hidden in humane communication, can generally be found

Višňovský notices that starting an interaction through the internet and finding

and Lyon warn in this context, when they say that rather than fellowship, we often find just the net itself. However, this net does not interpret true human community,

municating community cannot win over offline non-network communication, and it seems that its cyber experience cannot compare to real human understanding that

However, we can use also another approach to virtual communities, network communication and values that come with it. For example, Deuze explains that here social bounds are not based on mutual experiences or history, but chiefly on information exchange and talking about life. Here, sociability means lively and fleeting interactive social relationships, ephemeral but intense communication sessions. It is a specific kind of network sociability that seeks for contact and interaction, but also sensitive passionate and emotional communication and conversation. Offering emotional intimacy and credit, it is not meaningless. Deuze believes that societies

<sup>4</sup> According to Višňovský, one often looks for community, or communication, because it is needed but not found. In day-to-day life, we only find interaction, contact. The possibilities of virtual communica-

<sup>5</sup> Bauman and Lyon believe that the real, trusty community in sociological sense is reliable, our position here is more stable as we are confronted with duties and restrictions; we are watched and punished when community thinks it is necessary. Network, on the other side, lets us disconnect any time we want, so we are much freer to do what we like. Plus, and this is very important, network offers entertainment [16].

tion with the whole world are, Višňovský believes, utterly inadequate for us [14].

Also Bauman

In this perspective, com-

when communication meets its mission, in other words, where it contributes to closeness, reciprocity and understanding between people, where it helps individuals manifest their feelings, intentions, where people look for mutual understanding, which is, as E. Višňovský points out, the nature of humane communication [14]. We can say that communication that favours intersubjectivity based on our own understanding of what is valuable and meaningful means general good for us. Such communication constitutes society that is based on mutual closeness and shared experience. As Rankov points out, communication on the internet brings satisfaction, positive feelings triggered by content that we communicate, but also by sharing other people's experience and communication as such [15]. Joy, happiness, pleasure and meaningful communication that the cyber experience of communication offers are a few of the qualities that we associate with "good life". However, is

**42**

that use virtual dimension to communicate may constitute more fragile communities, but these are still meaningful and offer rather coherent understanding of the individual ME that should not be underestimated [10]. It is obvious that collectives of people who communicate in the internet cyberspace really constitute a totally new kind of society [15].

We should not overlook that it is the already mentioned sociability that makes new forms of media, especially the internet, attractive [10] and that it is also virtual communities that serve now as engine for flourishing and surprising life in this universal dimension that was born of contact [17]. However, this does not detract from the fact that the very cellular detachedness of individuals presents a risk for cyber experience within the network-based internet communication. Kováč and Gyén state that the internet, as a social technology used primarily for communication, can ignite social isolation in individual people, bring feelings of loneliness and depression and destroy their well-being [18]. Brožík notices that we witness people who become loners, people sitting in front of computer screens, losing grasp of their own life because their virtual partner actually drags them further and further from the real world [19]. Furthermore, let us notice for example anonymity, a specific determinant of communication in the internet cyberspace. As Rankov notices, along with neutralisation of social status, anonymity also triggers disinhibition, or unrestrained behaviour. We can on the one hand see that there is probably a connection with growing bravery to express ideas. We are more open, more sociable and capable of expressing what we think. We are less stiff and more inclined to joke and dare to be unique. On the other hand, however, feeling protected by anonymity, we are prone to breaking the norms, telling lies and being aggressive and vulgar when we deal with others [15]. Disinhibition in the context of relative anonymity and physical safety can hurt our self-confidence and favour intimacy that may open the gate for anger and hatred and thus make us aggressive and violent [18]. We can therefore state that anonymity and disinhibition pose individual and social risk in our cyber experience on the internet, which influences the whole value that it brings.

We should also notice the cyber experience of construction of ME, or our identity, online. As we have already mentioned, together with Deuze, we routinely create a vast variety of versions of ME on the internet. We project and develop one or a number of versions of ME, but to be more precise, we do this in cooperation with others when we constantly share these versions and self-presentations of ME [10]. We thus offer our self-image for others, even though not completely. We all, yet each of us individually, show what it means to be a human, what values are important to us, how we distinguish what is good and what is evil and what it actually means for us to be alive. We share our ideas and visions when we co-create and present our identity. We can say that whether intentionally or non-intentionally, this way we declare our meaning of life.

Obviously, our image on the internet depends on how we (intersubjectively, or publicly) self-project our position [13]. In the light of this, the internet, or communication using the internet, can surely also deconstruct our subjective identity, as, for example, Kuzior [20] notes. Bystřický warns that media reality as relation reality on the one hand brings a new paradigm into development stages of the extension of ME, but on the other hand, it also brings a risk of copying someone else's attitudes and ways of constructing a social, mental and aesthetic pattern. Relation-based character of media-presented reality may imply states of multiphrenia, individuals splitting to non-homogeneous segments, or multiply our own and private investments into empty and useless forms of self-presentations, false expression of hypothetical possibilities of one's own development [21]. In the context of cyber experience, we then face a risk of losing identity and depersonalisation, and this

introduces a relevant question of interiority of the subject in cyberspace, or his or her coherence in time, which is necessary.

Who we became or are becoming in the internet cyberspace does make a difference. The way we deal with "life in media", using Deuze's words [10]-what we can and what we actually do invest in our relation to the others, is important. By our self-projection, self-construction and self-presentation in cyberspace, we become a part of collective process of "learning to live", in which intersubjectivity is bound to our understanding of what is relevant and valuable. In this perspective, our attitude is similar to that of Deuze [10]-we understand that it is reasonable to see self-expression of individuals today as more and more important in the cyberspace of internet.

According to Baeva, analysis of the nature of change of values in modern man reveals that rise of e-culture has led to construction of new values (electronic communication, e-spare time, e-creativity and so on) [22]. However, it is necessary to point out that cyber experience also brings certain risks presented by influence of the very technology, yet these risks cannot be specified in the reflection of cyber experience because they influence its value. We should not forget that also M. McLuhan speaks of self-amputation in connection with technological extension of man [23]. Similarly, also Bystřický points out that it seems we will pay for technological development by reducing one of the dimensions of our living world. Each new discovery in technology influences our personal living world and social system and imprints its own perspective onto the map of our individual and collective perception [21].

Therefore, to get the maximum advantage of cyber experience, it is important to be able to cope with various effects. Here, authors such as Gui et al. [24] define the so-called digital well-being.
