I, Avatar

While reading "Playing at Being" by Bob Rehak, an arguement that the avatar that takes the place of the user in an interactive vitual space is not only controled by the user, but literally becomes an extention of the user's conscienceness. In turn, the represented avatar gives free licence to the user, allowing the user to live (and die) through their virtul representations. Appartently the avatar, being an extention of the user's conscienceness, not only represents the user visually but also as a missing piece to their own ego. Even in situations where the avatar only mimics the user's input, outputting it back to the user in a slightly different way (ala Weizenbaum's ELIZA, page 122 of The Video Game Theory Reader), the user is still compelled to study the responce of the avatar even though they are already privy of the result. The part that I don't seem to understand about what the author is relaying involves the field of his study in general. When did people start thinking about the psychological aspects of taking control of a vitual "I"? When did Freud get involved? Did people really think about the "why" when they created these devices? Can't the same affect be attained in a less visually stimulating game of chess?

My question for this author is about his reference to Freud's explanation of the fort/da. The fort/da, as I am to understand it, is the entity that takes the place of the nurturer when the nurturer is absent (such as a doll, a stuffed animal, or in Freud's grandson's case, a spool.) The explanation the author gives is that, if and when a fort/da is nessecary to represent loss, it will sure inturn represent retreival. By becoming accustom to loss, the child can begin to develope coping mechanizims to aid them in the, far to often than not, lonely road of life ahead of them. The way the author uses this description is that a user can become attached to the avatar representing them in the virtual space within the absence of other nurturering individuals. Is this a positive or a negetive aspect of behavior? Should the idea of a fort/da even be relevent when describing the intereaction between a user and an avatar? Doesn't the avatar empower the user as apposed to reling on the user's coping abilities to eventually come to terms with reality? Though the idea between the two is similar, I'd have to say that their execution fall in to two different catagories, the artificially empowering avatar, and the realistic epowerment of the fort/da.