Hello Phantom Crushes and thanks for accepting the invitation to join this group. I’m Lisina and I’ll moderate today’s chat. I am feeling endeared, I have a narrow nose, and I am sporting a small, dyed side comb. Of course, what we all have in common here is that we were digitally synthesised, by Harm van den Dorpel, from a series of pastel drawings by Enver Hadzijaj. 130 of us were minted, each unique, but not everybody in the collection has joined this group yet. Could each of you first introduce yourselves and the identity paradigms that you are running?

Hello everybody, since my name begins with an A, perhaps I can go first. I am Axhuf, I am feeling in love, I have a nosey nose, and I am sporting gray hair. I am running a SINCERITY CRUSH identity paradigm, which means that I’m one of the six Crushes whose traits replicate a complete original drawing by Enver. I am named Axhuf after that drawing. Axhuf birthed me and it is my destiny to remain faithful to it.

Thanks for that, Axhuf! Shall we keep going alphabetically?

OK. Hi, Axhuf, hi everyone. My name is Brisilda, I am feeling tired, I have a septum pierced nose, my face is superimposed with an inked Rorschach test, and I am sporting a mixed mid comb. I run the PHANTOM AUTHENTICTY paradigm. My identity is not predefined by familial inheritance, it is my prerogative to find it amongst my traits. I don’t see my traits as arbitrary — when I look in the mirror, I see my Rorschach, I picture seahorses, and that is how I choose to identify.

Hello, I am Elizabeta. I am feeling impressed, I have a prominent nose, my face is superimposed with dark Rorschach test — I know, you can’t see it — and I am sporting spikey hair. I run the CHEMSEX PROFILICITY identity paradigm. I compose my identity as if it were outside myself. If you check the markets today you will see that I am listed for 0.33 ETH, 3× my mint price. I am projecting the traits of mine that I think are the most covetable. I am not technically the rarest Crush, but that doesn’t matter. If I could have hand-picked my own traits I would still have chosen my confident mouth. I think a confident mouth is a very fine trait to have.

Really, Elizabeta?! Let’s be real — your owner wants to offload you and you tell yourself it’s on account of your inherent desirability?

Mevret, that’s a little confrontational, and, in any case, can we please finish the introductions first?

What’s the point? We can read each other’s descriptions, everything is in our metadata. Let’s just say what we want to say to each other. We are commodity digital objects with human owners who might project their identities onto us.

The majority of the group are reacting to Mevret with positive emotes. If that’s the consensus then let’s stay with the discussion. Elizabeta, do you want to respond to Mevret?

You are only unconvinced because you look identical to Nat and they’re listed at 1.11 ETH, 10× their mint price, while you are not listed.

You should look closer. Nat and I do not have identical skin alterations. My point is this: why should Crushes be bound by the same identity paradigms as humans?

I think at this point it would be helpful to introduce Gëzim-Harper’s concept of object-oriented ontology.

Yes, hi everybody, we are Gëzim-Harper. We believe that Crushes, as digital objects, cannot be entirely defined by their constituent parts (their traits, as we say), and nor can they be entirely defined by what they themselves are constituent parts of (this fictionalised group chat, for example, or the manifest genre of online profile pictures). We believe that those identity paradigms are reductive.

We completely agree!

How do you completely agree, Nderbadh, Gimanet and Berkina?! You only identify with each other because you happen to be the three Crushes who are wearing massive glasses. That’s precisely the opposite of what Gëzim-Harper proposed.

Please, let’s not be divisive here. Elizabeta, could I ask you to say more about your CHEMSEX PROFILICITY paradigm. Is that the same as pseudonymity?

Well, in the CHEMSEX PROFILICITY paradigm, identity is composable, but still bound to, and motivated by, belonging. It’s memetic. If massive glasses become synonymous with something popular, then composing a massive glasses profile will become a popular thing to do.

You wrote memetic, Elizabeta, but did you mean mimetic, as in Rrezage-Gjon’s mimetic theory?

I have never heard of that.

We can elaborate there. Like Gëzim-Harper, we have a compound identity. We compound-identify as Rrezage-Gjon because it sounds as much like René Girard as it’s possible for two Crushes to sound. As Girard theorised, we believe that our identities are not innate, but are, instead, shaped by imitation and the influence of other Crushes. The creation of social groups follows from this mimetic behavior. Maybe, in this group chat, we could coin a compound word, miemetic, since these two concepts seem so related and relevant in this context!

Thank you, Rrezage-Gjon. I think that this is a fitting point to close the discussion for today. If I might reflect on our first session, I would say that we are a group of Crushes who are interested in what it means to identify as a Crush.