Of Campfires and Computers
Roy Christopher
This article is taken from the author's forthcoming book, The Medium Picture: A Theory of Technological Mediation.
"Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have
to experience it." -- Max Frisch
"We keep waiting for the robots to crush us from the sky
They sneak in through our finger-tips and bleed our fingers dry."
-- Milemarker, "Frigid Forms Sell You Warmth"
We live in a realm where once clear boundaries have been reformed, pushed back, reconfigured, and often blurred beyond recognition. The age-old stable image of photography -- once considered by most as a reliable visual representation of some brief slice of reality -- is now suspect due to digital editing techniques. Since humans started externalizing knowledge, everything we experience is subject to mediation: by language, by technology, by marketing, by advertising.
Though Gutenberg's printing press represents what Marshall McLuhan referred to as the first assembly line -- one of repeatable, linear text -- and is what made large-volume printed information a personal, portable phenomenon, the advent of the telegraph brought forth the initial singularity in the evolution of information technology. As James Carey pointed out in 1988, the telegraph separated communication from transportation. As news on the wire, information could spread and travel free from its human progenitors. Information was thusly commoditized. Liberated from books and newspapers, news and ideas have since become a larger part of our economy, and indeed of our culture, than physical products.
The telegraph is so far antiquated in the landscape of communication technology, simply bringing it up in a serious manner seems almost silly. It's quite literally like using a word that has fallen out of favor. Words are metaphors, and metaphors are expressions of the unknown in terms of the known. Once a new word is known, it becomes assimilated into the larger language system. The same transition occurs in the evolution of technology: Once a device has obsolesced into a general usage, we forget its original impact. The technological "magic" dissipates.
I've been half-jokingly calling this transition the "Alf moment." When the television show Alf became popular in the mid-to-late 80s, no one wondered what was making Alf move or talk. Growing up with Jim Henson's alternate universe of Muppets had stripped the "magic" out of the medium. We were left free to enjoy the hi-jinks of this puppeted, cat-eating alien.
Mobile TV supposedly reached its "Alf moment" in 2006, but as has always been the case with communication technology, the most enthusiastic prophecies come from those with stakes in the bottom line. According to BBC News, this year's World Cup was its time. "TV is a medium that everyone understands, and so is mobile," said Dave McQueen, principal analyst at Informa Telecoms and Media, "Combining the two in the imagination of consumers is not as great a challenge as it is for other forms of mobile entertainment." Technological mediation is not inherently a bad thing, for technology holds the potential to augment our experiences as much as it does to obstruct them, but as each advance becomes "forgotten" as a part of our media lexicon, we should be mindful of what we've potentially lost.
James Howard Kunstler uses a computer systems metaphor to discuss out built environment, with the networks of the built environment as "hardware" and people's social roles within those networks as "software," but that's where his insight stops. "Computers only assisted predatory corporations in more successfully parasitizing existing value in victimized localities," he wrote. "They were most efficient at sucking the lifeblood out of complex communities" (The Long Emergency, 2006, p. 221). This latter attitude is part of the problem. Every line we draw between what's "natural" and what's "technological" gets crossed (and moved) as our world becomes more and more technologically mediated. Kunstler's line is closer to the forest where others' are closer to the fray, but neither a Heideggerian disdain for all technology (he saw no differentiation between atomic bombs and bridges) nor a gadget-headed geekiness will change the reality of the situation. We shape our tools and our tools shape us, as McLuhan put it.
Take the telephone, for example. The telephone augments communications by allowing one person to speak to another outside the constraints of place or time. It simultaneously obstructs communication by stripping it of nonverbal cues such as facial expressions and hand gestures, among other things. Upwards of sixty-five percent of face-to-face communication is nonverbal. This fact makes the telephone a leaner channel (i.e., devoid of the rich cues of face-to-face communication) than we usually assume. When we replace one channel of communication with another more-mediated channel, something is lost. This "something" of mediation is expanding exponentially, especially in the lives of our progeny.
We are literally saturated by media. Youth culture is rife with media technology. So much so that one wonders if there would be youth culture without it. Where the last generation grew up with the car, the television, and the telephone, the next generation has the personal computer, the web, and the cellular phone. If the telephone helped create adolescence, what is the cell phone creating? Advertising has grown right along side -- and sometimes on -- these devices. With the average child viewing more than 20,000 commercials each year, it has gone so far as to become an ontological issue. According to Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, we've gone from "being" to "having" to "appearing to have." Our very sense of being is now mediated by our technologies.
Think I'm being melodramatic? Okay, think about how much of your time is "screen-time," that is, time spent looking at screens -- TV screens, computer screens, windscreens, cell-phone screens, etc. Quite a lot, huh? How authentic can your day feel if most of it is spent staring at some screen or another?
Chatter, books written, and hand-waving about the merging of humans and machines has been prevalent since the computer reared its digital head. From artificial intelligence and humanoid robots to microchip implants and uploading consciousness, the melding of biology and technology has been prophesized everywhere. Humans are indeed merging with machines, but don't believe the hype: It's not happening in the way those old science fiction books would have you think. It's been happening since we started painting on cave walls. As soon as humankind started externalizing its knowledge through the technology of language, we began blurring the lines between our tools and ourselves. The average American family now spends more every month on communication than they do on food. Technological mediation is now ubiquitous. Mediating devices infiltrate our reality through everything from our language and our clothes to our communication and transportation. We now mediate all of the spaces between ourselves and our environment, ourselves and our information, and indeed ourselves and each other.
"Technology is fairly good at controlling external reality to promote real biological fitness," writes Evolutionary Psychologist Geoffrey Miller, "but it's even better at delivering fake fitness-subjective cues of survival and reproduction without the real-world effects." Fitness-faking is the extreme effect of technological mediation, and according to Miller, it's out-pacing us: "Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our psychological resistance to it. With the invention of the printing press, people read more and have fewer kids. (Only a few curmudgeons lament this.) With the invention of Xbox 360, people would rather play a high-resolution virtual ape in Peter Jackson's King Kong than be a perfect-resolution real human." Communication theorists call fake relationships with TV characters "parasocial relationships," and as Miller puts it, "Having real friends is so much more effort than watching Friends." Mediation isn't inherently bad, as it has the potential to augment our experiences as much as it does to obstruct them, but I think sometimes we have to take a step back -- maybe even a step away -- from all of these screens and things.
Do you ever find that your most emotional moments are during or after movies? Do you sometimes feel like you go through more experiences vicariously that you do directly? This is an idea that scares me more than most anything else. Here is one of my favorite passages on the subject. This is a quote from writer Nina Simons, and she says it better than I ever could:
It's important that we gather ourselves to participate more fully in the stories of our time and our lives. There's a serious threat of couch-potatoism in our culture, and we need to make a conscious effort to avoid it and to recognize the enormous energy that comes from participation. It's easy to get bogged down in the circumstantial and mundane, but if we connect to our passion, that in itself will be regenerative; we won't have to wait for the energy, it will be there. But how do we connect to that passion? One of my favorite phrases, which a friend taught me, is that we need to pay 'exquisite attention' to our responses to things -- noticing what makes our flame glow brighter. If we pay attention to those things, we'll be able to catch the flame and feed it.
Sometimes I think we need to get out of our routine, to get out of our pattern, to talk to people we wouldn't normally talk to. Change jobs. Move away. Gather up some friends, go outside, and play football, instead of playing Madden NFL 06. Take it upon yourself to change something about your day. Anything. Even if you have a bad experience, you will have had an experience. You will have learned something that you can take with you next time. And if you have a good experience, remember what gave you the feeling and do it again. Soon.
Technological mediation isn't going to go away. In fact, it's only going to become more pervasive. At the most basic level, technological mediation creates an illusion. When augmenting our experiences, it makes us feel closer to our environment, but it obstructs them by adding a layer of abstraction between us and our environment -- the latter of which when often do not notice or just forget about once the technology has been assimilated into our world of media. As Pat Califia puts it, "We have to find a way to synthesize the rhythms of nature with our electronic lives. A fuzzy-headed, sentimental longing for bucolic utopia will not save us from toxic waste or nuclear weapons. We need a world where we can have both computers and campfires." Indeed, from language to advertising to technology, all of our experiences are mediated to some degree. We just need to be more mindful of what constitutes authentic experience, find a path through our mediated world, find a balance, live without dead time, live an authentic life without artifice.
Image by Roy Christopher.
- Roy Christopher's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Tags:
- Authenticity
- Digital
- Media
- Printer-friendly version




Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
Hi Roy,Very well written.I
Hi Roy,
Very well written.
I agree with your research, but don't share all of your conclusions. Anything possible or conceivable as being possible is natural. Perception is reality, just as it is shaped by our sensory devices. Sight, sound, touch, taste, smell... these are our stock feature set. Technology extends our perception.
As we master the manipulation of matter from the atomic level up, and master our own program at the genetic level, we are shaping our own evolution. In this century we will turn ourselves into the species that we replace ourselves with. The blurring line between ourselves and our technology is both inevitable and completely natural.
Thank you for sharing.
-Chris
-----
Chris Grayson - GigantiCo
I could not hope you are wrong more.
The last paragraph of your comment actually makes me want to shudder. The thought that we could ever be so arrogant as to believe ourselves to be the masters of matter -- much less our own genetic program -- seems so dangerous to me.
I dream of a world where we remember how wonderful it can feel to be human. Where we desire only to live a simple life of simple pleasures amongst our family and friends. Where technology serves us, not us it.
I feel we must begin a far more responsible approach to our use of technology. We have reached a point where we must really begin to ask ourselves, in a mature fashion, what is and isn't necessary to tamper with. I have no problem with the intelligent use of technology to meet real human needs. However, doing and trying just because you can, with technology this advanced, is foolish in the extreme.
This direct merging of human and technology is something I see as inevitable only if we continue to live in such unsustainable ways, with such unsustainable ideas.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Drawing lines
Now, we listen to recorded music on iPods and wear contacts and everything is just fine -- and it will continue to be so, and it will continue to change.
Change
But the fact that such lifestyles are unsustainable will not.
Walk-mans, iPods, all that sort of thing is necessary only in a world where we are surrounded by a reality we wish to insulate ourselves from. Much of that comes from a world in which human need is now secondary to the needs of the system, instead of vice-versa.
Eyeglasses and contacts are examples of technology being used to meet real human need, and so I have no problem with them.
You can believe that technology is going to save us. I would say that there is more evidence that it is technology that will do us in, because we will put all of our hopes in some amazing discovery that will make our current way of living suddenly viable. Maybe such a discovery will come.
Myself, I am not willing to bet the fate of the entire species (indeed, the entire planet) on it, and will continue looking and agitating for humanity getting over its collective self, and moving back to a simpler way of being.
There is much technology that does an enormous amount of good: I am not advocating a pure 'back to primitivism' philosophy. But we must understand how spoiled we have become, and move back to a more mature relationship with the world and and ecosystem at large. And some of the neat-o gadgets will have to go by the wayside.
You are exactly right: it is about drawing lines. And, at our level of technology...if we aren't careful...if we get too cocky...if we draw them in the wrong place for any reason; a lot of people might die who didn't have to.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
RE: Change
I'd argue that it IS a human need to dick around with what doesn't need to be dicked around with- I'd offer human history as evidence.
Genetic engineering, robotics, AI, modern psychedelic use, Transhumanism, etc. are all expressions of the need for self-evolution. Tools have used us since the day we grew penises. I propose reality engineering on the biggest scale- Art means somethings been fucked with! Let's deliberately break reality to see what happens. I think within a few years we'll be able to pull it off. AI robots can have the planet... And we'll make them such perfect replicas of ourselves we won't be able to tell the difference! Consciousness is tech. We use everything around us to form an image of what's around us and then we use that image to form ideas about what's around us and we use that idea to change everything around us. Don't think mastery of physical matter is impossible- in fact, it may be around the corner. At what point does a complex system become self-organising? Human consciousness will crystalize in the mainframe like it has been doing and maybe it'll jam some gears... GOOD! I love reality, that's why I want to do all sorts of weird things to her...
Which reminds me... The best tech is growing around you. I challange you to find a synthetic remedy for anything that's better than one that grows somewhere. I challenge you to find a human- designed process that can produce a substance strong like spider silk. I believe that this separation from reality is a reflection of our drive to reproduce, kill, and die.
I remember reading one time a story set in the future in which people play a totally immersive video game where people kill each other instead of fucking (or something like that.. any sci-fi nerds know the one I'm talking about? There was a character whos' tounge tasted like ginger and some crazy ninja- type girl goes around really killing people so they die in their non- game body as well). I think what the author was getting at is that sometimes our reproductive/destructive drives overlap. What could be seen as arrogance and disrespect of nature could also be seen as a radical exploration of what IS natural.
This was a really satisfying ramble...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUXBCdt5IPg
tool- vicarious
Communication
Nice article. I agree more or less wholeheartedly.
Interestingly, the nature of our current communications devices actually makes human society, in general, now resemble very closely what is known as a small-world network.
In such a network, the individuals that make it up interact mostly with those close to them. They can, however, communicate with other individuals regardless of distance. The more interconnected by these 'extra-spacial' connections, the more solid the network. Our own brain is an example of a small-world network.
Two interesting things about small-world networks: they are the most stable of all network types known, and they homogenize and synchronize faster than any other type of network. If we were looking for a tool to help bring humanity to a new level of unity, their isn't anything we could have that would be better.
The real danger is that we have been made to feel so separated and uncertain that we hesitate to talk to people in real life, especially about anything of substance. That is the source of the addiction to these media: we have forgotten how to be comfortable being ourselves in person; and feel freed from that restraint with the anonymity gained via this media.
That's my opinion, anyway. I think if we felt like we could talk to people around us the way we speak on here, we wouldn't feel drawn to spend so much time 'staring at screens'.
Another note: as far as I know, the origin of Kalle Lasn's quote is The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord. It is extremely densely written, but short; and has several amazing insights on exactly the topics you have raised here, and several others. I always recommend it to anyone.
Here is the passage referred to:
7
The first stage of the economy’s domination of social life brought about an evident degradation of being into having — human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed. The present stage, in which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing — all “having” must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances. At the same time all individual reality has become social, in the sense that it is shaped by social forces and is directly dependent on them. Individual reality is allowed to appear only if it is not actually real.
The full-text can be found online for free.
Also, check out
SYNC: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz
for more information on small-world networks.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks
Artifice
I like this article a lot. The topic is one that has been a preoccupation of mine for nearly fifteen years now, probably longer: that being the mediation of experience and the quest for authenticity. There are some assumptions present in Roy's thoughts, that merit exploring. There seems to be an assumption that mediated experience is somehow not authentic, or to be more precise, that there is out there a universal definition of what an authentic experience is, and that communication technologies are mostly speed bumps along the road to discover what that is. Unfortunately, such logic is always entirely subjective. We can presume that an authentic experience is one in which, for example, I am out in nature, breathing fresh air and watching a sunset. However, what makes that experience authentic is a value system that gives that experience greater virtue than seeing a movie in which there is a mountain, a sunset, and images of people breathing fresh air. Now I happen to agree with that value system - it is mine as well - but I am also aware that that mountain and sunset and air is not going to give me the same experience I get watching a movie in which the added elements of music, story, character and editing come together to stir in me a unique feeling and sense of pleasure. I am aware that there are some who would probably rather watch a great movie than go outside on a beautiful day, and thank goodness, because some of those people are the greatest artists of their medium (Martin Scorcese comes to mind). Is their experience truly less authentic, less valid? I think it is helpful to remember that the etymological origins of the word "entertain" connote "to hold between." I've always liked this notion because it resonates with what I experience when in the act of "consuming" satisfying works of art, whether they are movies, books, video games or theatre: a sense that I am neither here nor there entirely, that a portal has opened to some other world, that I am partaking of something beautiful (for that matter, to apply the word "consume" when referring to art strikes me as utterly ridiculous - the only art I consume that I can think of is pastry).
A friend of mine once said that a book doesn't exist until it is read. I like this notion also, that a book isn't a collection of words, in bound paper or, these days, in glowing letters on a Kindle or iPhone. A book only comes into being when someone reads it.
Anyway, my point that as soon as we create some sort of hierarchy for authenticity I get worried, because these are such personal, subjective things we are talking about. One might argue that perceiving through a flesh -bone-nerve body is a form of mediation in and of itself - perhaps its most dangerous form, because it is utterly convincing in its "authenticity."
The Book
I like the idea that a book doesn't exist until it's read. McLuhan always said the opposite. He said that a book, if it had done its job, made itself obsolete.
It's all about drawing lines.
Thanks
its all a blur to me...
Never did I badmouth
chibi nice comment
"I think if we felt like we could talk to people around us the way we speak on here, we wouldn't feel drawn to spend so much time 'staring at screens'. "
What a great comment...I do this alot with random people and sometimes I offend, create turmoil, get compliments, laugh, it's really weird. With out the social buffer like a close friendship or alcohol, most people don't feel comfortable about these topics. It's not polite. Anything more then how's the weather and american idol causes an uncomfortable I don't know what to say moment alot. I find it funny and sad.
Social discourse(freedom of speech), was the original intention of media and it doesn't exist as it once did or it's ignored. This may come from the alterior motives in media. It's like any coversation of concern is sensationalized. Then, "the boy who cried wolf" factor comes into play, so generally people become extremely opinionated or feel uncomfortable with any sort of talk. So what ends up happening is that debate will occur between the highly opinionated or a person will look at you like your crazy and they'll become uncomfortable. no conclusion just an observation...
It can most definitely be a
It can most definitely be a challenge, that is for sure. I always try to take sort of a compassionate Taoist approach. I don't expect the person I am talking to will change their mind in the course of the conversation. They would be fools to do so, really, because who am I that they should just believe what I say? They will both need and want to think about it more, and to do research to find out what kind of evidence there is, both for and against.
I try to bring up a topic, state my mind on it...maybe (depending on their reaction) take it into some real dialogue...but never to an actual argument. As soon as someone feels insulted, they shut down as far as listening or learning. They can then just ignore anything you have tried to tell them, because you are now 'just an asshole' in their minds, and so anything you say is 'just stupid'. No further consideration required.
That is the inherent problem (I know I say this a lot. It is the point I myself am working hardest on right now, and so is in the forefront of my mind a lot currently), in my opinion, with equating your ideas with yourself. If an idea is proven wrong, you feel like *you* have been proven wrong. Or, alternatively, if you prove someone wrong, you feel like *you* have been proven right.
This, to my mind, is a fallacy. Dialogue, in this sense, becomes less a useful means of examining and sharing ideas, and more a competition for social energy and attention.
You have to stop and really think about the purpose of the conversation you are having: are you trying to 'win' the argument? Or are you trying to share, teach, and learn? Because, if you are trying to teach, if you want the person you are speaking with to actually listen to your message, then you want to keep it from getting personal. Compassion, patience, and forgiveness are key.
I always try to let the people I am talking to save face (for example, if they suddenly about-face on an issue, I don't try to call them out on it and have them admit that I was right). One of the greatest lessons I learned from the Tao-Te Ching was the line 'only words softly spoken will take root in their own time.' Just state it. If it has enough truth-reflection, it will rattle around in their head, and eventually outcompete other memes by the sheer fact that it is true, and they are not. This can be a long processs (years, sometimes, looking at my own history), but the process is speeded up considerably the faster they can forget the source of the information (as, if they don't 'like' the source, they can more easily ignore the fact).
People aren't going to just change on a dime. And, from a social energy standpoint, you can 'win' a debate and still technically 'be wrong'. Which is just as dangerous for you, yourself, as you continue to play host to a fallacious meme, just because 'man, I totally shut that dude down! He couldn't say anything to that, could he?' As if, if the person you are speaking with doesn't know a rebuttal, then a rebuttal doesn't exist.
Note that I am still far from perfect at this, it definitely takes practice. If someone is all in your face, or full of sarcasm, or what-have-you, it can be very difficult to not begin to compete for the social energy. That's where remembering that we are all one comes in handy: if someone needs energy, give it to them. Don't fight it, and you will find yourself refilled immediately plus more. I don't buy everything in the Celestine Prophecy, but its points on social competition and energy exchange really ring true to me.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Bad Habit
I'm beginning to click down here to the comments section before I even read the article itself. The two reasons I can think of at the moment are: Because I can get a better idea of whether or not the article will be worth reading from the comments about it, and because in some cases these comments may be more informative than the article itself.
I would give almost anything to actually be in the same room with you people. Dinner and a conversation, anyone?
Though reading the brief repartee between Chris and Chibi reminded me of the polarity which exists between thoughtful people, which, writ large reflects the loggerheads at which we find ourselves today, our respectful conversations here at RS gives me hope.
When I read Chibi's comment: 'only words softly spoken will take root in their own time.' I immediately thought of a similar quote by Carl Jung: "Arguments have an effect only on the conscious mind and not on the unconscious."
If the unconscious mind is where the bulk of the progressive quantum process, which drives our evolution, occurs, then words spoken softly do indeed have the greatest power. The details of our arguments will eventually fade into oblivion, while their collaborated essence will continue to drive our eventual fate. We need to speak, for sure. But we only need to think (our ‘unconscious’ thoughts) in order to make it so.
Obviously, the trajectory of this marriage between humanity and technology, as Roy has so well outlined, will continue. Question is, where will our collective unconscious dialog steer us?
"The Devil is in the details"
Argumentative loggerheads
Hi Don. =)
I think, if we just continue to talk, things will get better, as far as the loggerheads you mention. The truth is somewhere in the middle...it always is. ^_^
Have you noticed that the first few comments posted by practically everyone seem to be very angry? How they appear to tilt at windmills, and bring up points not discussed -- often even implicitly -- by the article they are commenting on? I think most of us just feel very confined and frustrated by society-at-large. I know this site has helped me tremendously to get these ideas out of my head, where they were ricocheting around at high speed...with no where to go.
I feel so much clearer, psychologically speaking, than when I first started coming here. And I have definitely learned a ton. Anyone who read my earliest comments can probably tell that.
Patience, compassion, and forgiveness are important. A lot of people's first posts are going to be either a) hyper-bitter, as they project upon the blank slate -- provided by the forementioned anonymity of the medium -- the image of their Foe, and spout out their anger at the world as though we are the Enemy, or b) almost saccharine as they attempt to impress everyone with their oh-so-enlightened state...or both. And this is going to have very little to do with the person they are talking *to*.
Its the same thing as taking the stopper off a pressure cooker while the heat is on: for the first while, the steam explodes violently outward. Only after it gets closer to equilibrium does it begin to settle.
Knowing there are others out there helps a lot, too. I agree, some of the smartest people I've ever met are on this site. I don't have to agree with everything you say: it is enough that you are talking about this stuff. This kind of dialogue is a good part of what is necessary to move us through all of this, though it is not sufficient by itself.
And, really, its all still kinda getting started. This is still like the embryonic state.
Its all very exciting to me.
Dinner and conversation would be the shizzle. =)
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
the shizzle??? What's that?
Yes, I have also noticed the pattern you suggest. I can’t tell you how many potential girlfriends I’ve turned off the minute I felt comfortable enough to say what was on my mind. A safe environment often opens the floodgates of communication, and after the flood subsides, equilibrium occurs. It’s unfortunate that few of these women ever stuck around long enough to find out what a good guy I really am. ;-)
I recently read that there is a particular area of the brain that holds and protects our prejudices, and instantly compares incoming data to its lop-sided library, automatically rejecting anything that compares unfavorably with it—the reason, for instance, why I can no longer tolerate anything that includes or makes even passing reference to Sarah Palin.
Coming to acknowledge this knee-jerk tendency in my own brain is giving me even greater appreciation for our collective unconscious (or, what I would rather call our collective consciousness).
If we, as individuals of a species, are programmed to instantly compare everything to our own learned prejudice, then it would seem that our only hope for a balanced consensus is for the omnilateral exercise of our collective consciousness.
As the collective consciousness of our species continues to morph in perfect balance with all opposing polarities despite our most bitter disagreements, accelerated by the influence of technology and other forces, we can rest assured that a balanced sub-conscious consensus will draw us inexorably into the future.
Just the same, however, I believe that whatever fair and balanced consensus we can consciously reach, by overriding that prejudice circuit in our brain, will accelerate our evolution toward success as a species.
RS is as good a place as any to exercise the displacement of that circuit, and its often-negative effects.
Prejudice may be hardwired, but if we can come to believe that everything means something, and that the devil is in the details, we may be able to disconnect those wires and survive.
"The Devil is in the details"
Collapse
User Interface
This has been such a big topic in my mind and in my actions lately. I have friends on both extreme sides of it: some that are nearly cyborgs and others that live out in the woods with out electricity.
After much ruminating I have come up with a few ideas:
1. One problem with how we interact with our machines is that our User Interface is very limited. We have the click, click, click of the single finger on a mouse or that of multiple fingers on a keyboard. We sit still in chairs that are inherently bad for our posture mildly hunched over and staring. The effect of this on our consciousness and physical evolution creates a sorry looking and feeling cortical homunculus. If you think about it it resembles a grey alien with three big fingers, no bones and huge eyes. Perhaps if we create a more dynamic interface system or varied interfaces we can evolve physically and mentaly for the better along with our instruments. For example I doubt learning to play a sitar does damage to our experience of reality.
2. We need to be only "plugged in" less than half of our waking time. Right now it is far too often that a family of 5 will be all in the same house but in different rooms plugged into their personal computers. Maybe they talk to eachother online even! I like using the internet to talk to you right now and to my friends in far away places. But it is no replacement for real human interaction. Balance!
3. Does anyone think that perhaps the "internet" exists regardless of the funny screen and clicking mouse as a network of human thought and energy drawing like minds together in the real world? Was this computer based structure the training wheels for one that is now working in our internal hardware?
Just some things to chew on.
Training wheels?
Yes, indeed!
"The Devil is in the details"
Thank you