In our class discussion, Tim posed the following question:
Does Davis hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media?
Through the discussions in class and further reading of the text, I do not believe that it is Davis’s hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media.
If we are to treat enchantment to mean the same as mysticism, certain quotes allude to the notion that Davis finds the mystic repercussions of new technology as important as the scientific ones. Davis points to many situations in which finding purely supernatural reasons behind or for new media lead to quite outlandish results (see the section on Scientology and E-meters), but if we are to strive not to think in Manichean ways, then it is natural to assume that a future where all technology is viewed purely in scientific terms is not ideal either. It can be further argued that it is also impossible for any new technology to emerge without any mysticism. For one thing, science is not, for lack of a better phrase, an absolute science. Davis says it best while discussing the concept of electromagnetic imaginary.
From the outset, I urge you to resist the temptation to write off electromagnetic imaginary as pseudoscientific dreck or the manipulative lies of quacks. For one thing, even the nuttiest notions about material reality emerge from our need to stitch together, however provisionally, the world we feel with the world we know. Moreover, we make the historical determination between “real” science and wild-eyed speculations in the rearview mirror, and even then, only selectively. (52)
The best illustration of this concept for me specifically has always been the sad story of Pluto. I grew up in a world where children were taught that Pluto was the ninth planet. I don’t specifically recall ever creating a mobile of the planets, but if I had, Pluto would have been there slowly orbiting in cardboard glory amongst the other 8 giants. In 2006, however, science changed its definition of a planet and gave Pluto the boot. While this was not the first time I realized science is an ever-changing and advancing field, it was certainly the most jarring and personally resonating instance of the rules suddenly changing. This leads into the next question posed by Tim:
Will an increased base of widespread scientific knowledge prevent supernatural consultation obsolete, or will this base instead lead to increasingly rapid growth in technology that leaves citizens in awe?
Since science is constantly evolving – at times even driven to evolve because of technological advances – if scientific knowledge became the victor over mysticism or the supernatural, it would eventually drive people back to find answers in the supernatural due to its inability to provide definitive answers.
That being said, Davis certainly makes the case that mysticism in and enchantment with new media is something we need to acknowledge and, perhaps, wake up from. He rails against the technotopia when he writes that “Most of us would like to live in a more peaceful, virtuous, and wondrous world…the magical idea that engineering will create such a world is an ominous and tricky dream, though it seems a mighty difficult dream to shake” (29). Magical, ominous, tricky, dream; this combination of loaded words does not imply desirability.
So, Davis does not want us to demystify all new media, but neither does he call for a continued ignorance to the scientific qualities in technology. It seems that he is calling to us to open our eyes and try to find middle ground between Manichean and Augustinian thought.
Computers, cybernetics, and information technology now provide curiously useful mirrors and metaphors along the trail of self-development. For people drawn to psychospiritual transformation but repelled by the old fairy tales, the notion of “technologies of the self” does not dehumanize so much as empower. (172)
We have the opportunity to better ourselves and our culture with each new technology, but we should try to do so in a moderate way which is neither too utopian in its optimism nor too Extropian in its rationality.
Follow-up Questions
- Is there a technology that sparked a level of excitement in you that bordered on fanaticism? What is your relationship with that device/technology now? Were you able to channel that awe into inspiration and find empowerment through it, or did the wonder wear off and you moved onto the next new thing?
- In a world where a one group of human beings can state that “man is machine” while another group proclaims that we are all “flesh stuffed with excrement”, is it possible that we can do anything in moderation? Is it human nature to gravitate towards extremes?
Links
- This study conducted by psychologist Betsy Sparrow at Columbia University exemplifies the idea that technology is “transforming human consciousness” (Davis 1998, 30). Is this a prime example of “new technologies amputate as much as they amplify”? Or is it possible that technology changing the way our memory works is not a good or bad thing, just a new progression of being?
- This clip from the television show Caprica visualizes Extropian and Gnostic philosophies. The whole clip is relevant, but specifically starting from 3:25, Apotheosis is described and shown. Apotheosis is defined as “the elevation or exaltation of a person to the rank of a god”, and this is achieved in Caprica by uploading the consciousnesses of believers into a virtual heaven, which is a variation of the Singularity.
- At the end of our discussion, we began theorizing on the aura created by scarcity. Trace alluded to the fact that his older version of TechGnosis had more spirit, and perhaps, authenticity than our newer versions. If that is true, then electronic copies seem like shells of their original works. I could not help but include a link to my favorite webcomic on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment