Response 1 to Tim Pfarr on Erik Davis, TechGnosis

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

1. 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?
   
2. 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?

http://news.columbia.edu/googlememory

• 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNOH5k9rIk&feature=related

• 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.

http://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/e-reader/

Tim Pfarr on Erik Davis, TechGnosis

Below are excerpts from Tim Pfarr's discussion leader document.

New technologies of perception and communication open up new spaces, and these spaces are always mapped, on one level or another, through the imagination.

Our modern technological world is not nature, but augmented nature, super-nature, and the more intensely we probe its mutant edge of mind and matter, the more our disenchanted productions will find themselves wrestling with the rhetoric of the supernatural.
- Erik Davis, TechGnosis (1998: 90, 48)

In his book TechGnosis, author Erik Davis asserts that technology innately tickles the human imagination, leading consumers to explore the realm of the spiritual to better understand the principles and devices at hand. While Davis leads readers through history, exploring the ways in which various media compelled humans to investigate the unknown, the aforementioned quotations perhaps best represent the keys to Davis’ argument.

The first quotation concerns how new technology is manifested, and how humans assimilate such manifestations. New technology of perception and communication — which can perhaps more generally be considered technology of information transfer — creates new dimensions through which content is manifested. Traditional writing manifests itself through ink and paper. Radio content manifests itself through invisible electronic waves. Film manifests itself through an illusion of motion. Davis asserts that consumers are forced to use their imaginations to unravel the intricacies of these new methods of manifestation. TechGnosis rests upon this concept, and it uses it to account for the “myth, magic and mysticism” that has simultaneously arrived with each new medium. As implied in this passage and written more directly elsewhere in TechGnosis, theories of such myth, magic and mysticism can be extrapolated to future media. This excerpt implies that it is of human nature to consult the imagination in attempting to grasp the principles of new technology. The text lacks exploration as to why this is so, as well as suggestions as to how one may be able to overcome this cycle when new media arrives.

The second quotation makes an assertion about the state of society, and the human response to technological advancements. The great technological advancements of the last 50 years have created a world vastly different from that of generations before it. Men and women can forge relationships without physically meeting. Films are screened in three dimensions, making the audience feel as if it is taking part in prerecorded action. One falls into the minority if he or she lacks instant, pocket-access to the information superhighway. What had once been a tangible world has transformed into one of intellectual stimulation and invisible seas of information— a super-nature, as Davis calls it. The great push to understand this world threatens all technology that has become explored and understood. Inevitably, Davis contends, one is forced to resort to supernatural language in an attempt to grasp what is not yet understood, as the supernatural accounts for the unknown. Much like the first excerpt, the second excerpt refrains from investigation as to why such disenchanted productions find “ themselves wrestling with the rhetoric of the supernatural.” Perhaps it is of human nature to do so, as implied in the former quotation?

Human beings are at unease with their own mortality, and it leads them to seek the divine for comfort and assistance. Not only is this manifested through the obvious outlet of religion, but also — as TechGnosis points out — it is manifested through the consultation of the imagination and the supernatural in the struggle to understand new technology. Given the seemingly natural inclination to seek the divine, it logically follows that the supernatural and elements of the imagination become elements in this struggle.

An example of the tendency to consult the supernatural can be seen in this clip from the History Channel’s documentary television show "Inside of History," and its episode studying the Salem witch trials of the late 1600s. Specifically, consider the segment between 2 minutes and 46 seconds, and 5:08, which details the symptoms of witchcraft as seen by those in colonial Massachusetts.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqjX-9UNB7s

In the Puritan town of Salem, Massachusetts, the cause of such skin blemishes, as well as the laws of physics that concerned buoyancy, were unknown, or at least unaccepted. Also, this example indeed has limits. Those who sought witches may have been unconsciously seeking to fulfill self-fulfilling prophecies. Furthermore, the Puritan society of Salem was deeply religious, adding an additional predisposition to consult the supernatural. Nonetheless, parallels can be drawn between consultation of the supernatural in Salem, and the consultation of the supernatural in more recent times. Consider Thomas Edison’s attempts to establish a telepathic radio channel “between worlds” (Davis, 78) and Tesla’s speculation that aliens are invisible and among us (90).

However, examining the differences between the Salem witch trials and the supernatural components of new media exposes another element of TechGnosis that Davis perhaps did not thoroughly emphasize, or emphasize with the necessary clarity: What may lead humans to consult the supernatural is precisely the fact that new media frequently manifest themselves through means undetectable to the human user. Radio waves cannot be seen, individual film frames cannot be distinguished and very rarely can an observer recognize the constantly updating pixels on a television screen. These media deal in the otherworldly, much like the supernatural. While the contrast of these high- and low-tech societies draws attention to the way new media garner supernatural interest, one can also make an argument that citizens of the information age have similarities to the Puritans of the late 1600s, as both are grappling with elements not yet fully understood.

Davis states that he sympathizes with attempts to “disenchant technology and deflate the banal fantasies and pernicious hype that fuels today’s digital economy” (Davis, 12). His goal seems to be to mitigate the power struggles present in the digital economy. This begs the question of if this attempt is worthy. Davis spends a significant amount of TechGnosis following the enchantment of technology through history, and with each new medium, the process seems to repeat itself. If Davis is to succeed in disenchanting current technology, what is to keep the next new medium from following in the path of enchantment of its predecessors? Does Davis hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media? Furthermore, will an increased base of widespread scientific knowledge render prevent supernatural consultation obsolete, or will this base instead lead to increasingly rapid growth in technology that leaves citizens in awe?

Link to complete discussion leader document (.pdf)

Discussion Respondent instructions

Twice during the quarter, each student will serve as respondent for the session. As discussion respondent, you are expected to provide a written response to the discussion leader’s question. This will take the form of a short blog post that provides a focused reaction to the discussion leader’s question. There are three elements of this response:

1) a short written reaction (2 page, 600 word) that responds specifically to the discussion leader’s question. Your response may involve some degree of summation of the larger class discussion, but this should be kept to a minimum. The point is to focus an articulation of your own coherent thought exercise with the discussion leader’s question.

2) pose 2-3 follow-up questions.

3) provide 3 annotated (in 2-3 sentences) links to news stories, reviews, art, advertisements, YouTube videos, etc. that are relevant and/or expressive of ideas and themes encountered not just in the readings but in the leader's discussion of the reading.

Discussion respondents should make your blog post within 42 hours after the class session you are assigned.