Indranet » Myspace

Unlinking ourselves through technology

Ivo Quartiroli — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:31:53 +0000

[en]

Any time there is contact with a new technology, as Marshall McLuhan tells us in Understanding Media, this brings us to “an extension or self-amputation of our physical bodies, and such extension also demands new ratios or new equilibriums among the other organs and extensions of the body.”

The self-amputation aspect is hardly considered by people who deal with the media and technologies, much less by marketing offices. The potentialities of any new technology in extending our abilities are magnified, but there’s attention on the self-amputation side only when there is obvious damage.

[/en][it]

Ogni volta che vi è il contatto con una nuova tecnologia, Marshall McLuhan, ne Gli strumenti del comunicare, ci insegna che questa ci porta a “un’estensione o un’autoamputazione del nostro corpo, che impone nuovi rapporti o nuovi equilibri tra gli altri organi e le altre estensioni del corpo.”

La parte di autoamputazione viene presa meno in considerazione da parte di chi si occupa di media e tecnologie, e ancora di meno da parte degli uffici marketing. Ogni nuova tecnologia viene esaltata nelle sue potenzialità di estensione delle nostre possibilità ma l’altra faccia della medaglia, l’autoamputazione, viene considerata solo quando vi sono dei danni evidenti.

[/it]

[en]

A classical example of how our consciousness gets disconnected from parts of our bodies, making us less “embodied” (though other technologies could affect prevalently inner parts) is a car, which on one side extends the possibilities of our legs but on the other limits their use, making them weak and reducing our dependence on them.

On an evolutionary plane of the psyche, disconnecting parts of ourselves through technology could seem similar to the process of disidentification that is being carried out on the spiritual path toward self-knowledge. The more we deepen our self-knowledge, the more we let go the identifications with the inner images of our body and our minds’ structures (beliefs, preferences, or aversions) that we have built starting from early childhood as defense mechanisms.

Several spiritual teachings (Buddhism perhaps being the best-known in the West) affirm that the body and mind are impermament entities. Identifying with them makes it difficult to reach ultimate awareness. Our body is liable to continuous change and decline. Similarly, the mind is liable to continuous transformations: we change opinions, skills, we create, and dissolve our subpersonalities. Neuroscience says that there is no center of consciousness as such which combines the different parts of our psyche.

All of this and more brought the Buddha to say that actually we don’t exist as separate individuals who can identify themselves in a body-mind system, being constructions which lack the substance that can be reached through the ultimate consciouness. The very existence of an “I” as I consider myself to be is being challenged both by spirituality and science.

If we aren’t our body-mind, what are we? This question can only be answered through searching. Every teacher made efforts at describing such a state, nonetheless the path has to be trod individually. Intellectual or scientific knowledge can be passed on from person to person without the recipient having to go through every stage again that brought the first person to the conclusions.

Spiritual knowledge needs the experiential and total engagement of our consciousness; the path has to be traversed again from the beginning. Reaching enlightenment (even though the word “reaching” would probably be challenged by enlightened beings) passes through a progressive disidentification from what we think we are, not to become less, but to become part of a broader consciousness.

On the path toward wisdom we progressively lighten our load of identifications. The more we enquire into ourselves, the more we realize that what we thought to be was actually an apparition of the same dim texture as a mental construct. This disidentification process is liberating yet hard while following the path. Taking away what we thought to be can bring stages of mourning and confusion because our (fake) inner supports are disappearing. Therefore, this is a process which needs will and the ability to withstand pain.

The process of spiritual disidentification from a mental, emotional, relational or body image takes place when we become deeply aware and can observe it without further interference by our conditioning. It is important to understand how we place ourselves regarding our identifications, feel them, live them and then let them go. Therefore, we can let go an identification when we have felt it, understood it, and lived it wholly.

However, through technology the process of disidentification, instead of becoming internalized, is made external, disintegrating us instead of making us free. The process seems a progressive withdrawal from the body and the world which looks more like the withdrawal attitude of the typology Five of the enneagram than a conscious detachment from inner aspects or external attachments because of maturation.

Coming back to the car example, losing touch with our legs doesn’t mean going “beyond” the identification with a part of our bodies, but just depriving oneself of a conscious connection with a part of ourselves which could be useful for the soul’s evolution. The process of spiritual evolution starts from where we are and uses every human quality we have at that moment.

Therefore we project – to give some examples – our memory skills toward the computer (at the same time causing our minds and memories to deteriorate), our authentic needs for connection with people on social networks, or our drive for knowledge to Google (though the search can happen on just a mental instead of an experiential plane).

With the aid of technology we don’t have the chance to live and understand our identifications and qualities fully. Technologies bypass our awareness, creating extensions which prevent the recognition of the corresponding inner function. They anesthesize parts of ourselves and take charge of the corresponding inner function of the body or psyche. If we substitute the car for the legs, we won’t recognize the wholeness of our legs any more. If we substitute our need for human connection with Facebook or Myspace, we will numb our need for genuine contact.

[/en][it]

Un classico esempio di come le tecnologie portino la nostra consapevolezza lontana dai nostri corpi, rendendoci meno connessi col nostro corpo (tuttavia altre tecnologie potrebbero incidere prevalentemente sul mondo interiore) è l’automobile, che se da una parte ha esteso le possibilità delle nostre gambe, dall’altra parte ha limitato l’uso delle stesse, determinato un loro indebolimento e un intorpidimento della nostra connessione con le stesse.

Su un piano evolutivo della psiche, disconnettere parti di noi stessi tramite le tecnologie potrebbe ricordare il processo di disidentificazione che viene attuato nel percorso spirituale di conoscenza. Man mano che approfondiamo la conoscenza di noi stessi, lasciamo cadere le identificazioni con le immagini interiori del nostro corpo e con le strutture della nostra mente (convinzioni, preferenze o avversioni, credenze) che abbiamo costruito a partire dalla primissima età come meccanismi di difesa.

Diversi insegnamenti spirituali, tra i quali il Buddismo è forse il più conosciuto in occidente, affermano che il corpo e la mente sono entità impermanenti. Identificarci con essi rende difficile il raggiungimento della consapevolezza definitiva. Il nostro corpo è soggetto a cambiamenti continui e a decadenza. La mente analogamente è soggetta a trasformazioni continue: cambiamo le opinioni, le abilità, creiamo e dissolviamo sub-personalità. La neuroscienza stessa afferma che non esiste un centro di coscienza che raccoglie le diverse parti della nostra psiche.

Tutto questo e molto altro portò il Budda ad affermare che in realtà non esistiamo come individui separati che si possano identificare in un sistema corpo-mente, essendo costruzioni che mancano della sostanza che si ottiene incontrando la consapevolezza ultima. L’esistenza stessa di un “Io” per come mi considero essere viene messa in discussione sia dalla spiritualità che dalla scienza.

Se non siamo il nostro corpo-mente, cosa siamo? A questa domanda si può rispondere solamente cercando. Ogni maestro si è sforzato di descrivere tale stato, ma il percorso va comunque fatto individualmente. La conoscenza intellettuale o scientifica può essere trasmessa da persona a persona senza che la persona che la riceve debba ripercorrere tutte le fasi che hanno portato la prima alle sue conclusioni.

La conoscenza spirituale necessita dal coinvolgimento esperienziale e totale della nostra consapevolezza; il cammino va ripercorso personalmente dall’inizio. Il raggiungimento dell’illuminazione passa attraverso una progressiva disidentificazione da ciò che pensiamo essere noi stessi, non per impoverirci, ma per divenire parte di una consapevolezza più ampia.

Durante il cammino verso la conoscenza ci alleggeriamo progressivamente del nostro carico di identificazioni. Più indaghiamo al nostro interno e più ci rendiamo conto che ciò che credevamo di essere era in realtà una apparizione della stessa vaga consistenza di un costrutto mentale. Questo processo di disidentificazione è liberatorio ma arduo nel cammino. Togliere le identificazioni da ciò che credevamo di essere può portare fasi di dolore e di smarrimento per la scomparsa dei nostri (finti) supporti interiori. E’ quindi un processo che richiede volontà e capacità di accogliere il dolore.

Il processo di disidentificazione spirituale, sia esso da un’immagine mentale, emozionale, relazionale o corporea, avviene quando ne diveniamo profondamente consapevoli e la possiamo osservare senza più interferenze da parte dei nostri condizionamenti. E’ importante comprendere come ci poniamo nei confronti delle nostre identificazioni, sentirle, viverle e poi lasciarle andare. Dunque possiamo lasciare andare una nostra identificazione quando l’abbiamo sentita, capita e vissuta nella sua interezza.

Ma tramite le tecnologie il processo di disidentificazione, invece che essere interiorizzato, viene esteriorizzato, dis-integrandoci invece che renderci liberi. Il processo sembra quello di un ritiro progressivo dal proprio corpo e dal mondo, che ricorda più l’attitudine della tipologia Cinque dell’Enneagramma che un distacco consapevole da aspetti interiori o attaccamenti esteriori per “maturazione”.

Per ritornare all’esempio dell’automobile, perdere il contatto con le nostre gambe non significa andare “oltre” all’identificazione con una parte del nostro corpo, ma semplicemente privarsi di una connessione consapevole con una parte di noi stessi, che sarebbe di ausilio alla crescita spirituale. Il processo di crescita spirituale parte da dove siamo e utilizza ogni qualità umana che abbiamo in quel momento.

Allora proiettiamo, per fare alcuni esempi, le nostre capacità di memoria verso il computer (facendo calare la memoria mentale), i nostri bisogni di connessione autentica con le persone ai social network, la spinta verso la ricerca a Google (che può avvenire però prevalentemente su un piano mentale e non esperienziale).

Con l’ausilio delle tecnologie non abbiamo modo di vivere e comprendere le nostre identificazioni e qualità fino in fondo. Le tecnologie bypassano la nostra consapevolezza creandoci delle estensioni che ci impediscono il riconoscimento della corrispondente funzione interiore. Anestetizzano parti di noi stessi e assumono il controllo della corrispondente funzione del corpo o della psiche.

Se sostituiamo l’automobile alle gambe non riconosceremo più le nostre gambe nella loro interezza. Analogamente, se sostituiamo il bisogno di connessione umana con Facebook o Myspace verremo intorpiditi nel sentire il bisogno di contatto autentico.

[/it]

[en]Strip courtesy of Andy Rementer – Techno Tuesday.

[/en][it]

Vignette di Andy Rementer – Techno Tuesday, per gentile concessione.

[/it][en]

Facebook and the sorcerer’s apprentice of the Net

Ivo Quartiroli — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:14:10 +0000

[en]

Analysis and interpretation of symbols has always been considered more a magical than a technological act.

While once magical skills were applied to celestial bodies and the flight of birds, the symbols to be interpreted nowadays are computer programming codes and financial analysis charts, so complex that their interpretation often seems to require abilities closer to magic than to science.

Historicaly, exclusive languages have always been an instrument of power, as Latin was for the Church.

[/en][it]

Interpretare e analizzare i simboli è sempre stato considerato un atto magico prima ancora che tecnologico, lasciato ai sacerdoti, agli astrologi.

Gli astri e i voli degli uccelli, riportati ai giorni nostri sono i codici di programmazione dei computer e i grafici delle analisi finanziarie, la cui complessità interpretativa richiede spesso attitudini che si avvicinano più alla magia che alla scienza.

Nella storia, i linguaggi di uso esclusivo sono sempre stati uno strumento di potere, come lo è stato il latino per il clero.

[/it]

[en]

Computer experts are called gurus or computer wizards. The symbols to be interpreted are programming codes. The ones who master such media, supported by powerful hardware, own the keys of technological, therefore social development. By now, technology is shaping the modes of social interaction: one just has to think of mobile phones or social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, and Second Life.

Computer programming is done by a set of symbols the rules for whose use and whose languages are known and under the control of a few. In spite of open source projects that without doubt expand the knowledge of software functioning to a much larger number of people, programming is still quite an elitist activity.

Programming codes, wisely arranged, can bring sudden success on the Net. The success of a technology depends much on its software architecture, its usability and on the fulfillment of a need. Without doubt big money and human resources help, but we have witnessed many successful projects started by a few people with a good idea, excellent technical skills and the ability to connect with the collective unconscious and the needs that this conveys.

Starting with Bill Gates and coming to Facebook, we see young persons in their early 20s engaging tens or hundreds of millions of people in using their technological creations. The market society allows these possibilities. I prefer that young nerds define the ways we interact with the computer and with people in social networks, rather than military officers, as appropriate in a democracy. But is not the whole story.

Sudden – even instant – success that comes to young men reminds me of the sorcerer’s apprentice. A website that quickly attracts millions of people requires a commensurate responsibility and human vision. It’s a bit like suddenly becoming president of a country. Inasmuch as the latter may turn out to be inadequate to their roles, at least in the democratic countries they are elected and liable to control by other elected politicians. The impact on society of a single site like Facebook, which engages tens of millions of people, is more powerful than many political resolutions.

The modalities of social interactions of a site which attracts millions of people would need rules mutually agreed upon with the users of the site’s services. Some time ago we read about Facebook’s Scoble case and the non-respect of privacy issues concerning Beacon. We can’t expect much wisdom from people whose priorities arefinancial and technical.

If on one side the possibility of ruling the world through a site is the fulfillment of the American dream, on the other there is the risk of imposing predominently advertising, where a small group of technically-skilled kids establish the modalities of interaction of social networks and a large percentage of the time of an evergrowing number of people in the world. The technical language becomes a new Latin language for a new clergy.

One could object saying that those engineer the architecture of a site or of an operating system actually create empty containers, while the contents are generated by users themselves. But as Mitch Kapor, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation referring to the open structure of the Internet said, “Architecture is politics.” The technical structure, the operating modalities and the social rules that derive from technical-architectural choices have wide implications on the way we interact. Every mouse click is not just a practical interface, it is as well an inner click in our psyche and moves something on our inside.

Is Internet empowering us?

Ivo Quartiroli — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:47:24 +0000

[en]

But are we really empowered through technology? The 60’s students’ movement was very influential in society and well organized, maybe not even in spite of the lack of technologies but because of that lack. People had to rely on personal connections.

[/en][it]

Ma Internet aumenta davvero il nostro potere? Il movimento studentesco degli anni ’60 era ben organizzato e molto influente nella società, e forse questo non avveniva nonostante l’arretratezza tecnologica, ma grazie a essa. La gente doveva fare affidamento sui contatti personali.

[/it]

[en]

Even before the popularization of the Internet, Jerry Mander wrote:

Computers have made it possible to instantaneously move staggering amounts of capital, information and equipment throughout the world, giving unprecedented power to the largest institutions on the earth. In fact, computers made these institutions possible. Meanwhile, we use our personal computers to edit our copy and hook into our information networks – and believe that makes us more powerful. Jerry Mander. In the absence of the sacred. Sierra Club. San Francisco. 1991

Since the beginning, Internet has been regarded as an instrument of democracy and Internet activism grew over the years. The Net is considered a decentralization tool that gives the power back to small groups and individuals. Internet offers a place to distribute words, images, sounds and videos, a place to meet like-minded people and to organize groups for certain aims. Ideas can be spread easily through the net and everybody can do that with a relatively small economical cost.

All well and fine but there’s something missing here. I am too young to have been part of the 60′s political movements, but old enough to have been part of the late 70′s movements as a teenager. The Internet hardly existed then, only a few academic institutions had it, cell phones didn’t exist, faxes were only available to big companies. There were just ordinary telephones, but we didn’t even use them that much.

Even so, whenever there was a gathering, assembly or rally, every student knew about it. We were writing posters on the school entrance, talking in school assemblies but mainly we heard about it through the grape vine. The dark side of the student’s movement was present as well, as sometimes people would degenerate in imposing points of view and some groups were even using violence, but in the high majority of cases the movement was about the passion to act for a better and just world. That passion was contagious; we could feel the collective energy and feel part of something bigger. Of course the ego of the people was involved as well and there were power trips on every side of the political spectrum but there was also a genuine interest in the collective and in global justice beyond personal interest.

The students’ movement was very influential in society and well organized, maybe not even in spite of the lack of technologies but because of that lack. People had to rely on personal connections. No cultural or social transformation in history needed much technology or even a large number of people. Its clichéd to say it but the transmission of individual values and ideas through personal contacts can light the fire much easier than any forum, web site or online video.

Could it be that we pulled the wool over our own eyes in imagining that we can enpower ourselves and spread our ideas through blogs, show our creativity through Myspace, build a community through social networking sites, transform society through forum participations? Big media offline are even bigger online. Could it be that we deluded ourselves in thinking that we are empowered and can be as influential as the big corporations? It doesn’t seem to me that central governments or big corporations have lost any power since the Internet became universally available.

Even though Internet can bring people together on the same site and everybody can raise their voice with little effort and can be heard by many people, the information overload, the emphasis on individual narcissistic representation and the intrinsic divided attention modality due to the number of windows competing with each other, makes the net a more difficult place to convey messages that reach people deeply in their conscience. Even when people are touched in their minds, in most of the cases this doesn’t match with real action; the information in most cases doesn’t go beyond the intellectual and mental level. The medium can foster global indifference, with a detached participation and attention divided between too many inputs. While global warming is accelerating and the Iraq war produces more victims nothing much clicks inside except for the mouse buttons.