Comments on: Critiquing Social Networks | Technological Bad Faith

By: Lori

Lori — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:35:07 +0000

Kester, I wouldn’t imagine you’d go for in for the “head in the sand” approach. (I should probably have used “I” rather than “we” in my comments.) This is new territory for me, but as my life continues to be enriched (and shaped) by technology, and as I parent a [very tech-savvy] teen-age boy, it’s often on my mind. I’ve been VERY cautious and intentional thus far, but this particular exchange has been very helpful to me in terms of acknowledging what’s actually going on, and embracing the positive within it. Thanks.

By: KB

KB — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:48:05 +0000

Great comment Lori – I’d be interested in your thoughts Nic. Just to clarify though, while I think it’s vital to acknowledge our separateness (I am not my mobile) it is also vital to acknowledge and accept our binding too. I’d certainly never want to go for head in the sand. One of the interesting things about the Amish is not their rejection of technology, but their slowness and care in adopting it. They are deliberately careful not out of fear of it, I hope, but out of careful respect and full knowledge of their co-evolution with it: once adopted, it will change them. As you say though, there can be very positive aspects to this. The growth of the internet has been democratising, and some would argue this has led to improvements in universal human rights through the easy dissemination of information.

By: Lori

Lori — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:20:50 +0000

Nic, I hadn’t really thought about the profound impact writing (and reading) have had on human neurological evolution. As I read your brief post, though, it was obvious to me that you’re right. So if we humans are creating technology, which in return re-creates us, it would appear we’re co-evolving? That being the case, “fear” of technology would almost seem to be self-deceptive, as we are fearing our own creations (and, by extension, the creation of our selves.)
So to Kester’s point of meeting our “great antagonist”, or my earlier mention of “being known”, might not technology either facilitate or interfere with these processes to the extent that we choose to allow it? In much the same way as introspection can lead us to delve deeper into ourselves (or humanity) or to escape from the same? Does emphasizing our separateness from our technologies create an unhealthy “head in the sand” approach?

By: KB

KB — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:29:10 +0000

You should try it on your blog, but isn’t it linked to our history of writing/reading? I remember a Chinese guy once saying ‘we read the bible better than you. When you read, you are always shaking your head. When we read (lines of characters up and down) we are nodding in agreement.’

By: Nic

Nic — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:50:08 +0000

Look at you with your pink background in the comments !-)

I was having an interesting conversation with a colleague the other day. (Same one, that I was retelling our conversation about mobile phones and other). You thought you were well clever when you asked me if I actually thought I ‘was’ my mobile phone.

Anyway, point being— how about Horizontally scrolling blogs? Where the initial post is lost in parallel to all the comments. There is no hierarchy, I really like this.

By: Nic

Nic — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:27:51 +0000

We are already cyborgs, we have always been cyborgs— it’s what we do.

Writing is the classic machine that according to McLuhan both extended and wounded us. So we lost the skills that allowed us to remember huge chunks of information because writing did it for us. We no longer needed the skills honed by rhetoric practice. We exchanged the ear for the eye. Technologies same old story.

We’re so used to the coupling of these familiar systems, we no longer notice them. As a designer, I’m fascinated by these bio-informatic assemblages. Machines networked together, human, codex, typographic.

Different, not troubling.

By: KB

KB — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:39:17 +0000

I think you’ve got a good point there Lori. Question is, is that conduit working? It’d be interesting to see some research on that.

Nic, you’re the one who called it a data ‘shadow’! I was pushing your buttons with original sin… but only half. If we do have this biography and history carried over, it will be very interesting to see how that is used. One of the frustrations in teaching is always the brain’s inefficiency – it doesn’t remember everything first time. So we went cyborg and were unable to forget things could difficult, and troubling.

By: Nic

Nic — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:55:15 +0000

The networks that Latour traces are immanent, I think he’d have a problem with transcendence. Quasi-objects are deeply slippy, they avoid distinctions and oppositions: subject/object, self/other, culture/nature, mind/body etc. They slide across the spectrum.

I totally agree that the ‘denser now’ will require a new theology. Will my coffee-grinder go to heaven? !-) Essentially, it reconfigures everything. This is why I goaded Jules. It will also require new ethics and new legal requirements. Or should I say, it will produce new ethics and new legal requirements!

I’m trying to work out your connecting of data-shadows and original sin? An objects biography or history would definitely be recorded and past onto successive generations. Although one suspects bugs and flaws would be eradicated by genetic algorithms.

Are you being judgmental again !-) Technology comes with some sort of curse, Prometheus’s legacy.

By: Lori

Lori — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:15:30 +0000

Another factor to recognize in this mix is that of origins–our social networks & technology did not spring into existence alone, but grew out of perceived (consciously or otherwise) human need.
fb status updates, for instance: As a society, we’ve become less adept at asking questions of one another, and of showing interest in the facticity of each other’s lives. With the advent of fb, we now have a culturally acceptable way of telling one another details about ourselves–details which otherwise would go unsolicited and unknown. Though these factoids are far from providing the whole picture, the opportunity to express them lends itself to feeling more “known”.
Perhaps the facticity in our virtual relationships can serve as a conduit to the transcendent (who we are beyond the bytes), while the transcendent can continue to inspire and facilitate our technologically mediated social interactions.

By: KB

KB — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:27:21 +0000

I’d be with Jules on that. I think that the parliament does risk collapsing the paradox into pure facticity.

The skin firewall is a very good point though – and a prescient one too. We are going to need a new theology for the cyborg age, and the ‘data shadow’ is going to be interesting. Akin to original sin, perhaps?