First published in 2013.
I have been arguing that in order to make minimal sense of our lives, in order to have an identity, we need an orientation to the good, which means some sense of qualitative discrimination, of the incomparably higher. Now we see that this sense of the good has to be woven into my understanding of my life as an unfolding story. But this is to state another basic condition of making sense of ourselves, that we grasp our lives in a narrative. This has been much discussed recently, and very insightfully. It has often been remarked that making sense of one's life as a story is also, like orientation to the good, not an optional extra; that our lives exist also in this space of questions, which only a coherent narrative can answer. In order to have a sense of who we are we have to have a notion of how we have become, and of where we are going.
We all exist in time. We know that yesterday we went to the market, and tomorrow, we'll visit with friends over dinner or spend our days at work. We look back in remembrance and forward in time with anticipation. We understand the cycle of time as a part of life.
The Teacher in Ecclesiastes wrote a very long time ago.
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.
While we may acknowledge this to be true, we also desire for time to stand still. We desire stability and continuity, to keep the good and avoid the bad. This is a response to a world that is more fragmented than whole.
Look at the conditions of our external world.
It is a world of change that is often disruptive, random, and unwelcome.
Yet, it is this very fragmented world that we ask to be consistent, stable, and compatible enough to make us feel good about ourselves and provide a ground for a personal identity that can withstand the change we experience.
This fragmentation is primarily between our inner selves and the world that is separate from us.
The challenge to be whole and complete as a real person becomes more urgent as our world fragments into hyper-realities. Of course, to see this, understand it, and live into it requires us to understand how our inner and outer lives have become so fragmented. How is the world a mirror of our inner state, and how are our inner selves not reflected in the present day, but in the traditions and beliefs of the past? We also need to ask how we can establish a path to personal wholeness that encompasses all aspects of our lives.
The Hyper-Reality of the External World
The hyper-real social world that I describe in The Spectacle of the Real is a world of serial experiences that are presented to us as daily events of significance intended to define who we are as people.
Look at your Twitter or Facebook feed, or, watch the news scroll across the bottom of the screen of your favorite news channel, and you'll see events, causes, ideas, and personalities that are promoted as information that is important for us to engage. These status updates are not descriptions of all that is taking place, but rather a filtering of what is important and what is not. The selection of what is included and not included is a commentary on the news, not the news itself.
ALL media content is mediated content, not raw data for our own critical mind to determine whether it is news or not.
The early promise of social media was as a more or less unfiltered reservoir of people and information to connect and engage. Social media sites have evolved into clever, highly sophisticated advertising platforms, promoting not just products for sale, but perspectives and social philosophies intended to guide our understanding of the future and our place in it. The more they know about us through our social media postings, website selections, and online purchases, the tighter and more closed the sources of information that are provided to us.
The hyper-reality of social media fragments the narrative sense of our lives as Charles Taylor describes. For our lives to be understood as a continuous, unfolding story, we need to be able to see our life experience as a whole in two ways.
First, as having continuity and connection over the entire length of our lives.
Second, as being open to what is new, different, and unpredictable.
Hyper-real contexts always place us on the outside of the screen, looking in at those who are doing the real living. We are meant to see a reality that is larger and more important than our own existence, filled with the fascinating people we must follow, and never, ever, involving us as direct participants in their lives. The result is that our inner lives take on a stunted, non flourishing life, disconnected from an outside world that can fully engage us
I have often heard people say in response to the daily change of my Facebook cover picture, how much they would like to go to the places that I have been. There is nothing unusual about those places. Many are within minutes of where I live.
How many times has the thought crossed our minds about how much we would like to do what those crazy guys in a YouTube video did or say what they said?
Social media sharing is a vicarious experience, not a direct one, as it is not quite as real as the one we create when we act upon some desire to go see a concert or hike to a beautiful mountain waterfall.
The reality is that the attraction of the screen is always random, momentary, and intermittent, never whole or complete. Our lived lives, on the other hand, can be filled with meaning, friendship, and a real sense of accomplishment and contribution.
As Umberto Eco wrote in Travels in Hyperreality,
"the American imagination demands the real thing and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake."
This is the hyper-real, social media context in which we seek to understand who we are as persons. The more deeply engaged in this hyper-real world we become, the more disconnected we become from our inner selves.
The Numbed Self, or, The Hyper-Real Inner Life
Marshall McLuhan, writing in the 1960s, was one of the first to recognize the social impact of images on a screen. His most famous epigram is “the medium is the message.” In McLuhan's most important book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man there is a chapter entitled The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis. In this essay, he uses the Greek story of Narcissus as a way of seeing the effect that electronic technology has upon us as persons.
"The Greek myth of Narcissus is directly concerned with a fact of human experience, as the word Narcissus indicates. It is from the Greek word narcosis, or numbness. The young Narcissus mistook his own reflection in the water for another person. This extension of himself by mirror numbed his perceptions ...
... the wisdom of the Narcissus myth does not convey any idea that Narcissus fell in love with anything he regarded as himself. Obviously he would have had very different feelings about the image had he known it was an extension or repetition of himself. It is, perhaps, indicative of the bias of our intensely technological and, therefore, narcotic culture that we have long interpreted the Narcissus story to mean that he fell in love with himself, that he imagined the reflection to be Narcissus!"
Narcissus was unaware that the image was of him. His inner self-awareness was disconnected from the external reality of the pool. His sense of self or identity was broken. His awareness of who he was had been severed from his awareness of the world beyond his perception. The wholeness of life was lost on him. He had no way to tell a complete or whole story of seeing his reflection in the water because his perception of the image in the water and his self-perception were disconnected. He was a fragmented man captivated by a hyper-real image in the water.
McLuhan was one of the first media critics to see electrical technology as a tool for replacing our sense of identity with an artificial image. The computer screen, the iPad, and the Smart Phone are objects which are now extensions of our identities, representing our inner selves in the outer world. This is why it is so difficult to let go of them. To let go is to lose our identity. Whatever is on the screen is not who we are, but, rather, a substitute representation, a hyper-real presence.
Sherry Turkle two decades ago began to speak about how Life on the Screen provides us with multiple identities. In her book, Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other she has similar insights as McLuhan's.
Technology proposes itself as the architect of our intimacies. These days, it suggests substitutions that put the real on the run.
... we seem determined to give human qualities to objects and content to treat each other as things.
But when technology engineers intimacy, relationships can be reduced to mere connections. And then, the easy connection becomes redefined as intimacy. Put otherwise, cyber-intimacies slide into cyber-solitudes. And with constant connection comes new anxieties of disconnection, ...
This is a fragmented relational world lived through the hyper-space of the screen.
At The Edge
Charles Taylor in his book, A Secular Age, draws a distinction between the self of the modern age and that of the premodern one. He speaks of the modern self as being "buffered" against the intrusion of the outside world, and the pre-modern self as being "porous" so as to allow what is in the outside world to take on meanings that intrude into our sense of who we are.
By definition for the porous self, the source of its most powerful and important emotions are outside the "mind"; or better put, the very notion that there is a clear boundary, allowing us to define an inner base area, grounded in which we can disengage from the rest, has no sense.
As a bounded self I can see the boundary as a buffer, such that the things beyond don't need to "get to me", to use the contemporary expression. That's the sense to my use of the term "buffered" here. This self can see itself as invulnerable, as master of the meanings of things for it.
... the porous self is vulnerable, to spirits, demons, cosmic forces. And along with this go certain fears which can grip it in certain circumstances. The buffered self has been taken out of the world of this kind of fear.
... the buffered self can form the ambition of disengaging from whatever is beyond the boundary, and of giving its own autonomous order to its life. The absence of fear can be not just enjoyed, but seen as an opportunity for self-control or self-direction.
As Taylor's description shows, the separation between our inner selves, or "minds" and the world at large is much more complex than simply identifying either a connection or a detachment between our inner and outer worlds.
The point I wish to draw here is that the extremes of either a "buffered" or "porous" self are products of the fragmentation of the world in which we live. Wholeness is discovered, lived out, at the boundary between them, which I'm calling The Edge of the Real.
Two Questions
There are two questions that I wish to raise that I will pick up in part two of this essay.
1. Is the fragmentation between our inner selves and the outside world neutral, neither good nor bad, just the way things are, and therefore, just something to adjust and adapt to each day?
I am asking whether what I have said thus far has any merit. Am I just creating an issue where this is none?
I ask this because Taylor in his A Secular Age clearly shows that there are benefits to living a bounded, buffered life, creating a safe space between my inner self and the outer world.
2. If this fragmentation is unhealthy, then what does it mean to be a whole person, and how does one bridge, cross over, heal the gap between our inner lives and the outer world?
I ask this question because of what I observe in people who are broken and people who are whole. I see a pattern or a collection of patterns that point to how the boundary between the world of our minds can engage in the world apart can become a place where life is made whole.
We are living at the edge of the real. It is a place of discovery.
What a timely topic with great insights. The interplay between screens & social media and the resultant hyper-reality we find ourselves often living in is not often discussed with any depth.
Maybe, eventually as we realize how our stories have been granted to us, our emotions hijacked, and the forces which coordinated (with unspoken agendas) to manipulate us and even usurp our very sense of self-sovereignty - all these factors will combine to create the conditions of busting through the fake-world and reclaiming our minds, our time, ourselves. Our reality.
I like to think so. The greater the abuses piled on, the greater the rewards once freed from them.
"It is, perhaps, indicative of the bias of our intensely technological and, therefore, narcotic culture that we have long interpreted the Narcissus story to mean that he fell in love with himself, that he imagined the reflection to be Narcissus!"
Never heard that take on Narcissus - brilliant.
Thank you, Ed.
made this comment also at https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-persons-on-networks/comment/11353749
There is a very interesting open source project going on in the area of social media and the web, called Solid, and guided by the inventor of the original web, Tim Berners-Lee and his W3C organization.
The basic idea is an inversion of control. Instead of apps owning data, a person or organization owns data and apps are allowed to access it based on permissions given by the person or organization. So instead of 100 apps duplicating your personal information on their servers and possibly getting it wrong, you keep your personal information on your server or a server you designate and the 100 apps have to use it there. This puts the burden on apps to use this data based on one's permissions and expectations and the expectations of other apps about how data will be structured. This is an entirely new burden that apps are not used to dealing with, the control of the data being in the hands of the data owner, that being the individual or organization. Its an ongoing project and many of the details of this inversion of control have yet to be worked out.
I am fascinated by this project, although I have reservations about it.
My reservations revolve around the role of organizations as stewards of data. I have no problem with individuals controlling their own data, their personal profiles, their likes and dislikes, their history and opinions, their accomplishments, their connections.
But when it comes to organizations doing this, being the stewards of information that many people and apps will have to rely on, and being able to set permissions to that data based on broad groups of people, then I have a problem. It seems to me that for organizations, Solid is tailor made to be used to implement a social credit system.
I worry about this even more when I consider the nature of open source software projects and standards bodies. They are by their nature not democracies. Some would even go so far as to call them cults. After all, what is a "do-ocracy"? The more of your time and energy you donate, the more you are allowed to know about the goals and presumably the more control you have. Just like a cult. When employees from large corporations are involved, they completely skew the power balance of these "public-private partnerships". Some would go as far as to call it fascist. I have not come across anyone looking into these considerations.