Pages

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Virtualization of Experience


Recent thoughts on social media reminded me of a phrase I heard for the first time recently, which I suspect we will probably hear again – ‘digital natives,’ meaning the increasing fraction of young people who, like many of my fellow undergrads, cannot remember a world without ubiquitous cell phones and Internet access. This was in an NPR news item about the decline of the bookcase, by the way. It seems that furniture companies are making fewer of them, and redesigning them for what people are more likely to use them for now: holding DVDs and electronics. At what point does a bookcase stop being a bookcase?
And what does it mean to be native’ to the placelessness of telecommunications? People are learning to socialize – making friends, falling in love, ‘growing up’ – in a virtual space we tend to think of as somehow overlaid on the actual world. It’s often struck me lately how ads for phone and Internet service typically feature an intense, emotional depiction of ‘togetherness’ across distance. We are supposed to feel like Skyping with someone half a world away ‘is just as good as’ being in the same room with them: in other words, being separate is the same as being together.
Of course we can all be grateful to not be entirely disconnected from those we care about, and sometimes that’s very valuable; then again, it’s not like people were ‘entirely disconnected’ in the age of landlines and letters (or before). Actually being somewhere, with someone, meant more because it required more planning, purpose, and above all,presence. Increasingly, the potential to always be virtually together devalues actuallybeing there together. The possibility of communication makes a reality of isolation more tolerable, and consequently, more normal – an isolation seldom more palpable than while waiting for the phone to ring, or for the newsfeed to ‘update.’
Not only space, but time disappears too as the instantaneous simultaneity of ‘real time feeds’ collapses all moments into a kind of static equivalency, in an eternal present. It seems like only yesterday it often took 10 or more minutes to connect to AOL via dial-up; today our peers often become frustrated to the point of fury at a few seconds’ delay downloading some triviality or other onto their smartphones. The other odd thing about the phrase ‘digital natives’ is not only that there is nowhere to be native to, spatially, in the ‘networked world,’ but that this seems to be clearly a generational designation: only the young are ‘native’ to the ‘digital age.’ We are speaking of a time, not a place, yet any sense of temporality is missing from this term, or the perspective it apparently expresses.
Facebook, meanwhile, has gone from ‘walls’ to ‘timelines,’ flattening a biography into an automatically generated gallery of data. This is actually the model behind the increasing number of sites where we are not actually being sold something, but are being sold as viewers of advertising; “we” in this case refers, of course, to collections of data circulating through distant corporate servers. Experience is annihilated when it is turned into information; there is really no kinder way to put it. It’s not just that we are being tracked in this way, but are constantly conditioned to think like this in order to make it easier for consumers themselves to carry out the kind of market research advertisers once paid top dollar for.
Upon visiting any of a multitude of sites, or registering for various kinds of services, we are asked any number of questions about our lives and interests, as if by a sensitive and caring friend. Are we looking for someone to date? What kinds of art, music, film and literature do we enjoy? Where do we stand on politics and religion? Many people apparently receive these overtures as flattery; their opinion matters and now they have the chance to share it with the world!
The “news feeds” run constantly, like a news ‘ticker’ keeping track of changes in stock prices, ready to relay anything at all. The ability to say something instantly to a potentially oceanic audience attaches easily enough to our egos that it dizzily becomes thecompulsion to say something. When someone comments back, we are reassured that we have a real social life (despite all evidence to the contrary) because we produce enough meaning to capture someone’s attention. Hence the explosion of blogs, Tweets, Facebook ‘timelines’ and so on delivering an unfettered torrent of trivial gossip, uninformed rants and embarrassing confessions – all quite useless except for the egos of those who emit them, the simulacra of community engendered with other digital “selves,” and of course the only-slightly-less-virtual speculative economies of advertisers and site owners who profit off this diffuse production of incessant discourse.
So this is why it is not only a question of me and my subjective individual existence, and whether I can abstain from the distractions of the digital environment to find some kind of ‘authenticity,’ but of the fact we have such an environment, the uncanny valley peopled by the digital natives. What we think of as our individual and social existence is shaped by an order of the world that hides behind terms like ‘information technology,’ ‘the Internet,’ the ‘new economy,’ that includes the massive deployment of devices that capture and circulate information as much as the sense of alienation we can’t seem to slake by socializing through them.
The bottom line of this world and its truths is that sociality and commodity have become identical, with only the most tenuous formal connections to “real life” that is becoming increasingly virtual anyway. A proxy form of social life transpires in this marketplace of information and identity, brightly-lit and always open for business, its every moment recorded and marketable. Hollowed-out experience reveals its form to be that of an ideal commodity, that can be anything to anyone because it is nothing itself, and it increasingly recreates our social relations as mutual absences. But the world of our shared presences awaits us patiently, if only we can put down our phones long enough to really be there.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Cause & Effect Divorce!

by Anna Marton

In a shocking turn of events, Cause & Effect divorce.  "It started so small," Cause sobbed.  "Some people started wondering if we really belonged together.  We had defenders, though.  A lot of people said that you never see Cause without Effect."  Cause smiled sadly.  "Those were the good days."  She stopped smiling.  "Then that philosopher came along!"  Cause is referring to the Empiricist Hume, who argued that there was no rational reason that there was a necessary connexion between Cause & Effect. "Our defenders had nothing to say to that," Cause sniffled.  "Oh, people still believe in us at times, but it wasn't enough to keep Effect with me."  Cause says that she will go along without Effect always at her side, but says it will be lonelier.  Effect could not be reached for comment.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

11/16/2012 Honesty and Society

by Tyler Molander

I aim to talk about a personal philosophy of mine, which is that: honesty is the best way to go through life. I also aim to explain why being honest or dishonest significantly effects how society functions. I will do this by giving my theories of how humans process the world around them and how they can take honest, genuine actions. I will explore that being honest to yourself and others is obviously the most genuine action that you can take. With this, that taking an honest action is an expression of "who you are", and a dishonest action is NOT an expression "who you are". With this, I will explore my ideas about concepts of "identity" and why I think "identity" is meaningless. We may ask ourselves a few questions...


What is our "identity"?


Why does our "identity" matter?


How do we express our honest selves if we do not understand our "identity"?


What IS a honest action?


Why is dishonesty so detrimental to society?


Why does society have so many "problems" and how are they "solved"?


I aim to end the discussion with everyone attempting to be as honest as possible to each other. I aim to have a discussion where everyone can be equally allowed to be honest with whatever is truly on their minds following the mission of this club, which is to attempt to provide a nurturing environment. With this, each person has to try to remember to first be honest with THEMSELVES and then with each other. Before this discussion, I aim to explain how this can be done with virtually no negative results. That negativity ("blacks are bad") as well as positivity ('whites are good") are both merely constructions of the mind; which lead not to negative results, rather dishonesty.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

11/9/2012 Philosophy of Magic: Chaos, Ceremony, and Practicality

by Ashley Hartzler 
(on behalf of herself and the other SPIRALS members to lead this discussion)

Our talk focuses on the approach of magicians through out the various schools of magic, the differences between those schools, and the thought behind their methods. We'll start by focusing on the major laws of magic and how they apply to the various schools. We'll then analyze ceremonial magic by using an evocation ritual as an example and see how the laws apply to it. Using ceremonial magic as a base, we will compare practical and chaos magic to it and hold discussion through out the entirety of the talk.

***

A video of the meeting on 11/9/2012 can be found here.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

11/2/2012 Responses to the Absurd

by Benny Mattis

Have you ever stepped back from what you were doing, stepped back from your day-to-day life, and wondered Why?  Have you ever found yourself at a loss for answers to this question?  Maybe you've come to the conclusion that your life is...absurd?

The Absurd is the manifestation of a tension between aspiration and reality; we take our lives seriously enough, but they may seem quixotic or downright futile when gazed upon by an outside observer.  Importantly, an outside observer is not even necessary for this effect, as we are more than capable of recognizing the absurdity of our own lives--for example, when you ask yourself "why" and find yourself at a loss.

Some philosophers think that the absurd is something to be avoided, some think it is something to be embraced, and some think it is simply another fact of life.  One's response to the absurd indubitably affects the way they view themselves and others, which in turn affects their actions.  This week, we will be examining two popular and influential responses to the absurd: that of Albert Camus, and that of Thomas Nagel.

Camus sees the absurd as a conflict between man (in the broadest sense), who has hopes, dreams, & aspirations, and the world, which is totally alien to man, ultimately incomprehensible, and indifferent to his survival.  Thus, the absurdity arises in man's attempts to find order or meaning in a meaningless world.  Nagel, on the other hand, sees the absurd as an internal conflict between two of man's own perspectives on himself--the perspective which takes life seriously, and the "backwards step" to a view on which such seriousness appears "gratuitous" in the face of its ultimate insignificance.  Which of these writers are more accurate in their account of the absurd as a phenomena?  Which of their responses are most effective in reconciling people with their absurd existences?  These are the things we will be discussing on Friday.

---

A video of the meeting held on 11/2/2012 can be found here.  There were various responses to Camus' and Nagel's respective responses to the absurd.  A few of us agreed with Nagel's description of Camus' response as overly "dramatic."  A few people agreed with Nathan in dismissing the absurd as a "first world problem" that results primarily from a disconnect from the suffering of one's neighbors.  There were also doubts about the verity of the premise that life is, in fact, absurd.  Overall, the majority of those who attended on 11/2/2012 tended to sympathize with Nagel's conception of the absurd, as Camus seemed to be self-defeating, both in making claims about a supposedly unknowable world, and in failing to appreciate the absurdity of revolt itself.