• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

iPod is a psuedopod

coberst

Critical Thinker
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
415
iPod is a pseudopod

‘Object is container’ is, I think, a useful metaphor. The object has an inside and an outside with a boundary separating the two. It is possibly the reason we think of the existence of souls and spirits. Humans think about them self as an object. We see an example of this interior and exterior when we communicate on the Internet. In our face-to-face communication in the real world the exterior of a person becomes very important in our concept of that person. On the Internet such is not the case and this fact causes situations between the two modes of communication.

When most people contact one another there is only a combining of exteriors. Few occasions develop when two people make a significant contact of interiors. James Baldwin put it succinctly when he said “mirrors can only lie”. The mirror exposes only the exterior and says nothing about the interior; I find that, as I grow older, I have less and less exterior about which to communicate and communication about the interior seems much easier with total strangers on the Internet than with those close to me.

Marshall McLuhan “The High Priest of Pop-Culture” in the mid twentieth century was the first to announce the existence of the ‘global village’ and to express that “we become what we behold”. McLuhan sought to understand and express the effects of technology on modern culture.

McLuhan was particularly interested in “Technology as Extension of the Human Body”. “An extension occurs when an individual or society makes or uses something in a way that extends the range of the human body and mind in a fashion that is new. The shovel we use for digging holes is a kind of extension of the hands and feet. The spade is similar to the cupped hand, only it is stronger, less likely to break, and capable of removing more dirt per scoop than the hand. A microscope or telescope is a way of seeing that is an extension of the eye.”

Going further in this vein the auto is an extension of the foot. However there are negative results from all such extensions. “Amputations” represent the unintended and un-reflected counterparts of such extensions.

“Every extension of mankind, especially technological extensions, has the effect of amputating or modifying some other extension… The extension of a technology like the automobile "amputates" the need for a highly developed walking culture, which in turn causes cities and countries to develop in different ways. The telephone extends the voice, but also amputates the art of penmanship gained through regular correspondence. These are a few examples, and almost everything we can think of is subject to similar observations…We have become people who regularly praise all extensions, and minimize all amputations. McLuhan believed that we do so at our own peril.”

McLuhan was concerned about man's willful blindness to the downside of technology. In his later years McLuhan developed a scientific basis for his thought around what he termed the tetrad. The tetrad is four laws, framed as questions, which give us a useful instrument for studying our culture.
"What does it (the medium or technology) extend?"
"What does it make obsolete?"
"What is retrieved?"
"What does the technology reverse into if it is over-extended?"

McLuhan’s gravestone carries the inscription “The Truth Shall Make You Free." We do not have to like or even agree with everything that McLuhan said. However, we would be wise to remember that his was a life of great insight and it was dedicated to showing wo/man the truth about the world we live in, and especially the hidden consequences of the technologies we develop.

In the book “The Birth and Death of Meaning” Earnest Becker provides us with a synthesis of the knowledge about the extensions of the human body that McLuhan spoke of and science certified through research.

Becker informs us that the “self” is in the body but is not part of the body; it is symbolic and is not physical. “The body is an object in the field of the self: it is one of the things we inhabit…A person literally projects or throws himself out of the body, and anywhere at all…A man’s “Me” is the sum total of all that he can call his, not only his body and his mind, but his clothes and house, his wife and children, [etc].” The human can be symbolically located wherever s/he thinks part of her really exists or belongs.


It is said that the more insecure we are the more important these symbolic extensions of the self become. When we invest undue value onto such matters as desecrating a piece of cloth that symbolizes our nation is an indication that our self-valuation has declined and this overvaluation of a symbol can help compensate that loss. We get a good feeling about own value by obtaining value in the pseudopod as the flag.

In conceiving our self as a container that overflows with various and important extensions that our technology provides us we might appear like a giant amoeba spread out over the land with a center in the self. These pseudopods are not just patriotic symbols and important things but include silly things such as a car or a neck tie. We can experience nervous breakdowns when others do not respect our particular objects of reverence.

Do you think of yourself as being extended as a result of using technology? Do you think such extensions are a representation of reality? Do you think that consciousness of such claims to be useful?
 
Perhaps making too much of a device, but I work at a university, and it seems that students are either:
1. listening to the iPod.

2. talking on the cell phone.

I have observed small groups of kids standing "together", all talking on cell phones at the same time.
 
Coberst,

While I admire your apparent command of the english language, I suggest that you consider restructuring your OP's... start by using the intended questions at the end to create an opening paragraph that sets the tone for the rest of your post... such as this:

"Technology has had a major impact on human behavior and perception of the world around us. Some believe that we have become willfully blind to the downside of technology, and have almost come to view the benefits of technology in a dogmatic way."

And then go on from there.

Regarding my opinion on the subject; I, personally, am far from blind to the downside of technology. I deal with it daily, and I am in horror of some of the things it permits and even encourages. I believe that technology has outpaced the ability of human ethics to cope with the changes it brings by a horrendous margin.

There are repeated examples of people whose bodies are kept alive due to legal and ethical morasses, while their brains are incapable of functioning. The poor families involved are not only facing an extended period of suffering because they can't come to closure about the person's death... but they are often also facing disastrous financial consequences as the same legal system drains their assets away, keeping this dead person's body alive.

An extreme example, I know - but that's why I use it. I find that extreme examples punctuate the point quite clearly.

The same technology used to keep that brain-dead body breathing, however, saves many lives that would have previously been lost; allowing many of these people to not only survive, but to return to their lives and continue the great adventure of living.

As I said, IMO, the issue is one of ethics rather than blindness.
 
jmercer

All are excellect suggestions. I shall certainly follow your well considered suggestion of putting the last first and thus giving the reader something to guide their search for meaning in the post.
 
cosmo

You are correct, a container is not a useful metaphor for a two dimentional surface. I wonder if 'object' is a proper designation for a two dimenional surface. Can we perceive a two dimensional surface or is such merely an imagined entity?
 
There's a back seat and a front seat and a window in-between.

Sabrina, mid-50's.
 
An object is just a conglomeration of atoms. To suggest metaphysical importance to it gives it too much credit as this is only important in the conceptual sense, not in the "real, actual, out there" sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom