This is why I love the internet: because it has allowed me to participate in and hopefully add to meaningful conversations, like this epic comment by user “fujacko” which builds on, refutes and mutates (all of which I like!) my most recent piece, GOING BEYOND IDENTITY.
Mimesis: Growing Personalities vs. Adopting Identities
Mimesis (physical or mental imitation or representation of phenomena) is the primary mechanism through which we acquire internal models of reality. These models consist of analogical links between pre-rational morphologies and their emotional imprints. They provide the materials with which mirror neurons simulate experience. The subconscious associations between morphologies and their respective imprints (which also appear to be genetically determined) seem to form strange attractors which structure the perceptual, cognitive and behavioral patterns we refer to as personality.
Besides shaping our personality, mimesis also relates to the formation of identity. Identity refers to (the viewpoint of) an entity’s position or role within a networks of relationships (implied by a system of action). Therefore, by allowing us to assume different viewpoints, mimesis/mirror neurons provide opportunities to alter or expand our identity. One’s concept–or even the perception–of identity can thus be expanded by simply experiencing new and greater systems of action–which humans tend to do naturally. However, this kind of personal growth can only be achieved when new models of identity are imprinted by emotional force. If not the case, the experience of new relationship networks will expand the concept of identity, but not the perception (which seems to be needed for cultivating empathy).
Transcendent Technologies
Caveat: the concept God > Nature > Man > Technology is slightly dangerous. These are really just conceptual overlays that attempt to differentiate entangled phenomena existing on a perceptual continuum. So to suggest that technology is a natural extension is unaccurate. It may seem natural on the surface due to our innate tendency towards manipulation of the environment, but the deeper connotations of this statement imply that, like nature, technology is inherently sustainable or healthy . Until those qualities of nature become apparent in technology, we should be careful with these kind of projections.
Despite the above, we can easily identify aspects of the natural order of reality which suggest that phenomena are essentially self-similar iterations of an underlying Root of Being. So by modeling technology after the perceived order of the Cosmos, it should become more “natural”. Unfortunately scientific models of reality are inherently tentative and thus prone to error and dysfunction (hence the process of trial and error currently destroying the Planet). As long as designers and producers of technology serve goals incompatible with the natural order of our world (i.e. the continuity of their investments, power structures, and “narrative depictions of worldview”) this will only get worse..
That’s why I’m sorry to say that your prediction–that technology will continue to evolve towards ubiquity and AI–is almost certainly correct. However I very much applaud your efforts to steer it in the right direction! The key will be to provide systems of action in which networks of relationships are based on models of connectionism and self-similarity inspired by nature (rather than the alienating alternatives offered by society and state). Such models are likely to be most effective when derived from mythology and archetype theory, rather than materialist science. Perennial wisdom seems much more apt to provide emotional experiences that can imprint new identities.
I guess this is what Tim means by “animist technology”.
Finally, when the search for identity is complete, it will ultimately render the same conclusions as these quests always have: that identity is arbitrary, because I am nothing, everything, and all that lies within (Amen).
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- There Must Be Some Misunderstanding…
- “Placeless Living”
- What Would Tim Do?
- Bionic Suits
- Tim Boucher on MySpace
20 Comments
Well, Tim, there are things I think are positive also. First of all I am into shamanism and animism and interspecies communication.
So, what you write about on those topics really resonates with me. Because that is my approach to the world also. Its interesting that you only really approached this in relation to technology. Its a pretty novel take on it.
I think that is a very unique thing you do. It kind of caught me by surprise that through this novel approach to technology you revealed just how much of a shaman you really are.
But what excites me about this stuff, is making the closed system “open” through creating doorways to the “unmanifest” the “prima materia” or whatever you want to call it.
The ancient alchemists wrote about this stuff and it was hard to write about. It think it was harder then than it is now, because through technology we have the lingo to better describe it, we have more analogies also, because of technology. For example VR and holograms.
So don’t think I am just trying to be negative. But getting really anxious and sick to my stomach in light of a lot of the implications of this is just part of my reality right now even as I try to embrace aspects of it i like.
Its a common reaction, the world over.
I also think you are really onto something, really seriously. Like cutting edge thought. I do support you.
This is such an incredible post (and the previous one) I just feel compelled to respond. I’m literally not sure where to begin, because I feel like this is such an important issue. Several years ago I began to see the possibility of the things you discuss here, and now hearing it echoed through you reminds its not just a dream, its a reality we all need to face together. Both terrifying and beautiful.
A major part of the question here is how to proceed ethically. For my part, I want to emphasize how important our assumptions are with this kind of thing. We need to look at the role of our assumptions in creating reality, as its said ‘technology is ideology congealed’. Its important that different paradigms and assumption sets can work in this model of reality. On one hand, you can see empathy as a survival function of apes, with the material world as primary. On the other hand, you can see empathy and unity as the primary with the material world coming second. The differences are subtle, but they are there. In the case of the latter the “militarization of empathy” doesn’t strike a lot of fear, where with the former it is scary, because it reduces empathy to a mere survival function to be manipulated.
So the point is that the existential framework in which these goals are pursued is massively important. For my part, spirituality comes in. When you talk about the reduction of ego into a cloud of identity and living landscapes, you are talking about things which already exist, indeed have always existed, whether they are called “heaven” or “higher planes” or “astral worlds” or whatever. There has always been that shaman, that guru, that buddhist monk, that seeker who has had access to these worlds, and they are just as real to him as the rose or the old dirt path. Siddartha becoming a bird through meditation and experiencing its life in that book is a classic example.
Unfortunately, in scientific terms, I’m talking about something not yet defined, the reality of an “information space” that coexists and intertwines with our “physical space”. Yet all spiritual paths have defined it for centuries.
Yet on the other hand, you have the materialist definition: This is about neurons, optimal behavioral patterns, etc. And such studies will pan out, and its a fine model. The question that makes all the difference is whether we choose to see neurons as a ‘plot device’ to brings us back to a spiritual reality, or whether our egos take hold and tell us that we are breaking ground, and that this whole thing is material, something without an ethcis of its own, something to be callously manipulated.
I find the best metaphor in the Holy Kabbalah, the idea that you can climb the latter either way: One way to heaven, the other, though it looks similar, is to the Qliphoth, to hell. The contents of our hearts matters immensely. And the truth is, it has ALWAYS been this way. It doesn’t matter the shape of the future, the shape of heaven or of hell, what matters is simply that fact that we have always been in charge of which one we choose, in the depths of our being. Nothing has changed.
Because after all, all that we are talking about here is reality. The same reality the shaman knew, by the path and the bubbling brook with the wildflower. And we don’t have to do a thing, not a thing, and that will always be there. Or we pave over the path, pollute the river poisoning the children of future generations, and privatize the clean water so the shaman has to work in a sweatshop to survive. And then this same reality will come into its techno guise, an AI God increasing corporate productivity and crushing competition, the surveillance, the mind control, etc. Or it can come in a moderate way, a set of helper tools, to get us on track, living sustainably and so on. Its about where our hearts are, because that’s the source from which the springs of reality flow.
So this is about our own hearts here. ARE WE READY TO LOVE. If so, nothing can stop us. This is going to be awesome, creative and incredibly fun.
And that’s all I have to say about that!
Not to say any of us are fucked, but we are. It comes down to mood. There is a vast difference between mood and thought. However, it wasn’t until my moods so diverged from my thoughts that I noted the bicameral nature of the “human experience”. I always thought one went where the other did and vice versa — and of varying degrees of emotional and logical strength.
So, with whatever shred of energy I have that remains in my vortex of moodishness, I have again, noted that, moods, motivation, romantic pleasure, interest in others, interest in nature, interest at all, comes from being tied to the logical direction of your life. If shit is outta balance “going in”, then shit will be out of balance going out, to and fro and all the other. It’s when the directions of the two diverge, nearly like two magnets you force together, S to S or N to N, though you are forcing them together, the divergence can be felt, even with the strength you can exert to make them “play nice”. Kinda like petting a scared and growling dog — “why doesn’t this dog fathom how I envision him as? He’s so cute.” The divergence is there at all times. But only when you FORCE it — petting growling dog.
Sometimes, when mood and logic diverge, (is it the ego?) something about our psyches attempts to force the two together again. But this shatters the remaining “whole” attributes of the psyche. The forcing. Here we have psychosis and neurosis. And this is what comes from the use of “unwhole” segments of the mind used in order to force unrelated aspects of the life “experience” into what the immature segments, in and of themselves, want. More drugs needed now say the dox.
How to hold it all together? You don’t. You ride it out as long as you can and accept that no matter what you do or say shall return an ERROR MESSAGE, basically forever more. This is why it hurts. It is a malfunctioning brain on a malformed platform. The ideal of “perfection” is there, the ideal of being satisfied in an “imperfect” universe is there too. But the mood sometimes just refuses to ride along.
Rereading my response to your article prompts me to point out a discrepancy. FYI I’m a computer-based composer researching cognitive and creative aspects of music creation for my grad studies. The majority of the ideas I presented are speculative, albeit based around my limited knowledge of psychology.
Systems of action are but one instance of a network of relationships. There are of course many others, including social, biological, mythical, etc…
from Ted’s comment:
Something in that direction is certainly to be hoped for! Things to consider in developing this would involve the following:
The practical aspects are “easily” filled in. The least clear at this point is the content. The form of the content will be determined primarily on its objectives, but of equal if not greater importance is the intended function, the practical purpose of the technology. What, where, when, by and for who, and how will it be implemented? Only once that is clarified can the other factors be assessed accordingly.
I’ll add this to the MandalaOS spec sheet.
I’m getting really excited about this stuff. The more concreteness the better: I think a realistic goal on which further work can be based is to great an interactive installation that will embody the basic concepts and technologies involved. I would be very interested in being involved in such research, and know of others who may bring valuable contributions as well.
HEY that’s a great idea!
My next step, personally, is to put together screencasts, narrated with details about what i’m doing, why and how i think it could be translated into software applications which would ease my creative workflow, if nothing else.
same idea though: embodying the goals in some fixed form, just as a mental/emotional walkthru to establish them more concretely in my own awareness
I also spoke with a channeler/medium today about spiritual software, and am planning to explore that avenue with her and others in more detail.
I agree with Fujacko.
I think following Perennial wisdom is the key and you see some other positive developments going on with “green technology” that is approaching this from another angle like “bio mimicry.” Technology mimicking nature.
But one problem is that many scientists and technophoiles caught up in the philosophical error or scientism think “Perennial wisdom” is a bunch of bullshit. They have a similar mindset to Bill Maher, that all spiritual traditions are variations of fundamentalism and superstition.
Or even worse, they have an aversion to things within Perennial wisdom that they perceive to be actually true, that they wish were not true and that they hope science can help them overcome. Wishful thinking. “The old college try” of overcoming the basic facts of existence that they don’t like. Like the fact that people die or that you can’t control absolutely everything in your environment.
Basically this is called “vanity.”
So as they go along they run up against stuff that ancient traditions have known all along, a lot of us get excited about this stuff we call “consillience” and these hard core “scientism”ists don’t want to hear it. They want think they are doing everything for the first time. They aren’t trying to be mystics, but the exact opposite.
At the core its an ego delusion and the goal is to subsume everything into their ego, instead of seeing the ego for what it is and being able to get past it.
So I see two very different kinds of ubiquity here. The ubiquity of consciousness itself and a program to make ones ego ubiquitous over all creation through technology.
Once again, I’m not making this stuff up. These are technologies which consumers need to REALLY understand before they reach “ubiquity.” There are many other ways of doing things, alternative paradigms and novel strategies with which to experiment than just the current vision of technology being sold to us as inevitable reality:
http://www.sombiz.net/content/zokem-ul...e-lifestream-perhaps-even-too-much-so
“Lifestreaming” new aesthetic self-surveillance; next level lifestreaming plugs into energy inputs/outputs & transactions of all types: mobile payment systems, centralized identity tracking & personal historical services. Paparazzi you hire to remember you better and transmit your signal farther.
Who writes articles like the below?
http://toocan.com/lunog/index.php/misb..._s_ubiquitous_surveillance_project__1
Also: new Tumblr account
http://spiritualsoftware.tumblr.com/
New screencast feed from Jing
http://www.screencast.com/users/omniva...OmnivateLLC%20Process%20Flowthrus/rss
Tim,
I know you aren’t making it up. I mean, you are connecting the dots, though, in kind of a prophetic way.
So this is what I wonder-What do you advocate in terms of response? I look at a few different modes, One is to be like Robert De Niro’s character in Brazil
Basically a hacker lifestyle. Which looks more and more appealing as time goes on and life looks more like that movie. Be a squatter somewhere with a fake ID and the techno savvy to hack the system for youe needs while maintaining the premium of freedom and independance.
So another mode, is to be all embracing and let it all just wash over you, give up all privacy, be totally wired into the system on every level, if they want to put a computer chip inside your body-let ‘em. Submit to all electronic inroads into your being and then have this hope that you can be egalitarian and democratic from inside the system. Kind of like just have good faith toward everyone and trust that that attitude will pan out.
A third mode would be to drop out, or whatever, be a luddite, you know small scale horticulturist, Amish hippy or whatever.
Then there is the Dark Overlord Mode. Which I don’t see anyone here that reads and comments on your blog choosing this, or maybe who knows? But anyway, this isn’t a common option available to most people, but its available to some people. And I think this is a mode that is pretty significant to consider, a lot of people like to think this is just a paranoid delusion. But anyway, I don’t. I think technological control of as large a chunk of the Universe and reality itself and the more souls you can subsume is the main motivation for a certain segment of intelligent life in the Universe and this energy is at play here on Earth.
So to me if this Dark overlord thesis is true, just letting ubiquitous technology wash over you and get all plugged in and implanted, relying on the goodwill of humanity and assuming everything is totally under free and democratic egalitarian communal control is not an option.
That’s a hard question for me to answer right now, as we’re at this point still only responding to our imaginations… I suspect that people will find their own way through these times - just like they always have. Some will go one way and others will find novel approaches we can’t yet envision. I’m trying to keep a light hand with these things and stay open to innovations above and beyond myself.
Maybe we should ask the Earth what to do…
You have to remember that you’re in a privileged position. You’re in the future and the Chinese protestors, independent thinkers, etc. are in the past/present.
Yeah, that’s the way to go. You would be defeating the purpose by dropping out of society.
For example my friend’s daughter’s friend left her toddler with my friend for the weekend. The baby opened the door in the middle of the night looking for his mom and was picked up by the police. My friend called the police when she couldn’t find the baby in the morning.
The parents/guardian are always the suspects and this took three days of the child being in DCFS custody to clear up but the responding officer, a woman, kept giving my friend hints on what to say and what not to say. How can you help people if you’re not connected to them?
I think that’s a good idea. God gave us free will but sometimes its a little hard to know what to do with it. Ask someone/thing that’s seen it all come and go.
How does all this relate to the Evil Eye? How about cultures that were horrified at having their pictures taken because they thought it stole the soul?
If the Evil Eye is envy then the people who initiated the surveillance culture wanted to take something from those whose pictures they were taking. Have we become immune to this? Or, is something else happening>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_eye
http://www.globalcommunity.org/wtt/wal...int_pages/2800_symbiogenesis_2700.htm
URL noteworthy as well
What I’m saying is we need to stay connected to our history, to the mythological and spiritual narratives that have taken good care of us thus far, because these are automatically connected with the earth. I saw Gandhi again tonight, it was incredible to think that really happened, a military general came into being that used karma as a weapon to overthrow domination by an empire without violence. 2000 years earlier a man named Jesus said “do unto others as you would have done unto you” and now, we’re talking mirror neurons, that mental faculty that allows us to see that things done unto others as being done unto us. Its all the same, nothing is new under the sun. But what I have come here to do is to pray, out loud, for the very few people who can understand both spiritual and the technical, here. Amen.
Great discussion going on here! I particularly liked Muse’s first comment on information spacer:
I agree, and I think that all spiritual traditions have tried to create something along these lines, ways of collectively viewing reality that allow people to reach a point of common information space, so that the non-physical aspects of ourselves can be seen and collectively understood as being external to what our actual “self” consists of. And through the emphemeralization of language, to work out a way to “see” our own minds, like we can see our bodies.
This seems to be a level to which nearly all civilizations have been trying to reach throughout history, but which we have been unable to maintain. So at first it appears to be something doomed to failure, but, on the other hand, it’s really something we’d only have to get right once! Perhaps it’s to this level that we can elevate “science”, if we can find a way to
And Tim, the link you post here, is really really interesting. Brings to mind TRaditional Chinese Medicine, and how each organ is source for different thought-emotion-energy. Even our bodies are technologies that have been passed on to us by our ancestors, examples of #whatworks.
Something else I’ve been thinking of lately is that each of us is the combined result of the life experience of two people, who were, in turn, the combined result of the life experience of two people, so on and so forth. If we blur the lines a little, we can see the same patterns present in:
- the emergence of forms from energy,
- the emergence of life from forms,
- the emergence of thought from life,
- the emergence of language from thought,
- the emergence of technology from language
I think (hope) that what we’re looking at here is the immanentization of the external manifestation of the noosphere!
make that, “on information space” (no “r”)…
Also, looks like maybe I can’t post two blockquotes in the same comment? My second one appears to be hovering at the top of the comment. It’s supposed to be added in here:
This seems to be a level to which nearly all civilizations have been trying to reach throughout history, but which we have been unable to maintain. So at first it appears to be something doomed to failure, but, on the other hand, it’s really something we’d only have to get right once! Perhaps it’s to this level that we can elevate “science”, if we can find a way to
“understand both spiritual and the technical”
Ah, comment moderation. Why don’t I remember about that…?
Ian,
“Something else I’ve been thinking of lately is that each of us is the combined result of the life experience of two people,”
Interesting comments. I was thinking about those parent child structures as well. You’ve got this archetype - Yin and Yang arising from the nothingness, and then recombining into something other than the nothingness in myriad forms. This seems to be a really powerful concept, as it appears in spiritual systems all over the world. Things try to combine yin and yang, seeking the original unity, but ending up creating something new entirely, i.e. children.
“So at first it appears to be something doomed to failure, but, on the other hand, it’s really something we’d only have to get right once!”
I also wanted to comment on that. The greatest thing with that is that once you can see it as an ongoing process, you can see that time is on our side. As long as people are learning, reaching for truth, experimenting, inventing, it moves forward - there is a strange entropy to this stuff.