My initial forage into philosophy takes me down Plato's lane, to seek understanding of his future foresight in describing what did not exist in his day. Perhaps this hindsight would provide direction for the future; define tomorrow, what today may be completely senseless. Perhaps, Plato's future is a microchip embedded in the head that mathematically analyses images it receives through the human eye and translates its meaning to the human brain in a screen like image only visible to the enlightened human brain. Sort of like a mathematical/mechanical device that takes over the natural sensory functions that happens when images are translated between the retina and the brain. Perhaps Plato was talking about a higher knowledge not now conceivable, but such as could only be translated limited by our current understanding, sight. Perhaps we are the prisoners in the cave even though we may seem more enlightened than others. Perhaps there are levels of prisoners, and what we do not quite see from Plato's allegory is the various levels of closeness or nearness the prisoners were to the tunnel of light. Or does Plato just describes two levels of insight. You either know or you dont! And that there is no in-betweens?
“Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance...” Was he talking about rear projection systems1 for a flat panel screen? Or some form of overhead projection like in the movies? Whatever the projection, the images displayed were large enough for all the prisoners to see. They did not peer into a small box. And the happenings behind them, the objects that cast the shadows on the screen, perhaps this was the beginning of reality TV. “Spontaneous multimedia.” Indeed, we see certain forms of it in Youtube and other user generated content sites. Plato talks about, “...see[ing] anything but the shadows...” Perhaps the shadows reflect technology's pseudonyms, pseudo-names, and the pseudonymous nature that characterizes the TV, Internet and the media of today. Maybe, “...the prison had an echo which came from the other side” reflected today's surround sound technology2. And perhaps surround and future sound would actually be generated by a microchip embedded in our heads connected to an FM (or whatever future) signal transmission mode, connected (or not) to the source of the sound.
And when the prisoner is turned towards the light, Plato thinks they are released “...and disabused of their error.” An appropriate analogy to Norman McLaren's “Opening speech.” Was the microphone an error? Was the realignment and refocusing towards the screen a release from prison? Does the migration from one technology towards another emancipate and liberate from one restrictive state? Perhaps today's computers are a “prison state” of some future technology just like McLaren's microphone.
“And if he is compelled to look straight at the light...” What compels us? Or what would? Compulsion, synonymous with a single option choice. “Take it or leave it. Sink or swim.” Is this what emerging technologies would tell us? For how long can we manage without them? How long would the policies against technology use in schools, for instance, remain with us? Would we need to be compelled by the itinerant need or would necessity compel us? And would such compulsion actually cause us pain? Pain from letting go of our comfort zones – such as compulsive use of miniature screens (mobile devices) for large flat panels? Or flat panel embedded on the palm of our hands or behind our retinas to replay pre-recorded scenes? Pain caused by the invasion of our privacy. Perhaps the forceful compulsion to see 'light' or the momentary blindness to reality is but itself another level of 'imprisonment'. And that we are more imprisoned by technology now than they were a couple of years, a decade, a century ago. And that true liberation actually lie with seeing true light. And what is true light, if prisoners are only 'prisoners in stages'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's interesting that you use the imprisonment because to some extent it really is....I mean that this generation of people are very, very dependent on technology to the point where I have witnessed a computer system go down at a school and people have forgotten what to do without a computer. It's really the end of the world for some people. Have we lost the knowledge of how to use a book, pen, paper, calculator?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Lana. I have seen teachers 'freak out' when glitches occur in a computer lab.
ReplyDelete"And that we are more imprisoned by technology now than they were a couple of years, a decade, a century ago." Nicely put , Ben, sometimes this seems all to true. I spend way too much time on a computer (of course I teach that stuff!) but it is nice to give it a rest once in awhile!
I concur with Lana and Mike about the technological prison, Ben. You go on to mention true liberation and true light, mysteries apart from technology.
ReplyDeleteYou share some powerful ideas in this piece, as you have in your previous ones. Your discussion about the chip acting as a filter between the retina and the brain, for me, points to the movie The Matrix and the unreal reality, not the matrix itself. Artificial reality - Disneyland - a feel good experience. Whose reality would be seen through the chip?
The level of prisoners idea is similar to what I discussed in my entry: levels of knowing and existence. What I didn't say that you have well pointed out is the binary state of knowledge. Also, you have talked of necessity. When does the pain of not knowing compel prisoners to turn to the light? Which pain is more tolerable, that from the light or that from the darkness? Adult education theory says that when there is a perceived need to act, that is when adults are motivated to study. Intrinsic motivation, what teachers all want their students to have (volition). The consequences of not knowing are too painful to not act and acquire more education, perhaps for a better lifestyle.
Lastly, the way you have framed McLaren here, is interesting. "Does the migration from one technology to another emancipate and liberate from one restrictive state." Sure. McLaren did turn to the light of the screen, and, presto, success in achieving the goal. Yet, it was not a spoken word; being able to understand the message was predicated on the visual understanding of the symbols. Could the intended audience understand the message (consider the cave)? It is the same as we move from one technology to another, we need appropriate knowledge to be able to work with it. Such an idea certainly applies when we need to find truth in cyberspace.