A good one. Tough to stomach. Maybe it's good because it's tough to stomach.
The "education" system is one aspect of the hyperreality that we must simultaneously protect our children from but also teach them to navigate - if not as participants, then as anarchs who must interface with its victims.
The tough part is figuring out how much contact is appropriate. As a software engineer, I can (and will) make sure my kids know the ethos of the Internet well before they can taste its benefits.
But at what point is that wasted effort? Will it be too much of a turnkey Technocracy to have benefits for them in the decade to come? Will any engagement with this system serve solely to inculcate them into McCluhan's "Tribal Drum" on a long enough timeline?
The alternative is to shield them from it entirely, which could make them victims of its simulacra at best or unable to navigate the New World entirely at worst. High stakes.
Thank you for reading as well as for your thoughtful comment!
"A good one. Tough to stomach. Maybe it's good because it's tough to stomach."
It is indeed tough to stomach. As a parent it terrifies me, I pray I am doing this right.
"The "education" system is one aspect of the hyperreality that we must simultaneously protect our children from but also teach them to navigate - if not as participants, then as anarchs who must interface with its victims."
Very well said. How to shield them until they have their own “shield”- so they can navigate it because we physically exist within it. I like your use of the word interface. How do we minimize how much we are altered by that interaction? These are tough questions, but I think the first step is mapping the environment appropriately which I think- I hope- we are close to doing accurately.
"The tough part is figuring out how much contact is appropriate. As a software engineer, I can (and will) make sure my kids know the ethos of the Internet well before they can taste its benefits."
This is wise and is a strategy we are trying. Controlled exposure and framing. I think setting children loose on such things without guidance, much like other things, is a recipe for disaster.
"But at what point is that wasted effort? Will it be too much of a turnkey Technocracy to have benefits for them in the decade to come? Will any engagement with this system serve solely to inculcate them into McCluhan's "Tribal Drum" on a long enough timeline?"
Damn. I must measure my words here. I risk sounding like a luddite, which I am not. I also do not wish to sound like a revolutionary here in the public square. I do not think in the long run we (as in the human species) can defeat this technique that has been deployed against us by the power elite. I think we must- at the least- prepare ourselves to build something alternative to it and eventually take action. I tried to dance around this in my essay about planting a liberty tree. I think there will be a time certain actions will need to be taken- unless a solar flare helps us achieve that end quicker ( I kid- sorta)
"The alternative is to shield them from it entirely, which could make them victims of its simulacra at best or unable to navigate the New World entirely at worst. High stakes."
My wife and I contemplated this- but then decided against it. For clarity, I do not blame my parents for not giving me the eyes to see as they did not have them either. However, I do not want to explain to my daughters why I decided to shield them from the truth when I have spent so much time teaching them about integrity and honesty- while saying I was arming them for the fight of life. To me it seems like we would be handicapping them the way we were. So we decided that we should move forward with what we perceive to be step one- break the damned cycle- give them a better awareness of reality. Let them start out with the eyes to see and perhaps we might reach a point where someone develops a better way out of this- in addition to having the numbers to make it so. Not to mention, it gives them a better opportunity as individuals to build an authentic life with meaning. Perhaps they will have an easier path to Christ than I as well.
Thank you for the compliment. I am glad I was able to articulate the topic efficiently. It is difficult to cover all of the nuance. While it has always been a challenge to parent -the modern world presents challenges unique from the rest of history.
On a less facetious note, the point about the internet is very salient. Despite growing up in the internet age, at times even *I* struggle to understand my peers; it's as though they're speaking in a different syntax altogether, hahaha. Even if I mostly read through viewpoints, it takes conscious effort on my part to realize that even the ideologies that are being espoused don't fully comprise the human beings we encounter.
Although, I suspect that with sufficient immersion in the digital space, true humanity is being stripped away--the internet was meant to be a simulation of human interaction, but what if human interaction is now a simulation of the internet?
Also, was that "finding [beauty] in negative spaces" line an intentional reference?
When one starts a reply with a Korn reference you know it is going to be dynamite!
It does indeed seem like many things must be spoonfed these days lol. Seemingly because society is either too lazy or too conditioned to use their own utensils (like their mind).
The internet was a good example because not only is it staring us all in the face, but it is evolving so fast that it is creating these odd social wedges which atomizes intRAgenerationally and not just intERgenerationally. This causes a substantial change to parenting strategies that already needed to be modified. While it is true these effects are growing exponentially, each generation over the past two centuries have had to deal with a ever growing disparity between the parents social reality and that of their children's. This is a phenomenon I have rarely seen discussed outside of certain academic and research circles. Of course I could write at length about why that is..
Your point about human interaction now simulating the internet is spot on - an inversion of what it should be. One of the ostensible advantages of the internet that was sold to the public in the early days was that it would create an expansion of "third spaces" to our normal social environment. However, it was known openly since the days of the Macy conferences that the internet would create a divergent social environment that would one day become a main sociocultural driver and would "backfeed" onto the general population. Naturally, social architects were salivating over this new technology of mass social control. What you recognize was one of several "real" reasons for the internet. It was a military project after all.
"finding beauty in negative spaces" was not an intentional reference- however it most certainly could have been subconscious. Seether is a great band. Have seen them live 5 or 6 times.
Intragenerational atomization is a great way to put it.
An example of "backfeeding" might be the weaponization of archetypes to shape public opinion (e.g. the notion of Trump being an honorable exemplar of masculinity), and thus maintain the appendage of empire. Not saying this didn't exist before, but the existence of a digital space has made it much easier, as a lot of information is no longer tethered to actual people. One of my tentative hypotheses has been that the so-called gender war is partly the result of insular echo chambers (e.g. both "redpill" spaces and "oh he breathes? what an incel!" crowd) that certainly isn't conducive to platonic friendships or perceiving each other as human, but that's tough to elaborate on without devolving into word salad!
To a degree, I think the reason why the increased disparity isn't as commonly mentioned is because the internet is still thought of as just a normal technological advancement. There are some documentaries that will go over the dangers of social media, but the analysis doesn't cover the full depths of this technology, in my view. "It's just the ability to text," one might initially think––and the phenomenon of chronic information overload (not just a short-term "oh I read too much for one day!" gripe) deserves a *lot* more inquiry. Might the collective erosion of a developed moral sense be attributed to the inability to exercise it in an increasingly large space? I don't know, haha.
Five to six times?! That must mean you were able to see them play "Broken" when Shaun Morgan and Amy Lee were on good terms, right?
You better be careful on getting me started on Archetypes... but yes your point is very true. Not only have they been weaponized, we have learned to create them by developing neo-mythologies. With that conversation we get into the whole "changing images of man" territory and that is beyond most audiences.
I agree - the digital space has made it easier - that medium - is inherently not tethered to physical reality so altering signs and what is signified by them becomes an almost standard phenomenon.
This point:
"To a degree, I think the reason why the increased disparity isn't as commonly mentioned is because the internet is still thought of as just a normal technological advancement."
I absolutely agree and that perception is very intentional. It is not just a normal advancement- it is truly a species altering phenomenon. I am not being hyperbolic. There is a long explanation here about how this facilitates and augments the trans-human movement-and what I suspect that means- but I will let it sit.
That does not mean the internet is not a good thing- just that if not properly understood - including the second and third order effects on Human culture, both on an individual and societal level - it can and WILL lead to some very consequential outcomes. The least of which is overt totalitarian control. Although, if that was always the real reason for it- the questions are already answered and the new ones about what are we going to do about it arise.
"Might the collective erosion of a developed moral sense be attributed to the inability to exercise it in an increasingly large space? I don't know, haha."
I think so, this is very much an effect of it. Probably has something to do with accountability, anonymity and dunbar limits..
"Five to six times?! That must mean you were able to see them play "Broken" when Shaun Morgan and Amy Lee were on good terms, right?"
I saw them perform it together. I was young(er), and quite drunk- but I remember it. I have seen seether outside of the states twice. IF you have never seen them I do suggest it. My oldest daughter is a big Evanescence fan. (I like them too but she LOVES THEM)
Out of curiosity, do you think those second/third-order effects on human culture are more downstream from social media/other third spaces? My perception tends to be more along the lines of wariness towards any place that purports to approximates the human experience, while TVTropes is a lot less damaging, haha.
I was *obsessed* with Evanescence back in eighth grade (I still enjoy them, but back then, their Fallen, Origin, and the Open Door albums were on regular rotation). It was the first time I heard anything like them (always was a rock fan, but wasn't familiar with the gothic and eerie sound that's emblematic of Evanescence's early work). I've never been to a concert (so the process is somewhat alien to me), but I'd love to see some of those bands live!
“Out of curiosity, do you think those second/third-order effects on human culture are more downstream from social media/other third spaces? My perception tends to be more along the lines of wariness towards any place that purports to approximates the human experience, while TVTropes is a lot less damaging, haha”
I certainly think things are often downstream, but considering engineers have never had such an immersive simulacra with such speed and scale that many things are not downstream, rather they arrive simultaneously once you engage the medium. Sort of in the vein of McLuhan’s the medium IS the message. Of course there are downstream effects of that as well -
I agree about the wariness- if you buy into the approximation- eventually the real becomes replaced by it. Over time not only is the real not preferable- to those who buy into it - it is no longer the real.. Somewhere I think in the Posthuman sex essay I mention this concept using imitation blueberries and how many people now prefer them to the real thing.
“I was obsessed with Evanescence back in eighth grade “
They were/ are a good band. I am glad they are one of the groups my daughter really likes - so much of our current music is hot garbage.
A good one. Tough to stomach. Maybe it's good because it's tough to stomach.
The "education" system is one aspect of the hyperreality that we must simultaneously protect our children from but also teach them to navigate - if not as participants, then as anarchs who must interface with its victims.
The tough part is figuring out how much contact is appropriate. As a software engineer, I can (and will) make sure my kids know the ethos of the Internet well before they can taste its benefits.
But at what point is that wasted effort? Will it be too much of a turnkey Technocracy to have benefits for them in the decade to come? Will any engagement with this system serve solely to inculcate them into McCluhan's "Tribal Drum" on a long enough timeline?
The alternative is to shield them from it entirely, which could make them victims of its simulacra at best or unable to navigate the New World entirely at worst. High stakes.
Thank you for reading as well as for your thoughtful comment!
"A good one. Tough to stomach. Maybe it's good because it's tough to stomach."
It is indeed tough to stomach. As a parent it terrifies me, I pray I am doing this right.
"The "education" system is one aspect of the hyperreality that we must simultaneously protect our children from but also teach them to navigate - if not as participants, then as anarchs who must interface with its victims."
Very well said. How to shield them until they have their own “shield”- so they can navigate it because we physically exist within it. I like your use of the word interface. How do we minimize how much we are altered by that interaction? These are tough questions, but I think the first step is mapping the environment appropriately which I think- I hope- we are close to doing accurately.
"The tough part is figuring out how much contact is appropriate. As a software engineer, I can (and will) make sure my kids know the ethos of the Internet well before they can taste its benefits."
This is wise and is a strategy we are trying. Controlled exposure and framing. I think setting children loose on such things without guidance, much like other things, is a recipe for disaster.
"But at what point is that wasted effort? Will it be too much of a turnkey Technocracy to have benefits for them in the decade to come? Will any engagement with this system serve solely to inculcate them into McCluhan's "Tribal Drum" on a long enough timeline?"
Damn. I must measure my words here. I risk sounding like a luddite, which I am not. I also do not wish to sound like a revolutionary here in the public square. I do not think in the long run we (as in the human species) can defeat this technique that has been deployed against us by the power elite. I think we must- at the least- prepare ourselves to build something alternative to it and eventually take action. I tried to dance around this in my essay about planting a liberty tree. I think there will be a time certain actions will need to be taken- unless a solar flare helps us achieve that end quicker ( I kid- sorta)
"The alternative is to shield them from it entirely, which could make them victims of its simulacra at best or unable to navigate the New World entirely at worst. High stakes."
My wife and I contemplated this- but then decided against it. For clarity, I do not blame my parents for not giving me the eyes to see as they did not have them either. However, I do not want to explain to my daughters why I decided to shield them from the truth when I have spent so much time teaching them about integrity and honesty- while saying I was arming them for the fight of life. To me it seems like we would be handicapping them the way we were. So we decided that we should move forward with what we perceive to be step one- break the damned cycle- give them a better awareness of reality. Let them start out with the eyes to see and perhaps we might reach a point where someone develops a better way out of this- in addition to having the numbers to make it so. Not to mention, it gives them a better opportunity as individuals to build an authentic life with meaning. Perhaps they will have an easier path to Christ than I as well.
Thanks for the comment and thoughts!
A gem, thanks. Rarely have such elusive concepts been so eloquently expressed.
Thank you for the compliment. I am glad I was able to articulate the topic efficiently. It is difficult to cover all of the nuance. While it has always been a challenge to parent -the modern world presents challenges unique from the rest of history.
Childhood must end, but do nursery rhymes continue to be spoonfed? ;) https://youtu.be/ZU2k-U2Ze0o
On a less facetious note, the point about the internet is very salient. Despite growing up in the internet age, at times even *I* struggle to understand my peers; it's as though they're speaking in a different syntax altogether, hahaha. Even if I mostly read through viewpoints, it takes conscious effort on my part to realize that even the ideologies that are being espoused don't fully comprise the human beings we encounter.
Although, I suspect that with sufficient immersion in the digital space, true humanity is being stripped away--the internet was meant to be a simulation of human interaction, but what if human interaction is now a simulation of the internet?
Also, was that "finding [beauty] in negative spaces" line an intentional reference?
When one starts a reply with a Korn reference you know it is going to be dynamite!
It does indeed seem like many things must be spoonfed these days lol. Seemingly because society is either too lazy or too conditioned to use their own utensils (like their mind).
The internet was a good example because not only is it staring us all in the face, but it is evolving so fast that it is creating these odd social wedges which atomizes intRAgenerationally and not just intERgenerationally. This causes a substantial change to parenting strategies that already needed to be modified. While it is true these effects are growing exponentially, each generation over the past two centuries have had to deal with a ever growing disparity between the parents social reality and that of their children's. This is a phenomenon I have rarely seen discussed outside of certain academic and research circles. Of course I could write at length about why that is..
Your point about human interaction now simulating the internet is spot on - an inversion of what it should be. One of the ostensible advantages of the internet that was sold to the public in the early days was that it would create an expansion of "third spaces" to our normal social environment. However, it was known openly since the days of the Macy conferences that the internet would create a divergent social environment that would one day become a main sociocultural driver and would "backfeed" onto the general population. Naturally, social architects were salivating over this new technology of mass social control. What you recognize was one of several "real" reasons for the internet. It was a military project after all.
"finding beauty in negative spaces" was not an intentional reference- however it most certainly could have been subconscious. Seether is a great band. Have seen them live 5 or 6 times.
Intragenerational atomization is a great way to put it.
An example of "backfeeding" might be the weaponization of archetypes to shape public opinion (e.g. the notion of Trump being an honorable exemplar of masculinity), and thus maintain the appendage of empire. Not saying this didn't exist before, but the existence of a digital space has made it much easier, as a lot of information is no longer tethered to actual people. One of my tentative hypotheses has been that the so-called gender war is partly the result of insular echo chambers (e.g. both "redpill" spaces and "oh he breathes? what an incel!" crowd) that certainly isn't conducive to platonic friendships or perceiving each other as human, but that's tough to elaborate on without devolving into word salad!
To a degree, I think the reason why the increased disparity isn't as commonly mentioned is because the internet is still thought of as just a normal technological advancement. There are some documentaries that will go over the dangers of social media, but the analysis doesn't cover the full depths of this technology, in my view. "It's just the ability to text," one might initially think––and the phenomenon of chronic information overload (not just a short-term "oh I read too much for one day!" gripe) deserves a *lot* more inquiry. Might the collective erosion of a developed moral sense be attributed to the inability to exercise it in an increasingly large space? I don't know, haha.
Five to six times?! That must mean you were able to see them play "Broken" when Shaun Morgan and Amy Lee were on good terms, right?
You better be careful on getting me started on Archetypes... but yes your point is very true. Not only have they been weaponized, we have learned to create them by developing neo-mythologies. With that conversation we get into the whole "changing images of man" territory and that is beyond most audiences.
I agree - the digital space has made it easier - that medium - is inherently not tethered to physical reality so altering signs and what is signified by them becomes an almost standard phenomenon.
This point:
"To a degree, I think the reason why the increased disparity isn't as commonly mentioned is because the internet is still thought of as just a normal technological advancement."
I absolutely agree and that perception is very intentional. It is not just a normal advancement- it is truly a species altering phenomenon. I am not being hyperbolic. There is a long explanation here about how this facilitates and augments the trans-human movement-and what I suspect that means- but I will let it sit.
That does not mean the internet is not a good thing- just that if not properly understood - including the second and third order effects on Human culture, both on an individual and societal level - it can and WILL lead to some very consequential outcomes. The least of which is overt totalitarian control. Although, if that was always the real reason for it- the questions are already answered and the new ones about what are we going to do about it arise.
"Might the collective erosion of a developed moral sense be attributed to the inability to exercise it in an increasingly large space? I don't know, haha."
I think so, this is very much an effect of it. Probably has something to do with accountability, anonymity and dunbar limits..
"Five to six times?! That must mean you were able to see them play "Broken" when Shaun Morgan and Amy Lee were on good terms, right?"
I saw them perform it together. I was young(er), and quite drunk- but I remember it. I have seen seether outside of the states twice. IF you have never seen them I do suggest it. My oldest daughter is a big Evanescence fan. (I like them too but she LOVES THEM)
Out of curiosity, do you think those second/third-order effects on human culture are more downstream from social media/other third spaces? My perception tends to be more along the lines of wariness towards any place that purports to approximates the human experience, while TVTropes is a lot less damaging, haha.
I was *obsessed* with Evanescence back in eighth grade (I still enjoy them, but back then, their Fallen, Origin, and the Open Door albums were on regular rotation). It was the first time I heard anything like them (always was a rock fan, but wasn't familiar with the gothic and eerie sound that's emblematic of Evanescence's early work). I've never been to a concert (so the process is somewhat alien to me), but I'd love to see some of those bands live!
“Out of curiosity, do you think those second/third-order effects on human culture are more downstream from social media/other third spaces? My perception tends to be more along the lines of wariness towards any place that purports to approximates the human experience, while TVTropes is a lot less damaging, haha”
I certainly think things are often downstream, but considering engineers have never had such an immersive simulacra with such speed and scale that many things are not downstream, rather they arrive simultaneously once you engage the medium. Sort of in the vein of McLuhan’s the medium IS the message. Of course there are downstream effects of that as well -
I agree about the wariness- if you buy into the approximation- eventually the real becomes replaced by it. Over time not only is the real not preferable- to those who buy into it - it is no longer the real.. Somewhere I think in the Posthuman sex essay I mention this concept using imitation blueberries and how many people now prefer them to the real thing.
“I was obsessed with Evanescence back in eighth grade “
They were/ are a good band. I am glad they are one of the groups my daughter really likes - so much of our current music is hot garbage.