TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

July 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:44:42 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
Mark,

Thank you for the summary of McLuhan + Gestalt, and for the clarifying examples. As you point out, there seems indeed to be a wide spectrum within the psychological community regarding awareness and emphasis of process itself, and by extension, technological process!  My conversations are often, but not always, similar to your description of your cocktail party.  

Most of us identify ourselves, others, and human well-being with our memory collection of “figures.”  I am preaching to your choir when I say that this is wholly unsustainable in a digital village of 7-10 billion people.  However, remove the figures from people all at once, or too rapidly, and the nervous system becomes, well, nervous!

Gregg’s Unified Theory is uniquely worthwhile, from my vantage point, because it promises a theoretically comprehensive map of human well-being that is considerate of the shifting ground of process through the relationship of time and complexity.  

Thereby hopefully offering a cross-cultural pathway out of our local Kansas situations and towards shared explicate situations.   

Peace...

-chance 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Chance:
> 
>> Would you be willing to offer an example of a McLuhan-esque way of viewing figure and ground in the context of a person using a smart phone in their everyday life?
> 
> Sure -- but first we need to be clear about *both* McLuhan and Gestalt (i.e. figure/ground) and what happens when you put the two of them together . . . <g>
> 
> Here's a very important McLuhan quote (from a 1969 letter to Jacques Maritain), explaining his take on Gestalt --
> 
> "There is a deep-seated repugnance in the human breast against understanding the processes in which we are involved.  Such understanding involves far to much responsibility for our actions." (Letters, p. 370)
> 
> We *deliberately* refuse to understand our world, since, if we did, then we'd be responsible for it.  Or, in more conventional Gestalt terms, we avoid the *ground* because it is threatening, while we endlessly "amuse ourselves" with the non-threatening superficialities.  Or, as Neil Postman aptly put it, "amusing ourselves to death."
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Amusing-2DOurselves-2DDeath-2DDiscourse-2DBusiness_dp_014303653X&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BjYSYRms6L6q5qpQs0QZ4Gy5NILcj7vVeqgi-y1RnU&s=YSCsR8moIOESWwkgTBIekQmo9Wz4GRf7A0m9GLJvJ3w&e=
> 
> The *ground* that we ignore -- on purpose -- are the basic effects of these technological changes in our lives.  Understanding what we once held to be "true" was only the projection of our environment (i.e. just "memes") to which we once "conformed" is about as threatening as it gets.  So we (mostly) pretend that nothing is happening for our own safety.
> 
> Here's another (much more popular) quote (often incorrectly attributed to Marshall) --
> 
> "We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us." (John Culkin, SJ, 1967)
> 
> Even trying to understand *how* our "tools" shape our "behaviors and attitudes" is *very* psychologically threatening -- which is why modern psychology ignores it (plus, they're often trying to manipulate people anyway).  This is, I would suggest, at the root of the "crisis" Gregg has identified and, until it is addressed, psychology will remain broken (including the manipulation part.)
> 
> Gregg's "flash of insight" that launched him on this quest came in the late-90s -- at precisely the moment when DIGITAL was taking over as our psycho-technological environment (after decades of threatening to do that, as Wired famously told us.)  This shift from one paradigm to another is the "precipice" that Gregg talks about.  One set of "tools" taking over from another.  We typically notice this in terms of how our old "paradigm" (in this case the social sciences that were generated in the 1950s) no longer seems to "work" anymore.
> 
> Or, as Dorothy put it, "Toto, I suspect we aren't in Kansas anymore . . . "
> 
> So, to answer your question, the typical *figure* view of smart-phones is that they are "addictive" (i.e. the language of the earlier paradigm) and that they are causing us to miss the world around us (i.e. that famous photo of the kids in front of Rembrandt's Nightwatch while looking down at their phones.)  But, since that's the superficial view, it cannot be correct (plus, since it sells books &c, it is the most common approach).
> 
> At the *ground* level -- which most people deliberately avoid -- something quite different is going on.  A smart-phone is a memory device and what is happening -- no matter which app is being used -- the user is "extending" their memories.  It could just be texting a friend.  It could be doing your homework.  It could be watching a movie or playing a game (that you *retrieved* and was *stored* someplace else.)
> 
> Furthermore, this smartphone usage (whatever it might be) is inherently a part of how we behave in what has become a DIGITAL environment, in which we are completely surrounded by Memory enhancing devices.  Without an understanding of that environment -- crucially involving how it is fundamentally different from the previous TELEVISION one (even if we're still watching "television") -- then an isolated examination of smartphones will miss the "bigger picture."
> 
> We call this examination of the "processes in which we are involved" *Paradigm Science* (or what McLuhan called the "Laws of Media," in a 1988 book with that title.)  In doing this, we are also taking advantage of Thomas Kuhn's coinage of "paradigm" in this sense.
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Laws-2DMedia-2DScience-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_0802077153&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BjYSYRms6L6q5qpQs0QZ4Gy5NILcj7vVeqgi-y1RnU&s=K8TF1fQSf98iw5Ho_6QHvWcwr5wICFXqK6423KL4lVw&e=
> 
> This leaves the question of "responsibility" hanging, however.  It is inherent in Gestalt that "most" people will never understand what is happening to them, since, in fact, they have no responsibility for what is going on (beyond their own "little picture" personal lives.)  To take on the responsibility of a "Unified Theory," for instance, is a heavy load.  Most people -- wisely -- want nothing to do with anything like that . . . !!
> 
> Mark
> 
> P.S. The only time when people are more likely to be able to grasp how this works is during the transition period from one "paradigm" to another.  Not everyone but a surprising number of them, will notice the change and try to understand what is going on.  McLuhan thought that artists were among those most likely to make this move.  Some dig their heels in and others welcome the change.  That "wind-shear" between the groups is what we call a "counter-culture" and we're in the middle of one right now (which, of course, is why we're talking about all this right now.)
> 
> P.P.S.  I used to go to events and would stand around at the cocktail parties testing this figure/ground theory.  I would ask people to quickly answer two questions, no pausing to think, just reply quickly.  #1 "Has digital technology fundamentally changed your life?" -- 95% immediately answer yes (that's the figure.)  #2 "Name one important thing that has changed" -- 95% have no clue (that's the ground.)  The operation of environments/ground is "pre-conscious" and it happens at the level of our perception -- not emotions or intellect.  Most people have no access to that level of their psyche, so they cannot describe how they *perceive* the world differently, even though "consciously" they know that it has already happened.
> 
> ############################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2