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