The articulation of technology uncovers at least two trends: first, it harbors an impulse to duplicate, to create phantoms. Their numbers multiply as culture evolves. To see how: Alexander Graham Bell created the miracle that is a telephone. Space could no longer constrain verbal communication because the technology for the production of phantom sound was made possible.
However, by duplicating sound and enabling it to cut across continents, the telephone not only creates a double, but also enhances reality. This, I construe as the second trend. The two are closely tied since by (a) imitating the real, technology is also able to (b) transcend the real. It transcends by overcoming the limitations of reality, its finitude: where I cannot be present, now my web-camera video stream can. Instead of having to travel to the hypothetical planet Pandora to see the exotic and magical flora and fauna, I can visit the nearest multiplex and watch the movie Avatar. The gains: easy, convenient, is cheaper, no fear of being devoured by monstrous creatures, saves the energy costs of inter-planetary travel and avoids the sheer tediousness of health check-ups. What do we lose? This is more complicated.
There is a certain irony about the phantom. While it enhances an object, it also is one step removed from the object. An mp3 file of the crock sound of a frog or the colour print-out of a red apple are duplicates not of the object ‘frog’ or ‘apple’ but of one medium through which they reveal themselves. The phantom is, at the same time, both present and reminiscent of presence. It is presence in the sense that it duplicates one or a cluster of aspects of the object, its quality. But it is never able to present an object in its completeness, and is therefore only reminiscent of presence. There remains a gap between phantom presence and the object. The object is intrinsically withdrawn, shy even and therefore technology is only able to duplicate the medium. The being of the frog and the apple remain ever so elusive. Yet we do not know what is nature of that depth which makes the object what it is.
Technology however, seems to nurture the desire to replicate what is lost with the phantom. It seeks to become the object, and hopes that by enhancing the medium it can create a mirror universe of hyper-real objects: 2D cinema progresses into 3D where one can in fact experience rain drops in a theatre, pages in e-book reader can be turned with a swift move of the finger, just like in ‘real’ world. And hence the contours of what is ‘real’ and what is ‘virtual’ alter.
2 comments:
Interesting piece, doubtlessly.
The nature of technological duplication -- meaning the duplication contrived by technology -- is difficult and easy at different levels, apparently. At the simpler level, all it does is replicate the surface essentials of the object so as to preserve its identification.
So, a picture of apple replicates it pictorial essence, which is a part of the apple's being but is not the 'being' of the apple, nor does it in any way represent its being, for the being cannot be represented in parts. It is a complete undivided whole, and anything short of that just wouldn't do.
As for transcendence, it is severely limited by the necessity of identification. So much so that it fails to be transcendence in any real sense and ends up being illusory. Here, I would readily concede, that I am employing a far more rigid understanding of 'transcendence' than you might have intended.
True transcendence would mean when the representation or duplication or replication goes beyond the original and acquires an independent identity, which is the same as becoming a different thing identifiable with the original only in terms of the origin. An offspring is biological transcendence right from the start. One is biologically, socially and culturally like one's parents to begin with, but as one grows up, one acquires distinct traits and though the similarities with the parents do not completely dissolve, one is till a different person distinct from one's parents. But in case of technological duplicates, this does not happen. The duplicate is forever understood and derives meaning with reference to the original. The transcendence is thus arrested.
However, I feel that in the 'virtuality' of the virtual world generated by constant duplication and preservation of the past lurks the real danger of the dead images inundating and then overwhelming the living truth. And we might end up identifying the essence with the surface. The danger is closer than it appears, much like the objects in the rear-view mirrors.
If appearance becomes the identifiable 'self', it is possible that the 'self' is lost in the melee of appearances. This seems to be happening all over. We are becoming our Facebook profiles (pardon the hyperbolic liberties). Take anything from size zero to weight loss and smooth skin, we are turning into appearances. Okay, I would rein in the digression before I stray too far.
It is quite possible that I misunderstood the piece badly given that I am not too good with philosophical concepts. But you wrote the piece well. It did make me think. And apologies for writing such a long and insufferable comment. I just couldn't help going with the flow. :)
Keep writing... :)
Regards
HemRaj
I could not gather what you implied by 'Technontology' -- the title. Did you intend a compound word by the conjunction of 'tech' and 'ontology'? Unlikely, for it could easily be 'techontology', which it isn't. Not sure. Clarification called for. :)
Post a Comment