On Computers and Man

Where do you want to be oiled first?

- Dorothy to the Tinman, The Wizard of Oz

In his recent book, WHAT TECHNOLOGY WANTS, Kevin Kelly lays out new vocabulary in order to think about technology in new ways. The worst thing you can do when trying to speak about such a fast-paced and progressive concept as "technology" is allow the terminology to stagnate and put the relationship [between man and technology] into a stalemate; Kelly keeps the subject malleable.

So from this project sprouts Kelly's term, "technium." This seemingly erudite and overly specialized word is, in actuality, beautiful in its simplicity. What does it mean? In Kelly's words, the technium,

...[includes] culture, art, social institutions, and intellectual creations of all types. It includes intangibles like software, law, and philosophical concepts. And most important, it includes the generative impulses of our inventions to encourage more tool making, more technology invention, and more self-enhancing connections (Kelly 11-12).

The idea that something so abstractly mechanical as cyberspace can be included in the same melting pot as human culture advances certain contentions about how technology, and its innate objective/mechanical-nature, is, at the end of the day, simply the enhancement of pre-existing human faculties. This means that there would be no flashlight without the human eye because the flashlight enhances the eye. There would be no sifting machines without the human hand because the sifting machine enhances the hand's ability to sift. Most pressing to current times is that there would be no internet without the human mind, because the internet enhances the mind. Or so we have assumed.

In a recent New York Times article, this notion that being "plugged in" helps one through social institutions (like school) comes under siege by such passively venomous lingo as, "YouTube potato." The question: should computers be embraced as integral to the learning process today? Equally relevant becomes the question, "How are you supposed to have a discussion in class?" If the answer to the first question is, "yes," then with that comes the answer to the second question: "you don't have them," at least not face to face. By affirming that computer-based learning is analogous with human interaction, then we redefine what it means to have a conversation. In a setting where a number of people are sitting in one place, congregating around a common theme, do we want to move in a direction that puts those people into discussion via mobile devices? Does a person need to give eye contact or verbal attention to others in order to be considered "in a conversation?" For now, the questions outweigh the answers.

It may be worthwhile to recall Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman, who has done work of a very contrary sort to that of Facebook. Face interactions, in the context of human communication, become very relevant when taking on projects like how people should socialize in a rapidly progressing technological age. Goffman's studies point to the importance of navigating the faces of others and, using your own inter-facial communication skills, you can communicate something like rapid-fire fact exchange, innate to computer learning, via human interaction.

For example, think about eye contact. This is something that is made more difficult relative to how much time a person spends looking at a screen. Even though learning might be taking place while looking at a screen, the ability to tell another person about what you learned is made more difficult. But when we construct certain models for how to connect with another person's face, that connection is made more comfortable and easy to maneuver.

The triangle model is such a construct. Think about where you look when you are establishing eye contact with someone. While it is impossible to look into both eyes, you can still give off the appearance of looking into their eyes by looking at one eye. When communication becomes too intense, which is to say when too much information transfer becomes overwhelming, we switch our gaze onto the other eye, and reset our minds. Now, since so much information can potentially be shared between two people because of its abundance and accessibility, we have graduated to a third point: the forehead.

There is a point above the eyebrow line where direct eye contact can be established, and when each eye and this point are connected, a triangle is formed on the face. What does this mean? What we find is that anywhere within this triangle is fair game for direct eye contact, meaning that no matter how much information a person is giving off, one can avoid being overwhelmed simply by navigating their attention within this triangle.

The third eye is nothing new, however it is perpetually forgotten and remembered throughout the course of human history. With its realization comes great power, but to have awareness of its power brings great responsibility. It is the key to such mythological constructs as represented by George Lucas' Star Wars, that portray social power as something that can be both "light" and "dark." To utilize such a model puts one up against a number of choices, one being whether or not to go through a social institution such as a school, or to bypass the system all together and get right to the point of doing what it is that you are passionate about.* The computerized component of new education has placed mankind up against his primordial recollection of the third eye, and now the project of societies world wide is to make sense out of how this recollection can be used to further societies, rather than just individuals.

It may very well come back to an idea that the Rooster Roast has given some attention to, which is the idea of the childhood dream. When one is so invested in his or her aspirations of the past, something like school work might very well get in the way of their actualization. However, holding onto such rigid notions of self leads to a dismal situation indeed: the up-tightness and self-absorption that puts the importance of self over the importance of others, and this is a true ethical battleground indeed.

Let's leave this discussion by coming back to Kelly's idea that the technium, that mysterious realm of invention from which computers and technologies emerge, abides also by human social constructs and cultural creations. Separating technologies from humanities becomes difficult when buying into this format. If we are to believe that technological evolution and biological evolution are closely related, then it should follow that yes, computers are necessary for learning in this new age. However, to neglect human connection, so necessary for sharing this planet, is to declare humanity's suicide. Considering that man has graduated in his socialization skills, to affirm the function of the third eye, is the first step to embracing technology in the new learning environment, a consideration that has until yet been sluggish, if not non-existent.

*Recall an earlier RR post about the Peter Thiel foundation, striving to give students the option of opting out of school to receive $100,000 to actualize their technological/entrepreneurial pursuits outside of school.

Kelly, Kevin. WHAT TECHNOLOGY WANTS. New York: Viking 2010.