The point I made in my "Life is: Suppressed" article was that our society has made advances in technology and culture that don't contribute to our being social. Social networks, for example, don't help you to socialize, they help you to stay in touch without socializing. In other words, instead of calling up your friends or dropping by their houses, you instead check out what they wrote on twitter or on facebook.
I think this is a grave error on the side of definition. My definition of socialization includes growing closer bonds, discovering personality, and sharing experiences in the present.
I say specifically in the present because of my understanding of what I call vantage points: No two people experience the same experience in the same way. This is attributed to physical vantage point (I.E. what they see) but also their level of understanding at that point in time, and their past experiences--for sake of argument, those two are the same thing [you only know what you know because of your past experiences].--To illustrate: when you are little, everything in the world seems different than when you are older; things that you can't explain and are mesmerized by when you are young are demystified when you are older, and parents don't experience things in the same way that their children do.
We learn from one another when we share our experiences with one another. Even something as simple as mathematics is learned by sharing what we know about it based on our past experiences (1+1 has always been 2 to us). One step further: when two people look at a picture, they are both perceiving the same thing. Creativity, the stuff that allows us to make up our thoughts, is shared between the Artist and person A, and between Artist and person B. One more step: When person A and B talk about the painting, they are sharing their experiences with one another, what they like, don't like, what they think it means, etc.
Even one more step: Let's say you aren't looking at a painting, but the real life event, say a man throwing a frisbee to his dog. There is no Artist, it's just A and B. A and B, without verbally communicating, are perceiving the same thing. This is a precious moment because although they are experiencing different emotions, A is impressed by the dog, B is impressed by the photogenic qualities of the light reflecting off of the dog, they are experiencing this moment together and it is a moment that cannot be repeated due to the 4th dimension (time). It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The experiences they are experiencing right in that moment, for the first time, they can never be replaced--they can't go back in time and change what they felt.
After the moment has passed and they are away from the scene, A and B can have a discussion. A mentions he was impressed by the dog, B mentions she was impressed by how beautiful the scene played out. B recalls that, yes, the dog was impressive and she understands how A feels about it because she can recall all of her perceptions of that moment and can re-experience it all in her head. Although B experienced the scene primarily as how "beautiful" it was, the true magic that occurred was that she was simultaneously experiencing ALL things--as far as her ability to perceive is concerned--but that she chose a dominant experience because of her personality and past experiences.
"As far as her ability to perceive is concerned"--what I mean is, people with better or worse vision see things more clear or less clear than others. Being in a different location can prevent you from seeing a cheap shot in a boxing match. &c. Nonetheless, she absorbed all of that information, but her brain processed it in a different way.
A bond was also created between A and B because they both shared the same moment in time. Sharing the same taste, sound, smell, touch, or sight is fantastic, and artists are coming up with new ways all of the time to portray these things, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot replicate time. Time is not an empirical sense and yet it is something we want to share with other people. Part of our human condition of isolation bugs us and urges us to share all of our sense with other people, yet time is impossible to share.
I know what you're thinking: photographs and films can bridge the gap between time and space; but you're wrong. When someone creates a photograph, they are CREATING a photograph. They are making a new replica of a moment of time. Philosophically speaking, the moment that a replica is made, it ceases to be the original and is left to be governed by it's own forces. A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.
(translation: This is not a pipe)
What you are looking at is a replica of a pipe, but not really, you're looking at a replica made into digital form, stolen from the internet and pasted into this article then transmitted over your monitor. --you're looking at hundreds of rays of light.
The point is. If it isn't real and original, it's just not the same.
Socializing on the internet is different from socializing in real life. We only perceive as much as can be converted into digital form and typically artists and digital scanners like to only take a portion of the whole so that they can emphasize certain parts of it.
Don't be fooled. The "social" experiences you are having over the internet are not real, they are knock-offs of reality. True, you may still experience things from them, but my purpose in writing this article is to leave the question over your head: Which is better: to socialize in real life and build better, stronger bonds and connect with other people, or socialize on the internet, where it is easier, but only share mild to weak bonds and possibly not connect with other people?
It's a lot to think about. Feel free to talk to me in person and I'll persuade you some more.
No comments:
Post a Comment