"All media are extensions of some human faculty, whether mental or physical. The wheel is an extension of the foot. A book is an extension of the eye. Clothing is an extension of the skin. Electric circuitry is an extension of the central nervous system. The extension of any one sense displaces the other senses and alters the way we think, the way we see the world, and ourselves. When these changes are made, men change."
Marshall McLuhan, 1911-1980.
Marshall McLuhan, 1911-1980.
Hmmm... an interesting statement. I do agree that the way man behaves has changed as the world and the technology within it change... but has man actually changed beyond the surface? Beyond his daily routine? Are we any better or any worse on the inside for advent of computers or cars or polyester?
ReplyDeleteI think I would have to say no.
To determine the answer to that question, we would have to ask, "Do computers, cars, or polyester provide a qualitative, substantive difference in communication and movement, and thus, in civilization, or merely a quantitative one?"
ReplyDeleteI think it's a qualitative difference. And, it seems, you previously agreed when we were discussing technological effects, partially regarding the blogosphere, in earlier posts. Is this inaccurate?
I know I disagree with your conclusion: we are worse than previously, because the change has shifted us qualitatively away from what it means to be fully human by virtue of the ways new developments and technologies are used.
But that begs the question, "What does it mean to be human?"
I think technology in any form is a tool that can be used for good or for ill. It can change how we do things but I don't think it actually changes us.
ReplyDeleteFor example - throughout history there were unwed pregnancies, but the number jumped dramatically after cars became affordable for the general populace. There was greater freedom and oportunity for the baser side of man to express itself - but it didn't actually change the darker side of man.
I don't think I'm being inconsistant... but it is entirely possible as I am still working under a steep sleep deficit.
hahaha that last line was really funny :)
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, from a Christian perspective as drawn in Romans 1, the core of a man can, and does, change. He is capable of being increasingly godly or increasingly ungodly, in both quantitative and qualitative ways. That chapter reads with a refrain that adds a musical beat the to passage. The refrain is, "So God gave them up..." with antithetical behavior listed as a consequence of God's giving them over to themselves.
ReplyDeletePart of that view, I believe, is McLuhan's thrust in his message. He wasn't Christian, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Food for thought.
I certainly don't deny that God can and does change us - either individually or as a collective. However, I'm not sure that our own inventions can change our innermost core - our fallen nature.
ReplyDeleteI think that might be a slippery slope. Consider it from a hyperbolic perspective: No matter what I do, to myself or to another human being, I can't change me at my core.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what tools I use which I've created, used against or in favor of those around me, could change me at my core. Architect for genocide, rapist, etc...I'm still just as human as you are. Somethings amiss in this picture.
In a very real sense, from a Christian perspective, every sin moves one away from humanity because the source of "human" is in the Designer, and our sin moves us away from him. Christ is the ultimate human, and part of his mission was to restore our humanity. The moment we rebelled against God, the source of our identity (we don't generate it ourselves), we willingly move ourselves away, becoming less human than we were when living harmoniously in communion with our Source. The flow of revelation, the effects upon our thinking, willing, and emotions...all of it is effected horribly, and to varying degrees.
The grace of God, of course, is that he keeps us close instead of giving us fully over to ourselves. Yet there is a sense in which he doesn't, hence the, "So God gave them up..." and the consequent degeneration(s) of societies throughout the ages when anarchical living is promoted over a link to a solid morality.
One of the reasons we shoot a man who threatens our lives is because we recognize, for lack of a better word, the sheer insanity of his position: he's gone bestial. He's acting out of accord with humanity.
Of course, this opens up another interesting question: Who is qualified to make THAT judgment?
lol.
I vote Foxy.
But do you think that's a slippery slope, or am I not reading you right, or do you just like brownies?
I REALLY brownies.
Okay, I see what you're saying. I was looking at it in the opposite direction - we don't make ourselves better through technological developments. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot bridge the gap - that had to be done for us.
ReplyDeleteBut what you're saying does make sense now that you have spelled it out for me. Lol.
I'm off to write my last paper of the semester. Toodles!