The exercise of Plurking is a format that restricts us and brings us to our limit.. We have 140 characters to share a thought, an experience, a revelation, or an assignment. With practice I realized that this is actually quite a lot of space to work with. It is really no different than a text message or chat, and as it applies to our everyday life, we have learned to removing the excess to words in order to give them meaning. Failure to recognize this change in language and ignore such constraints distracts from the presentation of a clear message. When communication is drowned in words with no value, it becomes lost altogether. To see this whole idea disregarded in class was frustrating to me because I think that when we set such limits we shift our thinking and challenge ourselves to write with a higher standard. This is something we are all capable of, and in this case it was an ongoing exercise as a legitimate lesson beyond just the scope of the class, but as a demonstration of how technology is affecting language.
I want to share an example of some Plurk posts that frustrated me for a certain lack of value, and a failure to communicate any real message.
Norbertrojszasays
Watchmen plays right into the theme for the class
Norbertrojszasays
it was a funny movie because there is the big blue dude who is like god and the other super heros that are total lame heros
Norbertrojszasays
the whole movie is about the other total alterity play
Norbertrojszasays
yeah i was amazed when i watched it how nanotextesk it is have you seen the movie yet, (its ok it makes me want to see the book)
Norbertrojszasays
like an apitizer to a meal the movie was flashy but after the this class watching that movie reminded me a bit of the filth
Norbertrojszasays
the whole movie there was something "filthy" missing
This really fries me. When someone seems to talk, just to talk. It is an abuse of discussion and does not allow the exploration of other thoughts, both for the person speaking and for those listening. This is the ultimate goal of communication. Reflecting on limits, I think about the communication contained in a single glance or even an emoticon. There is a value to creating rich language that goes far beyond the words themselves. It is like writing a haiku. In low’s blog I read a great interview that I think fits perfectly here. On how to write haikus Jack Kerouac says, “It has to be completely economical, no foliage and flowers and language rhythm, it has to be a simple little picture in three lines.” Writing a haiku has unique constraints, but the value of writing this way has application to all things we do. It is language distilled.
To make a point I challenged Norbert to a Plurkfight in which he had to tell his life story in a single post.
He replied:
Norbertrojszasays
krakow tarabalus oslo vancouver ferndale bellingham happy child till ferndale then disapointed now happy again married don't like concerts
There it is. It really says what I need to know, and without description it reveals so much. He may want me to understand, feel, or believe something specific, but language and art are rarely going to convey something as intended. This is the beauty. When I am free to interpret on my own I find a vivid picture and a personal significance that is far more memorable and worthwhile.
The lesson of the limit is absolutely essential to good writing. These exercises have continued a process I began in journalism classes, internet based communication, and into my professional life as a guide and teacher. Essentially it is the practice of investing greater and greater value into the smallest unit. We approach the limit of our potential and in doing so; prove that we can move beyond. This is true of technology, of language, and of life.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
iwantlow
What fun! I have been reading low’s blog since his first request for allies in the fight to procure the plurk user name “low”, I was not so comfortable with this whole blogging and plurk thing back then. I didn’t write to this original low (imposter), but now I wish I had.
From the beginning there is no uncertainty in the presentation Cody Stahl. There is a fearless, confidant, and yet humble person here. I may wish that I had appealed to the low imposter, but then again, how would iwantlow have been different? He needed nothing, he wanted the tidy image, but as will be discussed, this became rather unimportant. Low’s identity was pieced together with each blog, plurk, and reference. So, I will try now to critique this work, evaluate his craft, observe changes, and how it compares to my own…
It was the starting point to offer a cookie for the appropriate name, and followed with an offering of writing, Low’s travel prose. It is rich, it is enough to sustain with just a small sample. It is the same stretch of coast I traveled as a young dreamer, the feeling of loneliness that does not entertain sympathy or even acknowledgment. It is real, and tangible. As if to finish my thought low writes,
“Reading Burroughs' Last Words was a bit depressing. At the time of writing Burroughs is in retirement from serious writing, and writes a journal in order to sate a decades-long habit of writing his dreams and ideas down. He writes his dreams down diligently, is very upset at a cat's death and is very fond of his cats, and writes often about the evils of the drug war. I felt my own sense of mortality creep up on me on reading these passages.”
It is the power of writing that can bring us outside of our selves and enter us into suffering, joy, disillusionment, and anxiousness.
There is a sense of voyeurism at times. We can lay out our thoughts and emotions and there is no real control of who will read it, what will influence their interpretation, and what they will leave with. I have displayed private revelations, and things that people may not want to read, but putting it out there feels good. It is not quite getting it off my chest, but allowing my thoughts to reach a conclusion outside of me.
I catch a rare glimpse at his frailty, his unsent letter shows how human he is. It is so revealing because we have been there. I have written letters that should not, could not be delivered. It is so telling because I can see myself. The excerpts from his book carry this same revealing narrative that allows us to see through his eyes. Commenting on his journaling class, he paints it vividly here, “This book reminded me that a story is still one of the best ways to share an experience and moment. Video, sound recording, and photography can only do so much. It is through language that we connect to the world around us through communication.”
On the discussion and material in class (From the Vault) regarding germs, Low draws -from who knows where- a connection to another author. Cendrars’ Moravagine, who wrote of diseases, “They are one of the many manifestations of universal matter. They may be the principal manifestation of that matter which we will never be able to study except through the phenomena of relationships and analogies.”
Beautiful. The discussion of disease went full circle in class and beyond. When everything comes into the infinity, the all-one, it does not matter where it began.
There is just so much animation in this blog. Looking at comments, seeing the other bloggers who have left their mark on his work, the people, sounds, places that have influenced his writing. It makes me anxious, it makes me burn, I want to dance and run and be out in the blowing wind. What is art? if not spirits ablaze…
...
At first I didn’t know how to interpret the blog entries composed of excerpts by other writers. As I read them in the context of the whole blog I stumble on the full view. It is again to see low, to see his digestion of so many thoughts, and to see how, and when, and where they are regurgitated. Without a word of his own, I see low. Compared to how I drew in specific texts, I think this is written more for an audience. We are not forced into an interpretation. We must find it in the context of the blog, but the rest is up to the reader. I think this is what I struggled with at first. Low does not expect me to misappropriate the message, but I am free to do so. His process is internal. Assessing my own blog I see that my analysis is exposed, contradictions, realizations, frustrations, and all.
Yet, in the culminating posts, and the approaching end of the quarter, there is a somewhat emotional, confrontational attitude evident in his blog. As if to catch me off guard he even wrote a response to my post offering how he interprets this final.
“We, too, are but an image, a scrap of clothing, a handwritten note eventually to be among the articles of the dead to one day disappear completely from the minds of men.”
and
“I'm done with trying to come up with blanket definitions of humanity. I'm more interested in the individual and their ideological and philosophical liberation. There is so much out there that wants to define your life to suit the limited purposes of a given agenda: including this class, including plurk, including your own limited ego perspective. Who to trust? Perhaps that, outside you, that gives your life meaning + significance.”
I do not wish to muddy this point because it was there all along and here in simple truth. It was a pleasure dancing with you, low.
From the beginning there is no uncertainty in the presentation Cody Stahl. There is a fearless, confidant, and yet humble person here. I may wish that I had appealed to the low imposter, but then again, how would iwantlow have been different? He needed nothing, he wanted the tidy image, but as will be discussed, this became rather unimportant. Low’s identity was pieced together with each blog, plurk, and reference. So, I will try now to critique this work, evaluate his craft, observe changes, and how it compares to my own…
It was the starting point to offer a cookie for the appropriate name, and followed with an offering of writing, Low’s travel prose. It is rich, it is enough to sustain with just a small sample. It is the same stretch of coast I traveled as a young dreamer, the feeling of loneliness that does not entertain sympathy or even acknowledgment. It is real, and tangible. As if to finish my thought low writes,
“Reading Burroughs' Last Words was a bit depressing. At the time of writing Burroughs is in retirement from serious writing, and writes a journal in order to sate a decades-long habit of writing his dreams and ideas down. He writes his dreams down diligently, is very upset at a cat's death and is very fond of his cats, and writes often about the evils of the drug war. I felt my own sense of mortality creep up on me on reading these passages.”
It is the power of writing that can bring us outside of our selves and enter us into suffering, joy, disillusionment, and anxiousness.
There is a sense of voyeurism at times. We can lay out our thoughts and emotions and there is no real control of who will read it, what will influence their interpretation, and what they will leave with. I have displayed private revelations, and things that people may not want to read, but putting it out there feels good. It is not quite getting it off my chest, but allowing my thoughts to reach a conclusion outside of me.
I catch a rare glimpse at his frailty, his unsent letter shows how human he is. It is so revealing because we have been there. I have written letters that should not, could not be delivered. It is so telling because I can see myself. The excerpts from his book carry this same revealing narrative that allows us to see through his eyes. Commenting on his journaling class, he paints it vividly here, “This book reminded me that a story is still one of the best ways to share an experience and moment. Video, sound recording, and photography can only do so much. It is through language that we connect to the world around us through communication.”
On the discussion and material in class (From the Vault) regarding germs, Low draws -from who knows where- a connection to another author. Cendrars’ Moravagine, who wrote of diseases, “They are one of the many manifestations of universal matter. They may be the principal manifestation of that matter which we will never be able to study except through the phenomena of relationships and analogies.”
Beautiful. The discussion of disease went full circle in class and beyond. When everything comes into the infinity, the all-one, it does not matter where it began.
There is just so much animation in this blog. Looking at comments, seeing the other bloggers who have left their mark on his work, the people, sounds, places that have influenced his writing. It makes me anxious, it makes me burn, I want to dance and run and be out in the blowing wind. What is art? if not spirits ablaze…
...
At first I didn’t know how to interpret the blog entries composed of excerpts by other writers. As I read them in the context of the whole blog I stumble on the full view. It is again to see low, to see his digestion of so many thoughts, and to see how, and when, and where they are regurgitated. Without a word of his own, I see low. Compared to how I drew in specific texts, I think this is written more for an audience. We are not forced into an interpretation. We must find it in the context of the blog, but the rest is up to the reader. I think this is what I struggled with at first. Low does not expect me to misappropriate the message, but I am free to do so. His process is internal. Assessing my own blog I see that my analysis is exposed, contradictions, realizations, frustrations, and all.
Yet, in the culminating posts, and the approaching end of the quarter, there is a somewhat emotional, confrontational attitude evident in his blog. As if to catch me off guard he even wrote a response to my post offering how he interprets this final.
“We, too, are but an image, a scrap of clothing, a handwritten note eventually to be among the articles of the dead to one day disappear completely from the minds of men.”
and
“I'm done with trying to come up with blanket definitions of humanity. I'm more interested in the individual and their ideological and philosophical liberation. There is so much out there that wants to define your life to suit the limited purposes of a given agenda: including this class, including plurk, including your own limited ego perspective. Who to trust? Perhaps that, outside you, that gives your life meaning + significance.”
I do not wish to muddy this point because it was there all along and here in simple truth. It was a pleasure dancing with you, low.
Plurk Technovolution
The use of Plurk in this class has allowed for a very different interaction between students and the professor. Over the course of the last few months we have experimented and eventually adapted to this new technology, and while it could be argued that this sort of microblog is the culmination of technology dating back since the invention of the telephone, we have made it our own in one short quarter. It has become almost second nature, I plurk over dinner, or have it running while I do school work, it demands so little commitment, allows full control of how I will interact with others, and with just 140 characters I can share just about anything. The speed of change is amazing, and as I look back at my plurks during the quarter I can see the evolution of how I use plurk, and how it has changed my perception of new forms of communication.
The organic nature of technology is a concept that we have seen in several of the texts including “Ribofunk” and “Postsingular”. By adapting to users and situations, being constantly refined with each generation, technology is a perfect example of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”. Just as the nannites of “Postsingular” helped create a more perfect nanobot in the orphids, each new form of technology is partly responsible for the development of future generations. As subsequent generations become more and more efficient, and change at an increasing pace. We may soon be experiencing a reality like the one illustrated in “Ribofunk” in which humans, at least in their natural state, are unable to keep up with technology and completely inadequate as masters of technology. Man made inventions have surpassed our ability to process information, and may soon prove more fit than the human species altogether. As robots are designed that can mimic human physical abilities, can learn behavior, and program future generations of robots, there becomes less need to have humans around. Like the plot of so many sci-fi movies, we cannot deny the rules of nature, and the potential that technology may soon own us – if it doesn’t already.
The idea that robots will some day rule the world is not a new one. They may keep us for our enrgy, like in the Matrix, or for our creativity like in Postsingular, or maybe more of a novelty to learn about our nature as in Ribofunk. These scenarios all imply that we have something that grants us entitlement to keep surviving. Yet, what this is part of the natural progression and humans were just a stepping stone, the catalyst for real change. I would like to agree that we have some inherent value, but do we keep old computers around because without them we would not have the iPhone? No, they are played out, they have no more use to us.
So does this mean that humans are going to become obsolete? Is this really a problem? Perhaps if we looked at technology we would see a hint at true self-preservation. The machines have no worry about the next version replacing them, they are used to their capacity and when that is no longer enough they secede to a superior replacement. What do we have to glean from this? I think if we could stop looking ahead we could realize that there is still a great deal that we need to realize in our abilities. I have been frustrated by a widespread discontent, and while we may not be able to ignore what is happening in the future, there is so much happening in the present that we are not aware of. It is only when we are aware of where we are that we can formulate a clear picture of where we are going. If we are truly aware of why we have fear, and hate, if we can learn to care for our selves, and for each other, to see our overuse of resources, and the state of the world every day, then perhaps we can come to terms with why we are heading in a direction that makes us seem obsolete. Maybe we can even steer the course of humanity it in a direction that illustrates why we are not expendable.
Technology has changed the human world a great deal, and as it accelerates we must adapt our behavior. As an illustration of how adaptable humans really are, I think that technology allows us to explore our tremendous potential. In comparison to all other living things, we have an exceptional ability to adapt to just about anything. Trees and bugs, whales and crocodiles, these things have changed so little in thousands of years, because they have found their niche. Evolution made them fit a certain purpose and adaptation made them masters in their respective roles. It would seem that we are approaching a point at which we will either find our role or destroy ourselves trying to make the role fit us. Whether our future will end like a happy sci-fi movie ending or a sad one, it certainly has the makings for one hell of a movie (better yet if we can learn kung fu by downloading it).
The organic nature of technology is a concept that we have seen in several of the texts including “Ribofunk” and “Postsingular”. By adapting to users and situations, being constantly refined with each generation, technology is a perfect example of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”. Just as the nannites of “Postsingular” helped create a more perfect nanobot in the orphids, each new form of technology is partly responsible for the development of future generations. As subsequent generations become more and more efficient, and change at an increasing pace. We may soon be experiencing a reality like the one illustrated in “Ribofunk” in which humans, at least in their natural state, are unable to keep up with technology and completely inadequate as masters of technology. Man made inventions have surpassed our ability to process information, and may soon prove more fit than the human species altogether. As robots are designed that can mimic human physical abilities, can learn behavior, and program future generations of robots, there becomes less need to have humans around. Like the plot of so many sci-fi movies, we cannot deny the rules of nature, and the potential that technology may soon own us – if it doesn’t already.
The idea that robots will some day rule the world is not a new one. They may keep us for our enrgy, like in the Matrix, or for our creativity like in Postsingular, or maybe more of a novelty to learn about our nature as in Ribofunk. These scenarios all imply that we have something that grants us entitlement to keep surviving. Yet, what this is part of the natural progression and humans were just a stepping stone, the catalyst for real change. I would like to agree that we have some inherent value, but do we keep old computers around because without them we would not have the iPhone? No, they are played out, they have no more use to us.
So does this mean that humans are going to become obsolete? Is this really a problem? Perhaps if we looked at technology we would see a hint at true self-preservation. The machines have no worry about the next version replacing them, they are used to their capacity and when that is no longer enough they secede to a superior replacement. What do we have to glean from this? I think if we could stop looking ahead we could realize that there is still a great deal that we need to realize in our abilities. I have been frustrated by a widespread discontent, and while we may not be able to ignore what is happening in the future, there is so much happening in the present that we are not aware of. It is only when we are aware of where we are that we can formulate a clear picture of where we are going. If we are truly aware of why we have fear, and hate, if we can learn to care for our selves, and for each other, to see our overuse of resources, and the state of the world every day, then perhaps we can come to terms with why we are heading in a direction that makes us seem obsolete. Maybe we can even steer the course of humanity it in a direction that illustrates why we are not expendable.
Technology has changed the human world a great deal, and as it accelerates we must adapt our behavior. As an illustration of how adaptable humans really are, I think that technology allows us to explore our tremendous potential. In comparison to all other living things, we have an exceptional ability to adapt to just about anything. Trees and bugs, whales and crocodiles, these things have changed so little in thousands of years, because they have found their niche. Evolution made them fit a certain purpose and adaptation made them masters in their respective roles. It would seem that we are approaching a point at which we will either find our role or destroy ourselves trying to make the role fit us. Whether our future will end like a happy sci-fi movie ending or a sad one, it certainly has the makings for one hell of a movie (better yet if we can learn kung fu by downloading it).
Maslow's Hierarchy of Technology
Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” is a formula for explaining complex human needs and behaviors in simple terms, and has been brought up in many classes throughout my college experience. When Maslow was brought up in the Nanotexts class during the discussion of why people suffer, it was cast aside, and I laughed at the immediate dismissal of this argument. Something about this concept, however, begs further exploration. I couldn’t help but to think there may be a very important nugget of truth hiding between our physiological needs and self actualization. It is something I have come back to several times during the course. Breaking down a complex progression into 5 steps, and using the pyramid symbol to illustrate transcendence contains references to ancient wisdom of Buddhism, the Egyptians, and the holy trinity. This symbolism may just as well be as mundane as the food pyramid, but before casting the idea out, I would like to explore how this theory may relate to technology, and changes experienced throughout the world.
The primary criticism of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is that it is not based on scientific evidence. This is a valid argument, yet, some of the most widely taught concepts of psychology are based on observations where scientific experiments are simply not applicable. Freudian psychology is not proven by the scientific method, yet it has provided the basis from which modern psychology has developed. The scientific method is not easily applied to theories on spirit, soul, and the subconscious. A lack of scientific proof does not mean that such theories are without value. Our understanding is grounded in correlation data, interpretation, and observation. To simplify life and describe such a massive issue Maslow created this hierarchy to illustrate that there is a pattern to be observed.
Maslow’s Hierarchy provides a template for the discussion of human suffering and the pursuit of fulfillment. I intend to tie this into the concept that technology has changed the way we interact with others, but has not necessarily changed the value or outcome of such interactions. Many people feel that technology has devalued personal interaction, while others praise technology for allowing people to communicate over great distances, and creating a low stress, nonconfrontation means of communication. There are shortcomings of traditional communcation and more modern methods. I would argue that failures of communication itself is not inherent within technology, but in how it is adopted. The need for interaction and the exchange of ideas has not lost its significance and for those who incorporate this technology into their lives, it has proven to expand the ability to communicate.
Similarly, the facts of life have remained the same under the influence of technology. Humans today are bound by the same needs that dictated life two thousand years ago. Maslow imagined that this could be fit into a structure that reads like a recipe for self actualization. First you take those needs like food, clothing, and shelter, induce a sense of safety, add some love, respect and confidence, and if you get everything right *BAM* self-actualization. Maslow put this together as evidence that our progression as a society is bringing us closer to an evolved state of existence. The transcendence past the simple needs with the advent of industrialization and growth of technology has allowed us to focus our attention on higher level needs. I see the same argument made of technology. We are taken past the suffering of having to invest so much time into the more menial of our day to day responsibilities, yet we do not truly overcome these needs. The folly of the developed world is that in our day-to-day life the most basic needs are constantly reinvented with new frustrations, and complications, and are never given full attention. Technology has made it easier to gather and prepare food, but we have not alleviated the need for food altogether. Likewise, our health and personal safety has improved greatly, yet we must tend to new issues such as insurance, job security, and war. Our behavior is not guided solely by these lower level needs, but they still require understanding and effort on our behalf.
We suffer frustrations in life and there is no foreseeable resolution to this. The cessation of some symptoms, climbing the hierarchy of needs, or technological breakthrough, presents the same problem in a new context. Are we going to find technology that invalidates our need for self-confidence and loving relationships? The evidence of social networking, blogging, and Plurk would suggest that moving beyond the need for face-to-face communication did not really change the essence of social interaction. Looking ahead to the potential within nanotechnology, and the evolution of technology that allows us to surpass the current limits on humanity, we have only the predictions of books like Ribofunk and Postsingular, or the movie Technopalypse to anticipate our development. In these examples, human suffering, the pursuit of happiness, and the search for meaning is not relieved by technology. The examples of these books and films illustrate that the more things change the more they stay the same. It changes its shape, and becomes complicated by new terms, but our adaption of greater technology does not make our simple struggles obsolete. Likewise we have psychology theories to guide our expectations of human development, but we do not have answers that will meet the low level needs of all people. Almost as an afterthought, Maslow describes self-transcendence, a concept he discovered later in his life that mirrors concepts of eastern philosophy. By adding this final stage Maslow acknowledges that there may be a level beyond our maximum potential, beyond what we can imagine. The limits we recognize provide a beginning, and a system to progress, but to reach the end is to see fulfillment in the pursuit.
At its foundation Maslow’s Hierarchy is rather intuitive. In most living things, physiological needs are the primary force dictating behavior. Those animals that illustrate social behavior are recognized as being of a higher, more complex order. Like comparing bacteria to sea mammals, there is evidence of technology and an intrinsically greater value to those animals with social structures, more advanced communication, group hunting, and mating practices that illustrate a need for safety/security of family and resources, and the need for love and belonging. The most successful individuals or groups progress towards higher level needs, sharing their technology with others, and in doing so bringing others into the higher levels. Pushing beyond to the uncharted is what inspires others, and can actually have influence reaching beyond the proximal group. The actualization of one person, to demonstrate a need beyond one’s self, to find their calling, and release their ego, has provided the foundation for religion, philosophy, art movements, and nearly every creative endeavor. Maslow based his hierarchy on the levels he observed in nature and I think it has been misappropriated as a structure to simplify the world rather than painting the great complexities of true realization. The actualization of people like Jesus Christ, Chris Sharma, and Arne Naess has given people an example of an ascendance that cannot be recreated. We feel the effects and share the power of such individuals, but this is not the true outcome of such ascension, and I think this is where the main criticism of Maslow comes from. People may see the resulting changes of culture, technology, art, etc as a shared movement onto another level, but if the need is not met for the individual the change in behavior cannot cover the lower level needs. I think this is why so many people are unfulfilled in their lives. The lowest level needs have never really been addressed in the attempt to keep up with those on another level. With weak foundations this hierarchy collapses. If people do not really know how to feed themselves, to love themselves and feel secure, how then can they be expected to provide support to others? There is such a strong emphasis in our culture to move forward, and find fulfillment in something new and different. The commercialization of our culture is a symptom of general discontent, and I think Maslow would say that part of the problem is that we have not reconciled our low level needs. Technology has not alleviated these needs in the past and it is not likely to ever end this cycle of discontent.
The discussion of technology and its effect on society runs alongside the discussion of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and approaches similar issues of misappropriation. The internet and cell phones have changed communication and may be one of the most incredible tools in connecting people and advancing the spread of information in today’s society, but it is also criticized as the end of sincere communication. The parallel to higher level needs and the explosion of this technology illustrates the failure of incorporating new and more advanced knowledge when the most basic levels are incomplete. The development and adaptation of new technology requires a brave individual or group to implement what are quite radical ideas. The scientist that dares to push the sciences of biologic engineering is not so different than the Buddha transcending his ego. They are casting aside the value judgments imposed by society, journeying into an unknown realm, and realizing a new potential of human ability and knowledge. These pioneers are viewed as radical amongst their contemporaries, but as their accomplishments are demystified, the knowledge provides new methods for society’s struggle to meet lower level needs.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a framework with which we can structure our thoughts about one’s level of actualization. This is a form of technology, and illustrates a set of ideas that are tied to the discussion of technology in our class. It is an old theory, and new ideas have surpassed this explanation for how creatures behave, but just as an understanding of old technology can help one to adopt new technology, Maslow’s ideas should not be disregarded. In this simplistic theory lies an understanding of some of the most amazing strides in human development. As we look forward to the evolution of a new society embracing nanotechnology, there is some wisdom to glean from old Maslow, and in the process of looking at the small and simple, there is certainly value to a system that attempts to define the progress of human kind, from savage to transcendental.
The primary criticism of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is that it is not based on scientific evidence. This is a valid argument, yet, some of the most widely taught concepts of psychology are based on observations where scientific experiments are simply not applicable. Freudian psychology is not proven by the scientific method, yet it has provided the basis from which modern psychology has developed. The scientific method is not easily applied to theories on spirit, soul, and the subconscious. A lack of scientific proof does not mean that such theories are without value. Our understanding is grounded in correlation data, interpretation, and observation. To simplify life and describe such a massive issue Maslow created this hierarchy to illustrate that there is a pattern to be observed.
Maslow’s Hierarchy provides a template for the discussion of human suffering and the pursuit of fulfillment. I intend to tie this into the concept that technology has changed the way we interact with others, but has not necessarily changed the value or outcome of such interactions. Many people feel that technology has devalued personal interaction, while others praise technology for allowing people to communicate over great distances, and creating a low stress, nonconfrontation means of communication. There are shortcomings of traditional communcation and more modern methods. I would argue that failures of communication itself is not inherent within technology, but in how it is adopted. The need for interaction and the exchange of ideas has not lost its significance and for those who incorporate this technology into their lives, it has proven to expand the ability to communicate.
Similarly, the facts of life have remained the same under the influence of technology. Humans today are bound by the same needs that dictated life two thousand years ago. Maslow imagined that this could be fit into a structure that reads like a recipe for self actualization. First you take those needs like food, clothing, and shelter, induce a sense of safety, add some love, respect and confidence, and if you get everything right *BAM* self-actualization. Maslow put this together as evidence that our progression as a society is bringing us closer to an evolved state of existence. The transcendence past the simple needs with the advent of industrialization and growth of technology has allowed us to focus our attention on higher level needs. I see the same argument made of technology. We are taken past the suffering of having to invest so much time into the more menial of our day to day responsibilities, yet we do not truly overcome these needs. The folly of the developed world is that in our day-to-day life the most basic needs are constantly reinvented with new frustrations, and complications, and are never given full attention. Technology has made it easier to gather and prepare food, but we have not alleviated the need for food altogether. Likewise, our health and personal safety has improved greatly, yet we must tend to new issues such as insurance, job security, and war. Our behavior is not guided solely by these lower level needs, but they still require understanding and effort on our behalf.
We suffer frustrations in life and there is no foreseeable resolution to this. The cessation of some symptoms, climbing the hierarchy of needs, or technological breakthrough, presents the same problem in a new context. Are we going to find technology that invalidates our need for self-confidence and loving relationships? The evidence of social networking, blogging, and Plurk would suggest that moving beyond the need for face-to-face communication did not really change the essence of social interaction. Looking ahead to the potential within nanotechnology, and the evolution of technology that allows us to surpass the current limits on humanity, we have only the predictions of books like Ribofunk and Postsingular, or the movie Technopalypse to anticipate our development. In these examples, human suffering, the pursuit of happiness, and the search for meaning is not relieved by technology. The examples of these books and films illustrate that the more things change the more they stay the same. It changes its shape, and becomes complicated by new terms, but our adaption of greater technology does not make our simple struggles obsolete. Likewise we have psychology theories to guide our expectations of human development, but we do not have answers that will meet the low level needs of all people. Almost as an afterthought, Maslow describes self-transcendence, a concept he discovered later in his life that mirrors concepts of eastern philosophy. By adding this final stage Maslow acknowledges that there may be a level beyond our maximum potential, beyond what we can imagine. The limits we recognize provide a beginning, and a system to progress, but to reach the end is to see fulfillment in the pursuit.
At its foundation Maslow’s Hierarchy is rather intuitive. In most living things, physiological needs are the primary force dictating behavior. Those animals that illustrate social behavior are recognized as being of a higher, more complex order. Like comparing bacteria to sea mammals, there is evidence of technology and an intrinsically greater value to those animals with social structures, more advanced communication, group hunting, and mating practices that illustrate a need for safety/security of family and resources, and the need for love and belonging. The most successful individuals or groups progress towards higher level needs, sharing their technology with others, and in doing so bringing others into the higher levels. Pushing beyond to the uncharted is what inspires others, and can actually have influence reaching beyond the proximal group. The actualization of one person, to demonstrate a need beyond one’s self, to find their calling, and release their ego, has provided the foundation for religion, philosophy, art movements, and nearly every creative endeavor. Maslow based his hierarchy on the levels he observed in nature and I think it has been misappropriated as a structure to simplify the world rather than painting the great complexities of true realization. The actualization of people like Jesus Christ, Chris Sharma, and Arne Naess has given people an example of an ascendance that cannot be recreated. We feel the effects and share the power of such individuals, but this is not the true outcome of such ascension, and I think this is where the main criticism of Maslow comes from. People may see the resulting changes of culture, technology, art, etc as a shared movement onto another level, but if the need is not met for the individual the change in behavior cannot cover the lower level needs. I think this is why so many people are unfulfilled in their lives. The lowest level needs have never really been addressed in the attempt to keep up with those on another level. With weak foundations this hierarchy collapses. If people do not really know how to feed themselves, to love themselves and feel secure, how then can they be expected to provide support to others? There is such a strong emphasis in our culture to move forward, and find fulfillment in something new and different. The commercialization of our culture is a symptom of general discontent, and I think Maslow would say that part of the problem is that we have not reconciled our low level needs. Technology has not alleviated these needs in the past and it is not likely to ever end this cycle of discontent.
The discussion of technology and its effect on society runs alongside the discussion of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and approaches similar issues of misappropriation. The internet and cell phones have changed communication and may be one of the most incredible tools in connecting people and advancing the spread of information in today’s society, but it is also criticized as the end of sincere communication. The parallel to higher level needs and the explosion of this technology illustrates the failure of incorporating new and more advanced knowledge when the most basic levels are incomplete. The development and adaptation of new technology requires a brave individual or group to implement what are quite radical ideas. The scientist that dares to push the sciences of biologic engineering is not so different than the Buddha transcending his ego. They are casting aside the value judgments imposed by society, journeying into an unknown realm, and realizing a new potential of human ability and knowledge. These pioneers are viewed as radical amongst their contemporaries, but as their accomplishments are demystified, the knowledge provides new methods for society’s struggle to meet lower level needs.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a framework with which we can structure our thoughts about one’s level of actualization. This is a form of technology, and illustrates a set of ideas that are tied to the discussion of technology in our class. It is an old theory, and new ideas have surpassed this explanation for how creatures behave, but just as an understanding of old technology can help one to adopt new technology, Maslow’s ideas should not be disregarded. In this simplistic theory lies an understanding of some of the most amazing strides in human development. As we look forward to the evolution of a new society embracing nanotechnology, there is some wisdom to glean from old Maslow, and in the process of looking at the small and simple, there is certainly value to a system that attempts to define the progress of human kind, from savage to transcendental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
