Augmented Reality
The world is losing its magic. The rivers are no longer deities and the Nymphs that Socrates knew were on his walk with Phaedrus are not acknowledged anymore. Today we live in a strictly material world, a boring world, a scientific world where rocks are rocks and nature is man-made. Beautiful vistas are just that – beautiful, worthy of a picture but no longer a fountain of sublime transcendental glimmers. And yet, despite closing ourselves to the immaterial and denying the mystery of existence, the sable shadow still haunts us. So, we keep it at bay with new diversions and dazzling distractions.
Every modern generation has felt the alarming emptiness of life and has sensed that the horizon is bleak. Our banal society has long offered us nothing but the continued march of technological suicide, the extinction of biodiversity and the leveling down of infodiversity. We are wasting away our lives in long hours in front of screens, pushing pixels and accruing overtime. Bleary eyed, in a digital daze, we gulp down what we’re given and try not to think about the existential walls that are closing in as our precious years slip through our fingers, never to return again.
Faced with the shallowness of our existence, a life lived on the surface of reality, we desperately try to re-create the magical feeling that has been lost. But we are so far gone that the only alchemy we know is made of silicon chips and computer code. Still, our mercurial wizards with laptop laboratories combine these two technologies, frantically seeking the incantation for re-enchantment. But their methodologies are materialist and their tools far too modern – all that comes from their labors are expensive rose-colored glasses.
They call it augmented reality, a system for looking through the machine’s eyes, a way of seeing that replaces imagination with computer animation. And while our rocks may still be rocks, with this technology in hand, they promise us that our declining world will be bearable. That the dirt, grime and pollution need not be cleansed for through the screen everything is shiny and clean. And forget, of course, a revolution that razes this world because we can do it on our machines, safe and legally. Why destroy an oppressive reality when we can simply live in a “liberating” fantasy?
Against those who claim that augmented reality is the future of activism, we need only say: Everyone may wear blinders but the world will still stink of decay.
Micah White is a contributing editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley and is writing a book about mental environmentalism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
68 comments on the article “Augmented Reality”
Displaying 21 - 30 of 68
Page 3 of 7
Anonymous
Leo,
You attack the "poverty of political complexity and historical contextualization" but all you offer is the lame response that we ought to blame "ignorance and complacency".
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the individual level and not the structural or meta-level. Can we really say that it is the ignorance and complacency of individuals that is to blame more than the society which has crafted these ignorant and complacent individuals?
Anonymous
Leo,
You attack the "poverty of political complexity and historical contextualization" but all you offer is the lame response that we ought to blame "ignorance and complacency".
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the individual level and not the structural or meta-level. Can we really say that it is the ignorance and complacency of individuals that is to blame more than the society which has crafted these ignorant and complacent individuals?
Leo Rubinkowski
I thought I might step into trouble here, and I respect your calling me out about it.
I agree that your closing question is an important one, Anonymous. The line is blurry, and the point where blame should fall slides back and forth over that line: society or the individual? I suspect you'll agree that both camps bear the weight of responsibility, though how that weight is shared out is up for debate. A case by case analysis seems best for assigning primary responsibility.
I do believe that there are structures, and that they do function to perpetuate themselves. I don't think that they're shooting-up mindless addicts. (You did not imply that, I know. I only mean to bring up an extreme view that I don't agree with, if only for clarification of my own beliefs.) They are encouraging dependence, though...uncritical (and perhaps unconscious) mobilization.
The structures aren't necessarily malevolent. Any ideology is or is the tool of an abstract social structure (abstract only in that the members act, not the structure). What I was pushing at by bringing up "ignorance and complacency" is the possibility that the posts on this site might become lazy. When the posts lack a particular target, examples, or observations to ground their arguments and claims, I feel like I'm reading buzzwords strung together and aimed at evoking visceral response alone. Visceral response can be good, but it deserves to be tempered with intellectual investigation and critique. Indeed, I come here for a visceral jolt...something to help me get up and get moving when I am having trouble doing it myself.
But action without aim is often wasted. Angry, indignant, and/or frustrated rhetoric without a clear target reduces the reality of the world we're tasked with preserving/saving to a binary of good guys (presumably, Adbusters) and bad guys (consumerism). Just as the responsibility for how the world works is not easily placed, neither are the protagonists and antagonists so easily identified. As much as I read to get a visceral reaction, I am looking for other points of view, for novel analysis, and to be made aware. Reminiscence about a nondescript idealized past that may never have been and calls to action against the catch-all evils of "consumerism" and "technology" do readers little to no good. Such writing comes across as a knee-jerk bugle-call for uncritical mobilization or as an invitation to make the often false choice between Us and Them. I think it has the potential to breed complacency in activist thinking.
I have seen better on this site, and I have every reason to expect better.
I hope that the above has clarified my thoughts and my reasons for posting them, and that you will accept my apologies for not making myself more clear in the original comment.
Finally, if you are the same Anonymous who made posts at 10:22 and 10:26 PM...thank you for making those comments. I agree whole-heartedly on both counts.
Leo Rubinkowski
I thought I might step into trouble here, and I respect your calling me out about it.
I agree that your closing question is an important one, Anonymous. The line is blurry, and the point where blame should fall slides back and forth over that line: society or the individual? I suspect you'll agree that both camps bear the weight of responsibility, though how that weight is shared out is up for debate. A case by case analysis seems best for assigning primary responsibility.
I do believe that there are structures, and that they do function to perpetuate themselves. I don't think that they're shooting-up mindless addicts. (You did not imply that, I know. I only mean to bring up an extreme view that I don't agree with, if only for clarification of my own beliefs.) They are encouraging dependence, though...uncritical (and perhaps unconscious) mobilization.
The structures aren't necessarily malevolent. Any ideology is or is the tool of an abstract social structure (abstract only in that the members act, not the structure). What I was pushing at by bringing up "ignorance and complacency" is the possibility that the posts on this site might become lazy. When the posts lack a particular target, examples, or observations to ground their arguments and claims, I feel like I'm reading buzzwords strung together and aimed at evoking visceral response alone. Visceral response can be good, but it deserves to be tempered with intellectual investigation and critique. Indeed, I come here for a visceral jolt...something to help me get up and get moving when I am having trouble doing it myself.
But action without aim is often wasted. Angry, indignant, and/or frustrated rhetoric without a clear target reduces the reality of the world we're tasked with preserving/saving to a binary of good guys (presumably, Adbusters) and bad guys (consumerism). Just as the responsibility for how the world works is not easily placed, neither are the protagonists and antagonists so easily identified. As much as I read to get a visceral reaction, I am looking for other points of view, for novel analysis, and to be made aware. Reminiscence about a nondescript idealized past that may never have been and calls to action against the catch-all evils of "consumerism" and "technology" do readers little to no good. Such writing comes across as a knee-jerk bugle-call for uncritical mobilization or as an invitation to make the often false choice between Us and Them. I think it has the potential to breed complacency in activist thinking.
I have seen better on this site, and I have every reason to expect better.
I hope that the above has clarified my thoughts and my reasons for posting them, and that you will accept my apologies for not making myself more clear in the original comment.
Finally, if you are the same Anonymous who made posts at 10:22 and 10:26 PM...thank you for making those comments. I agree whole-heartedly on both counts.
Leo Rubinkowski
The loss of magic is not a tactic of scaremongering but instead a philosophical reflection on our times. Whereas previously, the world was inhabited by immaterial forces, now everything is material. In a very real sense, there is less "magic" in the world.
-------
No one is denying that technology does not do "amazing" things. I am reminded of the slave narrative of Olaudah Equiano: at one point, he sees through a telescope for the first time and is instantly blown away by the magic of the device. He believes that the telescope is literally magical. So yes, technology can give us certain kinds of magic -- it can bring what is far away close to us and it can give us screens that can display many things.
But, you must also admit that there is a downside, that there is a decrease of life that corresponds to technology. An obvious example is the amazing mass extinction that is going on right now, right outside your door. You can watch any nature television show you want -- but you'll never have those extinct animals back.
While our virtual worlds are ever lusher, our real world is more barren.
-----------------
Every technology that enhances what we can do, simultaneously decreases what we can do.
example: everyone can calculate hard equations using a calculator, but few can do it in their heads anymore.
what will happen when we outsource imagination to our machines, because it is easier to just look through a pair of augmented reality goggles?
------------
After posting an initial response, comments and replies left by Anonymous2 became visible. I'm sorry to double dip, but I can't let allow the confusion therein to go unnoticed.
"Whereas previously, the world was inhabited by immaterial forces, now everything is material. In a very real sense, there is less "magic" in the world."
Despite the quotes around "magic," you talk as if any of those immaterial forces actually existed. Be clear...they never did exist, they do not exist, and they never will exist. Ignorance is dying, with wonderment alongside, too, but the two are not synonymous.
"An obvious example is the amazing mass extinction that is going on right now, right outside your door. You can watch any nature television show you want -- but you'll never have those extinct animals back....While our virtual worlds are ever lusher, our real world is more barren."
Technology's advance does not necessitate human misuse. Impartial and unstudied application is the crime, not discovery. Yes, there are unforeseen consequences of the pre-mature application of science for practical purposes, as there have always been. So it goes. In that case, indifference is the crime, not discovery.
"Every technology that enhances what we can do, simultaneously decreases what we can do....example: everyone can calculate hard equations using a calculator, but few can do it in their heads anymore....what will happen when we outsource imagination to our machines, because it is easier to just look through a pair of augmented reality goggles?"
Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with technology. Don't blame the calculator for the student who doesn't know his or her multiplication tables or can't find a derivative. Blame the student. And please do not imagine that the world is approaching a Matrix- or Cybertron-like reality. We are not. There is imagination enough in the sciences to illuminate the world...I dare say it has, both literally and figuratively.
No tool makes a moral decision...only the user. So please, stop condemning the tool.
Leo Rubinkowski
The loss of magic is not a tactic of scaremongering but instead a philosophical reflection on our times. Whereas previously, the world was inhabited by immaterial forces, now everything is material. In a very real sense, there is less "magic" in the world.
-------
No one is denying that technology does not do "amazing" things. I am reminded of the slave narrative of Olaudah Equiano: at one point, he sees through a telescope for the first time and is instantly blown away by the magic of the device. He believes that the telescope is literally magical. So yes, technology can give us certain kinds of magic -- it can bring what is far away close to us and it can give us screens that can display many things.
But, you must also admit that there is a downside, that there is a decrease of life that corresponds to technology. An obvious example is the amazing mass extinction that is going on right now, right outside your door. You can watch any nature television show you want -- but you'll never have those extinct animals back.
While our virtual worlds are ever lusher, our real world is more barren.
-----------------
Every technology that enhances what we can do, simultaneously decreases what we can do.
example: everyone can calculate hard equations using a calculator, but few can do it in their heads anymore.
what will happen when we outsource imagination to our machines, because it is easier to just look through a pair of augmented reality goggles?
------------
After posting an initial response, comments and replies left by Anonymous2 became visible. I'm sorry to double dip, but I can't let allow the confusion therein to go unnoticed.
"Whereas previously, the world was inhabited by immaterial forces, now everything is material. In a very real sense, there is less "magic" in the world."
Despite the quotes around "magic," you talk as if any of those immaterial forces actually existed. Be clear...they never did exist, they do not exist, and they never will exist. Ignorance is dying, with wonderment alongside, too, but the two are not synonymous.
"An obvious example is the amazing mass extinction that is going on right now, right outside your door. You can watch any nature television show you want -- but you'll never have those extinct animals back....While our virtual worlds are ever lusher, our real world is more barren."
Technology's advance does not necessitate human misuse. Impartial and unstudied application is the crime, not discovery. Yes, there are unforeseen consequences of the pre-mature application of science for practical purposes, as there have always been. So it goes. In that case, indifference is the crime, not discovery.
"Every technology that enhances what we can do, simultaneously decreases what we can do....example: everyone can calculate hard equations using a calculator, but few can do it in their heads anymore....what will happen when we outsource imagination to our machines, because it is easier to just look through a pair of augmented reality goggles?"
Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with technology. Don't blame the calculator for the student who doesn't know his or her multiplication tables or can't find a derivative. Blame the student. And please do not imagine that the world is approaching a Matrix- or Cybertron-like reality. We are not. There is imagination enough in the sciences to illuminate the world...I dare say it has, both literally and figuratively.
No tool makes a moral decision...only the user. So please, stop condemning the tool.
Anonymous2
Leo,
It is time for you to read more Heidegger.
a) You write:
"Despite the quotes around "magic," you talk as if any of those immaterial forces actually existed. Be clear...they never did exist, they do not exist, and they never will exist."
My response: I totally disagree with you. The immaterial forces absolutely DID exist. The author of the above article only alludes to it briefly, but go and consult the dialogue called Phaedrus by Plato and you will see that Socrates refers in a very real way to the presence of nymphs. He even says that they are influencing his speech. It would be a modern fallacy to think that he is speaking in pure metaphor. These nymphs did exist for Socrates in a very real way.
b) You claim that "No tool makes a moral decision"
This is a major misunderstanding of technology. Please read Heidegger's "A Question Concerning Technology". It is absolutely false to say that technology is a neutral tool.
Anonymous2
Leo,
It is time for you to read more Heidegger.
a) You write:
"Despite the quotes around "magic," you talk as if any of those immaterial forces actually existed. Be clear...they never did exist, they do not exist, and they never will exist."
My response: I totally disagree with you. The immaterial forces absolutely DID exist. The author of the above article only alludes to it briefly, but go and consult the dialogue called Phaedrus by Plato and you will see that Socrates refers in a very real way to the presence of nymphs. He even says that they are influencing his speech. It would be a modern fallacy to think that he is speaking in pure metaphor. These nymphs did exist for Socrates in a very real way.
b) You claim that "No tool makes a moral decision"
This is a major misunderstanding of technology. Please read Heidegger's "A Question Concerning Technology". It is absolutely false to say that technology is a neutral tool.
Anonymous
Geez way to leave a comment that's longer than the article
Anonymous
Geez way to leave a comment that's longer than the article
Pages
Add a new comment