The Sociological Cycle of Technologically Mediated Perfection

These are thoughts in response to Eric Davis’ article, “The Spiritual Cyborg”, which appears in Issue 7 of Cybersociology (September 1999).   http://www.cybersociology.com/files/7_erikdavis_html.html

In Davis’ analysis of technology’s role in religion and spirituality, it is made evident that (at least) mechanics can be used as both a metaphor for mind and body, as well as a tool for spiritual change.  He uses two modern spiritual movements as examples, Gurdkieff’s Fourth Way and Ron Hubbard’s Scientology, which loosely represent the positive and negative implementations of technology in mysticism respectfully.  But regardless of Davis’ opinions concerning the ethical impacts of technology in religion, what carries over between the two examples are the ideas that: a) the mind functions like a computer, b) there is a higher level of consciousness in humans which can identify, understand, and eventually manipulate these mechanized functions, c) because of the similarities between our identity and our machines, we can use what we create to change who we are (like using a mirror to change your appearance), and d) Through the use of technology, we can transcend nature, and thus move into the realm of the divine.  But what is it about tools like the internet, computing, electronics, etc which would enable us to see the truth about reality?  Is our ability to create some kind of indication that we were meant to do more than appreciate what we have, and are our creations merely a means of becoming superhuman cyborgs? In the last post, it was asserted that technology (specifically the internet) was at best a reflection of reality, and was able to speed up, rearrange, and simplify things, but incapable of adding anything new to society.  This article seems to purport the opposite in its claims of technologically mediated enlightenment, but in fact (as Stewart Lamont,a detractor of Scientology claims) this idea is simply a restatement of age old thought, and it could be further construed as a form of shammanism for the new millennium.  Gnosticism had put forth the idea of human transcendence  within the idea of a flawed creator being, who made an imperfect universe where creatures could eventually come to recognize imperfection, and seek to move away from it through gnosis, or fusion with the truth (outside of everything the creator had given us).  Within the West, there has been a clear movement away from nature, and indeed the sentiment that people cannot maximize progress in nature has caused society to move away from it, and develop our own means of production.  Perhaps this technologically mediated progression away from the natural world is an indication of the inherent “truth” present in machines, as they seem to be an unfiltered manifestation of our will, and thus the best means of attaining our goals (the main one being perfection of course).  It then only seems natural that we would want to fuse with this means in order to eventually shed ourselves of our “limiting” natural body, and have unfiltered access into our goals and ambitions.  So in fact, technology’s inherent ability to clean up our naturally chaotic will is what makes it such an appealing means for seeing the truth outside of reality (the natural universe).  In short, it seems that to shed our God given identity (body and mind) is to see the truth outside of reality (the self which can identify imperfection), and thus a different means of transcendence has emerged.  From idols to literature to the internet, the truth outside of ourselves is being constantly rearanged, yet continues to remain the same.

Technologically Mediated Faith?

This is a response to the article posted on <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/jacobs.html> entitled ”Virtually Sacred: The performance of Asynchronous Cyber-Rituals in Online Spaces” by Stephen Jacobs. Some concerns regarding the usage of online space as a place for “sacred” practice stem from the support this article gives to the credibility of online churches and temples.  The article does not purport (as many do)  that the online space provides any additional spiritual awareness/insight, nor does it claim that any new form of spiritual expression has yet come from online worship.  However, this article does support the notion that online space can be used by “real” (profane) institutions to express established forms of worship, such as Prayer and Puja.  In his conclusion, Jacobs states that, “The Virtual Church can be considered as an extension of the physical church located in geographical space. The Virtual Temple can be considered as being homologous to domestic shrines. In this way, both sites can be considered successful, in that they fulfil the main intent of their designers. However, despite providing a new arena, these examples do not seem to have a particularly significant impact as yet on the way in which sacred space is conceived or ritual is performed.”  What is concerning about this conclusion is the fact that sacred space has become intertwined with corporate, or capitalist space.  Access to online space is not free, and in fact owned by a litany of communication companies such as Time Warner and Viacom.  In assuming that Jacobs has a point, and religious expression can legitimately be expressed online, then is is only rational to see that access to this space is limited, and indeed controlled by money.  This new form of religious expression is accessible primarily to those in the first world, who either have enough money to afford their own computer and internet access, or are able to access a public internet station. Either way, someone has to pay for access to the virtual space before one can engage in religious sacrament.  This concern may be a shortsighted view, which could be rectified as the internet becomes more ingrained internationally (The Bible was, and is limited to those who can afford the book, and who know how to read, yet it is legitimate), but what refuses to go away is the idea that the technology itself is a limiting factor.  What this means is that access to true spirituality should not have to be mediated though man’s creation, and the fact that the technology caps the amount of people involved (through money and access), and the level of understanding (Jacob’s conclusion, which states that at best, the internet replicates existing ideas), means that the technology may itself be a limiting factor in spiritual understanding, and thus should be dismissed when attempting to understand God.