I’ve been musing over a book entitled The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (what I can understand of it). It is a wondrous contemplation by Danish science writer Tor Norretranders of current mathematical thought, the various attempts at discovering the Unified Field by physicists and its translation by social scientists.
One idea that thrills me is that we are subject to a theoretically calculated 11,000,000 bits of sensory stimulus per second, of which we consciously process 16-40. For me this is an echo of the Biblical observation, “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” Surely, at least for this sweet and finite mind of mine, those other 10,999,960 bits are sufficient to fill mansion upon mansion beyond my wildest dreaming.
Another idea from the book which has incited much reflection is that Information Theory (developed, by the way, by scientists at AT&T’s Bell Labs) established the means by which the most “information” can be shuttled fastest from one point to another. Those who developed the theory argued strongly that their definition of “information” was not that of cybernetics scientists. For the latter, information is synonymous with meaning, whereas to the former, meaning is totally irrelvant; gibberish is just as welcome via their media as is meaningful communication.
This means, the Bell Labs scientists don’t give a fig if this posting has any meaning for you, for me or for anyone else. What matters for them is that they create as many mechanical devices as possible that you and I will use to communicate our thoughts and/or gibberish. Then it is up to their advertisers to convince us that we must immediately transfer via their media any and every random synapse leap in my brain into your brain, and vice versa. Not because these synapse-leaping thoughts will actually add value to the life of the recipient, but because the use of the media will add profit to the service provider.
In contemplating this, I see how this computer (and its blooming “social media” iterations), my telephone, my cell phone, my radio, the TV I don’t have, fax machines, iPods, Blackberries, et al, are successful manifestations of this theory. I even find wondrously admirable the cleverness used to convince the current populace, not just of the convenience of these devices, but ever more insidiously, of the abject necessity of them. I find fascinating that adults are as equally vulnerable to this “need creation” through advertising and peer pressure, as are teenagers, who are often considered significantly more susceptible.
So what is the difference between “desire” and “need”? Why is one simply attractive and the other so much more compelling? My answer, thus far, is that desire connotes a union with something that we believe will enhance our lives. As John 10:10 ascribes to Jesus, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” That is an attractive promise. However, planting the idea, especially via a visceral sensation, of “need” is to communicate that the person is currently incomplete. One simply isn’t “whole” without the marketed thing. At it’s simplest, it appears to me to be the invitation of Love – Life as an ever-unfolding joy, or the threat of Fear – an abiding conviction that total ruin is just around the corner. As one holds to the idea that “life is survival,” a theme heavily reinforced via the various media noted above, then, although what could add joy might be nice, one is compelled to acquire whatever things promise to ensure survival.
While developing a marketing strategy for my books, I encountered many people convinced of the “need” for this specific sort of external intermediary to make us whole. The conviction that success in publishing cannot be had without first establishing a “social network” via constant blogging, contributing to others’ blogs, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, at a minimum, was espoused by many publishing professionals. Another example was when the California’s legislature chose to pass a law limiting the use of cell phones in cars. They didn’t dare go to the extent of denying cell phone use altogether. Even though it had been proven that it was not the physical device held in the hand that makes drivers heir to accidents, but the mental detachment from the driving experience which occurs during remote conversations. The pervasive conviction of the essential ”need” for cell phones was a collective trance far too embedded to counter. And thus, yet another “must have” device was born — the hands-free ear piece – for which its manufacturers now enjoy the blessing of law to ensure high-volume sales.
Of course, this method of “guiding” thought processes and thus patterns of living was imbued in our culture well before you and I landed on the planet. From stone tablets to porch-tossed daily papers, our parents and their parents’ parents were also subject to endemic thought “influence” if not outright control. The unquestioned reliance on external intermediaries reaches far beyond current technological marketing. For example, it also applies to medical science. Frequently, a patient is convinced (either before or after meeting with his doctor) that healing is only possible between his body’s parts via medicine or mechanical intervention. Yet, in the end, it is the body’s parts which must agree to reconnect in health, or not.
To remain primarily connected with one’s own mind may seem like a guarantee of failure and ostracism. I can clearly remember in elementary school when “Show and Tell” was replaced with “World News Sharing”. Growing up seemed to require turning one’s attention from personal experience and imagination to other people’s experiences, impressions and opinions. Certainly that ensured more attaboys and A’s. And yet, to the degree a human being withdraws her attention from the outside world and connects with her own genuine interests, fascinations, interpretations and imagination, only then does she have something of authentic value to bless her own life, to give to others and to enhance the world.
Another concept from this book is that the least valuable part of communication is the part that is actually spoken. For example, if I say, “I saw a Purple Finch,” that brief sentence is an inexact reference to a vast universe of experience I didn’t mention. So, the scientists determined, “It is not what is said, but what could be said” that matters much more in the transference of information. Then, once the sentence encounters your eye or ear, it reconfigures itself inside your imagination where you add color and size and depth and environment to complete your mind’s own image. The more you know about Purple Finches, how to use binoculars and what I look like, the more vivid your image is. So, conversely, what matters most for you is not what you understood of the statement at the time you heard it, but what you were already capable of understanding before you heard the statement. To put it in the scientists’ terms, “Not what is understood, but what could be understood.” If I said the sentence in Spanish, it would still represent my universe. While for you, if you didn’t know Spanish, it would be gibberish. Therefore, any event (and, by extension, the whole world), only has meaning for us to the extent we are prepared to comprehend meaning before we encounter it!
So, how do we prepare? Through daily communion with one’s own imagination and its self-chosen intentions. Going into the day lacking focus on one’s own intentions, a person’s attention is soon caught and their mind soon occupied by the intentions of others. “Imaginative men are forever casting forth enchantments, and all men, especially unimaginative men, are continually passing under their power.” Next time you flip open your cell phone to call or text your buddy just to say “Wha’s up?” as you are sipping on a Bud, notice the troll standing between you and your friend and consider just exactly how much you are paying him for the privelege of using his bridge.
There is a sweet freedom in recognizing that an array of devices and multiple media by which to tranfer the least valuable parts of communication are not essential to fulfilling human life. What matters far more for each of us is the construction of that universe within our own minds which is the actual source of the colors, textures and value in our lives. Only as you build the universe within yourself first can you hope to both understand and benefit from the glimpses into the universes within the people you encounter. Freed from the trance of incompleteness and the “need” for something outside themselves to make them whole, individuals may mindfully choose to play with, use and enjoy these various means and devices. Then, one is free to bloom with or without them.
