Argument 1: Digitalization causes disembodiment; does not match up with true state, as a result physical conditions worsen. We are largely oblivious to this, and in turn disasters are headed our way.
Evidence: Video's of digitalization, Feed lesions compared to our situation
Argument 2: Corporate propaganda.
Evidence: Feed, Tv, Use of Ads
Argument 3: Capitalist values (an extension of corporate propaganda, or at least a hand in hand kinda thing).
Evidence: Everything bad is good for you, Wall-E
--> UPDATE: After considering Ali Jo's comments I agree that everything is a part of reality; however I still stand by my thesis on the grounds that if our physical experiences are neglected, it shall cause a great deal of destruction and stress on the world, while there will be no such consequence if our digital experiences are neglected. In other words, while both physical and digital states are real, only one is directly tied to our ability to survive, and allowing us to have the human experience in the first place. I'll expand and add to this in my paper.
Hey Ellen.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thesis... I especially appreciate that you are going to talk about the "consumer farming" aspect of digitalization, since I think that's probably the most dangerous thing about this whole phenomenon.
I'm also intrigued by the distinction you create between bodily awareness and virtual awareness. You seem to believe that the "true" state of being is present and bodily, and while I'm sometimes inclined to agree, you need to substantiate that claim with alot of evidence because it's such a subjective and binary argument.
What makes one state of being more "true" than another? All we have are our sensory organs, a consciousness and (in my opinion) a spirit (which perhaps is born from all of these things or maybe something else) to represent an estimation of "reality". What if the headphones and LCD screens we have come to despise are actually the ears and eyes of our computers? What if when we go to sleep, our computers and texting machines are blogging to eachother about how instead of looking at these "human" representations of reality, we should just look at eachothers SCREENS to see the truth!
This is where the whole argument gets confusing. I agree that the tangible, "Romantic" world is more meaningful and enjoyable, but not for the same reasons you appear to lay out.
There is no such thing as "true" and "false". Everything in our universe, whether it's ethical or not, is a natural and indigenous part of REALITY. If it can be fathomed, it's natural. It's ineffective to establish your stance against digitalization on the grounds of "well, digitalization is false and unnatural and the meat world is REAL" because if you zoom out, everything is real. Your arguments would be so much stronger if you could really flesh out the specific reasons why digitalization has a negative (but entirely REAL) impact on our lives, instead of creating a binary debate where one thing is false and the other is true. Allow room for nuance in your paper. You probably will anyway. :)
I like your choice of evidence. I'm confident this paper will be great and I can't wait to read it.
My feedback may seem a little harsh but my comments tend to be tangential so understand that my rant isn't directed at you. I'm just sharing. Bare with me :).
Take care <3