Boundaries of Unity...HUmanity...and Secularization of Fear.
or..Global Sacred of Power


What makes us humane? What makes us human? What does it mean to participate in an anthropological machine (Agamben) or in a cyborg reality? What is reality of the world today?
Today, October 10, 2006, a day after North Korea tested its nuclear bomb, a day after...
On the news, some man from Ottawa, a nuclear weapon specialist announced that we should not react to this event, we should move on with our lives as this had never happened. His ironic smile made me wonder what it means to be a nuclear weapon specialist. What and who gives him power to speak on behalf of the scientific authority on CtVNews to say that there is nothing special in nuclear explosions. Of course, given the fact that he makes living on making them! What does this tell us about power that media has to shape our opinions! And what does this commentary tell us about those who stand behind the power of science and technology?
Again the world is united in its responses to the nuke blast: once radical now conventional environmental groups organized worldwide protests to stop nuclear race; UN sets up a new agenda with a new leader (who happens to be from South Korea, what a coincidence, what a polarization of power struggles); media interviews experts as they know better how we should live...The world is shaken not only by the blast but by fear...
Fear is what lies at the bottom of power relations, hierarchy, and religions...Hope is what hanging on the edge of conventional dichotomies. For example, in culture/nature dualism, hope would be seen in politics of sacred as empirical foundation for transcendence of fear. Armageddon is coming...North Korea just proved it yesterday...Peace is sacred but impossible to achieve without war. This is another dualism that I do not want to accept. Once polarized by powerful authoritative men, war has become a means of achieving piece, a legitimate manoeuvre to expand the power.
As Foucault says that war is necessary to achieve control...(Foucault 1976). Peace is necessary to justify war.
What about our global sacred? What about it?! It becomes a tool for social and cultural interpretations and constructions to celebrate power or to conceal it, to impose new definitions on the old principles, to re-state values and so on...The image is still the image..Meaning is in the eyes of a beholder, just like beauty..
Do we as human species seek for unity with a some kind of a global totality? Or Do we look for ways out of the global totality of power that has been played out assuming the role of a sacred?

















Breakthrough or what it means to be a human in a technocratic society

Meaning is an interesting step stone on the road towards understanding how technology and spirituality get superimposed upon each other. Meaning is like naming; it gives us power to know, to manipulate, to categorize, to act upon. Meaning also depends upon a context. For example, technology...is a broad and vague concept, or a name that we give to certain things or processes. Because of the long history, technology has been incarnated into various forms and appearances. What we think today is art, for example, was once a mere technological advancement. In this way, creativity becomes expressed through technology, and technology attains some spiritual meanings. Then, we look at the word "spirituality" and see as many meanings as with the word "technology". Historical analysis of the term shifts the meaning in different directions that are dependent upon cultural backgrounds, political power struggles etc (examples of these processes may be seen in Noble's book, and examples of how spirituality gets defined or not defined may be seen in "Religion and Spirituality" article)
The question now becomes what does it mean to be a human being in this world of multiple meanings where technology is no longer a tool but a form of our existence? Again, I point out the notion of choices that we think we have in terms of participating in the system. And this is where one may begin to feel uncertain, pessimistic, and powerless. Because of the story that we were told that science and faith in progress will lead us to the ultimate end, that rationality and objectivism are ways out of ignorance. This story constitutes of what we know as the dominant ideology. And, hey, Pope the other day re-told the story for us, emphasizing ideas of truth and rationality, putting on the other side of the truth everything irrational and therefore violent. What a redundancy! We've heard that back in the days of inquisition. Anyway, the dominant story is about progress, where technology is a form and spirituality is a means of justifying the story. Maybe not spirituality per se, but religiousness which is more institutionalized, and authoritative.
As a rational species, we have a mission to grow and develop into progressive individuals, to give birth to more rational species...This rationality has been given to us by One God. In order to understand Him better , we should study science. Once we have this knowledge, we become closer to God, therefore we have more power!!POwer!!!! Here we come to point where meanings come into play. We can define power in terms of spirituality to conceal elements of control and manipulation. Or we can define it in terms of technology, to apply mechanistic and scientific terms to justify rationality. Power becomes a token in this game of technocratic society.
Participation in someone's game for power is the most terrifying thing. Because it takes your whole self, ties your ability to chose...becomes a part of "making sense"...This is what frightens me in this game of being human...Participation in making machines out of flesh...making choices...being spiritual....

Indeed, technology has been immersed in us, manifested through us, and manipulated by us. What I mean by "us" is simply human beings as a species. The development of technology has been dominated by powerful men in their pursuits for more power through transcendence, transcendence of everything. Mission to save the world by manipulating and dominating, suppressing and oppressing has become possible. And now we have everything from atomic bombs to genetic remainders of some dinosaur in our tomatoes. The pope announces the Holy war against The Other according to the scriptures to make sure that Armageddon does come true. Violence against violence. Kill them before they kill you. "them" could be anyone, anyone who doesn't follow the dominant mindset. Religion has always been at the core of humans pursuits for some reasons, justifications for wars against nature, for technological innovations. And here we have "spirituality and technology".
But to generalize technology as mere evil power to attain enlightenment would be too simple. As a matter of fact, technology is such a complex reality in its own that one needs to observe one's own world to find residues of technology on merely everything. As I type this sentence, I can't stop being a "techno-human". Even when I take a pen instead to overcome my cynical attitude, I am still using technology to achieve my needs for writing. Even when I think of creativity, and making the world beautiful by painting some image, I am still using a brush or some other technological devices. If I decide to become one with nature, to transcend the urban reality by going into the woods, I bring my sleeping bag and use transportation to get there. And so what? What difference does it make? Am I swinging between antitechnological anarchist and cynical nature lover with a hammer? Or, perhaps, there is a difference. Difference lies in the realm of choices. Choices that I consciously make as a human, as a member of the society. If I chose not to support pharmaceutical companies, I will also stop participating in the war machine. Indirectly of course. But then I will be suffering from headaches with no aspirin. What choices do we have? Or what choices has been left for us by those who are in power of technology.?
---------
To add to the idea that we have a choice, and what that choice may be, I would like to offer Atwood's words as an illustration, or an indirect illustration to what I've written on how we are bound to technology....

I am the cause, I am a stockpile of chemical toys,
my body is a deadly gadget, I reach out in love,
my hands are guns,my good intentions are completely lethal...

Each time I hit a key on my electric typewriter,
speaking of peaceful trees another village explodes

Margaret Atwood, "It is Dangerous To Read Newspapers", in The Animals in That Country, 1968