The Incremental Futurist

[wolven7]

We aren't good at knowing what the whole future will look like because we aren't good at knowing how the context and syntax of meaning-- that which arises from between the interplay of present factors-- will change.

Because the future arives in incriments and process flow, the ways we relate to it change that way, as well. We are in a constant state of parallax with the meaning of the future.

For instance: In the 2015 parts of Back to the Future II, the presence of video phone technology was ubiquitous, and that trope was a major portion of the future envisioned in the 1980's. This is because we couldn't conceive of a world in which the need and desire to see someone, in order to connect with them, to empathize with them, to know them. Now, four years from that projected date? I've never seen the moving faces or heard the living voices-- either digitally processed or minimally mediated-- of i'd say about 33% of my friends.

"Being Connected" to someone means something different now.

Our technology changes us, obviously, but not only that: We simply change. Thoughts, patterns, meanings, all change, as we grow and do new things and meet new people and encounter new concepts and slowly discoverccreate what it means to be a person in a societal context with other people.

We are bad at predicting the future, because we have no idea what it will mean to be us, then, and what that will cause us to do and create.

Obviously

Comments

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

the reason video phones never caught on is because actually most people control their facetime socializing and they want to keep it that way. Facetime requires energy and attention of a sort that texting and emailing and RT chatting just don't. Because most people still work and/or school outside the home there's an certain amount of facetime they are forced to endure, stepping away from forced facetime means you will want to control your AMAP.

Did you ever read "I'm okay/you're okay"? The concept of "strokes" is an excellent one and gives rudimentary explanation of social machinations in facetime. But those rules don't really apply in cybersocializing. I can choose to accept strokes or I can ignore then, no harm no foul. If I reach out to someone they have the same choice and whatever they choose there is no harm/no foul. IT can get deeper into it depending on the two persons prior realtime relationship and how long things go on etc etc but by all accounts either party can sever the relationship most times with almost no fracas or overly hurt feelings.

That said, have you read Spider Robinson's Lifehouse Trilogy?
You should. Like really.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Nice and cheap! (http://www.webscription.net/s-86-spider-robinson.aspx)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I think those factors actually feed into each other, really well.

I'll take a look.

[pangeramorrow.livejournal.com]

obviously.

I was going to thank you for the birthday wishes on facebook, but I thought it was more appropriate here to the move faithful livejournal writer I know. What's the difference between parallax and paradox?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You're more than welcome. :)

Parallax is the measurement of distance and motion relative to two bodies or points of view. They don't conflict, so much as add into each other and allow us to better understand where something rests.

But if the measuring bodies/POVs themselves are moving, parallax becomes more difficult and complex.

[pangeramorrow.livejournal.com]

gah! move=most

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I figured as much. I was just gonna let it slide :)

OT

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

I thought this might interest you - lengthy new yorker article worth the time to read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Re: OT

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. Thank you for that.