Our mode of relating 2 each other makes a difference as well. 4 example, if most of a relationship is spent say, on the phone, and then suddenly the persons involved get thrust into an extended period of direct close physical proximity, then the dynamic of that relationship gets shifted, being that the majority of 1 on 1 communication is non verbal. This then means a reassessment in order find comfort in that relationship so as 2 conduct said relationship going 4ward, or assess the future level of investment in it. So, changes in the mode of relating bring abt changes in perception, which then changes how we relate.

What made me really pree this ting is an event I an’ I witnessed abt a year back that kept bugging I. 1 of I an’ I generals, as well as myself, was passing thru a train station when he met a female friend going the opposite way. After the usual “hi, how r u, what u been up 2” phase, they began to exchanges info abt people that they both kno, who saw who where, reh teh teh… The bredren then said that he kept in touch with a 1 known 2 both on facebook. The sistren then asked him “r we friends?” , to which he replied, “I don’t kno… when I get home I’ll check!”.

R we friends???

Now (interweb) social networking is an emerging phenomenon in the human experience. Its still 2 early 2 give definitive data on its impact on us individually or as a whole, and I’m no sociologist (til I touch some henny, at least), but it’s somewhat apparent that wherever interweb usage is the norm, i.e. most of the planet, people not only define (and redefine) relationships, but even themselves thru social networks. In fact, entire communities’ r generated solely thru this device. For many, this is the preferred method of finding a partner or spouse, or the bringing 2gether of people for an event. Bonds r forged and broken within this space. Yet despite the fact that many servers, untold miles of cables, and vast amounts of memory help 2 build and maintain this construct, most of the space on which all this and more happens occurs on mental real estate. We, all of us, participants or not, by virtue of our belief and investment in this virtual plane of existence, give life 2 the beast.

We invest the cranial capacity that makes the endless rows of code, the images, and the hardware in2 a functional environment (the irony that u may well b read this via a screen is not lost). With new communities come new social conventions, new protocols (both in the construction of the device and the application in real-time, if there is such a thing), new mores.

I came across a study that said that increased usage of the interweb brings abt a rewiring of the neural pathways… yes Iyah, changing the way the brain functions. Brain adjustment. Suddenly, 5% teachings seem like mathematics, and the great works of sci fi scribes r somewhat prophetic. Indeed, I was reasoning with a nex’ I, who has strong knowledge of self. He relayed that in recent times that he not only found a gr8r preoccupation with social networking, but that even his thought processes had somehow shifted.

I an’I overstands how the device has increasingly become the currency of exchange in the marketplace of the self, some avatar or web space plot (myspace, MSN, facebook page endless others) must exist in order 2 even seem as if there is a reason 2 b taken seriously. Yet all this representation is based on a system that is supposedly free. The masses r now liberated and tru expression can now b found. So why is it that the scope of what is expressed, and the comprehension of the world we live in, is bcoming narrower? The rise of celebrity as genuine matters of pertinent interest, the growing need 2 express the minutia daily life, the increasing commonality of mass opinion making, the coalescing of the vibrant youth in2 an inert mass subject 2 the whims of polytricksters and  glossy imagery, whilst doped up on the opium of the nation… is this the liberation?

U kno that study, it also said that this rewiring of the neural pathways cld remap the brain 2 look something like, well, the interweb. Huh. I also came across a dotcom entrepreneur who read the same study and was so alarmed by this that he created a website whose only function was 2 make the visitor not interact with the interweb and merely observe imagery 4 just 2 minutes. Over half of all users failed.

So, Wha’ppen Daadi? How did all this just happen? We have a brave new world, full of wonders 4 every1 2 explore, and it just is… what it is. And remember, we still have conventions and mores that guide us within this new socialisation. Brother Malcolm 1ce said that if the rain is real, how can the circumstances that cause the rain b unreal? Where r the leaders within these new communities? Who even leads the masses in this socialisation? 2 what end? All devices, all systems, r built on rules. So even the social network must be built, engineered, in order 2 exist, and engineers will have 2 maintain and redesign the device as its need 4 gr8r capacity grows. Social engineering 4 the brave new world.

Still can’t shake that conversation tho. “R we friends?”. Here’s the thing grasshopper. U, I, all of us still provide the mental real estate that makes all this possible. It’s the willingness of I an’ I, us, them, that gives life to it. We acquiesce our overstanding of the organic in order 2 b compliant with the virtual in a bid 2 get on, move up, redefine, belong. Everybody needs 2 belong, form identity and connect, and the funny thing is that actually we socialise less. And this is a good thing, we’re told. The way 4ward, the future. And tell u the truth, I despair, bcos kno matter what any1 says, ain’t nothing like the real thing, baby. 2 gather in fellowship, 2 vibe with a 1, even 2 stand and experience the harmony and melody of voice. The less we feel, the less we have the capacity 2 empathise with each other and keep at bay apathy. The re-socialisation of the masses, the bigger investment in our new communities may well cost us that which defines humanity.

But then again, is this not the time of redefinition? Mayb I an’ I have it wrong. Mayb that now makes me an anachronism. Why shdn’t the definition of friendship b a code based electrical connection in a people fuelled virtual existence. I bet HG Wells wld laugh his ass off that constructs and devices dictate whether a relationship between 2 humans is a reality. Or he’d weep.

“The formula ‘two and two make five’ is not without its attractions.”  Fyodor Dostoevsky

…and so it wld seem, so it wld seem…

p.l.h.o.

Corrd the Seeker