Technology has essentially broken the barriers of communication. “A Manifesto For Cyborgs” intimates that we are man merging with machine. This idea is also spoken about in the article “False Friendship,” with the author closing by saying: “We have given our hearts to machines and now we are turning into machines.” In addition, Pranav Mistry’s idea to turn everyday objects into tactile technological platforms is bringing forth that merger, an idea he believes will make people more “human,” even though to me it seems more like people will be further merging into machine by having more tactility with technology rather than physical contact with other people. We are losing physical tactility as the evolution of technology progresses. We are fazing out physical printed books in favor of text displayed through a computer screen, and the written and spoken word is being overshadowed by the text-composed message. In the future, I think that Pranav Mistry’s ideas will become a common reality since we have already reached the point of tactile technology through devices like the iPad and iPhone. In accordance with this, Mistry’s techniques seem like the next logical step.
In relation, in the Borges excerpt of “The Garden of Forking Paths,” the creation of a labyrinth encompassing the past, present and future by a man named Tsui Pen is observed. The story is about the examination of his dying devotion to his work to create a labyrinthian novel. He placed himself in complete isolation in order to complete his work, which would be infinite. It would also offer the realization of innumerable futures. This relates to the whole idea of man and machine together, perhaps not a physical merger at this point, but a mental merger where the man was so obsessed with his creation of a futuristic dichotomy that it completely polarized him from people and he essentially became his work, thus merging with it in that way. In other words, it is like Tsui Pen’s work speaks for him just as today machines speak for us. The written or now typed word is ultimately relied upon to deliver any messages or communication.
“A Manifesto For Cyborgs” seems to also bring up issues of identity. Man merging with machine. How could a cyborg be classified. Here we may have one possible way that science and the humanities could come together. Is a cyborg living? If so then could a cyborg be described as an organism. Maybe this new cyborg technology will change the way we use language to describe what is living in order to clearly differentiate a cyborg from full human.
I agree that Mistry’s ideas seem like the next logical step, but my concern is that because it is logical and affordable, many people (mainly those crazy executives) won’t allow it to happen. Does this concern anyone else as well? I ask this because in several articles the idea of addressing technology as a means of business and money-making has changed how some people view digital technology as a whole. Not to mention the capitalism and bourgeois mentality as well (you can see the Kroker/Weinstein article for more on this). Just want to know other people’s thoughts on this.