In exploring the readings a bit further, it was clear that my entry for last week was way off of the mark. In traditional form, I did what most students do; analyze the reading from a literary perspective (sometimes including a comparison or contrast, looking at setting, denouement, and etcetera). In going back, I realized that this is perhaps due in part to my lack of technological understanding. While I do have a “smart” phone, I think it is really dumb. While I use the internet and search online, I can’t stand that I only use it out of convenience. I have yet to become a true cyborg – if there is even a “true” definitive definition of what a cyborg was, is, and potentially will be.

This gets me to the point of discussing this week’s prompt regarding the identification or predictions of the impact the cyborg “phenomenon” may have on the individual or society at large. In some details the readings offer a variety of ways that technology and the cyborg phenomenon have already impacted the individual – through the use of the web for personal use, educational use, as a social network, to the use of digital devices like cell phone, iPads, and the like. The individual is now becoming a cyborg in the sense that he or she is enveloped in this technological culture of Facebook pages, individual websites, and like Mistry suggests, through the use of a digital device that can potentially make the person in and of itself part of the technology in order to “humanize.”

In looking at the potential for society, some of the issues raised were an upper and lower technological “elitism” to the various economic impacts of making cyborgs of us all. The issue that bothers me most is not the economic aspect, or even that inevitably I may be forced to overcome my technological fears and attack this head-on (why I am taking this course). The issue is that the information will be available to everyone, at all times, 24 hours a day, seven days a week (you get the point). And I ask, “Why?” Half of this information is not relevant to the average person – I get the point of music, the Wiki, and social networks. I do not; on the other hand understand why a digitized text of Chaucer (only used as a familiar example) would be important for everyone in the world to view.

Alissa brings up a great point in her post on the film, Limitless. And the story about the labyrinth also alludes that one would not understand a work in its entirety – it’s too much information, the collection moves from present to past, past to present, and has everything in between. With the movie, I think that the reason why the director addresses the people dying of overdose or withdrawal is in direct correlation to how people feel about their digital devices. My mother feels like she is losing her life, suffering from withdrawal if and when she goes without her cell phone for more than five minutes, or without her computer for the weekend. So this cyborg phenomenon is creating a society that does not know how to go without something – everything is theirs at their beckon call. And what happens when something can’t become theirs (no more free music download, a link that doesn’t take you back to where you started), it’s like telling a spoiled brat, “NO!” All hell breaks loose.

I think that this is where we’re headed…and it goes back to one of my first posts. People want “free” and nothing is free. People want the reward right now, and sometimes, it doesn’t happen that way. People want to have 750 Facebook friends, but how many real friends do they have? I’m all for having a machine that aids me and my family and peers.  But I in no way, shape, or form want to ever become the machine.