Prometheanism and Hyperstition - How Has Modern Technology Affected Our Relationship with Stories
University Assignment
In the modern world, technology has accelerated in such a way that we no longer have to suffer a lack of information, but instead an oversaturation of it. I believe this causes us, especially in the west, to have a toxic relationship with the forms of media that we often assume to be benign or mere entertainment. But why is it that doing something as simple and commonplace as watching a YouTube video can be so influential? The simplest answer is neurochemical; caused by the ways in which our dopaminergic reward systems can be circumvented. However, this is only a part of the truth. I consider it overly reductionist to say that human behaviour can be explained purely through mechanical interactions. In this essay, I hope to explore the socio-linguistic and psycho-spiritual means with which we interact with media in order to understand the phenomena of modern consumption.
I will be referring to my ecosophy throughout the essay. An ecosophy isn’t just a type of philosophical framework that refers to human connections with nature, according to Simon Levesque, it also deals with the way in which we engage with its ideas “through political engagement and everyday action.”[1] It originated from Arne Naess in 1972 and was developed in a paper he released in 1973.[2] In his original conception, he describes a philosophy that seeks to erase the duality of man and nature, and instead realign himself within nature so that interconnection can provide a healthier relationship between the two. In his paper The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary Naess discusses the difference between what he calls “Shallow Ecology” and “Deep Ecology.” Whereas Shallow Ecology just deals with the reduction of pollution and largely focuses on the western world, Deep Ecology attempts to understand how man’s nature has been degraded by crowning himself as master over the natural world.[3] Naess further goes on to say that “The details of an ecosophy will show many variations due to significant differences concerning not only 'facts' of pollution, resources, population, etc, but also value priorities.” There are definite differences in my interpretation of ecosophy. I believe the source of my difference from Naess is that whilst he rejected the type of holism that keeps man above nature in the hierarchy, I have embraced it. That being said, I agree with many of his points on how we can develop to be more symbiotic with nature, especially with regard to urban theorists being incorrect about “Human life-space requirements.”[4] In my view, it is important to keep sight of man’s abstract existentialism because it is a trait that is, to my understanding, unique to our species. My goal is to create a synthesis between progress (in the historical sense of culture and science) and sustainable living. I believe it is inherent to man’s intellect that it dissects and analyses nature, but I do not think this has to be an end in itself. Instead, I believe that understanding nature in this manner is only one half of learning, the other half being an intuitive experiential path. This draws from Jungian psychology in which the Ego would be closely tied to that destructive intellect and the subconscious shadow would be tied to the experiential. To Jung, both the Conscious and the Unconscious parts of the brain are important psychic organs. Through repressing one organ, the subject is vulnerable to neuroses that can be incredibly dangerous.[5]
To begin with, I think it is important to address what symptoms are present that reveal the need for a reappraisal of media. The first symptom is the crisis of identity. Traditional identities have been eroded by a myriad of different forces, the bulk of which are related to or empowered by technology. One way this is manifested is through the clashing of different frameworks. Global information transfer has allowed for cultures and subcultures, that would have never met otherwise, to clash and provide different narratives within the minds of those they interact with. The problem with this is that it can be very difficult to trace and become aware of where these frameworks come from. This can allow the framework to be adopted before the consumer is even aware there is a framework. When a narrative is adopted, it can be hard to reject because it becomes the lens that is used to analyse itself. This effect is compounded even further by the saturation of media because it provides a constant stream of content that causes enough distraction that the media itself never has to be analysed unless some outside influence calls for it.
Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism explores the idea, espoused by Slavoj Zizek and Frederic Jameson, “That it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.”[6] What this means is that the cultural narrative supporting capitalism is so deeply ingrained in us that even the perspective of our imagination is limited. This has deep implications for how we can act with regard to the narrative because something that cannot be conceived of ending, also cannot easily be discussed or navigated. I believe this ties in strongly with Nick Land’s idea of a Hyperstition.
In his book Fanged Noumena, Land describes the self-propagating nature of techno-capital. One of the traits he believes causes this propagation is Hyperstition. Hyperstitions are “Semiotic productions that make themselves real.”[7] What this means in theory, is an artificial form of symbolism that is so infectious that through being integrated into the psyche it causes the audience to bring it into reality. The idea that Capitalism is inescapable could be a Hyperstition in itself. Take, for example, the way that this idea is used to defend the progression of Capitalism. The perspective that its progression is inevitable causes the progression to accelerate because the opposition to the acceleration is nullified by the statement. This nullification creates the artificial fatalism that characterises a Hyperstition. I think this ultimately leads to an important question; is our awareness of this Hyperstition a route towards a change from the unending progression of Capitalism, or is it just another surrogate activity that cannot realistically threaten its hegemony.
It is possible that such a system could be described as Antifragile. Antifragility is a concept of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s. In Taleb’s article Philosophy: “Antifragility” as a mathematical idea he describes fragility as “an accelerating sensitivity to a harmful stressor” which “mathematically culminates in more harm than benefit from random events.”[8] His full description is based on mathematical terms that are derived from statistics and risk management. Antifragility, on the other hand, uses random or antagonistic events to produce positive effects instead. What this means, is that some systems can be designed in such a way that any form of chaos, instead of breaking the system down, cause the system to grow. I see this as something that occurs in the monetization of politics. Within the public sphere, dissent against capitalism has become increasingly common, but how much of this dissent is effective? We can see that often it is co-opted for the sake of profit. Take for example the face of Che Guevara, it is no doubt, that if you are in the west, you will have seen a Che Guevara shirt. There are many different versions produced by countless brands that can be seen by a simple google search. Che Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary that ideologically opposed capitalism, and yet we see the same forces turn his likeness into a t-shirt design. Whilst there is a lot of comedy in something so ironic, this antifragile nature reveals something that is a lot more serious and worthy of attention; the efficacy of any action that opposes an antifragile system.
Another of the stories told by this cultural narrative is that “Capitalism is human nature.” This seems highly antithetical because it appears that Capitalism has facilitated the technological growth that has allowed human nature to be subverted. If the truth of Capitalism is embedded in nature, why then has it created such a huge industry for Pornography. Pornography seems to be the clearest example of a subverted nature. Reproduction and the creation of life is the area where both the abstract spiritual side of humanity and the primal bestial side of humanity converge. From either of these perspectives, pornography would seem aberrant and counterproductive, yet some estimates say that up to 20% of internet searches are for porn, despite only 4% of websites hosting it. [9] The effects of pornography on dopamine levels in the brain are well documented. Within a natural situation, the dopamine produced from sexual arousal would spur on the mating process, but it is much easier for those evolutionary triggers to be set off by artificial media. The Coolidge effect is a phenomenon in which a male is exposed to new potential mates which causes a spike in dopamine. This can be hijacked by media due to its ability to conjure an image of a new sexual partner with only a click. This capacity for novelty causes desensitisation towards natural sexual drives and keeps attention directed to produced media.
As I described earlier, I do not want to dwell on just the mechanical interactions. There is a very important social component to this. A study from the Journal of Sex Research investigated the longitudinal effects of pornography on divorce and found that the probability of divorce doubled for married Americans who began consuming porn within their survey wave time frame. It also found that women who stopped using porn reduced their chance of a divorce to only a third of what it was prior.[10] This is a huge amount of influence on marriage which is so important for the coherence of society. Though there is not as of yet much concrete evidence, it is worth exploring how the stories within pornography affect the sex lives of its consumers. It is no secret that the vast amount of porn does not depict a realistic experience and that it is designed to be a spectacle, but how much of that can the brain discriminate, and how has it affected modern youth. With the speed at which the internet can spread information, it is impossible to censor anything effectively, so now younger audiences are consuming something that is harmful even to adults. This could easily cause pornography to create a framework of expectations as to what sex should be like prior to experiencing it. This is a dangerous situation to be in because the industry has such a large sprawl and is effectively acting in a vacuum for the younger population, meaning that the way they choose to express sexuality could strongly mirror what they see in media.
Once again, this seems to be another example of a societal trend that exhibits Hyperstitional nature. It is worth noting that I do not think that a Hyperstition is a negative thing, only that Hyperstitions are a very powerful vessel in the current age. The spread of information is the same as the spread of a semiotic production, and therefore our ability to spread information increases the potential of Hyperstitions. Whilst initially, this could seem terrifying because of how much it emboldens the current system, our awareness can allow us to gain a new tool. If we are seeking to replace the narratives that no longer serve us (or perhaps never did), then we should seek to create narratives that are heavily based on the principles of Hyperstition and antifragility. It seems only logical that we would need to use the structural sources of power that assist the hegemony of the narratives, in order to overcome them.
But what exactly are the stories that I believe we should live by? I think that the best way to move forward in the world is to look back to the past, creating a new renaissance. With this statement, I do not wish to simply view the world with the primitive lens that is often attributed to the past, but instead to reintegrate the stories that once guided us. Modern cognition has progressed in such a way that I do not believe it is possible to go back to pre-modern thought, but I do think that we can combine seemingly opposing worldviews into something fresh. The materialism brought on by the enlightenment has created an array of new technologies for us to explore the human experience, but we do not require the same worldview that gave rise to these technologies in order to use them. This may seem rather eccentric, but it is worth noting that many of the important scientific figures throughout history have been eccentric. Newton was fascinated by Hermeticism and Alchemy. Tesla believed that ideas were not created, but received. The Pythagoreans controlled a city with their religious sect. Science and spirituality have never been mutually exclusive. This is only one aspect that the renaissance could bring from the holistic nature of previous worldviews. This leads me back to talking about Jung, who is arguably the biggest influence on my ecosophy. He believed that perception and experience as we know it was shaped by archetypal symbols deep in the unconscious.[11] These symbols, though archaic, are incredibly complex and important. What could be a better vessel for Hyperstition than the most primal of semiotic forms? In accepting and integrating our instinctual nature with our abstract thought we come closer to wholeness. A wholeness that I believe will be healthier than the linearity of material progression.
[1] Levesque, Simon.,’ Two versions of ecosophy: Arne Næss, Félix Guattari, and their connection with semiotics’ Sign Systems Studies 44(4)(2016) pg 512
[2] Ibid. 512
[3] Naess, Arne., ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary*’ Inquiry 16(1973), pg 95
[4] Ibid. pg 96
[5] CG Jung and Jolande Jacobi ‘Consciousness and the Unconscious’ in Psychological Reflections: an anthology of his writings, 1905-1961 Ark edn, ed. By Jolande Jacobi (London:Ark Paperbacks, 1986) pp 22-37
[6] Mark Fisher Capitalist Realism (London:Zero Books, 2009) pg 2
[7] Nick Land Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007 , ed. By Robin Mackay and Ray Brassier (Urbanomic, 2011) pg 579
[8] Taleb, N. N., ‘“Antifragility” as a Mathematical Idea’ Nature, 494(2013), pp. 430–430
[9]Katharina Buchholz: How Much of the Internet Consists of Porn, Statista, (Hamburg: Statista,2019) https://www.statista.com/chart/16959/share-of-the-internet-that-is-porn/ [Accessed 11/01/2021]
[10] Perry, S.L., and Cyrus, Schleifer., ‘Till Porn Do Us Part? A Longitudinal Examination of Pornography Use and Divorce’ Journal of Sex Research 55(3)(2018) pp284-296
[11] CG Jung and Jolande Jacobi ‘The Archetypes’ in Psychological Reflections: an anthology of his writings, 1905-1961 Ark edn, ed. By Jolande Jacobi (London:Ark Paperbacks, 1986)