OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD IS NOW
Rev. Dr. Harvey Daiho Hilbert Roshi
Introduction
As many of you know, I have been
making a study of "time" for some years now. I think any Zen
practitioner is likely doing the same, if not from a physics point of view,
certainly from an experiential one. There is a series we are watching through
Hulu called "Genius" and the first set of episodes is on
Albert Einstein. The last episode my wife and I watched finally showed how
Einstein came to have that truly remarkable insight into the relativity of
time. The question he faced was a logical one: if we can adjust clocks to run
simultaneously across distance then time must not be constant, why? The wisdom
at the time was that time was, like light, a constant. How could that be, though,
if the clocks being adjusted to run simultaneously were being adjusted at the
speed of light, one clock, say in England, another in the United States, and
still another in Germany, the speed of light would have to increase across the
distances to make all the clocks become simultaneous, and since that is not
possible, time itself would have to change from a "constant" to a
"relative" (time dilation). Hence “special relativity” was
born.
This is an example of a paradigm
shift. Thomas Kuhn wrote extensively in his “The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions,” about such a thing basically saying that over time in a
paradigm, we become aware some things are not working or making any sense in
the existing paradigm. But we fail to “renounce the paradigm that has led (us)
into crisis” until the old paradigm collapses and a new one is ready to take
its place. (p.77 Kuhn)
For example. the world was once thought of as
flat, yet as decade after decade passed, evidence built suggesting otherwise. Each
time the prevailing paradigm would have to find ways of making the changes
"fit" their model, but eventually, the model would fail completely,
collapse, and a new model would arise to replace it. This was what happened in
physics regards time which then changed pretty much everything we thought we
knew.
Today I believe we are living through the conclusion of a paradigm, a paradigm
existing in what we might call a "person present" model
of society. This paradigm suggests that
within an encounter, certain social graces are utilized, and a correct etiquette
required to be socially or professionally appropriate. How we dressed for a job interview, whether we
spoke with the correct deference and manners, were important in seeking gainful
employment. We preferred person to
person contact, and our presence on social media was more about connecting than
creating virtual relationships. Our acceptance of social rules was considered
essential and often divided people into class groupings relative to various
levels of compliance. Gender roles were
rather specific and rooted in the mores of a geographical area. Holding to
specific religious doctrines and rules was considered important, but more than
that, they were expected. Over the last several decades these core beliefs and
social norms were being challenged.
Up until recently, the evolution
of these changes have been relatively slow, and unless looking for them, the
changes would seem normal, and thus, nearly imperceptible. I believe our
pandemic is putting a rush on it
and it is now in ASAP mode. Because this is so, we are not prepared and it
would seem, few, if any, rules are in place.
1Where do we live?
“Paradigms
gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in
solving a few problems that…has become acute.” (p. 23 Kuhn)
In the
before time, cracks in the “person present” paradigm were beginning to
appear. Young people preferred texting to calling or visiting; the virtual
world was evolving to nearly becoming an alternate reality, much like the
“holodecks” in Star Trek’s “Next Generation.” Some worked at home via Internet
connections with workmates. Changes in civility were occurring, breaking down
certain hierarchical and social barriers. We were clearly living in a
dynamically changing world and evolving at an exponential rate. People made
appointments, took and made video calls, and organized their lives virtually
through their “smart watches” and other electronic devices. Yes, our world was,
indeed, changing and as it did, older ways of dealing with or solving problems
were changing as well. People often
worked in “teams” worked in open spaces, and often communicated without
personal contact. Gone were private offices, or even “cubicles.” Rolodexes’,
personal paper calendars, pen and paper, all were being replaced with more and
more powerful devices. We were no longer “Mr.” or “Dr.” but rather we’re Joe
and Mary as we entered brand new interactions.
Life with the advent of the
corona virus has enhanced and super charged these changes, not the least of
which is where we live. It can be said
that we have lived in our homes, worked in the world around us, and returned to
our homes to engage in family life. That was then. Today much of the world’s
people no longer travel to work; they reside, work and play, full time at home.
For some of us this is a minor inconvenience, after all we can meet with people
virtually at any time and across the globe.
For others it is a major obstacle for being human beings living together
as a society.
Many of us now make our homes
nearly our complete and total environment. We work and play in our homes,
rarely leave except to pick up essentials from drive through stations at
stores. When out we wear masks,
sometimes gloves, and carry sanitizer with us.
We do not trust anyone and try to maintain a ten-foot safety space
around us. Our friends and co-workers visit only through a virtual platform.
There, we can see and hear them, but nothing more. Gone are touch, smell, and
taste; gone are all the subtle nuances of “person present” contact. And many of
us have accepted this change, thriving, as it were, within our bubbles.
2Are we afraid to leave home?
Let’s do a thought experiment,
Suppose the COVID-19 virus doesn’t want to go away. Let’s suppose it decides to morph into a new
strain as soon as we have developed a vaccine to attack it. This is a likely scenario, especially after
having been repeatedly rebounded from what we thought of as its death knell.
Viruses mutate, it’s how they stay alive through the centuries. It’s part of
what our friend Darwin called “natural selection.” What then?
We just need to look around and
we can deduce some of what that might look like. As of this writing, there have
been dramatic increases in infections in those states that have “opened-up.”
Governors of those states have had to re-instate masking orders to the general
population to curb the contagion once again. What effect will such a measure
have on residents of those states? My
personal sense is it will be either chilling or folks will double down on their
resistance and adopt a cavalier attitude.
In the end, though, people will
have a heightened sense of anxiety leaving home. This will aggravate the already tenuous
relationship we have with public spaces and increase demand for more
technological advances in virtual reality having the effect of further
distancing ourselves from the “person present” paradigm.
The “Boxies”
and the “Riskies”
Perhaps people will, as they
already are, divide themselves into groups.
I see two major groups evolving, what I am calling the “Boxies”
and the “Riskies.” Boxies
are comfortable, if not anxiety prone, householders. They are isolation acceptance
folk. On the other hand, “Riskies” are isolation aversive and
just can’t see themselves being effectively quarantined, destined to live out
their lives as Boxies. Our perceptions of ourselves are critical in
understanding our behavior, the choices we make, and what means we use to carry
them out. We are not beings isolated in time. Past and present interact with
our understanding of our future. Those with challenging pasts, depending on the
challenge, will self-select into our two groups. Others may have the selection
made for them by outside forces such as parents, spouses, or friends. Whatever
the case, we will find ourselves in one group or another.
There arises the possibility of a
third, quite small group, a group similar to the “divergents” in the film by
the same title. These would be people
uncomfortable in any group. They would
be free thinking, non-conforming, and quite radical thinkers. Like “Riskies” they eschew compliance, but
unlike them, that abhor grouping themselves to the extent they would argue with
anyone claiming they belong to a group, even if it’s a group of Riskies.
All three have found themselves
understanding the Person Present paradigm in different ways. For the Boxies, no problem in the immediate
future, for the latter two, staying at home is more deadly than venturing out.
To better understand my thinking,
we might explore what “home” means to the members of each group. Or rather what “staying at home” means. Home
is likely understood differently between groups, as would “staying at
home.” One informing the other.
My sense is each of us when asked
about “home” will tell us much as to our differences. Is home a war zone? Is it a place of refuge? Is home “safe,” productive? Or is it a place of stagnation and
boredom? We must also examine what the
outside world means to us. It is a place
to work? Is it safe? Is it a place for
release, for becoming re-charged, creative, or excited? Over the last few months, the corona virus
has made our outside world somewhat a stranger. I suspect members of each will
have definite opinions about these issues. Such opinions will help us determine
our choices as the paradigm indeed shifts and we move headfirst into a much
more virtually dominant world.
3Fear: The Drive to a New Paradigm
Most of us are familiar with the “fight or flight” response to a
perceived threat. When posed with a threat our reptilian minds go into
overdrive and we either run from the threat or fight it; simple, natural, and
ancient.
Yet, over the millennia, the desire to fight has diminished
being replaced by either running away or calling on a third party to save us. But
more, a third option is to freeze, like a deer in a headlight. We see this
running away as civilized, and perhaps it is, but the police cannot save us
from intruders, car jackers, or other threats, and they certainly can’t save us
from the virus, nor can science heretofore. So, what to do with the viral threat?
We are painfully aware when we feel powerless, a great breeding
ground for unadulterated fear. If the
police or science can’t protect us, home as a sanctuary seems reasonable. None
of us like to be afraid. We tend to
avoid it every way possible. In this case, and in this situation, fear exists
in every group, in fact it resides in all of us and is an underlying driving
force. The thing about fear is that it takes us out of our reasoning mind. When
afraid all we can think about is safety.
Fear, like any feeling, is energy and energy can be directed. It
can be a driving force to protect us or even destroy us, as in the case of the
deer in the headlights. So, how are we using this energy? Some of us use it to consume great amounts of
information about the threat, some use it to channel resistance to the threat,
and others use it to seek alternative responses to the threat. In any case the threat is there, as is the
fear. Someone argued it wasn’t fear they
were experiencing, rather it was concern for the wellbeing of our species. This was a more proactive use of that fear
energy, I believe.
Some of us are capitalizing on our fears. Corporations are
raking in the dough over new devices, masks, delivery systems, online sales,
and so forth. My sense is there has been
a surge in online gaming and other forms of online entertainment. But I believe
there is likely a huge amount of R & D in developing better, more engaging
virtual reality devices.
Just think about it. If
you can’t or won’t leave home or gather with friends, can’t go to a film or a
concert, can’t attend meetings, what does one do to remain social? Wouldn’t it be great to create an avatar and
go to a concert in a 360-degree virtual world?
And if there are attendant senses, such as smell, taste, and touch? Well, hot dam, here we go. Let’s all get
onboard with the new reality, even if it’s a virtual one.
4The Shift
Assuming there is a shift away
from “Person Present” to a new, as yet unnamed paradigm (we can refer to it as the
“Virtual World Model” for now. What is this model and what will it mean in our lives?
I believe there are several eventual outcomes as we think through the loss of
the “Person Present” paradigm. For one thing, and this thing has
import across the board, the existing fabric of our reality will have been torn
and discarded. All realities, those of
each socio-economic class and each racial grouping, may likely be opened to a scissoring
challenge by the greater group, a meta group, that will provide an interior,
but virtual, living experience. It will
become a new baseline or, perhaps, ‘ground of being.’
What will that ground look like?
I confess I only have conjecture, but as far as I can imagine, the new baseline
will be a homebased virtual world. Smart everything, beginning with personal
products and encompassing not only the whole home, but the surrounding
community, nation, and world as well.
Since our world will essentially be “virtual,” private property boundaries,
city and state boundaries, even national boundaries will become less and less
meaningful. What would it look like to finally have a world that was “one”? There would be no need of borders, in fact
borders would be impractical limitations of exchange at all levels. The
question of who we are and how we relate to each other will substantially
change.
The world I described in the last
section, a world of virtual reality which would include a 360-degree
environment with all of our senses involved, would mean we could be anything we
want, attend whatever, in any persona, to the extent that even we might not
know the extent of who or what we are.
More to the point, it wouldn’t matter. What would matter would be our
continued life in that reality as opposed to, or in contradistinction to, our
present virally infested world.
My neighbor built his house as a
“smart” house. All of his appliances talked to him through digital
devices. At the store he could see
inside his refrigerator and otherwise control all aspects of the house through
his phone (actually, a handheld “device.”) Recently I purchased a wristband
device that is a watch, but so much more.
It measures my steps, heartrate, blood pressure, O2 levels, my fatigue,
my sleep, my body temperature, and even something called my “immune reference”
level. And I’m honestly thinking “wouldn’t it be cool to have a microchip
connected to my brain that would enhance my ability to move?” Good grief. Not science fiction my friends, but a glimpse
at a reality in the making. So, with all of this stuff and a virus to fear, why
venture out to be with other people when we can stay at home and do nearly the
same thing in a digital bubble?
LLife Evolves or Does it?
Our new paradigm will be
sterile. It will be egocentric. And it
will be decidedly anti-social. The Boxies will have their virtual world and it
will be self-contained. Old “Person
Present” friends will remain so until those possessing them die out. And within
a generation or two only living dinosaurs will recall hand-held devices and
human social relationships outside of the virtual world.
Of course, as in the Vonnegut
novel, “Player Piano” some will remain outside maintain the devices, feeding
people with tube fed nourishment, and some, the Riskies, will live in the
mountains either oblivious to the Boxies or working to maintain vestiges of our
world, e.g. books, film, artwork, and so forth. Still others may be lone
rangers living as well and as free as they can until they die.
Values will have changed, person
to person social relationships ended, and we will either be in heaven or hell:
your choice.
