Part I
An interesting assumption which would seem to be implicit in the creation of the Guru Meditation app would be that the spiritual (or transcendent) experience of meditation is one which requires translation. The existence of Guru Meditation as an app implies that our culture, which, as Prensky points out, has become increasingly geared towards the digital native (with education, an institution widely assumed to be among the most liberal, being one of the institutions which has had the most difficulty adjusting), is no longer capable of a self-contained and ideally unaided activity such as meditation without a prosthetic device which exists to monitor us and tell us if we are "meditating correctly". The developer claims that the app removes one from the cell phone, because one cannot simultaneously play guru meditation and check one's text messages, but what the app ultimately achieves is reinforcement of the idea of virtuality discussed in How We Became Posthuman.
In the app information, the developer explains that Guru Meditation was not first conceived as an app which would "keep score" or "track your progress", ideas which seem antithetical to the traditional conception of meditation as an entirely self-contained activity; however, even before virtuality had achieved its current state of technical advancement, Guru Meditation did not merely function as a calming graphic pattern, such as the color-changing nightlight I had when I was small. Rather, it existed to provide feedback, to make meditation into something you could "win"--in using Guru Meditation, one asks a machine for spiritual validation which it cannot possibly give, given the limitations of the hardware. This phenomenon is not limited to Guru Meditation--Wii Fit cannot actually tell whether you are running or rhythmically shaking a controller, nor can it tell you if your posture is incorrect when you do push-ups. It can only tell you what it knows--that you are putting such-and-such an amount of weight on a balance board, or shaking the controller at such-and-such a rate. But because I, as a so-called digital native, have become so finely attuned to the concept of virtuality--the machine sees all--I shift my weight to acquiesce to the demands of the on-screen instructor, even when I believe that it has very little to do with the actual point of the excercise. Similarly, while playing Guru Meditation I was continually seized with a desire to meditate the way I do in yoga class--lotus position, thumb and index finger together, three remaining fingers extended, gaze drifting gently toward the tip of my nose--but I was being monitored, and these were not the rules of the game. Interestingly, it might be easier to "succeed" at Guru Meditation not by meditating but by focusing on the little guy on my screen--in fact, I'm almost certain I'd receive more positive feedback. But there's something troubling about my reliance on mechanated virtual feedback, the way I have invested a part of my ego in the machine's verdict.
Part II
Baudrillard defines the third order of simulacra as "Simulacra of simulation, founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game - total operationality, hyperreality, aim of total control." To me, nothing fits this description quite so neatly as Google Maps and its corresponding app.
A founding principle of Google Maps is that the space in which we operate is limited, and it can be known, at least on a representational level, through a pantographic shift. First there was the fantastic, the maps labelled with "here be dragons"; this was followed by an overwhelming sense of wonder as the enormity of space became evident, and it loomed overhead more enormous and miraculous than any dragon could possibly have been--and this was the realm of Baudrillard's second order of simulacra, a distinctly modernist idea of endless expansion, limitless possibilty. In many ways these worldviews still persist--we build larger and more elaborate telescopes, still, and we survey starstuff with something of the old fascination--but most "progress" currently occurs on the front of the third order of simulacra, that of Google Maps.
Google Maps' concern is not expansion. Google Maps does not strive to cover the largest possible area--it is concerned with "total operationality", and aims to represent the space in which we operate on a daily basis. It is not an outward expansion but an increase in informational density which concerns Google Maps. Information must be collected on as small a scale as possible--the goal, after all, is to be able to zoom in. Every street must be labelled, every building and its purpose must be documented. "We can no longer imagine any other universe", because Google has mapped ours so perfectly. In a world which is so pantographically manipulable, there are no dragons anymore.
(edited by Amelie for clarity [read: typos])
The discussion of Guru Meditation in its own right, as well as your interaction with it, are nicely done. The anxiety of the ego is certainly in play here, as is (perhaps) the ability to free ourselves from this anxiety. As you say, you willingly submit to the Wii's demands, just as you do to the Guru. After all, you couldn't even participate w/ Guru Meditation in the lotus position, b/c then your thumbs wouldn't be able to "start" the game! What causes me to pause, however, is how you are employing both Prensky and Hayles. Why, for example, should I take you at your word that you are a "digital native"? What does this mean, exactly, in the context of your interaction w/ Guru Meditation--particularly considering that you seem ultimately "troubled" by it? Likewise, how exactly does Hayles' notion of "virtuality" inform your discussion? You mention it, but I'm not sure how you want me to understand it. In some ways, this first response calls attention to a struggle between a comfort in and discomfort toward virtuality, b/w recognizing oneself as a digital native yet not being entirely secure that this recognition isn't itself an illusion.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by the idea of Google Maps as a kind of "cybernetic game"--especially with regard to its connection to "progress." And the notion that Google deals, in large part, in the commodity of control, is (I think) spot on. But is there any difference b/w Google Maps and the app for Google Maps? Do they promise--and achieve--the same "total operationality"? (And, as an aside, how might "Google Goggles" relate? Or the star-gazing apps, which do indeed attempt to expand beyond the "informational density" of planet earth?) Is there not something suggestive about how Google's focus on minute detail extends to the scale of planet earth? Zooming in, after all, demands that a bird's-eye-view already be available, right? So what might Baudrillard say about this, exactly? What kind of "simulation of simulacra" is this? And if Google Maps is indeed of the third order of simulacra, does this necessarily lead to the loss of the fantastic ("there are no dragons anymore")?