part 5 of beyond one-word metaphors

Now that I have suggested a new metaphorics for understanding technology I will propose a little bit of counsel (not of my own making, but counsel that I find agreeable).
To review:

The Metaphorics of Technology (which are threefold and supplemented with qualifier metaphorical contexts)

Technology as a Tool in a System when considering technology's functions
Technology as a Text in a Discourse when considering technology's meanings
Technology as Adiaphora in an Ecosystem when consdiering technology's moral significance

To begin with technology as a tool in a system, a tool that is not of our own making (be it laptops, printers, or cars) it is crucial to consider that inseperability of funcationality with dysfunctionality, and to not be fooled into thinking that we can have one without the other. The moral counsel for this kind of thinking can be illustratively shown in the Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." Our attitudes towards technology should apprehend those elements concerning technology outside of our control (the inseperability of function/dysfunction) as well as those elements in our control (our attitudes, our actions, our comportment around technology).

To phrase this in terms of responsible and graceful attitudes towards the functioning of technology we might be inclined to say that it is resopnsible to accept one's limits (technology does not bend to the whims of our wills, functioning perfectly whenever we so desire), and to thus accept the inherent inseperability of function/dysfunction in technology. Further, it is graceful to appreciate and show gratitude to the possibilities technology allows for (the benefits that impact our lives of laptops, printers, cars, etc). In other words, developing a sensibility to the constraints of technology is responsible, whereas deepening our appreciation of the affordances of technology is gracious. Just as constraints and affordances are inseparable, we can see responsibility and gracefulness (as in gratitude) as also inseperable.

The counsel for technology as a text follows a parallel structure. we must responsibly and gracefully accept that technological mediums can privilege meanings, but necessarily so by marginalizing other meanings. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking a technological text has given us the complete story, especially if that text is a television advertisement, an electronic message board, or even a wiki forum. We can be grateful that technology can be used to give voice to some (an article about suffering in Haiti for example), but responsibly aware that there are still many others whose voices are not being heard (whether its hearing a journalist's take on Haiti rather than one of the sufferers themselves, or whether its hearing about Haiti and not about some other country in need, or whether its hearing about it over a forum, the television, or through a friend, some messages are being foregrounded while others are being backgrounded).

On top of this, there is the inseparability of understanding and misunderstanding. That is, once a message has been broadcast or sent out, there is an issue of whether it will be understood or misunderstood, and to what degree. In short, a message affords and constrains understanding. And there is a responsible and grateful way to deal with (mis)communication, where we respectfully bridge the gap between our gulfs of meaning and another persons as non-invidiously as we can. There is also an arrogant and non-grateful approach as well, where we forget or deny that a gap does exists between two people's minds, and that although technology can help aid this gap through communication portals, technology itself is limited just as our own powers of interpretation are. We can either anticipate this limits and legitimately deal with them and their consequences or we can illigetimately ignore and deny them, believing that such things as miscommunication or marginalizing communication don't exist or only happen to others.

Lastly, the counsel for technology as adiaphora also follows a parallel structure. A responsible and graceful sensibility to technology, or so I believe, would acknowledge the inseparability of the good and bad inherent in technology. It would be foolish to believe that we can have one without the other - that there are such things as 'good television' or 'bad videogames' or perhaps more ridicolously, 'good toasters' or 'bad staplers.' Such counsel would advise that we not construct moralizing arguments about the evil of videogames or the goodness of technology reform in schools. These things in of themselves are neither good or bad.

Similarly, there is an inseparability between the significance and insignificance of technology to our life projects and relational commitments. Some technological objects and devices may be very relevant to some activities while simultaneously very irrelevant to other activities. If we are to be responsibly and gratefully sensitive to this inseparability, it implicates that we are grateful that technology can play a role in our life's activities, while at the same time responsibly acknowledging the limits that no one technology will aid all of our life goals, or even aid the same two people's life activities equally. More importantly, we cannot be fooled into thinking that we can delegate out the activities of our life projects and relational committments to technology itself for the value that comes from such activities is experiential engagement that transforms or cultivates our very selves.

to continue by way of example,
If we are to draw value from the activities most related to our projects and commitments, then we must act with responsibility and grace around the technologies that mediate these activities. For example if I work at a stables and love horseback riding, I could develop an appreciation for the technologies that allow for trail maintanence, horseshoe repair, medical instruments, and so forth. If I am grateful and responsible the moral significance of these technological objects and instruments wont be lost on me, even if their value is inchoate and non-articulable. At the same time I recognize that horses and the technologies relevant to their health or trail maintanence might not be relevant to other projects and commitments I have (say conducting research with the education of children, or attending my friend's wedding) and likewise someone else interested in horses might have them tied to their life commitments and projects in a different way, or not at all (perhaps their current project is bonding at summer camp (where riding horses is an option) or becoming a veternarian (where horses is one of many animals they must study) or perhaps they are not explicitly following some life project or social commitment and instead are vacationing and want to take a horse ride for fun). All of these different persons, stable hand, camper, veteranarian, vacationer may draw variable lessons and values from activities and technologies related to horses, but what's important is that they approach the objects and creatures in play with responsibility and grace.

Well I hope that made some sense. In short, be aware of (and act responsibly and graceful in light of this awareness) the inseperability of a host of characteristics in technology: Functional/Dysfunctional, Priviliging/Marginalizing, Communication/Miscommunication, Good/Bad, Significant/Insignificant.