Marisa Bowe and Ken Kurson
Tweaking the Psychic Operating System
By Marisa Bowe
Posted Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 6:08 PM ETResponding to Glen Davidson's "Fray" comment ("What happens in the brain has crucial roots in DNA, yet its complexity and operation are far more ordered by the brain's environment, inside and outside of the body, than it is by DNA."--scroll down for the rest.)
I couldn't agree more.
"The mind is fickle and flighty, it flies after fancies wherever it likes: it is difficult indeed to restrain. But it is a great good to control the mind; a mind self-controlled is a source of great joy."
--from Tricycle mag's "Daily Dharma" today.
That's what I mean by religion as psychic technology. I think of brain-type thoughts, problem solving and the like, as application software, like Word or Excel for Windows. But your operating system is your controlling consciousness, limited as it is by your emotional makeup, repressed knowledge, cultural blind spots, etc.
I think part of what religion attempts to do is modify your operating system. Knowledge of the genome affects the operation of the body, and given the increasing uses of physical chemistry and the like to affect one's thoughts and emotions, of the mind too, to a degree. But I've been interested for a long time in what various spiritual traditions have to offer in terms of tried-and-somewhat-true technologies to affect the operating system of consciousness. I think that if Justin Volpe had been fully conscious of what he was committing, he wouldn't have done it. You say he "didn't need G-d" at that moment, Ken. I'd say he sure as hell did, but he didn't know it.
Another Fray poster, John Rogers, mentions the ABC special on Jesus. For me it's productive to think of the switch in philosophy that Jesus advocated--from eye-for-an-eye/tooth-for-a-tooth punishment system to the whole forgiveness/redemption thing--as another model of psychic technology of the sort I'm talking about. A whole different machine, with different operation and different results, than what the previous philosophy had to offer. What do you think about that, Ken?
Anyway, here I am, a stereotypical geek-type, using computer and tech metaphors to talk about deep issues. According to Michiko Kakutani's article on the front page of the New York Times arts section--about the cultural implications of computer slang--"geek-speak conjures up a chilly, utilitarian world in which people are equated with machines." It's an interesting article, and I like to see that stuff covered prominently, but people who are bonded affectionately with their computers don't think of that world as chilly. Book people so often have alienated feelings toward the digital world, but books themselves are a technology, too, they're just an older one. Trees are a technology, just not a man-made one. We ourselves--back to the genome thing again--are "soft machines." We just don't know that much about who made us, or why, or what role our consciousness plays in the whole thing.
When we were working on Gig last summer, I interviewed a female materials science professor at MIT who works with natural, self-organizing cell processes to create new artificial products like solid batteries. She herself is (perhaps) dying of cancer. She spoke unbelievably movingly about how much we know now about cells and what they do and how her condition has prompted her to wonder more urgently than most, as she peers into her microscope, Where is the soul, in all of that cellular material?
Unfortunately, we had to cut that one from the book. With dead-tree media, see, you have all these space limitations.
Tweaking the Psychic Operating System
By Marisa Bowe
Posted Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 6:08 PM ETMarisa Bowe is the editor-in-chief of Word, the executive producer of Sissyfight.com, and a co-editor of Gig: Americans Talk About Their Jobs at the Turn of the Millennium (click here to buy it). Ken Kurson is the editor of GreenMagazine.com, writes the "Green" column each month in Esquire, and is the author of The Green Magazine Guide to Personal Finance (click here to buy it). Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the final entry):
[From the Fray Editor: Ken, Ken you didn't need to mention homosexuality or abortion to encourage controversy--saying there are too many people and they live too long (Tuesday) worked just fine. Fray posters came out in force, bringing with them Spinoza and a 95-year-old grandmother. The post below was titled Don't tell me when to die Mr Kurson:]
What an ugly letter by Mr Kurson! How exactly is the premise that people should live longer demonstrably false? I like the idea of using government money to prolong life (especially my life, it's demonstrably true that my life is cool). We have a right and responsibility to know what makes us tick and we have a right and responsibility to use that knowledge to help people better enjoy their lives. If science produces a way for people to live longer, I will gladly participate. If you don't want to, Mr Kurson, then don't. I'd hate to see you go, but I won't interfere. Just don't go around saying that longer lifespans are demonstrably bad--it might not seem so biting on the abstract level, but it's hurtful to individuals who are dying and would rather live. Whether or not this new knowledge brings us a step closer to godhood remains to be seen. Even if the answer is no, or if the question is irrelevant, it does make me happy to see that we humans are so clever, curious and philosophical that we've finally started to figure ourselves out--if not metaphysically, at least physically.
--Michael Maiello
(To reply, click
here.)
Since when are books not technology [Tuesday's entry]? I suppose Ken's definition of technology is any invention that makes people better off in a way of which he disapproves. But hey, if utter incoherence lets him live more comfortably in his savage little world, more power to him. Just don't make me live in it too.
--Ananda Gupta
(To reply, click
here.)
[This is part of a much longer post, detailing the many ways in which the writer disapproved of Mr Kurson's views and disliked the choice of Breakfast Table participants.]
(6/29)
What was the last big discovery that had so many scientists crowing and so many empty talking heads yelping at some utopian moon [genome project, Tuesday]? Splitting the atom, yes? After so many decades, what wonderful benefits has that achievement provided to us? Good lord, I can't think of any. (Don't give me any jive about radiation therapy.) Is there no one who can analyze this situation in a realistic way without sentimentalizing about God or waxing rhapsodic about science? Give us a damn break. You're not going to see any benefits derived from geeks in labcoats mucking around with genes.
--tek
(To reply, click
here.)
To tek: Humanity is richer, healthier, and happier today than ever before, largely because of scientific and technological advance. Please spare us the self-indulgent crap about lab-coated guys ruining life. In fact, it's been the damn artsy types (Hitler, Stalin, Mao--all prided themselves on their artistic abilities, none was a scientific or technical guy) who have been the architects of the last century's horrors. Where's the responsibility for that?
--A.G.Android
(To reply, click
here.)
[And this argument ran and ran--"had smallpox lately tek?" "No, how about AIDS?" "I feel quite the moron responding" "Trust your feelings".]
There's a huge amount of information in life other than DNA. Protein folding is one of the less complex and difficult. This is why Marisa Bowes is considering things that couldn't possibly be explained by DNA. I'm sure it's well for her to ask, but it's clear that the brain that questions the genetic code is extremely more complex than is the DNA that pointed it in the right direction.
What happens in the brain has crucial roots in DNA, yet its complexity and operation are far more ordered by the brain's environment, inside and outside of the body, than it is by DNA. You don't ask of anything as complex as a thought what its relation is to DNA without severe reductionism. The sooner the media learn something of the complexity of everything, the sooner we'll learn something of the complexity of what they usually report on. They've moved in that direction in the last 10 or 20 years. They still have a long way to go. One hopes the genome sequencing will take the media that way.
--Glen Davidson
(To reply, click
here.)
[Ms Bowe responded to this post in her second Tuesday entry.]
(6/27)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the final entry):
[From the Fray Editor: Ken, Ken you didn't need to mention homosexuality or abortion to encourage controversy--saying there are too many people and they live too long (Tuesday) worked just fine. Fray posters came out in force, bringing with them Spinoza and a 95-year-old grandmother. The post below was titled Don't tell me when to die Mr Kurson:]
What an ugly letter by Mr Kurson! How exactly is the premise that people should live longer demonstrably false? I like the idea of using government money to prolong life (especially my life, it's demonstrably true that my life is cool). We have a right and responsibility to know what makes us tick and we have a right and responsibility to use that knowledge to help people better enjoy their lives. If science produces a way for people to live longer, I will gladly participate. If you don't want to, Mr Kurson, then don't. I'd hate to see you go, but I won't interfere. Just don't go around saying that longer lifespans are demonstrably bad--it might not seem so biting on the abstract level, but it's hurtful to individuals who are dying and would rather live. Whether or not this new knowledge brings us a step closer to godhood remains to be seen. Even if the answer is no, or if the question is irrelevant, it does make me happy to see that we humans are so clever, curious and philosophical that we've finally started to figure ourselves out--if not metaphysically, at least physically.
--Michael Maiello
(To reply, click here.)
Since when are books not technology [Tuesday's entry]? I suppose Ken's definition of technology is any invention that makes people better off in a way of which he disapproves. But hey, if utter incoherence lets him live more comfortably in his savage little world, more power to him. Just don't make me live in it too.
--Ananda Gupta
(To reply, click here.)
[This is part of a much longer post, detailing the many ways in which the writer disapproved of Mr Kurson's views and disliked the choice of Breakfast Table participants.]
(6/29)
What was the last big discovery that had so many scientists crowing and so many empty talking heads yelping at some utopian moon [genome project, Tuesday]? Splitting the atom, yes? After so many decades, what wonderful benefits has that achievement provided to us? Good lord, I can't think of any. (Don't give me any jive about radiation therapy.) Is there no one who can analyze this situation in a realistic way without sentimentalizing about God or waxing rhapsodic about science? Give us a damn break. You're not going to see any benefits derived from geeks in labcoats mucking around with genes.
--tek
(To reply, click here.)
To tek: Humanity is richer, healthier, and happier today than ever before, largely because of scientific and technological advance. Please spare us the self-indulgent crap about lab-coated guys ruining life. In fact, it's been the damn artsy types (Hitler, Stalin, Mao--all prided themselves on their artistic abilities, none was a scientific or technical guy) who have been the architects of the last century's horrors. Where's the responsibility for that?
--A.G.Android
(To reply, click here.)
[And this argument ran and ran--"had smallpox lately tek?" "No, how about AIDS?" "I feel quite the moron responding" "Trust your feelings".]
There's a huge amount of information in life other than DNA. Protein folding is one of the less complex and difficult. This is why Marisa Bowes is considering things that couldn't possibly be explained by DNA. I'm sure it's well for her to ask, but it's clear that the brain that questions the genetic code is extremely more complex than is the DNA that pointed it in the right direction.
What happens in the brain has crucial roots in DNA, yet its complexity and operation are far more ordered by the brain's environment, inside and outside of the body, than it is by DNA. You don't ask of anything as complex as a thought what its relation is to DNA without severe reductionism. The sooner the media learn something of the complexity of everything, the sooner we'll learn something of the complexity of what they usually report on. They've moved in that direction in the last 10 or 20 years. They still have a long way to go. One hopes the genome sequencing will take the media that way.
--Glen Davidson
(To reply, click here.)
[Ms Bowe responded to this post in her second Tuesday entry.]
(6/27)