A Virtual Memorial for my dog Hunter (07.08.09 - 09.04.24)
04. Sept, 2024, by Myka
Today I watched my dog pass away over FaceTime a little bit before 1pm. I had visited home a few days ago and said my goodbyes in person already. A few hours before my parents and brother took him out on his last ride. They went to the houses we used to live in and parks he used to go to so he could sniff them one more time.
At that point, scent was perhaps the only strong sense that Hunter had left aside from what one could only call his sense of intuition. He was 15 years old which was 3 years longer than the expected lifespan of a Golden Doodle. He lived a healthy life and our family did our best to give him a life that was full of love and joy.
Watching him die might have been simultaneously the most horrifying and beautiful thing I've ever witnessed. The decision to put him to sleep was made after his health started declining, his mind started going, and he began the descent back to dust that all living beings must make. Any longer living would've only caused him pain. While the decision over a living being's life is an impossible one to make, I can't help but feel affirmed in our decision.
Our vet informed us that he would be sedated with Ketamine before receiving a lethal injection. Later today I looked up what that pink liquid was and found it to be an anesthetic. Between my own personal experiences with Ketamine due to surgery and my proximity to nightlife as well as my vast experience with anesthesia, knowing that I've felt something similar to what Hunter felt in his last few moments gave me the peace of mind that he went out with dignity and with little suffering. It was the final piece of the puzzle that made my unbearable grief lessen just enough so that I could continue forward.
I think the thing that makes losing Hunter so devastating is that in many ways, he was a perfect creature. I can't think of a single bad memory with him. I would tell friends that he was "The Best Dog" and everyone would roll their eyes because "sure, everyone's dog is the perfect dog." But then they would meet him and spend time with him and turn to me after just a few minutes with him and concede "you were right. He is the best dog."
There was something special and miraculous about Hunter that transcended the status of simple "pet". He became each of my family members close companion in differing but similar ways. He loved each of us individually and our various relationships with him seemed to revolutionize how we interacted as family. His unassuming, unburdened and unconditional love was an extremely powerful force that was teaching us all how to treat each other and ourselves a little bit better.
In college I would study how he acted, how his calm demeanor approached life with measured confidence and curiosity. How he would handle pain and move on from it, releasing everything he experienced almost as quickly as it happened to him. It was then I concluded that "My Dog is a Zen Master", somehow capable of finding eternal presence and peace in every second of his existence. I aspired to be like him, to approach my world with the patience and openness that he did.
I expressed later to my partner Ezra that it felt like most of the good things I've experienced in my life have come with caveats, that the good in life will always be balanced out by something that made it imperfect. And it was my belief that life would always be like this- that the closest to perfection I could get would always be slightly tainted by the affordances of reality's imperfection.
Today, after witnessing my companion die, I can say that everything about my experience with Hunter and everything about his existence was perfect. Even the immense pain I feel about his loss feels perfect. All this pain I feel acts as proof that Hunter's presence was a gift. I can't pick a more beautiful day for him to go. I can't pick a better way for him to leave us. I can't pick a more perfect being to have the privilege to witness, to be loved by, to love, and to learn from. His existence is the proof I need to know that there are indeed truly perfect things here in this life. He is perhaps the closest thing I can approximate to a real-life angel. The memories I share with him will continue to echo throughout the remainder of my existence on this earth.
Hunter was an extremely gentle, loving, patient, present, and honest being and it was a privilege and an honor to have these all-too-short 15 years to know and be known by him.
Rest in Peace, my Love. We'll wrestle out in the grass very soon.
Counter-Culture is Culture. It is our differences that make us all the same. We must emerge from out of the shadows.
(Aug 14, 2024 | by Myka Papetti)
Our ability to distinguish, categorize, and separate one thing from another is what drives our immense progress, evolving us far beyond our primal origins. This awareness of difference is a gift that makes us the most powerful species on Earth.
Yet, the paradox is that when we start to believe these distinctions are fundamental “TRUTH,” that belief becomes our greatest hindrance.
If we’re so certain that something is “other” than a certain category, it exists only within the confines of contrast, not within its own simple existence.
Imagine an individual whose entire identity is defined not by what they are, but by what they are not—a person who exists solely as a contrast to those who are more clearly defined.
This is the existence of a Shadow-Person: someone doomed to live only in contrast to the majority. These are the people I wish to address today.
Shadows form when something blocks the light—the light shines in one direction, and the darker the shadow, the more intensely that individual light source focuses on the physical subject.
The goal here isn’t just to move the light in a different direction but to illuminate our surroundings with multiple lights—so much so that the contrast between what IS and what ISN’T becomes harder and harder to distinguish.
The fundamental issue with all counter-cultural movements is that they exist as a shadow to culture itself. These movements are defined by their relationship to “CULTURE,” which ultimately dooms them to be absorbed by the dominant culture. This absorption happens because Dominant Culture aligns with Human Nature.
Humans, by nature, seek to individuate themselves. It’s instinctual for us to find the reasons why we’re different from others, as our conscious minds can’t help but compare. Because of this, dominant human culture will always seek to further differentiate itself. The collective Human Hivemind generates these “Counters” to “Culture” because there will always be a group that disagrees with the majority.
You might think there’s something inherently wrong with us—that no one can fully agree on anything. Many religions and philosophies suggest that this inability to agree is a fundamental flaw in the human condition.
But rather than viewing this as a maladaptation—a problem with our species—we must see it within the context of a greater cycle. The human condition is to hypothesize about our existence and to test these hypotheses for truth. We are naturally conducting experiments to test our beliefs. When those beliefs begin to falter, new ideas emerge to replace them.
Once these new ideas gain enough support, they are adopted by the masses as the new “truth,” to be tested in the never-ending experiment of our search for place and purpose in the universe.
When people say “Punk is dead,” they mean that the Punk ethos has been adopted by the masses. Our relationship to authority has been questioned to the point where your average Joe no longer blindly trusts world leaders as our culture once did. When enough people adopt this ideology, its original meanings and goals become obscured by a new wave of individuals seeking to try on this ideology and assess its merits.
But when people say “Punk is dead,” they’re not saying that humanity tested the philosophy of punk and found it fruitless. Instead, they’re saying that the philosophy was absorbed and then transformed into Post-Punk, Grunge, Emo, and Hardcore—all new ways of seeking the “truth.”
Those attached to the Punk ethos often define themselves in contrast to monoculture, unable to fully accept that they are merely early adopters of a new ideology, and unable to distance themselves from the experiment like true scientists.
This isn’t to discount these people. Often, those who stick around the longest find undeniable truths within the movement. If you’ve ever met an old-school “punk,” they’re rarely the raging, angry rockers portrayed in the media. More often, they’re peaceful, wise individuals who have found freedom in their unceasing belief in the cause. They’ve spent their lives filtering out the parts of Punk that didn’t work.
Those unable to accept, adopt, filter, and refine their worldview are often seen rambling at bars about how lost the youth is, how the future is hopeless, and marveling at the raw power they witnessed when a new counterculture emerged before their young, impressionable eyes.
They can’t help but remain as Shadow-People, existing only in contrast—contrast of time, place, people, and culture. Ask these people what they believe in, and they’ll list all the things they DON’T believe in. Once that list is exhausted, they’ll recite whatever doctrine they clung to before the world moved on.
They spend their days pondering why the world has changed without asking themselves why they have not. They believe their truth is the only one. These elder punks stuck in their ways remind me of those unable to question their own religion—particularly modern religious leaders who cannot make sense of the present and so compare it only to the past. The differences between an elder goth and a Catholic priest are narrowing—mostly coming down to whether they wear their crucifix ironically or not.
If the fruit of counterculture is destined to be absorbed and dissolved, the destiny of those within these movements is sealed.
Those whom society deems as “other” often seek solace in that identity. We, who the light has cast into shadow, seek out other shadow people to commiserate with. This is only natural and often serves as the genesis of counterculture. The problem I see most often, and the one that dooms these movements to a swift death, is that those who gather refuse to see that the commonality they share with their fellow “Others” is actually a totally normal, human, and rather mundane phenomenon. The counterculture that refuses to accept its place within culture will be unable to adapt once the masses begin to agree with them.
We must adopt a new approach—a new way of seeing our counter-cultural movements. We must accept our otherness as a form of sameness. Individuality is what makes us all the same.
Understanding this allows us to foresee which movements will have a lasting impact on culture. The ones that believe there is a “specific” and therefore limited way to be an individual are the ones that will not survive. Many movements tout individuality as one of their core tenets, yet they often demand conformity at the same time. The message is clear: “Be unique, but only in the ways we tell you to.” “Difference is beautiful, but only within our parameters.” This is what determines what is and isn’t “socially acceptable.” For example, the United States often touts freedom and individuality, but this freedom seems to come with a rulebook.
Counterculture in this format tends to be self-destructive because it defines itself in opposition to the idea that culture is “progressive”—that it continues to move forward (not necessarily politically, but in terms of momentum). If a counterculture is defined in opposition to “progress” or “movement,” it defines itself as immobile, stagnant, impotent, and powerless. The believers of this counterculture rage and shake their fists while simultaneously engaging in self-destruction. “If culture is productive and healthy for the majority, and I exist in opposition to that, then I must be unproductive and unhealthy.” While that might be a reductive way of putting it, this is the ultimate effect for those who don’t fully understand the movement’s core tenets. Especially for new adopters, those who think a movement is “different for difference’s sake” will run into this wall over and over until they give up and reintegrate into what was previously accepted.
The punk movement taught us that it’s now socially acceptable to be truly “Anti-Authority.” The worldwide adoption of that idea became something people wanted to embody, and now you can buy punk rock band tees at the mall alongside the products people buy to define themselves as “like everyone else”—whether that be a certain style or cut of pants, a haircut designed to blend into the crowd, or a dress that’s “not too loud,” “not too sexy,” “not too boring,” and “not too conservative.”
Those who spent years defining themselves in opposition to this machine find themselves at a crossroads—forced to find the next movement to adopt or live as a relic of a time when “questioning authority” was truly perverse and unacceptable.
The answer to all of this is that we must accept that we are not really Shadow People at all. We must understand that our otherness and differences are, in fact, the true normalcy. We must redefine ourselves as the norm—as the obvious truth. We must adopt the understanding that the culture machine wants to be challenged; it wants to change and evolve. We must see our counter-culture as “true culture,” not something defined by opposition.
Once we adopt this view, it allows us to see our rebellion as playful—to see our transgressions as not really transgressive at all. Adopting this worldview enables others to see us as equals. Our differences are what make us the same.
This philosophy also allows our movements to remain flexible in the face of large-scale adoption. Once millions try to adopt this new idea, we can allow ourselves the grace and peace of being wrong, because it’s the attempt that matters more than what is “true.”
This also protects us from potential self-destruction. If we see ourselves not as counter-to, but as working in tandem with culture, the unhealthy and impotent byproducts will inevitably be shaved away as a new idea is adopted by more and more people.
Most punks didn’t see their movement as necessarily a healthy new way of seeing things. They saw themselves as unhealthy, and so, in essence, Punk killed itself. Why did Punk die? Because Punk was, by nature, suicidal.
What remained after its self-destructive elements imploded was a newfound healthy dose of skepticism toward authority, a generation that became more empathetic to the struggles of the working class, and a stylistic shift away from more conservative forms of self-expression. Piercings and tattoos became normalizedcompany dress codes relaxed, and acts of self-expression that were once deemed subversive entered the mainstream. What was once shocking or rebellious became part of the everyday landscape, integrated into the fabric of society.
This new formation that we’re building isn’t about positioning ourselves in opposition to the norm. Instead, our movement, while transgressive in both presentation and ideology, is ultimately a reaffirmation of our inherent normalcy, our sense of belonging, and our shared human experience.
The ideas we generate and share can then be judged not by how they differ from the norm, but by how well they enable us to continue the collective search for individuality. We can indulge in the aesthetics and philosophies of otherness without allowing them to define us. This perspective allows us to engage with counterculture not as an outsider, but as an integral part of the evolving cultural landscape.
There are those who believe that this philosophy runs counter to tradition. They fail to recognize that the traditions they hold dear were once themselves countercultural. True “Tradition” is the ongoing cycle of challenging convention in the search for truth—a dynamic process of evolution rather than a static adherence to the past.
By embracing this understanding, we can create movements that remain resilient in the face of mass adoption. We can maintain the flexibility needed to adapt when millions of people embrace our ideas, acknowledging that our beliefs may not be as perfect as we once thought. This mindset grants us the grace to be wrong and the wisdom to learn from our missteps, valuing the journey of exploration over the rigid pursuit of “truth.”
This approach also shields us from the pitfalls of self-destruction. By viewing ourselves not as oppositional forces but as co-creators of culture, we can avoid the stagnation that often accompanies rigid countercultural identities. As new ideas are adopted by more people, the unhealthy and counterproductive elements will naturally be discarded, leaving behind a more refined and effective cultural impact.
In essence, the legacy of movements like Punk shows us that the true power of counterculture lies not in its ability to destroy, but in its capacity to evolve and integrate. Punk’s self-destructive tendencies led to its demise, but what endured were the positive changes it brought about—a skeptical, questioning attitude toward authority, greater empathy for marginalized groups, and a broader acceptance of diverse forms of self-expression.
Our task now is to build on these lessons. We must recognize that our differences are not the mark of a shadowy “otherness,” but rather the very qualities that make us human. By redefining counterculture as an integral part of the broader cultural narrative, we can create movements that are not only impactful in the short term but also enduring in their influence.
As we move forward, let us embrace the playful rebellion that comes with challenging the status quo, knowing that our transgressions are not truly transgressive, but a vital part of the ever-evolving tapestry of human culture. Our differences, far from isolating us, are the threads that weave us together, creating a richer and more inclusive world where individuality is not just tolerated, but celebrated as the norm.
In this light, our movements can continue to thrive, not as fleeting shadows, but as lasting contributions to the ongoing story of human civilization. We are not defined by what we oppose, but by what we create—together.
Worcester is a City In-between Things
(April 7, 2024 | by Myka Papetti)
Central Massachusetts has a stickiness to it; I keep having conversations while I’m traveling where I bring up that I’m from Worcester and most people know where it is. Synchronicity and happenstance aside, Massachusetts in general is one of those places that sticks out in people’s minds because of its strong outwardly facing persona: Sports, Dunkin Donuts, Quack-ish accents, American Revolution, Harvard, etc. But the region of Central Mass is not the backdrop for revolution or mythological sports curses and our local accent is a little less pronounced than our older brother Boston’s.
And yet, I swear- every time I tell people I’m from Worcester, they not only know the city, but there’s a high likelihood they know someone who lived around here at some point. Most of them, however, never say that their relative or friend still lives there. They always “used to” live in Worcester. Their cousin was “working there for a while” and they “went up to visit on occasion” and will almost always follow up with the fact that they “actually really liked it there!”
It comes as a surprise to us both because for whatever reason, no one expects to like being in Worcester. Mid-sized cities don’t tend to stick out the way Worcester does because it’s the nature of mid-sized cities to fade into the background of the people that live there. If cities were to have personalities, most Mid-sized cities would be introverts with a quaint and uneventful history, one or two types of industry that supply the jobs for its citizens, and perhaps (if you’re lucky) a small arts district where you can buy all sorts of upcycled antiques, handmade pottery, overpriced coffee and craft beer.
Larger cities like New York or Boston are extroverts; they like to stand out. Their personality is on full view when you walk through their streets and that bold and outspoken panache is part of the draw for anyone seeking to move there. (Within this framework, I’m convinced that LA is actually an introvert who fell into her extroverted Hollywood career by accident. But that’s a topic for another time.)
Worcester, however, feels like it’s stuck somewhere in the middle. Not extroverted to the point where there is a clear and specific personality on view but also not introverted enough to fade into the background and be ignored. But that’s because Worcester is a city in-between things full of people in-between places, working for industries adjusting in-between centuries. Worcester is literally, physically in-between things; she’s the center of Massachusetts dividing the costal Eastern “Massholes” and Western Mass’s earthy crunchy hippies. She bears a heart on all her street signs as she is the heart of Mass. She acts as a gateway to the rest of New England if you’re riding up from the South.
I think this transience is what gives Worcester its stickiness. It sticks out because it tends to not be a place where people settle for a long time; it tends to not be a place where an industry can grow to its fullest potential. Worcester is at her most comfortable fostering the beginnings of things- only for those things to grow up and out of Worcester and on to bigger and better adventures. She’s a midwife that assists the birth of some very special and beautiful babies that grow up to do fantastic things.
The American Industrial Revolution grew its roots here only to uproot and replicate itself all over the world. In the dozen or so colleges that envelop the city, thousands of students begin their adulthood only to finish their degrees and move off into the future. Potent imagery like Harvey Ball’s yellow smiley were drawn here only to be adopted by the entire world as a universal symbol for happiness.
And the citizens of Worcester (those who are either brave enough to stay here after college, move here for work, or were born here from a lineage all the way back to her colonial roots) seem, at least to me, a population of people in between things. I’ve never met a Worcesterite that wasn’t in motion- wasn’t moving towards something, wasn’t hustling forward. Even the burnouts have big aspirations. I only recently realized after talking to a good friend that this aspirational vibe was something I took for granted. My friend said, “most people I’ve met don’t have big dreams or goals. They just live day to day.”
That hasn’t been my experience in Worcester. This city has always been a place that points forward- towards some distant and barely perceptible idea of “better”. She’s a city that dreams of a higher-self, she dreams of the day when she’s able to clearly define herself like her older brother Boston.
It’s why when you ask someone from Worcester to describe her, they can’t exactly put a finger on it. There’s this feeling that she’s still gestating, still not fully formed, that there’s a destination to all the changes she’s making.
I too believed that sentiment for a while. But I realize now that it’s not the case. Change is Worcester’s nature. That’s the tricky thing about her- the reason why she’s so hard to define. Worcester’s true personality is one that is constantly evolving. That evolutionary core is the only explanation I have for her seemingly endless failed development projects. Construction simply can’t catch up to Worcester’s ever changing whim. By the time they finish building the next baseball stadium, the next downtown mall, the next “big” industry that waltzes in with claims to “save” the city, Worcester has already changed her mind as to who she really is.
Take Turtle Boy for example, Worcester’s very own Mannaken Pis. Turtle Boy was commissioned to be a drinking fountain for horses at the turn of the century. By the time the fountain arrived, the horses had been replaced by cars.
Let’s go back even further. When my Irish ancestors finished digging the Blackstone Canal, the steam engine had already revolutionized transportation and so a river canal was deemed obsolete. It was abandoned only 20 years after its completion.
Worcester is that friend who comes up with these amazing ideas, starts them, and then passes the half-formed creation onto someone else because she found a newer, shinier project to work on. Classic Pisces behavior! (Worcester was incorporated on February 29th!)
This feeling of wanting more out of life- that is the spirit of Worcester. That’s why Worcester is so frustrating. There are many of us who see a vision of what Worcester “could be”. I’ve heard so many local’s say that Worcester is “so close” to whatever their vision is for her, unable to see that it’s a carrot dangling from a stick. But that’s the point! This city is in constant motion, grasping for a carrot, always just out of reach, always almost there, always working towards another goal.
I didn’t truly recognize it until I felt it within myself after moving away. Twenty years growing up in the momentum of Worcester had me wound tight, only to have it release like someone yanked the starter cord of a lawn mower. Now my engine idles high. When I left, I had second thoughts about abandoning the city but now I see that she wanted me to leave. After all, she had completed her job of being an excellent beginning.
Those that have visited Worcester have all been infected by her visions- visions of possibility. The possibility of Worcester is what sticks in people’s minds and when her citizens sleep, they all contribute to the enormous cluster of “What Could Be Worcester” alongside “What Could Be Themselves”. Our collective dream is a messy one, yes, but from what I’ve seen it’s beautiful and worth moving towards.
For the longest time, I believed Worcester had an identity crisis- always wanting so badly to be Boston, she spent so much time replicating Boston’s features- always trying to fit into the idea of what a city “should be”. But like any younger sibling knows, you can only play copycat for so long. Eventually the world begins to shape you into an individual. I see now that Worcester is in her teenage years: a ball of uncertainty and self image issues, constantly looking at herself in the mirror comparing herself to everyone around her and unable to see the beauty directly in front of her.
I resonate. I too have been caught up in the game of comparison- doing what I was told I “should be doing” rather than looking within to see who I really am.
To individuate oneself is already hard enough, how the hell would we be able to filter through the dust and find the gems of what an entire city truly is?
I once saw a poster titled “Worcester: A City of Castle Spires and Hidden Waterfalls”. That type of self mythologizing is the answer. We must tell ourselves our city’s story. It doesn’t matter if it’s exactly correct, we just have to make sure it’s a story worth listening to. Perhaps this can act as a first step towards a city with magnificent lore. That these stories of transience and change will emanate what this place really feels like.
And so I will be celebrating Worcester as a city in-between things. It’s neither here nor there and I like it that way. I hope you enjoy it, too.
AN INFORMAL AND INSANE INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMMUNCATION EVOLUTION
By Myka Papetti (2024)
Dear Reader,
Human evolution is inextricably linked with the evolution of communication. For a species to grow to the size and prowess of the human race, a hyper-individual mindset would doom it to extinction as it is collective action and power that have built the organizational systems that keep the lights on. Thus, it’s necessary for said species to develop communication. Today I will propose a speculative theory based on the evolving nature of communication and how it may not necessarily operate as though one would expect.
If you were to ask a Joe-nobody regarding the nature of communication and its evolutionary path, they’d probably tell you, “I’m sorry. I’m actually late to my appointment” and go on their merry way.
Communication theorists on the other hand would probably tell you that communication begins with abstract concepts like “fire” “poop” and “sleep” and develops those ideas into much more concrete concepts. However, my proposal today discards that very notion as I think it’s stupid and I hate it.
Communication, on a macro scale, actually begins with the concrete and eventually abstracts itself by ‘devolving’ into complexity. Yes, that’s right, I’m going the primitivist route. However, with this proposal, I am then going to suggest that it can potentially be used to track the inevitable evolution of communication towards more abstract concepts.
If you’re not getting it yet, let's start here: We once started with grunts and snorts to convey things like ‘danger’ and ‘food’. Now we discuss the multiverse and how to package scrambled eggs to survive space travel. If the latter option seems like a more specific and grounded approach, you’re missing the point. “Scrambled eggs” “Space Travel” and “Multiverses”, while all having specific Webster's Dictionary Definitions, are, according to this proposed theory, abstractions of more base-level and ‘specific’ ideas like “food” “here” and “there”.
We must first and foremost make this distinction very clear. Throw out your ideas that science clarifies our world and that as we learn the granular details of the nature of atoms and quanta, that we suddenly have a more specific view of the universe. If anything, all these bullshit specifics make this world terribly complex and abstract. Our supposedly more “concrete” words have only made the life we live a horrifying labyrinth of abstract concepts and we play these mind games with ourselves only to keep us occupied as the Earth burns. A modern and common understanding of these ideas may be shown in this table below:
| Abstract | Concrete |
|---|---|
| Food | Scrambled Eggs |
| Shelter | McMansion |
| Sleep | Rem Cycle |
| Sky | Atmosphere, Space, Ozone layer |
But this is all bullshit meant to convince you that we live a somehow more civilized life than that of our ancestors. But are we truly civilized? Our current society wages more wars than ever before, has successfully built a structure that simultaneously produces enough food for billions to eat but systematically starves a hefty chunk of the population, we’re capable of horrors that would make the kinkiest Mideval Torture-Meister shudder. Current modern “civilized society” is actually just an abject science fiction nightmare. And yet we’re supposed to be grateful because we can talk about subatomic particles and the granular differences between a French-Style Slow-Fried Egg and a Chinese Wok-Fried one? What the fuck are we even talking about?
We must change how we think. Instead, attempt to swap the chart to my proposal:
| Concrete | Abstract |
|---|---|
| Food | Scrambled Eggs |
| Shelter | McMansion |
| Sleep | Rem Cycle |
| Sky | Atmosphere, Space, Ozone layer |
Just as a thought-experiment, consider for a moment that the concrete ideas have all already been figured out. We know the sky is up, the ground is down, we sleep when we’re tired, we eat when we’re hungry. These base desires and understandings one might just call “Innate”. They’re functional concretes that we pile other abstractions on top of.
So instead of thinking of it like this:
What we’re actually doing is this:
If we pivot our idea of Communication’s evolution towards an increasingly abstract model as opposed to an increasingly concrete model, it allows us an extreme amount of flexibility when attempting to interpret the world around us.
Okay, here’s my fucking problem. People think science is the process by which we increase the amount of concrete concepts in our life. That as we dig deeper into the details, what comes of it is a more specific, concrete and “real” life comprising specific concrete “parts”. But if you ask a proficient enough mathematician or scientist what they think is “real” they start to foam at the mouth.
Science, within this model, is a process of abstraction. It is the continuous separation, segmentation, and dispersion of the many abstract ‘parts’ that combine to make a concrete ‘whole’. The exacting process that science occurs under is only a process of undoing and further abstracts from the innate understandings our finely tuned human bodies perceive. It’s extremely complex toy-making at its best and a weapon used to create unecessary illusion at its worst.
Okay so now that we’ve got our model, let’s start to extrapolate. We have to go deeper, stay with me.
We can define Communication’s nature as an attempt at emulating the human experience enough for another human to understand what the other means. We also know that communication is a natural process- we weren’t gifted with it by aliens (as far as we know) and so our ability to write, talk, and create was given to us by Madre Tierra as an inherent part of the evolutionary experience. And so if communication is just as natural as taking a shit, we can establish that it trends towards “evolution”, or more abstractly- “communication is a self perpetuating survival mechanism” So let’s, for a moment, treat it as its own evolutionary process or that of a living being with its own form of a survival instinct.
Much like human genes, “capital C” Communication survives by replication, mutation, and necessarily evolution. The adaptations and mutations become complexified but only to the extent that humans need it to. We didn’t need smart phones in the 60s- our information didn’t need to travel that fast.
If we link the evolution of communication to the needs of the society communicating, the rapid growth of communication makes a lot of sense. We as the human species are 8 Billion and counting right now- by far the largest population of humans to ever exist simultaneously on this single rock. The need for lightning fast communication makes sense of course, but with that comes the necessity for more abstract thinking and communication. You can’t organize 8 Billion people with only carrier pigeons. It’s too slow.
But here’s the kicker, communication in its current state is always flawed. THIS RIGHT HERE BABY, THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM THAT SITS AT THE CENTER OF ALL HUMAN SOCIETY:
There is no way to properly convey any single thing to another person without losing information along the way. Based on the context of that person’s life, the term “Dog” could mean something vastly different to what the speaker was implying. It gets even worse if we start talking about “Good” or “Bad”.
If Communication is an evolutionary process attempting to self replicate, we must understand that it’s Communication’s primary directive to eliminate as much information loss as possible. And with that motive in mind as well as the framework of “Increased Abstraction” you can track Communication’s evolution as well as its evolutionary byproducts. This chart below maps that of an evolutionary “Phase” of communcation alongisde its level of abstraction and the potential byproducts of communcation’s evolution (essentially akin to a human appendix or an organ that we’ve evolved away from and yet still exists).
The byproducts are the most interesting though, no? They are in essece often times what we might call “Culture Artifacts” whose varying styles are claimed in the same way that someone with a lot of body hair and pale skin might be identified as European. Culture, in a way, is genetic and functions much like genetics do. An ethnic culture for example could claim that the byproduct “Poetry” is their specialty for their community. That community would then obviously generate a lot of poetry in the same way that genetics would reproduce. That culture would, odds are, have a much more advanced, abstract, and varying vision of poetry than another culture whose speciality is, let’s say, painting or dancing.
As someone who is Italian American, our often laughed at hand gesturing while we talk is, in effect, a replicated, advanced, and abstracted way of communicating alongisde a verbal form.
Is this type of communcation effective? Yes, absolutely. Is it necessary? Not as much as it used to be- as this is a leftover genetic echo of a previous evolution of communication. It’s a remnant that points to a clear path of growth and change.
Each of these “Communication Byproducts” builds upon the last. Example: Without our campfire stories warning us of the dangers outside the Tribe’s boundaries, we wouldn’t have Survival Horror Video Games or Van Dwelling Youtubers.
These byproducts progress towards increasingly intimate mediums. The possibility for more abstract communication becomes possible the further one progresses.
- THE MOVE IS FROM PASSIVE TO ACTIVE.
- Radio Dramas and Movie Watching pales in comparison to the intensity of choice and experiential learning that a good video game provides.
These byproducts all serve one true purpose:
They are bonding agents that glue the piecemeal experiences of each member of the tribe together into a collective whole.
For any true evolution in Communication, one must encompass all of the byproducts into a relatable and easily navigable bundle. The most clear example of this is movies. Movies are a perfect combination of every evolutionary byproduct of Communication from soup to nuts.
The next stage in human communication will become increasingly experiential. We’re already touching the edge of it with Video Games. The dawn of Virtual and Augmented Reality is a signpost for what is to come. Whatever comes next will distill the interactivity of Social Media and Video Games with the rapture and awe of Cinema and Theater (and of course feature a stellar soundtrack). And while it may reach an epic scope, it will be grounded in the intimacy of individual choice and interpersonal connection.
We see the baby steps in Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games like World of Warcraft. We saw a glimpse of it when the world thought SecondLife was our new Matrix reality. We saw hints of it through the early 2000’s on Alternate Reality Game forums. We saw digital locality overlaying physical locality with Geocaching and the sadly defunct mobile app game “Ingress” as well as more popular titles like Pokemon Go. We even continue to see a multi-modal approach to communication through events like Burning Man, Renesance Fairs, LARPING, organizations like Meow Wolf and Contemporary Art Experience.
Within this theory, we can see that the seemingly endless stream of violent video games is more an indication of what growth phase the medium is in- akin to a “slapstick era” like that of the early days filmmaking or dance/pantomime as a precursor to something like theater. Interactive Communcation has only just recently been able to graps at something higher than appeasing humanity’s base desires and it is yet to be seen how quickly our greatest artistic minds will jump on this bandwagon and convey both their inner and outer worlds for others to experience.
But what am I really getting at here? It’s simple!
It’s trying so hard to accurately simulate that it must abstract itself in an attempt to be an exact 1-to-1 representation. And if we continue this trend of rapidly evolving technology, Communication might just get her way. We wouldn’t be able to distinguish what is ‘real’ and whatever its ‘replication’ is.
Don’t you see? At her most abstract, we'd probably just be living out recorded events, copied down for us to experience as though it was our own- fated to live out the life of someone else who deemed it interesting enough to hold on to...
She wants to be abstracted. We might already be within her after all.
Let me know what you think of this. I hope to hear from you soon.
Best Wishes,
-Myka