Public Transit, and the Death of Sensuality

Am I in your bubble? No matter, you are in mine.

That was the key phrase for me.
I remember the days before mobile phones were in every pocket when we spoke more to each other as strangers, all sharing a face to face social bubble.
On similar thoughts to public transport, pretty much all aspects of 'public interaction' have been affected by mobile communication. In early 90's Britain you could go out with your mates on a weekend and easily lose them on a multiple bar/pub/club crawl with no means to contact them again, but then bump into other 'stranger' blokes who had either lost their own group of mates and/or accepted you into their group as a fellow weekender in the wider 'real' life face to face social bubble.
I had some absolutely amazing nights with people I didn't know because it used to be normal to chat to other strangers when we had no mobile devices. I'm no luddite by any stretch, but I've noticed the societal changes.

These days the first question would be "Why don't you phone them?" and the person initiating conversation is often viewed with suspicion for operating out of their digital circle. It seems no-one has reason to speak to a stranger anymore, because rather sadly the phone/internet/GPS device is replacing the 'strangers' we used to randomly have reason to speak to.

a reply to: OrphanApology

I understand. I often get the same from women. It is tough to deal with sometimes. If I had a dollar for every time a group of women have pushed their boundaries or passed the line of common courtesy, I would be at least middle class by now.

Dude, I'm sorry that your sensuality is dead; that you have to blame philosophy and religion for the fact that you are too awkward to have a full on conversation with with a stranger. (But then Nietzsche was that way too.)

Sorry you've had to substitute perving it up on a bus for human relationship. How very Sartre of you.

Sensuality died when civility was pushed off a cliff. Sensuality is the delay of gratification. Modern people think they have no time for such nonsense.

They also believe that if a young woman didn't wear tight, revealing clothing, that she would be ignored......

That's not Philosophy's fault; it's the society of "right this minute."

We were promised a class-less society. But all we got was a society without class.

a reply to: tovenar

Dude. Sorry you have to say sorry all the time. How "turn the other cheek" of you.

Promised from who? I haven't heard a single promise made. What I have heard is thousands of years of people saying the senses are evil, and to hide them under a carpet instead of learning how to use them properly. This was agreed upon for both instant and eternal gratification.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What I have heard is thousands of years of people saying the senses are evil, and to hide them under a carpet instead of learning how to use them properly. This was agreed upon for both instant and eternal gratification.

Who said the senses are evil? Seriously.

Practically every religion that posits an "other dimension" states that the physical senses aren't the be-all and end all of existence, the ultimate meaning; but that's not the same as calling the senses evil.

a reply to: tovenar

It's both explicitly and implicitly stated. The whole false dichotomy of the flesh vs the spirit is basically a polemic against the body and sensuality.

The tool becomes an extension of the self, and ultimately the self becomes the extension of das Zeug. We are all now instrumental (the lucky ones at least) and in this instrumentality there is not room for sensuality for sensualitys sake.

As a tool we need not authentically Be. We may flee the shock of our individuation in the face that one true individual experience, death. Thus we become They, a peculiarly isolating type of hiving.

It is not the lack of sensuality in and of itself that is the cause of this emptiness in the human world, but rather this instrumentality. Sensuality is itself limiting, because material objects have meanings beyond their objective presence. Those meanings can soar to great heights of beauty that one would be remiss to ignore.

First of all S&F for a beautifully written OP, real talent for writing LesMisantrophe and an interesting take on societal changes that cannot be but Quixotically challenged.

Whatever about people 'protecting' themselves from unwanted attention (I've pretended to gaze at a blank screen myself) it is simply another evoloution of mankind to try to manage an environment that they think they control.

If you are staring at a screen then you are a consumer, one way or the other you are paying for the priviledge of 'participating' in a social network.

People do not realise how vulnerable and distracted they become when they zone out on a gadget.

I have often felt like an invisible ghost walking through a world oblivious to me - it can be fascinating to observe.

originally posted by: pheonix358

Yes, it used to be that when thighs touched or your arm would graze a boobie, there would be little smiles and a sorry. No one needed the apology, it was just cramped quarters, still people acknowledged the out of place meeting of two bodies. Now, your body does not exist to those around you.

It is as if personal space is decreasing until it disappears altogether and then we become like dead sardines in a can. Oh, you didn't know those sardines are dead, well, yes they are. Caught (You have been), processed (Schools are handling that, don't twirl that pencil) and canned! The canning is coming!

P

Spot on Pheonix!
Ha - 'The canning is coming' - that would make a great placard -
But nobody looks up anymore.

originally posted by: [post=18035883]grainofsand
On similar thoughts to public transport, pretty much all aspects of 'public interaction' have been affected by mobile communication. In early 90's Britain you could go out with your mates on a weekend and easily lose them on a multiple bar/pub/club crawl with no means to contact them again, but then bump into other 'stranger' blokes who had either lost their own group of mates and/or accepted you into their group as a fellow weekender in the wider 'real' life face to face social bubble.
I had some absolutely amazing nights with people I didn't know because it used to be normal to chat to other strangers when we had no mobile devices. I'm no luddite by any stretch, but I've noticed the societal chang
es.

Ooooooooh yees, the uncertainty of meeting/losing/finding new people was anarchy to now. So many great times had. That is an experience that kids will never know in their 'know where everyone is' world.

Humans eh!

I wouldn't entirely blame new technology. Before electronic devices there were paperbacks, newspapers and magazines.

But yeah, I've seen some funny things when commuting in close proximity to others. It can be sensual or ugly, some people like their space. Sometimes I think some people are just bored.

This reminded me of two music videos. OP, you're not the only one.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tovenar

It's both explicitly and implicitly stated. The whole false dichotomy of the flesh vs the spirit is basically a polemic against the body and sensuality.

If that's true, then any value system that encourages you to "think with the big head, not the little head" is a problem.

It's true that most of the choices which lead the individual to act against his or her own best interest are choices based on physical immediacy; the "sins" of Abrahamic religions are short term physical delights that undo our long-term goals. Overeating (gluttony), rage (wrath), intimacy without relationship (lust), all tend work against the individual's good. But if they are phrased in religious terminology, they are 'a polemic against the body and sensuality?'

So what are you left with? "if it feels good, do it?"


'

You'd think humanity would stop freaking out about change.
Stop declaring the old ways the best ways.
Even when they are broken.
But alas, we cling ever harder....

a reply to: tovenar

If that's true, then any value system that encourages you to "think with the big head, not the little head" is a problem.

It's true that most of the choices which lead the individual to act against his or her own best interest are choices based on physical immediacy; the "sins" of Abrahamic religions are short term physical delights that undo our long-term goals. Overeating (gluttony), rage (wrath), intimacy without relationship (lust), all tend work against the individual's good. But if they are phrased in religious terminology, they are 'a polemic against the body and sensuality?'

So what are you left with? "if it feels good, do it?"

They’re not physical delights. Lust, pride, envy, desire, selfishness etc. are real, substantial feelings that human beings experience, just like their opposites. “Feelings” don’t undo anything, and anything that states such is superstition. If an individual cannot take responsibility for his actions and blames his feelings, he is still nonetheless blaming himself in a round about way. Lust as such doesn’t cause one too seek intimacy without relationship, for one can easily decide to do the opposite. The urges of the body, whether we call them “sin”, or “feelings”, urges, vices or virtues, are still the body, and no amount of rhetorical obfuscation can ever change that.

But worse, and perhaps more dangerous, is the attempt to extirpate these “sins” through self-flagellation, bodily mortification and sensual starvation. We could achieve the same affect through a full-frontal lobotomy or high-powered prescription meds. I mean sure, if lobotomy, meds or fear tactics is what it takes to control one’s own actions, by all means.

So we’re left with what we’ve been left with all along—sans polemic.

a reply to: tovenar

et tu, brutus?


"do as thou will shall be the whole of the law" -crowley

embraced & expanded..

It is not just when people are engrossed with their shiny objects. If this was the cause or not the behavior has spilled over into various interactions. What I mean is that it seems some people are treating others as if they were not there, which was part of the point you made. Even when someone is not distracted by the goings on in their device they might as well be. Perhaps we only exist while online, lol. Being infatuated and consumed by technology is not a bad thing in itself in my opinion, as long as there is some form of balance between the real and electronic worlds. I never joined Facebook because if there is a person I want to stay connected with, I will do so physically. And if I do not do it in person then it is because I don't have the desire to do so. If it is not worth putting in the effort to actually communicate with a person in physical form then chances are that this is not someone who is very close to you to begin with. In that regard I see the entire thing as pointless. Online interactions should only serve as a supplement to natural experiences. It should be noted however that there are certain times when such communication is the only manner in which to communicate, and that is understandable. Again, it is about balance whenever possible.

Such unnatural interactions could enhance life without consuming it. I was born in 86, so my high school years were already a time of high technology, but by no means have I let it consume me. Therefore it is not necessarily some condition that strikes the younger generations, who growing up around such technology are doomed to let it consume them. I do not know if it has something to do with how various children are raised but perhaps this is an important issue. I was raised by my grandparents, who were religious but not overly so, and it was not forced on me in any way. I was allowed to go to church if I wished, or not attend if I did not desire to. I was raised to respect people and treat them decently. I would think something like that would be relatively normal but perhaps I am wrong in assuming as much.

I grew up and have lived most of my life in Texas, although I have lived in other cities and states for various durations, and I generally have found some places to be friendlier than others. But I think part of this has to do with the population of the particular city or town. To give a bit of background info I live outside of all towns or cities. Ten minutes in one direction and the place has a population of about 100,000, and about 5 minutes in the other direction is a town of maybe 8,000, while two miles up the road is a very small town with two or three hundred people max. In all of these places people are relatively friendly, but in the bigger city there are more people who do not acknowledge you or who are sometimes outright rude. I have noticed that some people will make eye contact with you and some won't. Whenever someone makes eye contact with me I will smile at them. It is meant to be a simple, nice gesture, and nothing more. What I've noticed is that the smaller the town, the nicer the people. Or the more willing they are to acknowledge you.

I never really paid much attention to the fact that I do this, but when I pass a guy who is older than me or someone I would call "sir," I nod at them. Sometimes I even do this with people my own age or who might be younger than me. I usually smile at the women and nod at the guys, and it is just a natural thing, not really a conscious decision. I'm not really sure exactly what I am conveying to these people, but in my mind I think I am just saying "hey" without words. It is not practical to talk to all these people. But I've also noticed that it is impossible to even display a simple gesture in larger places because there are so many people.

I spent some time in Manhattan and it was a bit of a culture shock as far as how people treat others. I met some nice people, but talk about not acknowledging others. It seemed the whole city lacked humanity. In fact, the freaking police were probably the nicest people I met to be honest. I talked to a number of them. I asked one for directions because I got lost, lol, and he was extremely helpful. I had heard bad things about NYC cops, but from what I saw when there they weren't bad at all. I took the subway a lot and it was like everyone was in their own sphere, and anything outside of it was not worthy of interest. Even those people who were not engrossed in a phone or tablet or whatever just kind of stare blankly, oblivious to everything around them.

I suppose that, biologically speaking, there is a certain danger to opening up, even in the smallest way, to complete strangers. Especially in such a large city considering that you do not know who is crazy and who is sane, who is nice and who is an ass, etc...But like you said everyone is a person. I just read all that I've written and although there is some semblance of a point there I sort of got off track. So I will conclude by saying that I agree with you. If there is any point to this post at all it is that my life experiences have taught me that you will find nicer people in smaller towns. No matter what the reason for this is, it seems to be relatively true. Perhaps my experiences are not the same as those of others, so I admit that these experiences might not be the norm. I am somewhat observant but not nearly to the same degree as others likely are, so perhaps my point of view is skewed a bit also. Suffice it to say I understand the points you addressed and I concur.

Sensuality isn't dead and I know you know it. Least of all in those protected from sensing an environment.