Beach Haven

Ihde, Don. 2009. "A Phenomenology of Technics." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 76-97. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

In Don Ihde’s work A Phenomenology of Technics, he proposes three specific variants describing the relationship of humans with the world by way of technology. One central argumentative claim Ihde proposes is that humans have no relationship with the world except in relation with technology.

If interaction with the world involves anything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body, and one considers everything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body as technology, then Ihde has a point. He seems to contend that anything manipulated in order to shield one from the elements, or extend natural human ability is technology. There could be an argument made against such an assumption in that a natural part of humans is an intellect that leads to the creation of shielding or ability-extending devices.

Ihde claims that as technology becomes less demanding, less interactive, then it becomes a lesser part of human life. What about when we are not using more demanding tech? What about any tech at all when not viewed as separate from who or where we are? Could the human-technology-world relationship variants include another where the parentheses encompasses all three? Is there a time when people don’t view the world through tech or as tech, but rather humans and tech and the world are all wrapped into one, not separate? If people see themselves immersed in both technology and the world, they perhaps see themselves as integrated with both (like a fish in water?). In this view, whatever shape the tech and the world have become in a person’s individual life, the relationships are not separate. For example, a person is hiking the Appalachian Trail and simultaneously checking their position on a GPS map (or paper map for that matter). In some ways the person is experiencing nature through the hiking clothes, the trail, the map, the GPS, and the smart phone with the map and GPS. At the same time, they are out in nature, and taking in the sights, sounds, smells, and textures.  Does that mean that the person has a relationship with the natural world and the socially-constructed world separately at the same time?

In May I had a speaking assignment in the Garrisonville Ward as one of my duties on the Stake High Council. The stake presidency asked those of us speaking this month to address the following:

Doctrine & Covenants 50:24
"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day".

There are so many areas related to this scripture. I have thought about the idea of light for many years. The specific angle they have asked us to address related to this scripture is this:

Our Stake President characterized the speaking assignment topic as:

• "Staying away from the fringes" relative to church doctrine. The topic is intended to remind members of the safety that comes from a study of the doctrine in the standard works, messages in various forms from modern day prophets and other inspired church leaders.  You have the flexibility to present the topic as dictated by the spirit. As you see fit, it would be good to remind members to seek inspiration from the Lord when there are questions, and local church leaders as needed.

I have often thought of this issue as well. Over the years I have seen many members get attached to what I call their ‘pet topic’. I’m all for continued study, swimming deeply in the doctrines of Christ. In fact, just this past general conference we heard encouragement from President Nelson to face challenges through learning and faith. He said:

• Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.
  

At times I wonder if I am a ‘lazy learner’. Adding light onto light will cause our knowledge to grow. So how to reconcile these two ideas of adding knowledge without being overly focused on some specific obscure matter of doctrine? Esoteric ideas may seem interesting, and may help to fill what we perceive as areas of weakness within our understanding. Here is the caution I guess that strikes me. As I listen to the prophets and apostles, and review typical lesson material published by the church, topics tend to be focused on the essential saving doctrines and principles of the gospel. Why is that? I would argue it’s because we are all at different places in our building of line-up-line, precept-upon-precept. Our personal learning journey is different than the journeys of others. God teaches each of us in the language and timing that is best for us individually. I would argue, that’s why in group settings we keep to the essential saving doctrines and ordinances. It keeps us grounded in common truth, and the Spirit is able to touch our hearts.

Another thing I have noticed over the years is how sometimes people expounding what they perceive as ‘deeper’ understanding can at times appear to do so in a form of self-aggrandizement. Perhaps I see it in others because I myself need to be careful not to share in order to display some sort of self-perceived ‘greater wisdom’. In my case it’s more likely self-delusional. When this approach happens, say in a Sunday School class, it can lead to confusion or even conflict. I’d guess this to be true for one or both of two reasons. It may be that the ideas are correct, but not everyone has been led down the same instructive path as the sharer. As I mentioned earlier, God teaches each of us in a way and time that is best for us, and our individual paths of learning are not identical. Our knowledge base will be different, not greater or lesser, just different. The other reason confusion may enter this sort of conversation could be because the Spirit won’t testify if either the ideas are wrong, or the person speaks with poor intent.

I believe personal gospel perspective can be categorized in at least three groups (there are likely more): doctrine and principles, tradition, or personal speculation. Sometimes we may be tempted to mix these up, confuse one for another. General church leaders always speak from doctrine and principles. Tradition can include how we do things. Personal speculation, though perhaps coming from a place of wanting to understand, yet may still be just that, speculation.

Light itself is truth, and opens our eyes to (illuminates) other truth. Life is short. We can be best strengthened by basic truths that are essential for making and keeping saving covenants. We are best strengthened by truths that grow faith. I believe we should gain as much light as we can, but be willing to trust Heavenly Father enough to accept we don’t need to learn everything in this life, nor are we capable of doing so. I recognize the tension between these ideas of increasing light while not putting our energy into topics that, though interesting, are not critical to salvation and exaltation.

2 Nephi 9
28. O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29.  But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I guess what I’m trying to say is we should seek guidance from the Spirit in how to spend our precious learning time. Why we learn is just as important as what we learn. Let us do all things for the glory of God. In the Beach family motto, knowledge is only one of the three requirements for gaining wisdom.