- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,616
- 56,253
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
We are consistently told that bodily presence is optional and expendable. This message is reinforced by technologies that make being ‘remote’ easy and attractive. And the fact is we have changed our lives accordingly—to the detriment, especially, of the relationships that matter most.
Human life demands embodiment. This is not an accident, nor is it optional. Sure, a kind of human life can be carried on in various degrees of disembodiment; this is evident all around us. But it is a diminution, a kind of shadow or shell of what could and should be.
Today we can see this truth in a way never before possible. Our technologies empower and indeed encourage unprecedented forms of disembodiment, and so we now have empirical evidence, if we have eyes to interpret it, of just how bodily-dependent we are. Especially in our relationships.
This stands to reason. Of course the gold-standard of human communication and presence is real bodily presence. We need look no further than a mother and baby. The profound need of baby, and mother (!), for bodily presence is no passing anomaly. The origins of human life indicate an unchanging feature. Other key examples of life at its height highlight the same point.
Consider spouses: could any of the things that most characterize their shared life be done remotely? The wedding itself. The wedding feast. The wedding night. The day to day living out of their marriage. The raising of their children. Their growing old together.
Consider the birth of a child, or the death of a parent—or indeed anyone to whom we are very close; consider all the human life events that are most significant.
This need imply no denigration of virtual presence at some of the above occasions when bodily presence simply cannot be done. The point rather is to consider, as I suggested at the outset, how our expectations and practices have shifted—away from bodily presence.
Continued below
life-craft.org
Human life demands embodiment. This is not an accident, nor is it optional. Sure, a kind of human life can be carried on in various degrees of disembodiment; this is evident all around us. But it is a diminution, a kind of shadow or shell of what could and should be.
Today we can see this truth in a way never before possible. Our technologies empower and indeed encourage unprecedented forms of disembodiment, and so we now have empirical evidence, if we have eyes to interpret it, of just how bodily-dependent we are. Especially in our relationships.
This stands to reason. Of course the gold-standard of human communication and presence is real bodily presence. We need look no further than a mother and baby. The profound need of baby, and mother (!), for bodily presence is no passing anomaly. The origins of human life indicate an unchanging feature. Other key examples of life at its height highlight the same point.
Consider spouses: could any of the things that most characterize their shared life be done remotely? The wedding itself. The wedding feast. The wedding night. The day to day living out of their marriage. The raising of their children. Their growing old together.
Consider the birth of a child, or the death of a parent—or indeed anyone to whom we are very close; consider all the human life events that are most significant.
This need imply no denigration of virtual presence at some of the above occasions when bodily presence simply cannot be done. The point rather is to consider, as I suggested at the outset, how our expectations and practices have shifted—away from bodily presence.
Continued below
Addressing Disembodiment in our Relationships - LifeCraft
We are consistently told that bodily presence is optional and expendable. This message is reinforced by technologies that make being ‘remote’ easy and attractive. And the fact is we have changed our lives accordingly—to the detriment, especially, of the relationships that matter most. Human life...
life-craft.org
