So I was looking and listening to the Youtube video for Sultans of Swing by Dire Straits and someone left a post that this song was good, they play it all the time on Guitar Hero 5. The comment kind of annoyed me, not with the person (whom I fully appreciate) but rather with the situation. I imagine it to be a very respectable way to experience this music but I seem to remember being in the car with my parents with a cool summer breeze and a feeling of free spirit while this song was on. That was a different kind of experience.

At any rate, my point is that the older I get the less in touch...actually the less interest I have in connecting in contemporay manners. It is not that I cannot appreciate the experience of music together that people have while playing Guitar Hero, but rather that I don't see any swing in it. Everyone would be sitting and facing the screen and nobody would be facing each other, looking in each others eyes, and touching each others, waist, side or shoulders.

So it seems to me that while contemporary society changes to accomodate new technologies, and create new means of communicating, we are losing site of the importance of touch. Can we truly share the music if we cannot feel it together. Maybe we never really managed to do this in the way that I am saying.

It seems to me that we as a society are technologically advanced enough to communicate in so many new and useful ways and yet we are still afraid or uncomfortable touching each other. From now on, every one of my male friends get's a firm handshake every time I see them and everyone of my female friends gets a kiss on the cheek. Of course there will be hugging and shoulder patting. That is a start. Maybe we are not ready for full swing, but we must communicate not only mentally but also physically. You can't really communicate spiritually without both.

I don't like being touched, and don't want to touch anyone either. Except in the sexual sense; but that would merely be one specific person rather than anyone and everyone (for me, anyway). If you're not that one special person, then stay at least three feet away from me at all times.

Handshakes and hugs are so freakin' annoying and disgusting. Why would I want to grasp someone's germy-sweaty palm, who has been doing and touching god-knows-what with it, or press someone against my body, smell their nasty perfume, cologne, hair conditioner, BO, cigarette smoke, et cetera, and feel their flabby, saggy, and/or bony bodies, or feel beasts (male or female), or the under-wire of braziers, and so on and so on? No thank you.

Why would you want anyone to touch you or want to touch someone else anyway? I never understood that. If someone I knew insisted in giving me a handshake or hug every time we saw each other, I'd ask them to stop, and if they wouldn't stop then I'd dump them as a friend real quick.

I know I'm in the minority on this, though. Granted, I'm in the minority on a lot of things.

Do keep in mind that I'm not addressing the music component of your post as I don't listen to music, or have even the slightest interest in it; so I'm not ignoring it just to be contrary, I really have nothing to say about it and would be unqualified to do so.

Puertorricans are very affective.
We usually give full frontal hugs, hearty handshakes and kisses (not all 3 at the same time, mind you) to greet instead of the side hug I've noticed is so common in U.S.A
I, along with some friends, went to Philly years ago to volunteer in a summer camp, and they even though one of the girls was my girlfriends, for the public affection we showed.
In reality, it was a common sway of greeting for us.

Thutmose, I don't consider you in the minority, at least not in this culture. As Guarionex was saying though there are cultural differences where touching is much more significant, or in some ways if you think about it in reverse much less significant than in mainstream non-ethnic US culture. In other words, it is a natural expression, natural communication. It might be traditional culturally (as opposed to being purely biological) in that it is a standard for greeting in other cultures, but that is no different than traditional standards of mainstream Americans saying "hello" or "good day". They key is that in the US especially, so many people (relative to other cultures) excessively fear or uphorror touching. That is why in the reverse sense it takes on an unnecessary significance (i.e. that it is something so 'wrong' that it is to be avoided).

Granted I myself fully agree that there has to be some limits on say things like hygiene that are understood culturally. People have to respect others and maintain good hygiene. However I disagree with the feeling of the body sense. This is precisely what I am talking about. There is so much bodily loathing of both one's self and others that it has served as an excuse to avoid communication in the physical sense. I believe that it is precisely important to not only receive what someone says but also to actually hear it (from their voice). It is not only important to hear it but to hear it while looking them in the eyes. It is not only important to hear it while looking them in the eyes, but to hear it while looking them in the eyes with their hand on your shoulder. And then it is important to respond to their original signals in the same manner.

As for music, I'm more concerned that you don't have interest in music in general (however to each their own) but at any rate what I mean is that with music, there is the communal dance in many forms. One form would be to dance one on one with another, embraced and engaged to each other and the music. Another would be to let the live performer 'seduce' you as you dance looking at him or her and directly receiving their expression visually and via audio. But with something like Guitar Hero, you are neither embraced one on one nor receiving the direct expression. Everyone is watching the TV screen and thus the communication takes not only touch of others out but even takes the directness out. That is what concerns me.

Usually when I recommend a book to someone, they roll their eyes, or look at me like I'm some sort of freak. Actually, I feel more like a minority as a book lover than as a gay man.

But I'm still going to recommend a book to you - "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology" by Neil Postman. There has been a lot of controversy over this book (well, as far as controversy over books goes ); and a lot of people have billed Postman as a Luddite and summarily dismissed his opinions. I have to say that I am more inclined to agree with those people, but I still find his opinions relevant and worthy of consideration. You should give it a read.

Thutmose, I will look into it. Thank you. In the meantime I want you as a gay man to embrace this...you know I wonder if being gay may have something to do with it now that I think about it. Traditionally gays have never been allowed to express themselves physically in a public sense, especially on the dance floor. So the example I was going to use in one sense might not work as well but in the other sense it might work better.

Go to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB3b1W6rEDw

In the first sense I was going to say don't watch the video but imagine hearing this song where you are arm in arm to a smooth, slow swinging sway, with a pretty girl. She doesn't have to be your dream girl, just a pretty girl. But since you are gay then I would say imagine the exact same with a handsome guy, looking lightly seductively into his eyes, arm and arm moving to the music, but here is where it might not work culturally. You probably never saw that growing up, unforutnately none of us have, whereas I have seen what I was talking about between a guy and a girl when I was a kid watching adults on the dancefloor. OK, well create that example anyways one on one with a handsome guy, moving to this music.

Now the second example might work better if you are gay. Watch the video as well as listening to the music. But unlike most traditional male fans of this song or this group, you can appreciate the smooth, cocky, handsome expression of the lead singer/guitarist as he generates the music and delivers it to you in multiple ways without having to call it a "man crush" or "bromance". Maybe for you, you can just appreciate naturally it just is what it is.

Now picture sitting on the couch, motionless watching the TV screen as a guy (it doesn't matter if he is handsome or not because he'll have his back to you looking at the screen) is playing this song on Guitar Hero. You can appreciate his timing and a certain logic to his performance by watching the screen but do you EVER really receive the swing?

Interesting points/ideas, Bo.

The term "Neo-Luddiite" gets thrown around a lot when talking about such things; and I think that many people are more willing to see technology, in whatever form, as either being beneficial or benign, and not being able to appreciate the implications that technology has for interpersonal and individual psychological development, or societal and cultural development. As such many people see opinions such as yours as being baseless and ignorant, while not putting any real thought into the matter (that's certainly not uncommon in any other matter of opinion, sadly).

But this conflict between technology and humanity/culture/the-individual has existed for a long time (look up the history of the word "Luddite" to get an idea of just how long). Something more prominent and overlooked is the book & movie Jurassic Park (perhaps my favourite movie of all time as far as nostalgia is concerned). It's not just about dinosaurs killing people, it's a metaphor about technology's transformative power on individuals and societies, and what that means for the future of humanity when technological advancement takes place segregated from morality and humanism.

What I'm saying is that your concerns are nothing new. From the Egyptians who believed so strongly in Maat that they shunned new technologies and innovations that could have potentially saved their civilization, to the Luddites of nineteenth century Britain who opposed industrialization which hurt skilled labour, to the Unabomber who's crusade against technology would kill three people and injure 23 others, among countless others who cautioned against total reliance on technology.

I can't address your concerns, really. The things you're talking about are a consequence of our ever more technology dependent lives, and is a direct result of the transition of human culture in modern, industrialized, nations from being based on physical, interpersonal, and spiritual exigencies to unprecedented, i.e. emergent, needs directed by technology and a separation from worldly practicalities which are no longer relevant (i.e. raising one's own food, living in close proximity to others, separation from "real" life and instead relying on imaginary and intangible interactions and opaque processes that provide for people's physical and psychological needs, etc.).

Something as simple as increasing physical contact isn't going to do anything to stem the tide of this cultural shift on the large scale. The shift is widespread, profound, and ultimately inscrutable, in my opinion. You either go along with it, and try to find your niche where you can be happy, or you struggle against it knowing that you live in a world where the things that matter to you, that you think are important, are of no concern to the vast majority of those around you and never will be.

That said, just because things are changing doesn't mean that we'll be worse off than those who came before us. The "swing" in the traditional sense may be fading away, but it's being replaced with something else - the real question isn't "How to stop this transition?", because the answer most certainly is that the transition cannot be stopped, but rather the question is "How is human culture changing, and how can people find interpersonal fulfillment and happiness in this ever changing cultural & technological landscape?".

The answer to that second question is something that everyone is trying to figure out. Though, really, that's the question that everyone asks themselves, no matter what time period they live in. Things are always changing, but people still have the same core needs we've always had - and the way we fulfill those needs is changing right along with everything else.

Are we better off or worse off than those who came before us? What about those who come after us? Different people will have different answers depending on the things that they value. For those who value more traditional things, they'll have a negative outlook on the future. But those people with open minds, who are willing to try to find happiness in new, unfamiliar things will see a brighter future. Neither are right or wrong, and I think that having either view is dangerous. By only valuing the traditional, the world races past you and you are left behind; both unable to appreciate the wonderful new things there are, and being unable to contribute to this new world in a meaningful and relevant way. By being fully open to these changes, and all the potential, your optimistic naivete leaves you vulnerable to all the negative aspects of change, the new world in all its intricacies, good and bad, elude you, and you're reduced to an irrelevancy.

I think the real answer lies somewhere in between those perspectives. That we need to look toward the past, present, and future to find the answers to the questions we ask ourselves, and that the course of humanity can only be driven by technology and materialism for so long before we realize the human deficit at its core, and the potentially disastrous consequences to our future as a thinking, feeling, species if we don't consider the human element of progress.

Now, everything I said above is only my opinion. Also note that going into every single detail of my views and ideas is not possible in a forum post or topic, so don't just take the things I say at face value or as a complete delineation of all my opinions. It's certainly possible that I made some glaring omission (I didn't go into modern sense of body image being corrupted by a massively influential media perpetuating highly unrealistic stereotypes for physical appearance and standards of attractiveness that have significant negative impact on many people's body image resulting in self-loathing and its implication in interpersonal communication both physical, verbal, and non-verbal, which emerged as a result of mass-media which itself is made possible by the advent of technology, as that would be quite a lot to talk about and I think this post has gone on way too long already, even though it is a concern you present).

So if I left anything out, or didn't address anything, sorry. My hands are sore from soldering and manipulating tiny electrical components. I'll stop typing now.

comeoncomeoncomeonow TOUCH ME babe

You might also want to take a look at this PBS documentary (especially be sure to read the Roundtable discussion below the video). It expands on the things I talked about i.e. stuff beyond the concerns that you presented in your posts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... tion/view/

@Thutmose

Suffice it to say that my brief response is not going to address a lot of what you said as you said a lot but also know that I agree with much of what you said. My comments are these:

The bodily self-loathing example which addressed only as much to say that you were not going to address it is much more my concern than whether or not change is good or inevitable. I would rather focus on what technology has produced now. If someone argues that Guitar Hero is now a better way to experience music rather than via a dance or live concert than so be it. Maybe it is for them and others likeminded but for me it is not. We may differ but I will not assume that either it will be the better way in the future or that it won't. My argument is about the present. It is a call to people presently to reflect to them what they are doing (if they haven't reall thought about it) and say is this truly what you prefer? If it is then so be it for them. Having said that I don't know anyone that will argue that having low self esteem due to body issues is a good thing in the present moment. True it may also be a concern for the future but it is sufficiently bad enough now that it is already time to concern ourselves with it and not touching others due to dislike or uncomfort with anothers body is already an enabling issue.

Within the whole argument of techonological advances, deconstruction, neo-luddites, futuists, traditionalists, etc. I recognize that people always will confront change and technology from some baseline historic position of comfort or familiarity and that tension will lead at times to concern or excitemen. So be it. But to me most of that conflict is regarding cultural details of human civilization. My concern is much less for the sake of society and much more for the sake of the individual (even if they are connected). My concern is regarding not our collective human civilization but rather our individual primate nature...wherein the culture is much more primarily concerned with our biological self. It is this self that I feel demands human contact, particularly in the form of physical contact, and no matter how nifty or fast our computers get I don't see us ever being able to sanely do without physical human contact. Furthemore I believe much of the problems that already exist is because people are to uncomfortable, ashamed, or embarrased to touch other people physically. We might need more than that but it will always be essential because that is who we always will be underlying technological change.

What you're talking about goes back to the conflict between the id, ego, superego, which has been exaggerated in modern times. There is an enormous disconnect between our most basic needs as human beings (i.e. touch, physical intimacy, primal urges & desires, et cetera) and the new cultural needs and, more often everyday, the requirements & limitations imposed upon us by the evolving technologies and systems that govern our lives.

Basically, as more of our lives are ruled by technology, we are we are less and less influencing the tech and more and more being influenced by it. That is to say, tech is molding and shaping culture such that humanity is being displaced. We are now valuing interaction with tech more so than interaction with other people, and even those interactions with others that we still do value tend to involve a technological mediator/middle-man (i.e. cell phones, computers, game consoles connecting over the net, etc.).

What does it say about modern society that so many people are only comfortable being themselves when they are separated from others by a computer monitor? When they can only be themselves online, in forums, chat rooms, Second Life, Warcraft, and other MMOs? And that they are uncomfortable with themselves irl? Do these interactions replace that very human need for physical contact? I think that in the future online interactions will be even more important, and that there will be less real contact between people, and that online interaction will replace physical contact, for better or worse.

The id is restrained by the ego & the superego - id est, our primal needs and desires are restrained by the needs and expectations of the society we live in. If we live in a society where the importance of physical contact is reduced by technological intermediaries, then the individual develops in accordance with that. If people cannot satisfy this primal desire, they sublimate it or go mad - they undertake intellectual pursuits, or seek other forms of satisfaction like interaction with others online, or alcohol, drugs, and so on. Obviously these are not necessarily healthy things, and they do not necessarily satisfy that basic, human, need.

In short, the effects of society & modern mass culture on the individual is profound, and its long-term implications are vague at best. But if you're more concerned with the present rather than the future, I'm not sure what to say. The true effects are still unknown, and combating it in any meaningful sense is, in my opinion, futile. Kind of a bleak picture, depending on your perspective.

I'm the kind of person that does entirely without physical contact with people (it's been that way with me since I was a child), I don't listen to music, or participate in a lot of what what would be considered social interaction, and I'm fine with that; I sublimate my primal needs (desires of the id) and find fulfillment elsewhere. So I don't have the same kind of concerns or perspective as you do. I'm very much a product of technology, a child of the 21st century.

Now, there is plenty more to say on body issues, mass media, the culture of body shame that exists in the US (like seeing a single nipple on TV causes major outrage, but seeing someone torn apart limb from limb or heads being blown off being perfectly okay), and significant issues with nudity & sexuality that exist in the US. There are a lot of books about it (though I haven't read any). Anyone growing up or living in the US, and other industrialized nations, is going to have tons of issues with this stuff; and trying to be human is increasingly going to be more and more difficult.

tl;dr

So just to be clear we're talking about touching other inappropriately right. Cause that is pretty important, as long as they're of age. I mean if you're going to touch somebody, might as well go all the way right.