[Disclaimer]: DEATH IN THE DIGITAL AGE IS CONCEPTUALIZED BY MULTIPLE PEERS. AND FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE SEMESTER THE FOLLOWING POST NOTES INTERESTINGS OF SAID PEERS FOLLOWED BY NOTES AND MY OWN MUSINGS WHERE APPROPRIATE. FOLLOWING MY OWN ODE TO 8 of 9, I ATTEMPT TO PROCESS THE PATTERNS OF OUR COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE
In both cases, your consciousness persists; there’s just the question of whether it persists in the real world, or a virtual one. shcallway
When given the opportunity, humanity probably won’t be comfortable leaving physicality behind completely. shcallway
I’m not sure whether the digital age has reduced or increased the bystander effect. However, the internet does provide a medium through which the bystander effect is visible. shcallway
Digital memorials are also valuable for their egalitarianism. shcallway
Impulse rather than a thoughtful reaction. shcallway
NOTES:Critically exams what it means to be a physical body in a digital space. Offers a lot of insights about generalized notions of human as humans being. Digital objects are examined for their intrinsic quality and then that quality is measured next to real modes of being.
We cannot make them watch until the end. lechandler
Physical space grabs us and keeps us. lechandler
passive witness lechandler
NOTES:Autonomy and control. Leigh positions us as the controllers and actors on technology and does not treat technology as its own entity, but a an object subject to human will. I really enjoy these post because they subvert the power that technology has over us and treats it as an extension of reality and not a separate reality. Framing into the context of death, we imbue deaths meaning with technology, technology does not imbue meaning to death.
I feel a deep connection haheartfield
It allows us to peer through on a pixelated screen and get close enough to the danger but ultimately shields us from the real terror. Haheartfield
The Internet’s process of public shaming often involves the virtual silencing of the individual—or death in a virtual space haheartfield
The anonymity and freedom that we so privilege and associate with the internet is wonderful until it turns on us; when we are found, discovered, or post injudiciously with our real names attached to it. haheartfield
NOTES:Connection, we are players in our relationships to death, but our created meaning does not need faces in the Digital Realm.
If there are online profiles and sites to memorialize the dead, can those individuals still be considered “alive” if no one opts to visit the online medium and reflect on their lives? miding
NOTES: Participation on the internet constitutes living, death on internet occurs in the forgetting the absence of interaction. That is the end.
how we can walk away from and wash ourselves clean of disturbing things we encounter online because it’s so easy just scroll down, minimize, delete, and forget. I might expand on this by adding that we rely on the internet to shield us from the dangers of not just consuming offensive content, but creating offensive content. alcuster
does a creator have to “consent” to his/her work being labelled as a memorial? alcuster
NOTES: The internet needs us.
Additionally, exchanging D.N.R. for a softer term could be interpreted as “tiptoe[ing] around [talk of death]” and trying to avoid the reality of a situation. But the term does seem to “work” in the sense that a high percentage of those surveyed would consent to an A.N.D. order. witty
human mistakes in a public arena can permeate our private lives. wimacdade
this memory will haunt him forever as it remains in arms reach on his mental bookshelf, continuously silencing him. Wimacdade
It doesn’t seem fair that other people get to judge her on these posts/jokes that will exist on the internet forever. lefrancios
Death is complex and in the digital age, death and its related topics, by general consensus of the nine, produces a society that responds with distance. As death becomes more public, society becomes more obtuse in how we deal with death. In the class on the trauma of 9/11 and media response, Will mentioned in a brief comment, a concern that haunts me every time I enter the class. And rereading the post I would say it haunts the rest of us. Paraphrased “do humans really have a certain amount of caring to give in the face of death,” are we desensitized to death? Because of it’s more nebulous nature (yes, death is even more nebulous now) death has scale, and we must reckon with it .
There is not much a response to death in the digital realm as comforting or new. Death in the real world simply IS. To play off Leigh’s language in post physicality of death grabs us, whilst death in the digital age asks us to bear passive witness. What are we concerned about in the face of death and the digital age? Anonymity, hiding behind the screen, connecting and reconnection, collective norming and the production of distance in the digital realm surrounding issues of death.
Taking liberties with Hannah Grace “It (The digital) allows us to peer through on a pixelated screen and get close enough to [INSERT DEATH] but ultimately shields us from the real terror.” As a Hannibal fan I instantly thought of the Doctor saying “I’ve always found the idea of death comforting. The thought that my life could end at any moment frees me to fully appreciate the beauty, and art, and horror of everything this world has to offer,” in contrast to Hannah Grace and my peers’ popular opinion of death as something terrible. Leigh said it best “we think of the intersection of death and the digital age, we often focus on recovery”. In the beginning of 215 we constructed death as a privatized process that demanded to be felt and was discomforting in the digital age because there is no finite end. But buy and large we are shifting toward acceptance of death in the digital age as a different sort of end, and are beginning to appreciate “the beauty, and art, and horror of everything this world has to offer”.