An Exercise In Temporary Digital Departure

-Revisiting The Natural State Of Human-being- An Exercise In Temporary Digital Departure

FOREWORD: I decided to take a few days off, disconnecting from all electronics, with the exception of lights and cooking devices. I had many thoughts, during that time, and thought that I might record them. Although many of the conclusions I draw are based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay, and intuitive reasoning, my objective was not to persuade anyone of anything but merely to record my thoughts that I had on the subjects herein contained. This was, initially, more a personal writing that I might look back upon and help me to do some effective introspection, all the time being, to solve some of mine own problems and find the possible answers to questions that had come to me, over those days. I thought it would be a great idea to share this, with the idea in mind that it might offer some insight and perspective to others (or at least entertain them and arouse mild interest). Almost all of this was hand-written, on paper. Of it all, it amassed (the written parts) around 40 notebook pages which translates to just under 30, in print. The last portion was completely typed and takes the number of printed pages to some number above 30 pages. I typed all of this, later, to share it with people on the internet.

In this writing, I assert several things as facts but I name few names and cite few sources. This is, in part, because I was bound to remain without the use of convenient web-searches to summon up the sources of the information I have accumulated, over the years, but have forgotten the names or book titles within which they are contained. Some principles, too, are lesser known to the common person and may look as if they are simply made-up because of the lack of citing and name-dropping. As this is not a scholarly work but more a recanting of my personal experiences, no bibliography or indexes will be herein contained and I shall trust the reader to cross-reference anything they believe to be questionable with their very own web-searches. Some principles might elude a simple web-search and, for those, the Skeptic should do their own research into the subject that encapsulates them. For example, I make mention of the mechanisms of reasoning and cognition, as well as those of addiction and dependency - for that, the reader will likely needs have a go at some psychology textbooks to obtain a firmer understanding of established scientific facts and theories with which He is unfamiliar. Too, I may make use of words not in common employment in Modern English; the reader ought to learn those words, as well, that they may not only understand my writing more fluently but that they may expand their own vocabulary; if the reader will pardon me, I make little distinction between dialects, in my speech or writing, for all are valid English words and poetic style is of utmost importance in what I deem elegant speech. As I have already done a lot of the thinking for the reader, already, a little academic investigation is but a small expectation to place upon the reader and I feel not obliged to do all of their work for them beyond what hath I already so done.

Again, the purpose of this writing is not engage in argument nor establish things as True that were not already considered to be True nor to persuade. If the reader finds Himself inclined to argue with points or pick out certain excerpts to refute, they ought to do so in their own mind or with their friends. So long as this writing hast aroused in the reader some critical thinking and helped them to question certain topics discussed that they normally do not meditate on, I feel that I have succeeded. Thank you for reading and enjoy.

Day One: Began I, in approximate mid-noon, to abandon that, now and for so long, regular lifestyle. That one meaning the habitual and obsessive-absorbed focus of one's attention, rather one's being, upon electronic and simulated or augmented reality via smart-phones, social media platform engagement, television, video games, musical playback mechanisms, so on and so forth. Any thing which be of such a nature that is electronic, digital, or another similar form and that simulates the actualities of the pure experience called reality hath I put aside and am to utterly disregard, until I see fit and am satisfied that mine interaction with them things be upon mine own judgment and unswayed mastery of free Will. This engagement, there mentioned, is seemingly simple but it is often the most complex things that appear simple, as was so deftly exposed to be so by Master Socrates (RIP). As for the employment of the preliminary settings that allow for appropriate ease of this thing's exercise, I have drained the battery of my smart-phone, almost entirely, and made sure to switch it off. Also, I have powered off my personal computer and switched off the power strip from which these devices can draw energies. All of these things to ensure greater difficulty and inconvenience be that I should find myself compelled to return to these damnable things. The phone can be un-missed, as it has only ever served me as a convenient substitute, in the stead of the computer who, though convenient, could perform few of the typical tasks. As for my personal computer, the thing has been a double-edged blade. What I mean is that which I shall endeavor to explain, henceforth. It is so that, for a' many a' years, I have been ever interested in solving mine incessant sense of curiosity, whom is always niggling at the fore and aft of my very mind. In this sating of my thirst for scholastic or academic knowledges, the internet has been an incredibly resourceful ally. It is through the use of my personal computer and smart phone that I hath imbibed information that I daresay I should be hardpressed in accessing, otherwise. Alas! I speak it, killing my doubts not, for wist I this to be likely false. Sooth to say't, I was much later than the majority of mine acquaintances, camest it to the obtaining of a working device, as such, with decent capabilities that was not a mere hand-me-down brick, infected with malware, and that allowed me some access to the demon that is the internet (or, more accurately, the devil's telephone and I shalln't capitalize the first character be I religious or nay). As a product of that circumstance, much of mine auto-didactic learning was done through books borrowed from the public library (the blessings that libraries are). Too, I would purchase books or they would be me given but, nevertheless, it was always through either books or direct dialectical inquiries, staged with friends, mentors, or acquaintances, that I obtained that sought after erudition. Of the many subjects, never hath I found myself to be truly hard-up in finding materials - I come to admit that what the internet hast offered me has been convenience. The information that I might seek lay but a few key-strokes and mouse-clicks distant, and from the comfort of my home may I operate after that fashion. Those walks to and fro (the library) have become a thing of the past and that is one less reason to draw me out of this Hikikomori solitude and into the real world who lives outside my window. Already, it reveals a dual nature. Above that, one might illuminate that, even beyond the confines of mine own home, I might find solace in my smart-phone, just as the majority of the population I am surrounded by currently do; their gazes diverted from their own surroundings and stolen away be their attention, as their faces are buried in swaths of queer, ambient, bluish glows (the color not only popular among social media platforms but also emitted by LCD screens). To that, I say that I have refused to pay for smart-phone service, for years, and rely on WIFI to use the things, as cell-phone service is a redundancy of internet (it is only a more convenient version of it but the twain are the same, in principal and operation). So, I often will venture out without any devices and I suspect, with increased attachment to these devices, I have developed a decreased desire to be away from them thus shutting myself away. The case I mean to illustrate is that I, just like nigh the entire living population of the arrogantly clept first-world, have become addicted to the internet and its associated technologies (including social media). Nor am I ashamed to admit to this. It is so easy to have happened, what-with the way the ones whom have made a market for it have designed the devices and applications therein used that they be addictive - TV was the same and is an obvious prototypical model for that which now be. Concerning the computer, though: albeit a thing that has been instrumental in mine efforts toward self-education, I have found just how easily the machine can be serving as a means of distraction from my very goals, time and again. Video games, social media, distantly related websites or articles, pornography, clickbait and info-tainment, fake news and misinformation disseminated through the internet by uneducated individuals with a less-than-admirable aspiration in mind, movies or shows, chat messages, conspiracy theory blogs and vlogs - all of these are things that bombard one in even the most focused and innocent visit to the internet. Even with an offline computer, the urge to sit in front of it and waste away the day with video games must be actively resisted, at least for myself and myriad others, despite that one might sit before it in earnest determination toward getting some writing or research done; verily, I type thrice times my hand-written word count and that is one more drawing feature of a computer interface. Most troubling of all is that this has become the way, for most people. No one seems to notice nor care that we are all being sucked into a state of distracted docility and stupidity (admittedly, a personal opinion). It is because, it seems, we are addicted; I must include myself for that is the very suspicion that led to my withdrawal from the lifestyle for this reflection and active pondering. So, it seems there be more to this ceasing of digital delving than meets the mind's eye. As I glance at my bookshelf of yet unread books and forgotten literature, I cannot but see dirty clothes and scraps of paper who litter my once clean floor between us. It has all occurred before mine eyes and whilst I stood or sat or laid in a stupor of dopamine induced haze. I declare that it has been enough. Ill circumstance it be, when mankind loses His empathy for empathy is one marked trait observed to be necessary in forming and maintaining the social structures needed to develop meaningful culture hence civilization. Even the Bar-bars could speak two or so words to one and other, as they'd plotted the supposed annihilation of Athens (never happened). For it be so that empathy is waning away as fast as people log into social media. So much for the social part - they can't even stop arguing with strangers - and manners and etiquette are phantoms of times yore and but a shade of what once was. Recognizable is the probability that even this writing may be difficult to follow, for the regular person today. I say this not from the perspective of superiority or to demean or reduce others but for other reasons I will propose. It may appear to be a reflection of my normal cynicism but one might benefit from hesitating to make that judgment. Firstly, the continual bombardment of the senses via stimuli audible, visual, tactile, emotional, and intellectual have, clearly, led to habitual expectations that all things follow suit. Truly, the real-world offers and can posit those things but not fast enough for an average layman whom is accustomed to the incredible swiftness of the digital realm. No, the speed at which the stimuli are both available and thrust upon the user of such devices and platforms is maddening; now, one is prone to habitual impatience and busy-bodying - the same rise in such attitudes was exhibited upon each marked industrial revolution, in the past, and is visible, once again, but worse. Additionally, endless streams of information floods one's mind and eyes, sating the very sense of curiosity. That all information is created equal is a glaring fallacy for Him possessing of common sense faculty and to alleviate and dispel doubts one may simply weigh the value of lies against facts. It is not to say that no value may be found in falsehood but that Truth is more valuable and that is the very foundation of academia, itself, let alone integrity-moral. As such, one is accustomed to endless streams of information that both sate and pacify the most inquiring intellects, thus one is wary of ingesting heavier material lest they fully exhaust their already strained mental faculties per excessive work-load. This all leads to intellectual laziness marked by blatant cognitive dissonance and denoted by a simple response: TLDR (too long, didn't read). Secondly, perhaps somewhat a product of that sort of manufactured impatience and laziness, language has adapted to become overtly simplified and rife with nigh nonsensical shorthand that one whom is not a frequenter of online communities will likely read as indistinguishable from a foreign language and the reverse is mostly True, as well. To compound it, the prevalence of the intellectual laziness, in joint effort with the poisonous effects of forced public schooling, leaves a common majority both unwilling to learn and resistant to learning even the most basic things such as how to speak their very own native language. Easier than learning the existing one is simply inventing your own, where lack of vocabulary surfaces to be an obstacle. This, evidently, transcends the basic evolution of language we come to understand from the study of sociolinguistics. Lastly, one ought to consider that such a people as our internet sheep are come to be used to the information being plainly stated before them, with no thinking, reasoning, nor straining necessary. With lack of essential skill (reading comprehension) it becomes almost necessary and the whole two make a thing that is cyclical - they need it in short, simple terms that they may grasp the meaning but they cannot grasp the meaning the same as yesterday for the continual simplification of the messages lead to further deterioration of their reading comprehension skill. This is only natural, as the authors wish to maximize the audience by appealing to the lowest abled demographic, in this way, ergo their revenue from advertisers will increase proportionate to their increase in audience. Though Greed is abominable and detestable, those people are no more responsible for their plight than their target consumers but it is the very structure of our society and the nature of civilization itself that are the parties responsible yet they cannot rationally be subject to blame for they are not living entities. It is not necessary, however, to seek a scapegoat; things are as they are. Thus it appears to be that a lack of reading comprehension, barriers of dialect, jadedness, and intellectual laziness allow, shouldst I wish it, for these very words to appear nonsensical and foreign to the average internet-goer. Of course, I am not so devious and ill-willed that I would conspire such a thing for I wish my thoughts to actually be read and not lost in the infinite sea of forgotten and ignored information that is the internet of ten seconds ago. No, I have made my best efforts to simplify my language and make use of poetic license, that I may keep the readers interested (hopefully) enough to read all of this piece. Admittedly, I am fluent in many dialects of the English language and could easily write in a more relevant language, for common readers, but I find this way to be more natural for me. Breaking from those surface criticisms and speculations, my mind wanders through ancient memories of my childhood. Likely, this particular memory I am to illuminate has a connection to the sight I beheld immediately prior. That was the sight of another's face drawn to their computer display, devastatingly engrossed in the imagery - their mouth agape. The sight stirred my memory of my relatives staring, blankly, at the television screen. I'd recalled one instance but any of them would have sufficed for all the same. All of them are not unlike the state of affairs, today. Speaking, ranting, arguing, jaunting and dashing about, holding up products of mine own creations and before them: none of these things would seem to divert their attention from the wonder-box before them. It was frustrating and it is, still, as the TV has been only replaced by smart-phones and computers. It resembles a person deep in the mists of a profound state of hypnosis and that is unsurprising, since that's exactly the case. And I come to the very question that begs to be asked and is the point I have been building toward, thus far: Why are we allowing to be produced a generation and one-half of docile, unthinking, unquestioning, uneducated, unskilled, obstinate sociopaths? I believe, rather would like to believe, it was unintentional. However, I do not think myself so naive. I cannot but recall Carlin's (RIP) voice; it resounds, in my mind, "Obedient workers," echoing into oblivion.

Day Two: Unnecessarily waiting for an unspecified measure of time to record what think I wast unbeseeming, as, upon awakening, my groggy mind stumbled through crags of self-doubt and grew impatient, yearning for stimulation or some sort of media interaction. It is True, and I refuse to deny it, that I awoke to find myself battling a doughty warrior who, in His best maneuvers, nearly dragged me to mine electronic devices and contrived to see me bound before those strange altars eke, in His weakest riposte, durst He to suggest that I, at the very least, check the messages I might have awaiting me in my social media inboxes. Thus far hath I succeeded, defending against the undeniably mighty urges, but the pangs of habitual desire, at this time, continue to plague me. Proof is, now, for my satisfaction apparent; the drug known as social media is heavily addictive, as myself had suspected former. A counter argument exists, verily, and it be that one is wont to highlight that mine own experience is not sufficient in proving the conclusion I offer and, to that, I reply that, firstly, it is good enough for me and, secondly, this is a thing I have heard accounts and testaments of others in regard to and mine experience has removed, for me, any former doubts I had concerning the validity of those other's testimonials. Although hardly scientific, I would not find it necessary to repeat all of this again (this testing); fighting with myself and my clever subconscious, all over again, does not seem worth what little satisfaction is would give a doubter to know that it is consistent in repeatable circumstances and results. No, a doubter will have to take my word as Truth or else try it for Himself. Yet, for the Skeptic and Him Eristic in bent, I will provide a simple line of reasoning to sate Him and arrest His semantic straw-men. That is to say, those whom art inclined to argue, habitually, over minutia-irrelevant. For what reason or purpose there be, in that, I cannot imagine but that of purely Eristic ego-stroking. Thus it strikes me that one may doubt whether that may rightfully be deemed an addiction for multiple reasons and sophisticated fallacies may be produced. Just as I am no doubter, here, I am no Sophist and will not reproduce nor invent such arguments. Though a great way to strengthen one's argument is to test it against the reverse, instead I will define the terms to remove room for Sophistry, for mine is not an argument but a declaration of fact. Beside me, as these words are scribed upon this page, be a Modern English dictionary. Specifically, it is the one printed in 1968 AD, compiled and composed by Longman Group Limited. Although fifty (50) years have passed, since its release, it is still possessing of adequate and credible definitions of the common connotations of the majority of words we use, today. That, of course, is beside the point for I, being the captain, judge, and author of this excursion, may attribute any meaning that I wish and defining terms, therefore, serves only the purpose of dispelling any mystery or opportune misconstruing of my meanings. Wit ye well that I write not, herein, poetry but testament-direct; albeit so that my natural demeanor, while writing, be not dissimilar to that poetic for I am an artist and poet at the very core of my being but, here, I have digressed. Addiction is commonly understood to be the state or quality of being addicted. So, to define addicted is enough and appropriate. Hither, I shall do so. In the common connotation, to be addicted, and I point to the aforementioned dictionary as further reading, is to be in the habit of the thing that addicts; to be excessively dependent on that thing. I would expand on that, as current psychological academia also includes that Him who would forego engagement in said addiction wilt experience unpleasaunce by the way of withdrawal symptoms. I feel myself wary of suggesting it but anyone of the semantic dogma may feel comforted in performing an online search to learn more about addiction and the nature thereof. I only am wary for I feel a certain guilt for suggesting that one engage in further addictive behavior. As a satisfactory definition has no doubt been provided, it alludes to a consideration that one may become addicted to anything. This is a patent fact, surely. That one most commonly hears addicted in terms pertaining to harmful substances or drugs does not mean that those are all that one may become addicted to. It is only that one will find few qualms in discovering a dependency on an harmless or seemingly harmless thing, thus it is not all that dire that one quit such a dependency.

But that's just it, isn't it?

The rise of the internet was rather benign, initially, concerning the average layman. What harm would come of it was limited to perhaps hacking, viruses, and costly phone-bills. As the monster grew in both speed and popularity, it was inevitable that social platforms would emerge to link people across it with more convenience. In concept, it was a wonderful thing and the only real drawbacks were the same as face-to-face social interaction and those could be dealt with in the same way - stop talking to the rude people when they are rude. No one, it seems, would consider an addiction to social interaction harmful. For certain, social interaction is a very innate thing that humans need to maintain emotional stability and mental health; countless studies, at least, have offered evidence of this. Too, we are social animals - always have been and civilization is proof of it. However, social engagement is very different, online. With the elements of anonymity, inaccessibility, and a lack of the tangible aspects of communication (body language, inflection, inescapability, etc), we find that the subconscious mind treats the subject (our speaking partner) differently from that of a living and tangible human. It treats them like an NPC in a video game; even people we know and are friends with, in reality, are not safe from being subject to this mental shift, as the recent explosion of political bread and butter wars that permeated social media have proven, over the years and, especially, recently (Trump VS Clinton). Family members were speaking as though they were mortal enemies, in emotional conflicts that spiraled out of control and into threats of physical violence that resulted in unfriending, reporting, and blocking one another, at the very least. If those same conversations were in person, they would have been far more civil, to be sure. The whole thing transcends partisanship - something subtler is at work. How can one feel empathy toward an object-inanimate? That which is possessing of no life nor autonomy is n'more than a tool. They are things to be used in accord with one's Will and should that object not perform in the way the user bids it behave, it is labeled defective and discarded. Whom is to decide or judge a thing lifeless is the user of the thing. It is not a conscious conclusion to come to, usually, but a subconscious thing that affects the attitude one displays and exhibits in His interaction with that object. If Skepticism exists, I say that one ought only reflect on whether one needs to have careful, conscious considering, when interacting with a being or object, before intuitively understanding whether it beith object or being. Though we are not aware of the criteria that our minds search for as evidence, either way, we seem to simply know and, that, within but an instant upon initial interaction. Beholding it, in our minds, we can begin to realize that removing or adding certain elements may cause the being or object to appear to us to be more akin to one or the other - sentient or nay. That being said, it should be seen that, while conscious consideration is not necessary for judging the opined sentience or lack thereof, conscious consideration is likely not sufficient to override that intuitive inkling. For it matters not that I can make an argument proving that my pen is a sentient being, as I have already subconsciously decided that it is not and will continue to treat it as the dead matter I opine the stuff to be; the further consideration will almost always be, to the practical way of things, moot. What sort of elements may be removed or added to skew the intuition in regard to the sentience or not is an inquiry of some unshallow depth but some things arise, immediately, as being apparent. Among these things, whether it is animated and moving seems to be of importance; specifically that it moves in ways that bear both hints of purpose and erraticism as compared to our own exercise of Will and effort executed upon it. In other words, it should appear as though it is moving of its own accord and for its own purpose, able to concede to or resist outside will and command at times at least relatively unpredictable to us. This, alone, is not sufficient. The mind cannot easily depart from using frames of reference to judge a new thing - comparing it to other similar or dissimilar things to, thereby, form an opinion or come to an understanding about the new thing. It draws from what it has experienced. For example, if all shadows it has witnessed as products of blockage of light, one may see that their face is covered by some dark and metaphysical thing, as they cup their hand-shaped visor across their brow on a sunny day; from this, they will conclude that their hand has blocked the sunlight thus the darkness cast upon the face is a shadow. It is but a simple logical process that allows one to comprehend and gauge the things experienced as comparing to that which is known and/or believed. All living things appear to be organic and comprised of flesh, one will likely conclude, as all living things one has ever encountered are of this way. Lest it be a thing that was once living but become dead, no living thing appears to be inorganic and not made of flesh for one has never encountered such a thing. To avoid long-winded explanations as to what organic means and what constitutes as flesh, I admit that I mean the common definitions and leave it to the ones of semantic habit to research it for themselves. I have writer's cramp and wish to minimize the further stress upon mine hand, whom has become unfamiliar stranger to hand-writing, in its newfound place in an era of digitally typed communication but this is off-topic and for another discussion. Being that all of the criteria, as least the ones that come, initially, to mind, require one be physically and bodily in the presence of the thing whose sentience is to be intuitively judged, it is no surprise that online and non-physical conversations lead to conflict betwixt intuition and conscious understanding concerning the supposed sentience of the subject of ones unwitting measure. Too, one is provided with a mere avatar - a photograph or image standing as a token representation or signature to hold the place of the absent, physical being or entity with which one makes communication. An avatar, being nothing more than pixels in a video display, is no different from any other thing displayed thereon. Even a video game NPC may bear such avatars and, also, un-living chatbots may follow suit. Such a thing is useless in determining the supposed sentience of the subject, in and of itself, albeit convenient in the satisfying of one's curiosity over the way the thing might appear before the eyes. In an online communication, the important, initial signs of sentience and humanity are mostly absent and we see evidence of this in the way people forego empathy, manners, consideration, humility, and refuse responsibility for injustices they commit, all denoting a marked dehumanization of the subject with which they are engaged. It is not, apparently, a purposeful nor consciously designed behavior one exhibits but pulls from the very mechanisms of the mind-subconscious and reveals to us the components of social engagement, its very self, as well as the psychology behind the social contract, which appears to be an intuitive and likely instinctive thing. From this, I am diverted to thoughts of socially psychological practices in both war and interrogation. As for the way of war, to detach soldiers from empathy, in the face of slaughter, as their minds weigh the ethical implications of decimating marches of enemies and seek to comprehend their own moral responsibility and guilt of injustices, it is a common practice to strive to dehumanize the enemies. Their commanders or superiors begin the practice of separating the enemies from the elements which the mind uses to infer their sentience and humanity. The most common devices are to ignore the topics that would suggest culture, hardship, morality, or anything that would denote humanity belonging to the enemies. Even the language is changed and new, inhuman names are applied to them. Instead, for example, of calling them people of their country, they are called terrorists, jihadists, rebels, extremists, the enemy. Too, they are to have attributed to them beliefs that are contrary to the very way of life with which the soldiers are beholden. It is to elicit an emotional response, which inhibits rational measure that might impede such manipulation, as they burrow into the subconscious mind where the mechanisms they wish to manipulate reside (look up appeal to emotion and insolence as pertaining to dialectic and rhetoric). And so their troops will march forth and slay their adversities, with unblinking loyalty, for they imagine them non-human monsters who seek to destroy that which is held to be good for the soldiers and their way of life and their beloveds. It is very common practice. When it comes to the investigation of criminal acts and interrogation, it is having to do with the factor of empathy. The tactic I thought of is helpful in determining whether someone is a psychopath, sociopath, neither, or whatever and it can be an important instrument in further investigation and the interrogation process. The tactic is brilliant but simple. This is not far unlike the war-based manipulation discussed prior. In this operation, however, one is engaged in a contrary process. That is to say that one means to humanize the victims, for the subject, rather than to dehumanize the way one might the enemies of war. Dehumanized victims allow for the perpetrator to ignore ethical and moral responsibility, respective of their own conscience. Humanizing the victim will allow for the conscience of the perpetrator to connect their doings with morality, ethics, and the self. They, then, will ideally feel the guilt and become remorseful, allowing for them to be manipulated via emotional steering and probing and prodding. This can elicit confessions, if handled properly. The humanizing is done by revealing the things that, in order to dehumanize, one would hide or skew. The name of the victim, traits of their personality and culture, familial and non-familial relationships, things that suggest autonomy and emotional capacity, anecdotes, perhaps biographical information - all of these things are produced and related to the perpetrator that their intuition will recognize them as a sentient and living being; they can be realized to be a fellow human and, so, empathy can operate as it should. Photographs and a name are among the first elements to be introduced that one may gauge the initial reaction and lead the mind into the process of revelation, allowing the perpetrator to personally connect with the victim as though they were being introduced, face-to-face (this mimics, as substitution, a physical meeting of the living person). Of course, this would hardly work when employed against a psychopath for they lack the capacity for empathy. Though they may see that the victim was a living, sentient human, they simply do not feel remorse; this disallows for their feeling any moral or ethical responsibility. They may understand that others say it is immoral and intellectually behold the concept of morality but they simply do not connect it with themselves. In the case of a sociopath, who upholds an utter disregard for morality and treats everything as an object, the effect would be somewhat akin. All of these thoughts are recitations of trivia that I have accumulated, over the years. Be they seemingly useless, at a glance, I find them useful in my current considerations. What I mean is that they are comparable to the state of the average internet inhabitant's mentality and behavior and the mechanisms that are inherent in internet and social media interactions which, evidently, are at least partly responsible for such abnormal behavior as is exhibited and adhered to by the users. Upon this, it is worth noting that, should one break from the internet induced sociopathy, while engaging with other internet users, they are typically ostracized for it. I recall stories of people whom have been ostracized and ridiculed so badly that they end their own lives. The internet simply watched and the users responded with either feigned sympathy or blatant ridicule and remorselessness. Often, users preempt any breaking of immersion, in attempt to prevent it, by saying things like, "The internet isn't the place for you, if you're that sensitive," or, "That's not how the internet works." Obviously, everyone is sensitive - just over different things. We all have emotions and emotions can be swayed by our observation of certain circumstances. Even those saying the former paraphrase exemplified are sensitive, themselves, but they would be naturally inclined to deny it in favor of supporting their irrational argument. It is much simpler a thing to blame the victim for being overly sensitive than to admit that one is being inhumane. Manifestation of the self-bias effect is full-bore, as even the further implication that the victim doesn't belong on the internet betrays the absolute lack of empathy and failure to accept moral responsibility, on the part of the one whom extends that preemptive ostracization. They deny their cruelty and guilt, as they actively berate their victim and accuser, despite that their very words of denial prove their guilt and magnify it. Sadly, the others hardly notice this facet of it and are prompted to join in. Not only do they ostracize others for displaying the behaviors that make them human, they actively deride and despise them for it - it is as if it is an externalizing of the hate they feel toward their own human nature, as they seek not only to abandon those aspects of their own self but in others, as well; we must all behave as robots, or else, it seems. Notably, these sociopathic traits are magnified in direct inverse proportion to the amount of humanizing information available to them, regarding the personhood of their subject. It can be witnessed the nastiest and most inhumane attitudes will emerge in places such as anonymous Q&A forums, despite that they often include a unique username, avatar, signature, and brief personal information. Most popular remains the toxic behavior of Reddit users, as is widely known and mentioned as such. Places that allow for a more elaborate profile of the user see more cordial attitudes but pale in comparison to real-life etiquette; where one must confront the humanizing details, they are less inclined to ignore proper social contract but most sites allow for one to utterly ignore those aspects, Facebook being one of them for the chat feature and feed interface removes any need thus desire to visit a profile containing humanizing information. In the latter, arguments ensue and continue to devolve into insults, reporting, blocking, etc. unless both parties are able or conscientious enough to identify humanizing information about each other by visiting one another's profiles but this last part is an exceptionally rare ideal that is unlikely to occur, in the majority of interactions. Even with those features, one appears as pixels on a screen, like a video game NPC. Unfortunately, those attitudes and behaviors are not restricted to the simulated world we call the internet. Rather, they pour over and into reality, it seems. People speak in internet lingo - they speak in memes (thanks, Dawkins, for that novel word). Their behavior increasingly leans toward that which is witnessed online; juvenile, petty, crass and crude, unempathetic, selfish - they are overtly facetious, antagonistic, and trollish with others. We face at least a generation of people who have lost touch with reality, lacking the necessary social skills and empathy to hold meaningful, civil, social engagements and interactions which are the foundation of civilization, itself, hence the civil in civilization. Anxiety disorders are rampant. People are rioting and protesting, in the streets, over viral memes that are only holding any validity or value in their frequency of mimetic propagation - more bread and butter wars but their basis lie in pure Sophist banter that is sloppily executed by an anonymous entity behind a memorably emblematic avatar and catchy title or username. The issues don't truly exist, widely, but people buy into them and are ready to kill others over them. Depressive disorder and suicide rates are still on the rise, last I checked, and people are increasingly unhappy, in increasing numbers. A recent study showed a direct link between social media use and general unhappiness. Why we still use it is clear - it is addictive. Somewhere along the line, a barrier was broken and so blurred the difference between the internet and reality. In the years to come, with the proposed 5G Grid system and forced global identification, that barrier will virtually disappear, if not entirely. What are the implications, thereby, and the ethical aspects to be beheld? Or will they be ignored by a world of technologically induced sociopathy and depression related global apathy? I confess that my mind finds a nesting in an uncharacteristic Nihilism - signs of a defeated sense of self-worth. It is quite unlike me to say that it does not matter and this attitude has only penetrated my being more deeply throughout the progression of the internet and social media and was seeded upon the advent of the modern social media paradigm that relies on arbitrary notifications to deliver a dopamine kick to the user that they may be strung along in their need for social validation that is not received in real-life because they no longer participate in real-life. As things continue in their present trajectory, I find myself experiencing flashes of imagery reminiscent of 1984, within my mind's eye. Despite obvious technological differences, the principals are nearly identical. A not-so-gilded cage is being constructed around my zombified, hypnotized fellows and I can do nothing. It is like a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Day Three: The urges that I had experienced, yesterday, presented themselves once again, upon this day's rousing of my cognitive awareness of my physically immediate surroundings. However, those urges to access my digital devices were noticeably less significant than the day before today. Although frustrated hadst I been, upon awareness of mine inclinations-initial, the latter discovery wakened, in me, some satisfaction over such progress. Over these few days, since I have made a conscious effort to disconnect from these things and actively avoid them, I have become not only more content but find my sense of ambition to be returning, slowly but gradually. Still, it is promising in that it suggests, at least to myself and in mine opinion, the validity of the assertions I examined, in writing, yesterday. Thereby, I am sufficiently convinced of the likelihood of a few other things that I have never before considered but... I hesitate to make mention of them, at present, for they are still matters of speculation, highly suspect. Once sufficient time has passed that I may be absolutely certain as to the actuality of my suspicions, I will to write of them and their nature. If they are found to be not-True, I will ignore them and dismiss the lines of reasoning. Those suspicions are concerning the nature of my depressive symptoms that have manifested and matured, over the course of the past few years. At the very least, they correlate with the rate at which I further invested myself in the internet and, especially, social media. At the very most, one is responsible for the other. What, I suppose, led me to this mode of thought is, in part, what I wrote, yesterday, about studies showing a correlation between unhappiness and the use of social media and relevant devices. I hadn't mentioned whether unhappiness leads to increased use or increased use leads to unhappiness. Naturally so, however, for the study showed a correlation and correlation does not equal causation. Though it may appear they are one responsible for the other, it does not necessarily follow for they may both be a product of an outlying cause, either independently or sequentially. It should be noted, though, that strong evidences point to social media and company to be the cause of the correlated unhappiness reported by users surveyed; that is beside the other obvious changes positive and negative that they bring about from society and Her inhabitants (positive and negative as in quantitative connotation and not qualitative). From this, I wonder if a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder or an anxiety disorder might be led askew by way of produced or induced depressivity or anxiousness - it could be possible and is, obviously, plausible but there remains that I am not convinced it be the entirety of the matter for something unidentified is missing and I intuit that it may present itself in due time. Now, aside from a reemergence of those feelings of ambition, once seemingly lost, I find myself to be more sociable. What I mean is that I am more inclined to engage others in face-to-face social interactions. While only a few days ago, regularly immersed in the digital world and social media, should another attempt to enter into a real-world social interaction with me, I was perfectly content in and, indeed, likely to outright ignore them, at the worst, or cut the interaction short as possible, in the least, that I may avoid investing in a social contract. Too, I find I had gotten into the habit of keeping others at a safe distance, as if to guard myself - safeguard the physical solitude and sense of fourth-wall relative anonymity that is afforded one via social media interactions. As ironical as it is, one is alone even amid strangers and loved ones alike. Be my testament insufficient, one ought to observe the public, as they stand in cashout lines, or see the many walk or drive, faces buried in their smart-phones; look at the people waiting for or riding in a bus and those whom are not distracted by their phones are few to be found. They no longer live in this reality but one constructed of 1's and 0's, rather than atoms and molecules. It would be easy to harp-on about the shortcomings I see, around me, or admonish against the culture, if it could be so clept, that hast emerged but wherefore? Things are, now, as they are and no ranting nor oratory nay rhetoric or dialectic will put an abrupt halt to the matter. Recognizably pessimistic, perhaps, but this comprehension is closer to reality than the wishful thinker is apt to admit, in His naivety. After all, a sudden cessation is all that would likely put a stop to it all, entirely, for one willingly shan't forfeit the means of their addiction's nourishment. To tell a lifelong smoker, "Haveth either food, today, or else cigarettes but never the twain," and He will choose whither which way? Personally, I am a realist - I admit that I would opt for the cigarettes, as I have before. I say this not as a personal anecdotal evidence but to merely illuminate or highlight my point by means of analogy. As evidence, one needs only to look to a certain set of experiments involving rats or mice and drugs VS food, as well as to gain some understanding of modern psychological theories (strict connotation). But a sudden ceasing of the digital immersion is not enough. It would find its way directly back to the former state upon the relapse of the first relapser (as a domino effect) or, if the infrastructure be disabled temporarily, upon the reinstating of services. If forced but temporary, it would lead to contempt and distrust. If voluntary, each individual would need to possess sufficient Willpower; supposing those Wills able, the bystander effect would simply take place and the result would be the same. It would seem a permanent, forced halt or ceasing would be ideal, given those options, but would still likely breed cries and complaints of injustice and private individuals would surely collect and conspire to find some way to reinstate the former ways or else some substitute of close resemblance. But there appears an alternative and that is a slow and gradual shift into a new way of things (though such a thing is unfeasible, to my mind at present). Often, when people quit an addiction, they tend to replace the vice with another. Common examples of this technique include the ex-smoker who takes to heavier eating habits or the alcoholic who turns to obsessive spiritualism. Such things serve both as a distraction and an avatar of that underlying dependency which is never really quelled. It is said that dependency is not unlike sickness in that treating the symptoms will only bring about the manifesting of symptoms in other areas. Instead, one must kill the germ(s) that infect thus they will eliminate the ability for symptoms to emerge, in the first place. The underlying cause of addiction is a lack of emotional mastery. Similar but not identical, dependency can mean either an addiction or simply that one depends upon a thing for any reason. One might be dependent upon their environment for food but this does not mean they are addicted to their environment. Lever, addiction is a form of dependency, not the reverse. Emotional stirrings eventually form a relationship with the use of the addictive substance or thing for, along the formation of the habit, the mind begins to associate the use or ingesting, imbibing, injecting, etc. of the thing with an enjoyable emotional state being the outcome. This is easily reinforced by answering cravings with a dose of the thing for the incessant yearning of the mind and body for the thing causes unpleasaunce - the introduction of the thing yearned for brings about the cessation of unpleasaunce thus the mind forms aforementioned association. Once this habit has become firmly imprinted, it almost takes on a life of its own, so to speak, as it acts as a sort of mechanical switch for the regulation of emotional states (a sort of antidepressant, in its own right). Whether the use of the thing one is addicted to actually brings about an elevated emotional state or simply lessens the unpleasaunce associated with cravings is moot, in the aims of this writing, however. The point is that addiction becomes a matter of emotion and not a simple line of reasoning exists that will convince a person to drop their habit for emotion trumps reason. Evidence of this is all around, what-with the endless number of smokers, despite the warnings on the labels. Clearly, the emotional despair one feels in the absence of the substance is weighed as more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a slow, uncomfortable death for that death is not only speculative but is also not as immediate as that emotional despair and everyone dies, at some point, anyway. Nay, albeit perhaps unethical to say, the dangers are not so important as the here-and-now. At least that is True for the addicted and it is True to the realist beholding common sense. Better to never start but once started... What social media giants have done is quite effective, if not downright diabolical. Some might argue that it is ingenious but it is no more ingenious than what tobacco companies stumbled upon. That is that by offering a product or service that directly manipulates the production of reward chemicals in the brain, one can create for themselves a consumer base that is helplessly loyal and unquestioning. Sooth to say that the majority of social media platforms don't directly cost money to use (first bag's free, right?)... but consider that our leading social media giant is, for all intents and purposes, become a platform for marketing and advertising alike, at least as much as it is a forum for social engagement and personal blog and vlog combined. With ad-space growing increasingly competitive, the introduction of fan-pages slowly became the introduction of business-pages. Since subscribing to one such page and others would lead to flooding of the feeds with things likely irrelevant to the users, bordering on spam, they changed up their methods and algorithms. The new models offer a paid reach option, where such users might pay the company of their humble hosts to make the things they share appear in the feeds of regular users with greater frequency, ignoring the algorithms (to a degree). The amount paid will determine how often a thing or group of things shared will be shown in user's feeds, as well as how many users and for how long. Obviously, this is what is called manufactured difficulty, a term not unfamiliar to gamers. The device is that an unnecessary challenge or blockage or impediment is placed or manufactured, by the game designer or storyteller, with the sole intention of adding a challenge or such that would have no reason to be there but to impede or increase difficulty level for the player. Such obstacles are common in the case of uninventive game designers and storytellers but when the option to pay a sum of real-world currency to instantly remove the obstacle is presented, the motivations are clear. There can be no question. Such a type of manufactured difficulty that offers ease of access via live payments is well known to people, today, and especially mobile gamers, as either pay-to-win or freemium. The difference between pay-to-win and freemium is that pay-to-win can be in a free game or non-free game and means that, in order for one to win or succeed in completing tasks essential to the core game, actual real-world additional spending is necessary and it is necessary per task or component needed for a task. While in the case of freemium, the service or game is offered as what is usually called free-to-play which means that if you play it or use it for free, certain aspects will be unavailable to you for as long as you neglect to pay them real-world currency. Some games or services allow for free-to-play users to perform additional tasks to slowly make available the locked aspects reserved for premium members, or rather, paying clients; however, in nearly all circumstances, the difficulty or time required in completing all of the tasks needed to have access to the full content is prohibitively unrealistic and impossible, in any practical sense - it leads to frustration hence subtle pressure, ever increasing, to fork over some cash. The ethical controversy of both pay-to-win and freemium services has been hotly debated, over the years, and with good reason. Not only is advertising as free literally deceptive, in the case of freemium services, but the manipulation tactics are scam-like in their nature. Too, a pay-to-win service devolves into a pissing contest between the rich and freemium translates into, "We know you gave us money to unlock this content but we still want more, and more, and more, and more, and more, etc., ad.na. and forever." It is not different from the psychological manipulation employed by casinos - they are still in business because people give them more money than they give content but the little dopamine kicks from infrequent wins keep people shelling out paper. All of these things in light, one may see that practices similarly employed through social media mean that our dear old blue and white faced thumby friend is both a freemium service and a pay-to-win service. Although organic reach is still possible, at around 1-2% of the subscribers, it was publicly announced that those percentages will, "...eventually drop to zero," as their spokesman put it. With the changes in the laws surrounding net-neutrality, internet service providers loom over us, threatening to employ the very same tactics. The average user of social media might see that they probably aren't affected by such freemium restrictions, as they usually don't run business or marketing pages. They should not deceive themselves, however, for the same algorithms that limit the reach of business pages limit everyone's. Things shared by average users are limited to the reach of close friends and family and other users frequently interacted with. What users see in their feeds are limited to that of the same; too, it will only display things containing content that the algorithms predict the user will find interesting. Obviously, this presents a list of complaints and problems. It need not be examined, in great depth, that people generally don't take kindly to being told what they want or need. Even a child rebels against it. I think for myself, want for myself, and decide for myself: that, likely, is how many respond to such a thing. The crux of it, though, is that such a state of things leads only to further isolation of the user from those who they have expressly chosen to connect with. Too, it isolates one from family and friends who, though they may not explicitly share one's interests, are still beloved and the relationship is important, despite that. The ones already isolated from real-world social engagement are, then, isolated in online engagement, as well. It is no wonder frequenters report unhappiness and sharing of thoughts about depression and loneliness is so common, now, that I cannot personally recall a single day that I flicked through the feeds and failed to see a contact complaining about those very symptoms. Could this assembly of factors be inducing depression in those users? One might see why I wondered this, to begin with, about mine own depressive feelings. In order to ponder on it further, one must consider what elements and behaviors aggravate symptoms related to or indicative of depression. When such have been identified, whether these things are present and manifest in social media and digital engagement and addiction thereof can be examined. That, however, is a task for tomorrow. With all of these ponderings, I cannot but admit that my animosity for it all leaks through. Like an infection, it rears its ugly head amongst otherwise normal inquiry and confession and recitation. Thus I see that so much time, lost in the digital realm, has brought about an aspect of me that I most dislike - my demeanor spews a certain toxicity, in all this. Even knowing and weighing all these things, I still awakened, this morning, saying, "Please, Sir, may I have some more?" I am thankful that I've resisted. Yet I cannot but dread the fated return to it all, when I type this and share mine experience with the digital dwellers. As for the rest, I shall return to the points in the next written section.

Day Four: Today, upon awakening, my craving for social media and the internet and that digital was almost entirely absent. I relaxed my guard and proceeded to do what I've been doing, these past few days. I read some educational material, engaged with my family, did housework, thought about philosophical problems, and spent time with the cats that live with me. This is the first day I will be returning to the digital realm but not to become lost in a sea of venomous feedback loops. Rather, to type all of this, from my hand-written pages, that I may allow others to read it. This Day Four is typed from my computer, rather than hand-written. My aim is not to try to discredit or tear down any sites or services. It is my hope that my experience and my ponderings will offer some insight and perspective to others, especially the myriad people utterly addicted to their devices and social media. I began this experiment upon the challenge presented to me to disconnect for two days. I did it for three days and I am sufficiently convinced of the arguments they presented to me which I also examined, some of, herein. It has changed my understanding of many problems that surrounded me and changed my outlook on the direction our society is going. In my opinion, that direction is down - down into a bad place. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the collapse of civilization but it is, certainly, something that will probably contribute to factors that lead to civilizational collapse. But, of course, I am no prophet. All of the former considerations examined, it brings to mind the subject of domestic abuse. Many of the elements present in the new social media paradigm parallel the elements of abuse, in a relationship. I have not done enough observation to notice whether it follows cycles or is steady in its ways but I would wager that the algorithms follow cycles, just as the abuser does. An example is that the abuser attempts to isolate the victim. Isolation is brought about by many devices, such as economic control, persuading the victim to abandon potential suiters (identified by the abuser), and causing the victim to become suspicious of other people; the abuser will often formulate seemingly reasonable arguments as to why the victim should avoid those close to them and the victim grows increasingly alienated. The victim is isolated so that they cannot reach out and obtain objective standpoints to make them aware that they are in an abusive relationship. They are also isolated so that their sense of self-worth diminishes and they begin to feel dependent upon the abuser - soon, they find themselves unable to leave. This is, obviously, paralleled by the isolation of users of the internet and social media. Another example draws from the cycle of abuse. One stage in the cycle is known as the honeymoon phase, in which the abuser acts sweet and caring toward the victim to lull them into a state of comfort. This is the regain any lost trust and blanket the victim in a false sense of security. The victim never knows when the abuser will begin abusing them, again, so they are walking on egg-shells, despite that the abuser is treating them nicely. Before long, the abuse begins again. This is not unlike the periodic dopamine kicks that the notifications give us. Too, abusers remove as much sense of privacy as possible from the victims. They demand passwords to email accounts, social media accounts, bank cards, phonecall and text history, internet browsing history, detailed accounts of where their victim went and with whom. They will often stalk the victims to be certain the victim's story matches. This is not far unlike the pressing demands of social media giants for users to present identity transparency (using real name, location, etc.). Often, users find their accounts deactivated for something as simple as using their middle name as their last name, in an attempt to maintain anonymity (perhaps they're hiding from a real-life abuser). Additionally, abusers will often attempt to ensure that they are the center of the victim's attention. The victim must be totally engrossed in their company. Abusers are extremely jealous for they cannot cope with losing control over their victims. Of course, our social media friends want to keep us logged into their websites for as long as they possibly can - the aim is to keep users from navigating away from the site and this has been admitted on several occasions by themselves. Abusers will usually blame their behavior on their concern for the victim. They will usually say things like, "I'm not jealous I'm just worried about you," or, "I'm not deriding you I'm just concerned and want the best for you because I love you." Nothing, however, could be farther from the Truth and we see a strong parallel in our social media giants presenting generated messages, in our feeds, encouraging us to report to them any potentially suicidal things we see - despite that the source of the users' unhappiness is almost certainly the sphere of isolation and emotional feedback looping provided to them by the social media providers. However, my point is not to prove that social media platforms are designed by abusers or to abuse users. It seems most likely that these parallels are unintentional. Though, I felt obliged to mention them because these behaviors are likely related to the unhappiness frequent users feel, in their lives. I had stated that examination of the things that aggravate depressive feelings might be proper and said that I would do so, in this section. Well, I have mentioned several of those things, thus far. Isolation being among the most potent elements. Too, there is a lack of connection with the natural world that can be inflammatory, concerning depressive stirrings. One whom is separated from nature for far too long can lose a sense of reality, quite easily, becoming delusional. These breaks from reality can leave one feeling unfulfilled thus their overall happiness usually decreases. Of the many other things that can aggravate depressive states, myriad can be mentioned. As someone whom has lived with it all their life, I could go on and on about it. But it would be simpler for one to do their own research into the subject. It was sufficient to name the strongest factors as they are most relevant. So, now, I must tell that my time away from the digital world has been quite refreshing. Not only have I gotten a lot more fulfilling things done, I've also spent the time doing a lot of reading and learned some valuable things. It was not just factual trivia I learned but I learned, for myself, an important life-lesson. And that is what follows. Our special quest for immortality, as humans, as well as our continual manipulation of our surroundings and inventiveness, in seeking permanency of being and, therein, environment, all accentuated by our development of ideas of eternal afterlives and that of a mechanical and tangible universe of plasticity and lack of face, makes jarringly apparent the disposition of our species toward exhibiting autonomy and the self as separate master, slave to no circumstance nor affair, set by God or Nature (a god, Herself, in that mode of belief), that one does not explicitly allow and accept; although we are powerless in the face of many components of reality, we confront them with a haughty attitude, as if to say, "Things will change, soon, and I will see that they do." This nature that exists in humankind contributes, definitely, to our attempts at escaping this very tangible and physical universe in which we reside - we strive to overcome not only our circumstance and temporal certainty but the very laws of nature and seek to build for us a new world, void of the restrictions set upon us in our plight. However, we deceive only ourselves, in this, for no amount of vicarious experience will remove from us the very immediate reality that we will, ourselves, think, feel, desire, breathe, become ill, hunger, thirst, tire, deteriorate, and die. No matter how deeply we may bury our faces in our smart-phones or role-play as someone else, online, we still exist, in the outside world, and the same problems are there for us, when we look around us, as were there all the while. And no matter how important it might seem to check how many others happened to enjoy something we said or the way we looked, on a given day, the only person whose likes and opinions truly matter is the one checking your notifications, hoping you'll find that validation you lack, in your absence of self-worth. Open your eyes and be alive, for once. Today, I look back to my computer as a different thing, from before. It is no longer a gateway into that simulated reality I wanted to enter and reside in. Instead, it is a tool which I use when I need it. The real-world has been waiting for me, for some time. I'm returning to it, henceforth, as it is much more fulfilling. When I need something from this tool that is the digital world, I will use it; it will not use me. I hope that the rest of you will join me.