Article
Camila Mozzini-Alister1*, Sohail Inayatullah2
1 School of Law and Society (SLS), University oft he Sunshine Coast (UniSC). Sunshine Coast, Australia.
2 Sohail Inayatullah, UNESCO Chair in Futures Studies, Professor, Tamkang University, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
How can we think about the futures of what it means to have a body in face of tremendous technological transformations? Through a methodological journey that combines scenarios exercise and Casual Layered Analysis (CLA), the present article aims to explore contrasting modes of embodiment and problematize the consequences of following the resurrected body of Christ as an anthropotechnical model of body. The key findings bring light to the narratives surrounding the bodies of emerging futures and the importance of fully embracing our identity as enlightened bodies of flesh.
Keywords
Futures; Body; Scenarios; CLA; Technology; Gaia.
The body is the zero point of the world. There, where paths and spaces come to meet, the body is nowhere. It is at the heart of the world, this small utopian kernel from which I dream, I speak, I proceed, I imagine, I perceive things in their place, and I negate them also by the indefinite power of the utopias I imagine. My body is like the City of the Sun. It has no place, but it is from it that all possible places, real or utopian, emerge and radiate.
Michel Foucault (2006, p. 233)
Introduction: Bodies as Drafts?
Aesthetic surgeries, implants and surgical interventions, biotechnological experiments, synthetic foods, symbiotic gadgets, artificial intelligence (AI), social media profiles, augmented realities… In “Adeus ao Corpo” (Goodbye to the Body), David Le Breton (2011) makes a broad cartography of the transformations that, intertwined with technique, affect this body considered as a draft to be transmuted. As the surface for events inscription, “the body – and everything that touches it […] manifests the stigmata of past experience and also gives rise to desires, failings and errors. (Foucault 2011b, p. 22). It is the living interface for biopolitical strategies of subjectification (Foucault, 2008), as well as the singular place for poetic cracks to the molds of the consolidated. The body dispenses organs and dives into flows yet, at the same time, needs the permanence of strata to continue to exist (Deleuze & Guattari, 1996). As José Gil (2001) put it well, the body is, like the genesis of change itself, paradoxical. How can we think about the futures of what it means to have a body in face of the floods of technological overlaps that increasingly produce effects on what is understood as corporeal matter?
To address this question, the present article explores futures methods and methodologies along three different sections: the first combines a scenarios exercise (Inayatullah, 2008; 2023) with the realm of sci-fi filmic production to propose four contrasting modes of embodiment; the second historically problematizes and expands these four different scenarios through a Casual Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 1998; 2004; 2015); the third and final concludes this methodological journey by moving towards a reconstructive approach. These methods are used to help us identify, discuss and problematize the narratives surrounding the bodies of emerging futures.
Futures Scenarios and the Unfolding of Modes of Embodiment
Understanding the body within its paradoxical condition, here it is presented both as a first medium and a fundamental object of epistemological enquiry (Felinto & Pereira 2005, p. 88-89). In this sense, scenarios emerge as a relevant method for studying futures since it “opens” the present in order to allow for the creation of alternative futures (Inayatullah, 1996). For that, we aim to combine scenarios – a variation of the multivariable with change progression – with the realm of sci-fi filmic production to propose four contrasting modes of embodiment: 1) augmented bodies (Ready Player 1, 2018); 2) enhanced bodies (Terminator, 1984; Blade Runner, 1982); 3) body as Gaia (La Belle Vert, 1996); and 4) bodies in space (WALL-E, 2008; Star Trek, 1979). These four scenarios are constructed through a simple matrix where the relationships between body, mind and technology emerge as the three main variables articulated within the context of what we call “nature”. Their purpose is not so much to forecast but, above all, to create space for us to distance ourselves so as to view our contemporaneity as remarkable, and therefore, rethinkable.
Augmented bodies: technology as a medium of augmentation between body and mind
This first scenario is essentially a continuation of current trends of enhancement within the modernist discourse. As shown in Figure 1, the body emerges as a passive receptor, a vessel for various gadgets, wearables and augmented reality apparatuses through which holographic datasets are condensed into entertaining and entertainable avatars. This mode of embodiment can be exemplified by the movie Ready Player 1 (2018), where the connection between mind and body become highly dissociated, epitomizing a future where the crumbling of the concrete tridimensional reality is compensated by the fascination with virtual ones. In current times, the seeds for such holographic forms of embodiment can be found in the ongoing processes of subjective gamification and marketisation of bodily lives into social media profiles connected via smart devices. In this future where the body becomes inert, indeed, the mind leaves the body so as to join new technical realities. Therefore, the metaphor for this future can be summarized into “the body as imagined realities.”
Fig 1: Bing Copilot. Prompts by Inayatullah
Enchanced bodies: neuro-technical sybiosis between body and technology
Instead of passive bodies, this scenario presents the possibility of over empowered and ever potent bodies, yet through the neuro-technical symbiotic coupling of highly sophisticated technologies that allow for mental superpowers to coexist with a myriad of complex algorithmic intelligences that incur in also complex consequences. Now, technologies and algorithmic intelligences enter more and more the internal space of the body to the point of putting into question the limits between machine and human ontologies (Figure 2). Within this narrative, classical sci-fi movies such as Terminator (1994) and Blade Runner (1982) materialise this type of embodiment which, in nowadays context, translates into the Elon Musk’s Neuralink initiatives on brain-computer implants combined with the rise of OpenAI and many other AI corporations.
In this scenario, technology becomes an internalized part of the body as the body is then enhanced – a marginal shift from the previous future. If nowadays, mobile phones are currently an external device to the body, in this scenario they become implanted, literally entering and integrating the inner space of the corporeal matter itself. Indeed, the guiding metaphor for this scenario is: the body as iPhone. As a result, in this scenario, neuro-security becomes critically important to prevent any bio-hacking possibilities.
Fig 2: Bing Copilot. Prompts by Inayatullah
Body as Gaia: the body as the ultimate technology
This scenario expands the boundaries of the body to include the mind, and Gaia – nature herself, as exemplified by Figure 3. It adapts to the long-term emerging issues of co-evolution of nature with the body and technology. Under this perspective, there is a high level of association between body and mind. Thus, the body itself emerges as a highly sophisticated technology that, as part of the rhythms of nature, is capable of functions such as telepathy and teletransportation usually attributed to external technical devices. The 1996 French production, La Belle Vert (Beautiful Green) is a great representation of this radical mode of embodiment, which in contemporary ways of living, can also be located in ancestral technologies such as breathing, dancing, singing, lores, rituals as well as bioconstruction and permaculture techniques coming from various Indigenous, African and Eastern societies. This scenario is a clear response to the Spinozian (in Deleuze, 1990) question of: what can a body do? The body then arises as interconnected to the inner and external worlds, crystalizing the guiding metaphor of the “body as Gaia.”
Fig 3: Bing Copilot. Prompts by Inayatullah
Bodies in space: outer bodies in technical outer spaces
Finally, this last and radical scenario brings forth the prospect of modes of embodiment capable of leaving and living outside planet Earth through the engineering of spaceships and vessels that allow for human life to continue in the cosmic space (Figure 4). Here, the environmental opening/collapse of human living conditions on Earth is at stake and can respectively be exemplified by movies such as Star Trek (1979) and WALL-E (2004). In the first, technology is seen as a vital source of knowledge leading new agencies and capabilities between mind and body. In the second, though, the mind is colonised by corporate rationalities where monopolised technologies cause the extreme alienation from the physical body. The seeds for this relationship between mind, body and technology is in both Jeff Bezos’ and Elon Musk endeavours to colonise the outer space and occupy Mars.
Not by chance, fifty years ago the philosopher P. R. Sarkar wrote that this could be the horizon of space travel, where the binomial body/mind disconnects so that the mind goes travelling and the body remains static on Earth. As argued by P.R. Sarkar (Inayatullah, 1999, p. 33), the mind now enters technology and technology enters the mind, allowing for co-evolution and the crystallizing of the futures metaphor: “mind and body leave.”
Fig 4: Bing Copilot. Prompts by Inayatullah
Figure 5 summarises this scenarios exercise and the specificities of these four different metaphors in relation to the body, mind, technology and nature variables.
Fig 5: Types of embodiment scenarios exercise, by Mozzini-Alister and Inayatullah
CLA and Futures: The Resurrected Body of Christ as a Current Metaphor
In the previous part, we have investigated four unfolding scenarios to think about the bodies of emerging futures where the variables of mind, body and technology were interrelated with the material reality of living conditions in our planet Earth – or what was called “nature”. Now, to expand these four different scenarios and bring these variables into the light of current historical lenses, Casual Layered Analysis (CLA) is applied as a method to deepen the understanding of such complex issue. Anchored in a robust post-structuralist approach, CLA approaches language not as a neutral mediator that talks about things, but moreover as a political force capable of producing reality and effects in the world (Foucault, 2010a, 2010b). With this in mind, this section problematizes the current technological discourses and how they are shaping what is constructed as real by examining them through four layers: the litany (surface-level issues), systemic causes (social, economic, cultural factors), discourse/worldview (underlying paradigms and ideologies), and myth/metaphor (deep stories and collective archetypes). Just like an iceberg CLA aims to give visibility and uncover the root causes of problems to explore transformative solutions.
Litany
The first layer is the ‘litany’, which highlights quantitative trends and problems, often exaggerated and politically charged where events, issues, and trends are shown as disconnected and fragmented (Inayatullah, 2004). At this level, surface discourses are naturalised and taken for granted as “truths”. Far from being understood as something that is being discussed or as a “phenomenon of expression” (Foucault, 2010b, p. 61), discourses imply an open territory of practices in which one searches for “a field of regularity for several positions of subjectivity” (Foucault, 2010b, p. 61). Avoiding the concept of discourse as mere words, phrases or propositions, it “presents intrinsic regularities to itself, through which it is possible to define its own conceptual network” (Fischer, 2001, p. 200). Hence, beyond the analysis of lexical content, the semantic structure, and the linguistics of signs related to words or things, the discourse for Foucault is “more than just utilizing such signs to designate things. It is this more than what makes them irreducible to language and to speech. And it is this ‘more than’ that one must make visible and that one must describe” (Foucault, 2010a, p. 55).
Thus, the tip of the iceberg in our current body-mind-nature set of variables can be translated by the technological discourse that “progress is natural”. It is just the way things go and how the world works, usually expressed and reinforced by mediatic discourses in everyday news as well as daily practices. Yet, to say that progress is a given evolutionary phenomenon is not just a simple sentence being said: it means historically enouncing a way of conceiving contemporary modes of living, which necessarily positions the body as an individualised entity whose mind is disconnected both from the social fabric of reality and the cosmic reality of nature. Nature itself is disposed of its holistic and intermingled relationship with life in general and human life specifically: nature rises as a dead, inanimate being. An example of this form of discourse can be materialised in the presumption that “phones are great” and “digital connection and AI are the way forward”, which leads to the unquestioned logic of smartification and programmed obsolescence that allow for, every single year, a new AI mobile version to be released on the market, with ever increasing data speed, despite its humanitarian and environmental costs.
Systemic Causes
The second level focuses on ‘systemic causes’, encompassing variables such as social, technological, economic, environmental, political, and historical factors. At this level, the role of the state, other actors, and interests is often examined. While the quantitative data may be scrutinized, the language used in questioning does not challenge the underlying paradigm framing the issue but adheres to it (Inayatullah, 2004).
Therefore, as a consequence of taking progress as natural, Western thinking is consolidated as the hegemonic standard that all other forms of being must comply to. This comes at the cost of not only ignoring collective ways of being, but moreover anchors the Western maxim of logical minds and non-dividual bodies as entities entitled to ‘freedom of choice’. Interestingly, the assumption of the self as an individualised, rational and free entity comes as a result of many layers of distortion of the ancient Greek-Roman principles of gnôthi seautón (know thyself) and epiméleia heautoû (the care of the self), which made possible the development of a “culture of the self” (Foucault, 2011a). However, contrary to an egotistical or narcissistic privatisation of one’s relation to oneself, these ancient (pre-)Socratic maxims aimed at provoking a confrontation with the other that necessarily included a series of relationships with both the political polis and the cosmos.
Today, the current misrepresentation of the notion of freedom of choice gives space for the emergence of discursive constructions such as: we are free because we choose, we choose because we can buy a new AI iPhone version or a faster internet speed, yet the option of not consuming is not on the list of choices – which turns choosing into an imperative. As a result, nature emerges not only as inanimate, but is also seen as an objectified, alienated, external variable passible to human manipulation and domination. Instead of treating freedom as a practice of self that necessarily includes the other and the cosmos (Foucault, 2004), discourses of freedom are then rarified and spread from the media into more official materialities such as policies, technical and quantitative reports as well as editorial articles in newspapers.
Examples of it can be illustrated by the many policies, programs and digital education initiatives that, based on the assumption that digital connection and AI are intrinsically good, see them as something that must be expanded universally to all four corners of the planet and in every aspect of life without taking into account contextual and contingent modes of being that are not ideally valid for such realities and/or experiences (Mozzini-Alister, 2019) – producing what Edilson Cazeloto (2010) would call an “informatic monoculture”. And that is the nature of the universal: a universal comes eminently from reason and, as such, “requires an a priori necessity, that is, prior to all experience” (Jullien, 2009, p. 19) manifested as an “ought-to-be” precept of “things must happen this way” (Jullien, 2009, p. 23).
Worldview
Excavating further into the CLA layers, we arrive at the level of worldviews. This third, deeper level examines the discourses that support and legitimise an issue with the aim of uncovering deeper social, linguistic, and cultural processes that remain consistent. Here, it is crucial to identify the underlying assumptions of the issue and work towards re-envisioning the problem (Inayatullah, 2004).
Now, the waters of technological discourses shaping reality become even more ingrained within the production of knowledges, ideologies and epistemes, entering the liminal space between the conscious and subconscious. Here, nature has been objectified to the point of becoming a mere resource fragmented of its cosmic relationship with mind and body, crystalising a robust technological worldview: that of “consumption is unlimited.” Without the limits that hold together the interconnection between self, others and cosmic boundaries, fast fashion, fast food and fast paced entertainment emerge as ways of entertaining the body through dopamine-driven platforms.
These technological discourses are materialised by the internalised belief that the body is an entertainable entity that not only needs, but also craves to be digitally available and responsive 24/7 within incessant cycles of immediate gratification (Mozzini-Alister, 2019). As Deleuze (2008, p. 224) would say, it is by ‘having fun’ that subtly marketing becomes an “instrument of social control and forms the impudent race of our masters. Control is short-term and rapidly rotating, but also continuous and unlimited.” Thus, by breaking the boundaries of pause and silence in order to constantly communicate and interact, the production of content, images, movies and all forms of human imagination via social media platforms and the use of gadgets become a business-like tool for self-promotion (Mozzini-Alister, 2021). In this sense, all aspects of life and the processes of living itself become a biopolitical product (Foucault, 2008) of calculation for the achievement of maximum efficiency and efficacy.
Myths and Metaphors
At the myths and metaphor CLA layer, we are faced with underlying stories that encompass collective archetypes, tapping into the unconscious and emotional aspects of issues or paradoxes, which in turn elicits a visceral, emotional response to the worldview in question (Inayatullah, 2004). Language is less precise since imagery and touch evoke the heart rather than the intellect, bringing forth a foundational level of inquiry. So what would be here, at the bottom of the iceberg? What core archetypical metaphor is driving our current technological search? And what type of embodiment is it pointing towards?
When progress, Western standards and limitless consumption are institutionalised, the collective imaginary of what it means to be human is also profoundly transformed. More and more detached from nature, after the body has been individualised, then placed within a world of ‘choice’ to be entertained, instead of animals or divine creatures, the mythical image now is that of an ascendent humanity towards a god-like existence. “I am God”, then, emerges as a vital technological discourse, and our intrinsic animality becomes the crucial target for anthropotechnical interventions, that is, of “techniques through which human communities and the individuals who compose them act upon their own animal nature with the goal of guiding, expanding, modifying or domesticating their biological substratum” (Ludueña, 2012, p. 9). For Ludueña, anthropotechnologies are not an “inexorable process of fabrication of what is human that takes us from “the classical humanism” towards a new anthropotechnological era of biotechnological eugenics” (p. 10). Contrary to a kind of deontological premise with a predetermined target, all modes of anthropotechnological substantiation are related to a “contingent form adopted by the very technologies of power applied on the human animal” (p.10). At the core of such endeavour is the zoopolitical aim of distending the life/death binomial in favour of modes of survival that modify the very matter of what is understood as a body. In this sense, life emerges no longer as a biopolitical means of calculation (Foucault, 2008), but above all, as an extendable force where the veil between life and death become indistinguishable.
And what would be the metaphor anchoring this godlike will for immortality? Instead of the mundane, ordinaire, carnal and limited tridimensional reality of the deteriorable flesh, the Argentinian philosopher Fabián Romanidini Ludueña (2012) diagnoses that the current technological paradigm is driven by a very intriguing model of embodiment: that of the resurrected body of Christ. As “the outcome of the first and truly technical and biological experiment of the divine zoopolitics” (Ludueña, 2012, p. 187), the Messiah consecrates in his resurrection the power of immortality: “man and God, born (natum) and not born (non natum), carnal (carneum) and spiritual (spiritalem), weak and strong, mortal (morientem) and living (viventem)” (Tertullian, as cited in Ludueña, 2012, p. 130). “After all, what is a resurrected body other than a living dead?” (Ludueña, 2012, p. 127).
Resurrected bodies, that is, bodies that not only immortally live beyond death, traverse every wall without ever clashing or stumbling, move everywhere without ever delaying, soar high above without ever suffering the effects of gravity. But above all, since it is a body risen from the flesh, it is capable of “perceiving without being affected” (Romandini, 2012, p. 217). , i.e. it feels the fire but does not get burn by it since it creates an angelic, and therefore, non-animal sensitivity. Not by chance, Sigmund Freud (2015), in the classic “Civilization and Its Discontents”, warned about such possibility when comparing humans to a kind of “prosthetic God” that, with auxiliary organs, would increase the so cultivated imaginary desire to become godlike.
The germs of these angelical “bodies of light” (Mozzini-Alister, 2021) immune to the discomfort of feelings since totally emancipated from their mammalian condition as a species can be already seen in the rise of the holographic embodiment of the virtual profile: an entity deprived of the basic survival instincts of hunger, sleep, sex and fear and always accessible, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, simultaneously present in any other smart screen on the planet. Ever present, ever awake, sexless, beyond eating, and incapable of feeling fear – just like an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God. Not by chance, virtual profiles are also called “avatars”, a word that comes from the Sanskrit “avatara” and means those spiritual beings who descends from God thus representing a divine manifestation on earth.
However, if in Easter Jesus had to die in order to resurrect as Christ, epitomising the precedence of death over resurrection, the current search for technological resurrection operates an interesting inversion of the dynamics between life and death: through the after-life of virtual profiles, now smart devices coupled with algorithmically programmed intelligences and augmented realities emulate bodies whose resurrection precedes their death and enable beyond-humans to be here, there and everywhere at the same time. What are the subjective and material implications of suppressing our own animality to emerge as bodies of light?
Conclusion: Towards Reconstruction
Along this article, we have initially addressed futures forms of embodiment through a scenarios exercise where the body, mind and technology trilogy were analysed in their relationship to nature. For that, we have explored the realm of sci-fi film production by analysing four different types of emerging metaphors and their respective implications in seeing the body as augmented realities (Scenario 1), as an enhanced entity (Scenario 2), as Gaia (Scenario 3), or as occupying the outer space (Scenario 4). Later, to further deepen the relationship between the body, mind, technology and nature, the former section brought these variables into the present light through the eyes of a CLA exploration. Throughout this exercise, as summarized in Table 1, discourses such as “progress is natural”, “Western as the standards of development”, “consumption is unlimited” and “we become Gods” respectively emerged on the litany, systems, worldviews and myths levels of our current modes of embodiment.
Yet, while a deconstructive approach is an intrinsic part of operationalizing any CLA endeavour, as a method, CLA also insists on the importance of moving towards reconstructing and reimagining futures narratives. Thus, what could be reimagined from the archetypical narrative shaping our current model of body? If the resurrected body of Christ (Ludueña, 2012) aims is to transform bodies of flesh, feelings and bones into omnipresent bodies of light detached from their limited animality (Mozzini-Alister, 2021), would it be possible to bend this plot? How could we rethink the discourses of “progress is natural”, “Western as the standards of development”, “consumption is unlimited” and “we become Gods”? What new litanies, systems, worldviews and myths would emerge if we shift and flit the current paradigm of embodiment upside down? Or in a nutshell, what alternative metaphors do we want our technological endeavours to be driven by?
Table 1: CLA of relationship between technology, body, mind and nature, by Mozzini-Alister
| Level | Technological discourse | Embodiment | Mind | Nature |
| Litany | “Progress is natural” | Individualised bodies | Alienation from social context | Nature as inanimate |
| Systemic (Causes) |
“Western as the standard of development” | Bodies as a place of freedom of choice | Rational and logical thinking as paradigm | Nature as an object |
| Worldview | “Consumption is unlimited” | Body as entertainment | Utilitarian and marketing logic | Nature as a resource |
| Myths & Metaphors | “We become God” | Resurrected body of Christ, body as impassible | Mind as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent | Nature as dispensable |
Hence, at the litany level, the new narrative framing our everyday understandings would shift from a naturalised and lineal understanding of progress to those embracing cyclical and spiral temporalities. In this realm, the notion of technology becomes less and less related to the production of consumable objects and more to nourishment of the arts of the body in the body of the cosmos. That because, in this new litany, the body is seen as a highly sophisticated technology where humans and nature co-exist in a state of symbiosis, moving away from a focus on control and exploitation. This vision challenges the prevalent discourse that views technological advancement and often disregards the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Aligned with scenario number 3 “The body as Gaia”, what is seen as “technological advancement” now flourishes through the poetic recognition and mass implementation of ancestral technologies as the real meaning of the notion of “technologies of care” proposed by Heidegger (1977) in the classic essay “The Question Concerning Technology.” In it, Heidegger critiques how modern technology reduces the world to a “standing-reserve” (Gestell), focusing solely on utility and control. In contrast, a “technology of care” reorients our relationship with technology from domination to nurturing. Inspired by the Greek word “poiesis”, it emphasizes understanding the world “as it is”, revealing its true essence (aletheia) by integrating the poet’s reflective stance, which safeguards against the dehumanizing aspects of technology and promotes a more interconnected existence.
Consequently, at a systems level, the focus would shift from the one hegemonic systemic standard as a model of development – in this case, that of Western cultures – to the flourishing of difference, collectivity and togetherness through the interplay of all cultures and ways of being. Therefore, instead of extractive and dominating technologies, they would work as tools for realising the greater potential of humanity to liberate and sustain the blossoming of all forms of life. Anchored in the maxim of diversity, these new systems would then built on principles that prioritise enhancing humanity’s deeper connections with nature and all other living entities, which would lead to systemic changes: sustainable forms of management, production, consumption, reproduction and distribution, interconnected with a profound deacceleration of life and its rhythms, would allow space for renewed ways of harnessing energy, building, eating, dressing, working, resting, entertaining. The awareness around planetary boundaries, better known as “PB” (Steffen et al, 2015) became less of an intellectual knowledge and more of an intuitional wisdom where nature is no longer objectified.
And when systems change, renewed epistemologies also come to life. In this sense, at the worldview level, there is a shift from a mindset of limitless consumption and competition to that of regenerative practices co-designed for mutual thrival. This metamorphosis from a zero-sum, win-lose mentality to one that celebrates collaborative success allows for a future that challenges the neoliberal worldview often driving economic developments, calling for a more compassionate, co-evolutionary approach aligned with the etymological meaning of the word “economy”. From the Greek “oikos” (home) and “nomos” (law), economy then emerges as the management of our planet Earth as home. In this context, a variety of types of circular economy and eco-village models spread and germinate together with reimagined economic models highly grounded on the clarity of what not to extract from nature. Instead of a focus on accumulation and profit, diverse forms of local production and trade arise in detriment of monopolised ways of doing “business”. Ironically, the worldview transmutes from the understanding of time and space as “resources” to be entertained and made “busy” to nuanced fluxes of rest, play and purposeful action focused on the appreciation of the present moment. This would be a future where humans co-evolve consciously with nature and technology, understanding our limits and their limits. Table 2 portraits a summary of this reconstructive CLA exercise.
Table 2: Transformed futures of embodiment, by Mozzini-Alister and Inayatullah
| Level | Today | Transformed |
| Litany | Angels, gods and demons | Enlightened bodies of flesh |
| Systemic (Causes) |
Resources to entertain us | Rest, play and purposeful action |
| Worldview | Infinite humans: evolution | Connect to others, nature, and spirit: co-evolution |
| Myths & Metaphors | We become gods | We are as God |
Finally, the underlying stories that would shape the collective imaginary at a myth and metaphor level shifts from the idea of “we become gods” to “we are as God.” And it is important to realise the consequences of adding the preposition “as” to this sentence: it means that we finally recognise our intrinsic divinity, and therefore, accept ourselves as God’s children playing in its beautiful creation: planet Earth. Hence, instead of deifying ourselves and aiming to become omniscient, omnipresence and omnipotent gods ourselves through the model of the resurrected body of, for example, “Christ”, we embrace our finitude, our limitedness and our basic survival instincts. In synch with our own animality, the cycles of life and death are no longer suppressed or extended, but celebrated, ritualized and, above all, felt in its awe, beauty and fragility. Both the myths of human exceptionalism and the quest for immortality fall through and are transmuted into a grounded understanding that true growth and progress emerge from symbiotic relationships of mutual support. Now, as in Figure 6, contrary to building an impassive body immune to the discomfort of emotions, we learn to embrace our shared humanity through the ability to collectively heal by sharing our stories of joys and pains, hand-in-hand, growing each other just like the interconnectedness of rainforests, oceans and winds.
Fig 6: Bing Copilot. Prompts by Inayatullah
This does not mean achieving a redemptive Eden where everything is perfect and immaculate, but it does mean that we finally learn how to live in peace with what we truly are: enlightened bodies of flesh. Not Angels. Not Gods. Not Demons. Just fallible, dual, divine and carnal: humans. And it is through this profound realization of our wholehearted identity that new futures become possible.
References
Cameron, J. (Director). (1984). The Terminator (Film). Orion Pictures.
Cazeloto, E. (2010). Monocultura informática, permacultura e a construção de uma sociabilidade contra-hegemônica. DOSSIÊ: perspectivas autorais nos estudos de comunicação V. Matrizes: Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Comunicação da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Ano 3, n. 2, p. 187-200, jan.-jul. p. 194.
Deleuze, G. (1990). “What Can a Body Do?,” Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza Zone Books.
Deleuze, G.; Guattari, F. (1996) Mil platôs: capitalismo e esquizofrenia. Aurélio Guerra Neto et alii (trans.). Ed. 34.
Deleuze, G. (2008). Conversações. Peter Pál Pelbart (trans.) 7. ed. 34.
Felinto, E.; Pereira, V. A. (2005). A Vida dos Objetos: um Diálogo com o Pensamento da Materialidade da Comunicação. In: Contemporânea: Revista de Comunicação e Cultura, Salvador, v. 3, n.1, p. 75-94.
Fischer, R. M. B. (2001). Foucault e a análise do discurso em educação. Caderno de Pesquisa, São Paulo, n. 114, nov.
Foucault, M. (2004). A ética do cuidado de si como prática da liberdade. Foucault, M. Ética, sexualidade, política. Forense Universitária. (Ditos e escritos; V).
Foucault, M. (2006). Le corps utopique. C.A. Jones (Ed.), Sensorium. Embodied experience, technology and contemporary art. MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (2008). Nascimento da biopolítica. Tradução Eduardo Brandão. Martins Fontes.
Foucault, M. (2010a). História da Sexualidade I: A vontade de saber. Maria Thereza da Costa Albuquerque & J. A. Guilhon Albuquerque (trans.). Graal.
Foucault, M. (2010b). O sujeito e o poder. Vera Portocarrero & Gilda Gomes Carneiro (trans.). 2 ed. Dreyfus, H.; Rabinow, P. Michel Foucault, uma trajetória filosófica: para além do estruturalismo e da hermenêutica. Forense Universitária.
Foucault, M. (2011a). The Courage of the Truth. The Government of Self and Others II. Lectures at the College De France 1983–1984, G. Burchell (trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (2011b). Microfísica do Poder. Machado, R. (Org). Roberto Machado (trans.). Graal.
Freud, S. (2015). Civilization and its discontents: Broadview Press.
Gil, J. (2001). Movimento Total – O Corpo e a Dança. Relógio D’água.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Trans. William Lovitt, Harper and Row, New York.
Inayatullah, S. (1996). Methods and epistemologies in futures studies. The knowledge base of futures studies, 1, 186-203.
Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X
Inayatullah, S. (1999). Situating Sarkar. Gurukul Publications.
Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader. Tamkang University Press.
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4-21. doi:10.1108/14636680810855991
Inayatullah, S. (2015). Causal layered analysis. In J. Glenn & T. Gordon (Eds.), Futures Research Methodology (Version 3.0). The Millennium Project.
Inayatullah, S. (2023). Embodied CLA: The role of polyvagal theory in futures methodology – A conversation with Sohail Inayatullah and Debra Em Wilson. Journal of Futures Studies. Retrieved from https://jfsdigital.org/
Jullien, F. (2009) O diálogo entre as culturas – Do universal ao multiculturalismo. André Telles (trans.) Jorge Zahar.
Le Breton, D. (2011) Adeus ao corpo: antropologia e sociedade. 6 ed. Papirus.
Ludueña, F. R. (2012). A comunidade dos espectros. I. Antropotecnia. Alexandre Nodari e Leonardo D’Ávila de Oliveira (trans.). Cultura e Barbárie.
Mozzini-Alister, C. (2019). Impressões de um corpo conectado: como a publicidade está nos incitando à conexāo digital. Appris.
Mozzini-Alister, C. (2021). Does Social Media Have Limits? Bodies of Light & the Desire for Omnipresence. Palgrave Macmillan.
Serreau, C. (Director). (1996). La Belle Verte (Film). MK2 Diffusion.
Scott. R. (Director). (1982). Blade Runner (Film). Warner Bros.
Spielberg, S. (Director). (2018). Ready Player One (Film). Warner Bros. Pictures.
Stanton, A. (Director). (2008). WALL-E (Film). Walt Disney Pictures.
Veiga-Neto, A. (2003). Foucault & a educação. Autêntica.
Steffen W. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347,1259855. DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855