English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In the midst of the turbulence of digitally mediated world redefining our sensory experiences, whether in the form of artificial life, biological robotics, trans-humanism, virtual identity, we note a concern about the vulnerability of the self. As Greenfield (2009) notes that when this individual sense of self is threatened (e.g. electronic surveillance), our very worst fears are ignited, since there no longer exists a ‘fire wall’ of group identity, family or social identity, between the inner self and the outside world. Sennett (1998) in his book, The Corrosion of Character, draws our attention to the turbulence of fragmented self and notes that in the brave new economy, the fragmented or dislocated nature of self-experience moves to the fore, thereby setting the scenario for an emotionally adrift and vulnerable self, losing control of the purpose of life and feeling the loss of the sense of the self. (ibid:130). It is held that central to the turbulence of the self and society, is the dominance of technologic of seeing things in terms of the I–It relation, objects of calculation, moving away from the I–Thou framework of judgement. It is this shift from judgement to calculation (Weizenbaum 1976) which leads to perceiving human relations, may they be social, cultural, ethical, economic, governance, in terms of I–It relations. The summary on Martin Buber’s I and Thou (SparkNotes Editors 2014) notes that Buber looks at modern society and finds: ‘how it is entirely built up based on the mode of I–It. Politics, economics, public institutions, even much of personal life, are all fundamentally grounded in the fact that we view every other being as an It, rather than as a Thou. Modern man has come to feel alienated fundamentally because modern society is exclusively an It-world. Existential angst, worries of meaninglessness, and the sense of impending doom that most modern human beings feel at some point in their life (often in the dead of night, when they cannot sleep) are all the result of our strict reliance on experience to the exclusion of encounter’. Bloch (2010) and Scott (2002) give a deep insight into Buber’s I–Thou and I–It relations, in which Buber sets out a philosophy of relating. The experiencing I in an I–It relation is an objective observer rather than an active participant in this mode of engaging the world. In the I– Thou relation, we are present with others; it is the presence of others which influences our own sense of presence (Gill 2015) and creates an environment for us to be active participants rather than just mere objective observers. In our multipolar world of reality (observed) and actuality (the world as it is), I–It and I–Thou relations, in many ways, intersect, overlap, converge and diverge, making us seek a balance between these relations in a way that valorises their purpose and impact. In this perspective, we may say that we are seeking a relational interface of balance in the sense of harmony, kyosei, Yin-Yang, Symiotics, Swikriti (Gill 2009). The Dancing Shiva or Nataraja (Ramachandran 2012) depicts the very spirit of balance of actuality and reality of our universe, and from our perspective, provides a holistic model for conceptualising, creating and building relational interfaces. In viewing metaphysic as ‘beyond’ the physical, Rao (2014) gives an insight into the idea of subject (I, Thou) and object (It). In accepting, One-Godhead as the ‘ultimate’, Monotheistic religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) accept duality of subject (the worshipper) and the Object (the Worshipped—the God). He further says that although Monism (Non-dualism) appears to deny Godhead, it accepts God as having an ontological status at least ad hoc. What is of interest to us in the case of the K. S. Gill (&) University of Brighton, Brighton, UK e-mail: kgillbton@yahoo.co.uk

Shiva’s dance of the relational interface