Boundaries of the Self
How do physical, perceived and virtual boundaries shape the self, and what changes when mind, technology and environment are understood as one relational system?
Boundaries can be physical. They can also be perceived (epistemological) or virtual. Physical boundaries are observably clear and defined, however, perceived and virtual boundaries are much less so. For an individual to make sense of life, perceived boundaries are necessary to simplify information, mental processing and decision-making and impose structure on the experiential world. Virtual boundaries are the result of technology and incorporate both physical and perceived boundaries; they somewhat act as a bridge between the two (Zhang and Jacob, 2013). The emergence of such technologically driven concepts can blur the distinction between physical and perceived boundaries.
The human mind is the result of a complex system that is non-linear, open and ‘chaos-capable’. It is non-linear in the sense that small inputs of thought, environmental stimuli or life events can lead to largely unpredictable results. Such inputs can be, both, internal and external which make it an open system that can be influenced by things outside of its ‘boundaries’. Due to its vast unpredictability and, sometimes, erratic manner, it is considered ‘chaos-capable’ or unstable. Such criteria can be applied to most, if not all, complex systems.
The mathematics behind the ‘complexity theory’ (used to study complex systems) reveal that all complex systems have certain processes that arise from the flow of their elements over time. One such element is self organisation; which entails the system fixing, adjusting and organising it’s elements autonomously. Therefore, the mind can be defined as an ‘embodied and relational self-organising process that regulates the flow of energy and information, both, within and between us’; it cannot simply be the result of brain activity. The self, being an aspect of the mind, must also be embodied and relational and cannot be limited by the boundaries of one’s skin (Siegel, 1999; 2014).
Such a concept implies that the self interacts with and is largely influenced by our immediate environment and interpersonal relationships and situations. This, therefore blurs the boundary between internal and external factors as the self would have been considered as an internal factor. Physical boundaries, clearly do not apply to the self but once one ventures beyond the physical, the self is boundless. Perhaps one has more control over their environment and social situations than previously assumed.
With regards to blurred boundaries and control, technology plays an increasingly significant role. Modern philosophers, from the late 20th century onward, have continually challenged Cartesian views of one’s skin being the boundary between their essential being and the world. Instead, they propose a concept of embodiment; which considers the human mind and body as one and the body and the world continuously interacting (Dakers, 2016). Technology can take us a step further by bridging the gap between our mind and body (self) and the world.
Ancient civilisations were heavily connected with the natural world (their immediate environment) and the cosmos and nature’s cycles had a significant influence on their daily lives. However, the rise of the modern world did not promote such an ethic of mutual obligations between humans and nature; it used technology to strip the world of its natural resources. Technology here, could be perceived as a form of communication that facilitated an interaction between humans and nature (Reuss and Cutcliffe, 2010).
With smart technologies dominating developed societies, an individual, not only possesses more control over their immediate environment, but has become an integral part of it. The internet of things has blurred the boundary between human, technology and environment; all three have become parts of a larger interconnected system (Greengard, 2015). A system, which has, arguably, existed since the beginning of time. A system that today’s advanced technology allows us to visualise and interact with on a more cohesive and tangible level. However, such interconnectedness is prevalent in ancient religions and throughout history.
As one’s psychosocial health is affected by factors that one may have more control over than previously perceived, perhaps there is more that we can do to improve it. Humans today have more control over their immediate environments than any other time in history. Technology has granted us the ability to monitor and manipulate aspects of the world that were beyond imaginable; blurring all boundaries and changing preconceptions. Perhaps we can design smart workplaces that are conducive to our wellbeing, that reflect who we are and react to our behaviour. One’s environment can be an extension, an expression, a reflection and a driver of their self.
Boundaries of the Self
How do physical, perceived and virtual boundaries shape the self, and what changes when mind, technology and environment are understood as one relational system?
Boundaries can be physical. They can also be perceived (epistemological) or virtual. Physical boundaries are observably clear and defined, however, perceived and virtual boundaries are much less so. For an individual to make sense of life, perceived boundaries are necessary to simplify information, mental processing and decision-making and impose structure on the experiential world. Virtual boundaries are the result of technology and incorporate both physical and perceived boundaries; they somewhat act as a bridge between the two (Zhang and Jacob, 2013). The emergence of such technologically driven concepts can blur the distinction between physical and perceived boundaries.
The human mind is the result of a complex system that is non-linear, open and ‘chaos-capable’. It is non-linear in the sense that small inputs of thought, environmental stimuli or life events can lead to largely unpredictable results. Such inputs can be, both, internal and external which make it an open system that can be influenced by things outside of its ‘boundaries’. Due to its vast unpredictability and, sometimes, erratic manner, it is considered ‘chaos-capable’ or unstable. Such criteria can be applied to most, if not all, complex systems.
The mathematics behind the ‘complexity theory’ (used to study complex systems) reveal that all complex systems have certain processes that arise from the flow of their elements over time. One such element is self organisation; which entails the system fixing, adjusting and organising it’s elements autonomously. Therefore, the mind can be defined as an ‘embodied and relational self-organising process that regulates the flow of energy and information, both, within and between us’; it cannot simply be the result of brain activity. The self, being an aspect of the mind, must also be embodied and relational and cannot be limited by the boundaries of one’s skin (Siegel, 1999; 2014).
Such a concept implies that the self interacts with and is largely influenced by our immediate environment and interpersonal relationships and situations. This, therefore blurs the boundary between internal and external factors as the self would have been considered as an internal factor. Physical boundaries, clearly do not apply to the self but once one ventures beyond the physical, the self is boundless. Perhaps one has more control over their environment and social situations than previously assumed.
With regards to blurred boundaries and control, technology plays an increasingly significant role. Modern philosophers, from the late 20th century onward, have continually challenged Cartesian views of one’s skin being the boundary between their essential being and the world. Instead, they propose a concept of embodiment; which considers the human mind and body as one and the body and the world continuously interacting (Dakers, 2016). Technology can take us a step further by bridging the gap between our mind and body (self) and the world.
Ancient civilisations were heavily connected with the natural world (their immediate environment) and the cosmos and nature’s cycles had a significant influence on their daily lives. However, the rise of the modern world did not promote such an ethic of mutual obligations between humans and nature; it used technology to strip the world of its natural resources. Technology here, could be perceived as a form of communication that facilitated an interaction between humans and nature (Reuss and Cutcliffe, 2010).
With smart technologies dominating developed societies, an individual, not only possesses more control over their immediate environment, but has become an integral part of it. The internet of things has blurred the boundary between human, technology and environment; all three have become parts of a larger interconnected system (Greengard, 2015). A system, which has, arguably, existed since the beginning of time. A system that today’s advanced technology allows us to visualise and interact with on a more cohesive and tangible level. However, such interconnectedness is prevalent in ancient religions and throughout history.
As one’s psychosocial health is affected by factors that one may have more control over than previously perceived, perhaps there is more that we can do to improve it. Humans today have more control over their immediate environments than any other time in history. Technology has granted us the ability to monitor and manipulate aspects of the world that were beyond imaginable; blurring all boundaries and changing preconceptions. Perhaps we can design smart workplaces that are conducive to our wellbeing, that reflect who we are and react to our behaviour. One’s environment can be an extension, an expression, a reflection and a driver of their self.
Boundaries of the Self
How do physical, perceived and virtual boundaries shape the self, and what changes when mind, technology and environment are understood as one relational system?
Boundaries can be physical. They can also be perceived (epistemological) or virtual. Physical boundaries are observably clear and defined, however, perceived and virtual boundaries are much less so. For an individual to make sense of life, perceived boundaries are necessary to simplify information, mental processing and decision-making and impose structure on the experiential world. Virtual boundaries are the result of technology and incorporate both physical and perceived boundaries; they somewhat act as a bridge between the two (Zhang and Jacob, 2013). The emergence of such technologically driven concepts can blur the distinction between physical and perceived boundaries.
The human mind is the result of a complex system that is non-linear, open and ‘chaos-capable’. It is non-linear in the sense that small inputs of thought, environmental stimuli or life events can lead to largely unpredictable results. Such inputs can be, both, internal and external which make it an open system that can be influenced by things outside of its ‘boundaries’. Due to its vast unpredictability and, sometimes, erratic manner, it is considered ‘chaos-capable’ or unstable. Such criteria can be applied to most, if not all, complex systems.
The mathematics behind the ‘complexity theory’ (used to study complex systems) reveal that all complex systems have certain processes that arise from the flow of their elements over time. One such element is self organisation; which entails the system fixing, adjusting and organising it’s elements autonomously. Therefore, the mind can be defined as an ‘embodied and relational self-organising process that regulates the flow of energy and information, both, within and between us’; it cannot simply be the result of brain activity. The self, being an aspect of the mind, must also be embodied and relational and cannot be limited by the boundaries of one’s skin (Siegel, 1999; 2014).
Such a concept implies that the self interacts with and is largely influenced by our immediate environment and interpersonal relationships and situations. This, therefore blurs the boundary between internal and external factors as the self would have been considered as an internal factor. Physical boundaries, clearly do not apply to the self but once one ventures beyond the physical, the self is boundless. Perhaps one has more control over their environment and social situations than previously assumed.
With regards to blurred boundaries and control, technology plays an increasingly significant role. Modern philosophers, from the late 20th century onward, have continually challenged Cartesian views of one’s skin being the boundary between their essential being and the world. Instead, they propose a concept of embodiment; which considers the human mind and body as one and the body and the world continuously interacting (Dakers, 2016). Technology can take us a step further by bridging the gap between our mind and body (self) and the world.
Ancient civilisations were heavily connected with the natural world (their immediate environment) and the cosmos and nature’s cycles had a significant influence on their daily lives. However, the rise of the modern world did not promote such an ethic of mutual obligations between humans and nature; it used technology to strip the world of its natural resources. Technology here, could be perceived as a form of communication that facilitated an interaction between humans and nature (Reuss and Cutcliffe, 2010).
With smart technologies dominating developed societies, an individual, not only possesses more control over their immediate environment, but has become an integral part of it. The internet of things has blurred the boundary between human, technology and environment; all three have become parts of a larger interconnected system (Greengard, 2015). A system, which has, arguably, existed since the beginning of time. A system that today’s advanced technology allows us to visualise and interact with on a more cohesive and tangible level. However, such interconnectedness is prevalent in ancient religions and throughout history.
As one’s psychosocial health is affected by factors that one may have more control over than previously perceived, perhaps there is more that we can do to improve it. Humans today have more control over their immediate environments than any other time in history. Technology has granted us the ability to monitor and manipulate aspects of the world that were beyond imaginable; blurring all boundaries and changing preconceptions. Perhaps we can design smart workplaces that are conducive to our wellbeing, that reflect who we are and react to our behaviour. One’s environment can be an extension, an expression, a reflection and a driver of their self.
