Cities
ground overlapping layers of reality. These layers can segregate and unify,
they are beauty and disease, construction and destruction. In every city there
are neighborhoods for the wealthy and ghettos for the poor; there are
above-ground, clean-air parks and rancid, subterranean sewer systems; there is
historic architecture and graffiti; and there are the skeletons of buildings
blasted by bombs. While layers are often invisible to the inhabitants of a
city, the few mentioned here would be recognizable to most urbanites throughout
history. But the eyes of our ancestors would not be capable of perceiving the
new realities that flourish in today’s cities. This is because their eyes have
not been surgically altered. It’s too ugly a way to describe it though,
“surgically altered”. Would 21st century humans describe their
mobile phones as surgical alterations? Having eyes today is more like using a
smartphone than getting an appendectomy. The interesting question is: which is
more invasive? Dissertations have been written about the surgical nature of
technological adoption, and the associated philosophical problems have funded
whole university departments. But whether via smartphone or surgery, a city's
layers multiply, and as cradle, world, and void, they exist just on the edge of
human perception.
Ironically,
the new layers of reality would be no less invisible to a visitor from the past
than they are to a city-dweller today. Recall those quaint 21st century
terms like “augmented reality” or “virtual reality”. Most of us are now
incapable of the serious conceptual gymnastics it would take to disentangle
“virtual” from “reality”. To help, consider this thought experiment: a 21st century
person and a present-time person are sitting next to each other on a bench
facing the side of a building. What do they see? The present-time person can
see any design they pull from the mesh, of course, or just let an algorithm
pick content for them. But what does the 21st century person
see? It's tricky. The answer is not “nothing”, because they are facing the same
wall and so some visual stimulus must be present, but they clearly do not see
the wall as it is. What they see could be called the unadorned content
of the wall, the wall sans wall if you will. This wall-less wall, this
wall-without-wall is what the 21st century person calls
“reality”, and the wall itself, in all its content (minus one perhaps) is what
they call “virtual”. Sitting together, our visitor from the past cannot see the
wall, but our present-day person does not know there is a wall that cannot be
seen. Hence both are blind to the “virtual reality” layer of the city.
The abstract conceptualization of a city as a grounding of layers of (un)reality is not how a city is lived by those who live in it. The lived city, the happening, inhabited city is forgetful of its philosophical constitution. Stuffy, academic reflections are replaced with the vibrancy and chaos of being in the city. The lived city is hot and toxic. It stinks of emissions, its brown air thick with chemical secretions. The lived city is cool and climate controlled, its air washed, wrung out, dried, and perfumed. Boutique storefronts and trash heaps are the canvases for the ubiquitous artists whose works are as multitudinous as grains of sand and as short lived as Tibetan Mandalas. The lived city is the ever-changing moods and tastes of its living travelers. We walk its winding paths swept up in our favorite AI-curated playlists of music, design, and advertisement. The negotiated foot traffic of millions of denizens, each a tiny outward shell containing a boundless internal subjectivity, is the pumping blood the city.
The abstract conceptualization of a city as a grounding of layers of (un)reality is not how a city is lived by those who live in it. The lived city, the happening, inhabited city is forgetful of its philosophical constitution. Stuffy, academic reflections are replaced with the vibrancy and chaos of being in the city. The lived city is hot and toxic. It stinks of emissions, its brown air thick with chemical secretions. The lived city is cool and climate controlled, its air washed, wrung out, dried, and perfumed. Boutique storefronts and trash heaps are the canvases for the ubiquitous artists whose works are as multitudinous as grains of sand and as short lived as Tibetan Mandalas. The lived city is the ever-changing moods and tastes of its living travelers. We walk its winding paths swept up in our favorite AI-curated playlists of music, design, and advertisement. The negotiated foot traffic of millions of denizens, each a tiny outward shell containing a boundless internal subjectivity, is the pumping blood the city.
The city
is its people, those boundless subjectivities, and they, gorging on tokenized content to
the point of oblivion, are on their way to work or home or school, or maybe
they’re just out for a stroll, a walk to clear their heads, like Nods, who
listens to power music and sees fire, revolution, and glory.