Question of the thickness of the relationship.
'Thickness' is used here for the complex dimension. Communication is done at different levels of information. Some are known to us: common language, body expression, pheromones, etc. These exchanges are already more complex than they seem. Body expression has passive and active levels. The physical characteristics of the person are not controlled by him (size, proportions, sex), while his presentation is active, at unconscious and conscious levels.
The whole creates a depth of information. Communication is rich when it integrates a great depth of data. This is the case spontaneously for body language. It is printed from birth. The attitudes of those around them are deciphered before their speech. The mimics settle in the unconscious before the word. A shift that means that we don't always coordinate the two well. But there is always a utilitarianism behind a defect. An introvert is not good at body language because he refuses to let others into him, sharing impressions that he knows too different to be understood.
An example of depthless communication is a math class. Mathematics is a remarkably precise symbolism for a unique level of information. They associate the elements of a system with such precision that there is usually only one possible representation. As this representation is universal, it cannot be identity.
But above all it is not qualitative. Quality appears in the relationship of the level of information with others. Quantities are only of interest to the quality of the thing they describe. Adding apples is more interesting than adding up numbers. Mathematics quickly tires the layman because it reveals nothing about the world but quantities.
When mathematicians or physicists are passionate about mathematical communication, they hold it in a mathematical universe. They share a conceptual building where the equations discussed live. Maths finds a depth and richness that does not exist in everyday life. They hide in everyday life but are not the right language. Even a devout mathematician does not manage his movements and social relationships with calculations.
There is no substitute for the depth of the physical relationship between two people. It alone gives a real impression of thickness, by the multitude of information integrated together. Consciousness perceives that many are not directly accessible. The relationship is a bit of a mystery. So much to discover on each other. The signs are before our eyes, nose, touch. The interactive space is multidimensional. We don't have any extra meaning to measure it. We would like to be telepathic, extra-lucid, radiographic, all in front of the whole person, in its fullness, full of secret information.
On the contrary, network interaction brings the exchange back to an anemic level of complexity. I do not mean that the discussion is simplistic. No, nothing to do with the sophistication of the topics covered. We exchange sometimes very complicated abstractions on networks. It's even the best way to focus on them, not to be distracted by other information. But 'complicated' and 'complex' do not mean the same thing. The complicated is at the top of the complexity scale for our personal pyramid of concepts. Complicated is the limit of what these concepts know how to deal with. To make 'simple' the 'complicated', we need to raise our pyramid a little further, to encompass the difficulty.
The drop in complexity that I am talking about comes from the loss of the languages associated with physical exchange, from everything that enriches it on an unconscious level. All that remains is abstraction. If this interaction does not lead to the icy sobriety of mathematics, it is because our language terms already contain complex information. They combine objects, emotions, abstractions, references to real people. With words such as 'blue', 'luck', 'sad', 'beautiful', we get a good simulation of a much more complete exchange than with numbers. 'Sad' immediately refers to a mental experience that we are able to experience in depth, by analogy with a personal impression.
But that's not all its depth. Not the one that can be achieved when the person expresses his sadness in front of us, with all his expressions. By its presence it also asserts that it is an authentic sadness, not an hasty or even abusive use as easily permitted by dematerialized networks.
Each floor of neural treatment using its particular language, favoring a language develops this neural floor. Continuous use of abstractions develops pre-frontal centers. While neglecting the practice of body language makes your attitudes banal or defective. Starting a relationship on the networks creates an apprehension of the first encounter. What will the other be, in real life? We are aware of the weakness of our other modes of communication. The mystery surrounding the other becomes a fear of being unable to decipher it properly. Or if body language is still functional, you instantly discover that you lack a different kind of attraction. The meeting will be limited to a polite conversation.
Networked relationships don't just have drawbacks. They allow you to domesticate the aggressive facets of body language. Und preparing, instincts already create mortal enemies at first glance. The retro-controlled social consciousness of animosities on networks. It can sublimate them and avoid coming to the hands.
However, it must be an enlarged social consciousness and not a gang transplanted into a small paranoid group on the net. The major danger of the network is not access to everything but withdrawal on almost nothing. No matter how far the mind connects, the mental horizon becomes terribly narrow.
Closer than that of a person walking without a laptop and examining the world around him, thus developing the variety and depth of his impressions, and giving a lot of depth to his relationships.