The Man of Nature vs. The Mechanized Man
An Exploration into Authenticity in a Society Built on Conformity
A robot walks into the forest. We have programmed it to come here for the purported scientific benefits of nature. The robot, however, finds none of the said benefits. The automaton struggles to find the beauty reported in his coding. He searches the terrain for something that resembles belonging. The trees blur into nothing but a backdrop. It atomizes and analyses all the complexity of the ecosystem. Through its analytical breakdown of parts and pieces of the forest, the robot finds no solace here. He sits and waits for inspiration, only to rust in the grove.
This mechanized man attempts to establish a connection between its internal and external nature. It finds a discrepancy between its expectations and reality. Lacking the mechanism of understanding, it succumbs to societal programming and can only relate to its nature through a rigid set of pretexts. But there is another type of person who has come to understand his nature and his relationship to the world around him. This brings us to examine two types of people who exist in a society blind to its nature: the Mechanized Man and the Man of Nature.
To understand these types, we must first consider our relationship with culture and how we relate to its presentation. We can think of culture as the software that you are currently running. The norms of the times if you will. Culture conditions individuals to follow a set of agreed-upon rules. Culture (software) is downstream from nature. Your nature is the hardware. It is your intuition, your body, your proclivity to act a certain way. Your personal fingerprint. To be one with your nature is to be authentic. A self-actualization if you will.
Who is the mechanized man of today? He is someone who worships the gods of logic, rationality, and analysis. He thinks he is one more factoid away from the spiritual awakening he longs for. The mechanized man gloms onto the crowd. Group consensus sways these people. They are quick to compare their own actions to those of others. Often subverting their behavior as a game of comparison. (i.e. “At least I don’t drink as many beers as most people on a Sunday”).
The mechanized man is a mere cog. He is an automaton drawn from sensation to sensation. The mechanized man doesn't think; he lives under the illusion of thought. He reacts based on agreed presets. These presets appear as regurgitated tropes and themes. As if to signal they are plugged into the system and have received the latest software update.1
The modern-day university is a classic example of this. The university, once a hub for ideas, has now transformed into a platform for conferring status upon individuals. When someone asks, “Where did you go to school?” It no longer is a primary question of “what institution nurtured your ideas,” but is rather a signaling mechanism demonstrating you speak the same language as the mechanized masses.
[I should also point out that just because you have a viewpoint that is outside of the prevailing norm, does not mean your thought process is agentic. You may just as well be repeating what a minority groupthink has proposed. I am acutely aware how the line is fuzzy when discussing original thought. It is one thing to repeat what someone else says, it is another to be inspired and use these ideas for new formulations of your own. And I do not mean swapping of certain words for others.]
A cog is insignificant in isolation. The mechanized man is an individual drawn to connection without the reference point to their nature. These individuals are sensitive to authority and culture. Often, they miss the forest for the trees, relying on the crowd to provide the necessary machinery to make them whole. The prevailing crowd provides an abstraction between one’s authentic self and their natural inclinations.
With the proliferation of information as a commodity, the incentives for man to conform are stronger than ever. We live in an era with ample resources for the mechanization of the individual. Technology, for one, creates constraints on the individual. It leaves man in a sort of information overload. He becomes inundated with information, setting one up for a hubris of believing the perfect answer to your questions exists externally.
People now can instantaneously get an answer to every question that comes into their head. This is convenient when you think of the world as pure facts (2+2=4). This reliance on externalization atrophies out capacity to seek answers from within. The type of answers that require a certain intuition and knowingness of ourselves. (What should I do with my time?)
When you think of a teleprompter, you tend to think of television, but there is little difference between the one Walter Cronkite read and the one in your pocket. Secondary knowledge is no longer monopolized by media organizations. Instead, an influx of opinions from your favorite team of gurus hands over your thoughts on a platter. An internet personality, fitness influencer, political pundit, podcaster, and doctor. But look closely, and you will see they all begin parroting each other. Then you find other people doing the same. It is mimesis. Don’t you find it odd that people are all doing and saying the same things? I am reminded of the Jungian concept here that ‘people do not have ideas, but ideas have people.’
The mechanized man can become reliant on a teleprompter to provide answers to questions past generations would never dream of asking (i.e. “what is the best *insert object of desire here?*).
A reliance on technology compromises one's values through the homogenization of messaging. You may notice a concurrent homogenization of thought culture when interacting with ChatGPT as Rob Henderson points to HERE. This is evidence of an increase in mechanized thinking. The more automatons, the more culture will become stagnated as it strangulates ‘creators of ideas’ upstream.
“A crowd in its very concept is the untruth because it renders the individual completely impenitent and irresponsible, or at least weakens his sense of responsibility by reducing it to a fraction.”
-Soren Kierkegaard
The mechanized man is like a horse with blinders unable to see beyond their narrow path. Trotting along with no question as to where or why they are moving because they are “educated.” They use knowledge as a proxy for control. But this is wrong. Knowledge, facts, logic, analysis. These are just tools to wield to obtain a position on something. True power stems from the act of creation of knowledge. The creator is the one who has the monopoly on power and control.
The mechanized man seeks ‘self-help books.’ He wants a shortcut into divinity. He can read but is unable to discern the metaphysical underpinnings. The automaton has slighted himself because he wants to be told what to do. He seeks exogenous means to enlightenment. In short, the mechanized man is a follower.
An increase in mechanized people leads to life in a panopticon. Each machine watches the other to ensure they do not display discordance between the expectations and outcomes. When a cog becomes squeaky or does not fulfill its mechanical role, it is to be cast out and labeled a dissident. This leads us to the other type of man: The man of nature. He is a man of authenticity, but knows he is in a captivity of sorts as he struggles with his imagination and its collision with the mechanized thinking of today.
The man of nature is sensitive to ideas of their own. The man of nature can conceptualize worlds, ideas, possibilities, and different ways of living. Their uniqueness comes from an ability to bypass the hum-drum of existence in order to look at the roots beneath the surface.
The problem for these types is society will press them to conform. They are likely to feel misunderstood or misinterpreted. The mechanized man often cannot speak the same language as the man of nature because it is beyond their programming.
What language does the man of nature speak? It is a language attuned to their place in the world. It is an alignment of values despite societal pressures, groupthink, or information being present. They are creators—artists, thinkers, and philosophers. You can find these types in virtually every field of work with no regard to class or income levels. These “higher types” as Nietzsche would call them, are the leaders of culture despite society’s irreverence for them.
The man of nature must be careful not to glorify their value for creation, however. The reality is that most ideas are bad. In the same way, most art is bad. Most essays are bad. Most actors are bad. This does not mean these types should not pursue these things. It means they must cultivate what is inside of them as the highest good and align themselves with it. With time, effort, and persistence, the ideas and outcomes become better. A man of nature who feels compelled (in the highest sense) towards acting, for example, is not going to waltz onto a Broadway play and steal the show. They must cultivate this inner self without self-aggrandizement.
The man of nature often struggles to adopt firm beliefs due to their philosophical inclination. He undergoes heavy doses of introspection and criticism. It is an evolutionary process to destroy the rot within you. Contrary to ideology, which takes hold of individuals, the man of nature can move from one idea to another2. Ideology on the other hand is a monthly subscription.
“Everywhere I go I find a poet has been there before me.”
-Sigmund Freud
Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship examines the dichotomy between the man of nature and the mechanized man. The book follows a man named Wilhelm Meister as he rejects the upper-class lifestyle, he grew up in. He is initially set to become a bourgeois businessman and lead a conventional and secure life. He joins a theater troupe to discover his true self through introspection, passion, and finally meaning. The character Wilhelm finds a deeper meaning and connection to his true nature through artistic pursuits (acting) that are aligned with his passions and aspirations. Goethe is likely pointing to the man of nature as one who has come to know himself through exploration, art, and action.
It can be argued that in the story, Wilhelm was a mechanical man who broke free to become a man of nature. He began his life through superficial means by adhering to social expectations and fulfilling the role assigned by society. As the story progresses Meister explores the paths of theater and personal passions. These paths allow him to tap into his authentic nature. But could it be that Wilhelm shows us we are men of nature all along? Perhaps the structured world in which we grow up stifles our nature. A man of nature may be disguised as a mechanical man if he is unable to act on his potential.
Make no mistake. In a mechanical society, the man of nature is often forced to adopt a mechanistic camouflage. If he does not blend in on the surface, he risks being ostracized. The cog that does not fulfill its mechanical roll comes into question. As prefaced earlier, this is where the man of nature is at risk. Consider numerous men of nature live amongst the populous and we assume they are robotic3.
Is the mechanized man able to wake up and become agentic? Is he able to break free from the crowd and become authentic? Or is it inherent to be mechanical? Many would argue that most people need to be told what to do or think. Carving your path is difficult and filled with uncertainty. If one aims to break free from the influence of societal programming, the rub, however, is it often involves a complete decoupling from the constructions and views that built your character. In turn, you risk losing yourself (or that who you thought you were).
The mechanical man haphazardly puts his character together through tidbits of information, drawing from a “filter of the times” to create a coherent being. This allows him to rests on the laurels of what society gave him while the man of nature rests on his own.
Could it be that the mechanical man, as is, is in a position of superiority? They assimilate with no tug as to why they, or others do anything. It is conceivable that the automaton has the luxury of avoiding metaphysical burdens. The world is an ocean with no depths or undercurrent to drown in for them. Perhaps it is the mechanized man who is the most well-adjusted to the world in which we live.
“The world is made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.”
-Annie Savoy, Bull Durham
The solution for a man of nature in a mechanized society is to create. Creation of values, ideas, and art. The very means of creation reflects nature. To create is the bring something into existence that is whole. Creation is not limited to the arts. Movement, adventure, training, dance, sports, etc. These are also a vessel for creation. The key here is whether the activities truly reflect the individual's authenticity. You can watch any fighter and see this in real-time. There is an art of creation happening there. From the style of the movement, to the swagger, coupled with execution which demonstrates a kinetic form of creation. If the style imbues the fighter’s values, he is likely a man of nature.
The man of nature embodies a different form of perception. Sensitive to their own ideas and values, these individuals possess a unique ability to conceptualize and explore possibilities. They resist societal pressures to conform and cultivate their inner selves, embracing creativity, introspection, and philosophical inquiry. The man of nature aligns with their spoken values, becoming a creator and a leader in the realm of culture (if their ideas are persuasive enough).
If you want to observe a true being of nature, look no farther than a young child. They are true to themselves and in essence nature. If a child has managed to avoid screens and major cultural influences you will notice they are entirely sentient. They feel the world deeply. They follow the whims of their nature and rely on an imagination so strong, the line between reality and fantasy is blurred. They find their self worth within and do not need an external source of inspiration for play.
In the face of a culture that favors the breakdown of nature into isolated parts, the man of nature sees the bigger picture4. They understand that true power lies not in the acquisition of knowledge bites, but in the act of creation itself. While the mechanized man relies on external sources and authority, the man of nature embraces their individuality, uniqueness, and the language of the universe, expressed through their creations and ideas.
The man of nature stands as a singular entity, a true anomaly amidst the mechanized masses. With an innate ability to transcend the boundaries of conventional thinking, he becomes a bridge connecting the vast expanse of the natural world to the confines of the mechanized society we have constructed. In his individuality, he defies the homogeneity and conformity that plague the masses, embodying a unique perspective that opens doors to unexplored realms of possibility. With each step, he traverses the chasm between authenticity and societal programming, unraveling the complexities of existence and shedding light on the interconnectedness of all things. Through his creations, art, ideas, and play he becomes the living embodiment of a harmonious relationship between nature and man; reminding us of the power that lies within to reshape our world and embrace our inner nature.
Amongst the trees the children played, Laughing as they frolicked in the grove, But in the leaves the robot stayed, For he did not know where to rove.
“Black Out Tuesday” was the prime example of this. In order to demonstrate you are running the same software as those under the bell curve, you posted the black square on your profile.
This is not the same as changing your mind. Moving from one idea to another is to formulate updated and new ideas. This is also not the same as picking the opposing sides’ argument or set of ideas. This would be mechanical.
I am reminded of all the thinkers or writers who went unnoticed until their death. Many were visionaries before their time. They were oriented towards a truth that fit them like a well-tailored suit. The suit just wasn’t aligned with the current paradigm of fashion. (To think there is a Kafka in your midst is inspiring ).
The “The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy” demonstrates this where the supercomputer, Deep Thought, is tasked to answer ultimate question of life, the universe, and the meaning of everything. It ends up, after many millions of years of contemplation, revealing the answer is ‘42.’ This was a great tongue in cheek way of demonstrating how the mechanization of life and culture is unable to reach a satisfying answer in rational terms.