Email TechnoMonk
Search Musings
Web Destinations
Administration
« To My Health | Main | Magic Happens »

Chasing Intimacy

News reports circulated yesterday regarding the latest research on the topic of “happiness.” As it turns out, empirical data now exist to support the notion that your emotional state is influenced, to a measureable degree, by those around you. Given that I’ve long hypothesized that anxiety is a contagious condition, it’s no stretch at all for me to imagine that happiness is as well. It seems that the closer you are geographically to a happy person the more likely you are to be happy. However, for the happiness to be “spread,” the connection you have with the other person needs to be mediated by face-to-face contact. Not technology.

 

Interesting.

 

I recently wrote on the topic of “Digital Intimacy” where I suggested that a social networking site (and the “ambient awareness” of others) is a way for a person to feel less alone. The implication of feeling “less alone” is, naturally, to be “more happy.” (At least I think that’s the way it should work.)

 

Although I was long-involved in “social networking” before I even knew what the term meant, I had resisted signing up for Facebook (or anything similar) for quite a long time. However, my experience is that being first on Facebook, and now on Twitter, has led to me feeling more connected. And happier.

 

I have to admit, though, it’s face-to-face encounters that really do the most for me. And while “digital intimacy” is something we can all now settle for, it really is a shallow imitation of “real” intimacy.

 

And what is “real”? For me, intimacy it is a sense of closeness and connectedness involving trust and vulnerability – in essence, the ability of two people to share themselves completely (or nearly so) with each other. While many individuals tend to think of intimacy in terms of the physical dimension, I tend to view intimacy more in emotional terms. And for two people to be truly emotionally connected, I suggest is has to be in person.

 

Emailing and/or tweeting is all well and good. But in those mediums, I can’t listen to your tone of voice, look you in the eye, gently touch your knee while making a point, or hug you when we part. These are the elements of human interaction that lead me to feeling truly, intimately connected. And happy.

Reader Comments (2)

i have some online connections that are deep and intimate, e.g. someone with whom i exchange emails daily, for years now, about deeply emotional matters. i have never met her face to face, have only talked to her on the phone once or twice, but consider her one of my best and closest friends.

of course, the chance for emotional intimacy is much higher in face-to-face encounters (in "meatspace" - love that term).

but, as you say, what's "real"?

you never know, you never know ...
December 7, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterisabella mori
isabella said:
"i have some online connections that are deep and intimate..."

Yep, me too! My very best friend whom I talk (write) with daily is an on-line friend. I've never even met him in person, and I don't feel the need to do so. I also have other online friends who are very dear to me. In some ways, I can think and communicate so much better on-line than in person.

But then again, I say that because I have people in my 3-dimensional life to touch and cuddle with when I need the physical touch.

I do believe there are different types of intimacy... i.e. physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, etc... and they cannot be found all in one place.
December 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterLinda

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.