As per definition, I'd define being chronically offline as spending much of one's waking hours not on the internet on an almost consistent basis. The opposite could basically be the definition of being chronically online.
Now, does just being behind the screen without being on the internet count as being offline or still online, maybe in a semi-passive way?
I'm leaning more towards the latter at this point in time for the simple observation that the screen itself acts as a portal and psychological state of removal. Even without an active Wi-Fi connection, the interface dictates how we interact with information. And one is still engaging with a simulation of reality, i.e pixels and code, rather than the tangible texture of the physical world.
Modern impossibility
In practical terms, I think being chronically offline is not possible for most of us modern people barring a radical retreat from society such as living in a cabin in the woods or a deliberate, monk-like asceticism. Our infrastructure, economy, and social fabrics are now woven into the cloud. To be truly offline is probably to become socially invisible.
Sometimes, when I check my screen time, which is a close approximation of how much time I've spent online, it borders around 8 to 9 hours. It even crossed 10 hours yesterday thanks to listening to a two-hour-long podcast on YouTube.
Given I always try to give my full attention to whatever I'm doing, when I am online, I am online. Hardly do I get bothered by IRL.
Subconscious tether
Of course, I also try to have the same approach when offline but it's not yet sticky enough as I would like it to be, partly because of the subconscious reliance to look things up or just validate my experiences through a digital lens.
Say I encounter something interesting, my reflex is to capture it, save it, or Google it, as if the moment isn't "real" until it has been processed as data.
But needless to say, in the background there's this unchanging realization that no matter how sophisticated the URL becomes, it still just remains a shadow of the IRL.
I mean, internet offers a sense of omniscience as we can "know" everything and "see" everyone but this is largely superficial, lacks the visceral "something" that defines human existence: consequence, physical presence, and the messy, uncurated spontaneity of the present moment.
Why IRL > URL
Although I don't agree fully with this statement, I did read somewhere that the digital world is a flat surface trying to simulate depth! The funny aspect of equating the digital world as a flat surface made it sticky enough for my memory to remember.
I guess one like myself could feel productive after 10 hours of screen time and still end up left with a "hollowness" of not having done anything.
I think it boils down to IRL forcing us to act in real-time, without an edit button.
Ultimately, the screen can mimic the sights and sounds of life, replicating the feeling of these is another thing altogether. The wind on your face, the awkward silence in a conversation, the tangible weight of a handshake, etc. these are the things that anchor us.
The reason IRL > URL is simply that we are physical beings having a digital experience, not the reverse.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
Posted Using INLEO