Note (1)

For many years, the speed of technological development has been so rapid that most of us have struggled to understand what is happening—or where it might lead. The smartphone, now the most predominant and necessary device, captures most of our input through the visual sense. Surprisingly, it was only a decade ago that Apple introduced the now-iconic iPhone with its rounded features.

From the basic act of preservation—of culture to language—what developed was a progression of the frame. The question was not simply which information was used from abstract data, but rather how information was framed into well-structured knowledge that could, over time, become wisdom. This might be because documents—once costly and requiring specialised skills to produce—were naturally selected and preserved through an organic process. The frame, equal in value to the preserved content, once implied that the information it contained had been selected according to great insight or wisdom.

However, as the cost of information storage declined with the rise of the technological revolution, the frame no longer signified the value of the content it held. Instead, it began to expose raw, undecorated information. Now, information must attest to its own significance. A multitude of external 'applicants'—unanchored and immaterial—attach themselves to the frame in an attempt to become its conductor and claim exclusive ownership of the information. The frame has become an idealised construct imposed by users themselves. Modern instantaneity has removed the possibility of organic disappearance, forcing us to choose our roles as receivers.

Then, suddenly, the emergence of the Internet shifted our sense of perspective. It severed the physicality once associated with information and transferred everything to perception. Networked digital information—most of which is visual—has become the dominant mode through which we experience daily life. Yet, as Lotto (2017) notes, the human brain uses only 10% of visual input to form perception. Visible information, even in high-resolution displays, can be distorted or manipulated through deliberate editing. Today, all interaction with information is reduced to gestures of the fingers—pinching, swiping, and tapping.

But is knowledge the same as understanding?
To understand, must we marginalise ourselves within the frame?