PRELUDE

The inquiry regarding our nature, in pursuit of better self-knowledge, consists of an activity that can be experienced in given occasions by any human being, regardless of their relationship to one or another cultural or philosophical tradition. Such a pursuit can be fulfilled through various methods and within many contexts, by using different languages. The processes thus created may follow distinct paths and find contrasting answers of different levels of complexity, profoundness, and amplitude. Heraclitus of Ephesus - who, after long meditation would have declared “I have sought for myself” (frag. 101) - had expressed this difficulty in the following terms: “you will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling in any direction, so deep is the measure of it” (frag. 45) (RITTER; PRELLER, 1898, p. 138-139). Notwithstanding the unlimited character of the pursuit for self-knowledge and the possibilities by it arisen, it remains an innate part of human condition, though it can emerge in different contexts of our lives due to the dimension of movement and transformation which is intrinsic to our reality.

Humans have been searching for their identity more acutely since when their immediate basic necessities were fulfilled and their energy shifted towards an uninterested observation of the greatness of the world and themselves. The degree of intensity, wholeness and depth of their reflections and practices regarding self-knowledge has increased along with the establishment of proper conditions for leisure, i. e., actions whose energy is destined no longer for pragmatic purposes only. Love for wisdom and knowledge of the world, as it is known - philosophía -, in the context of many civilizations, implies actions that - albeit their valorization of utility - are somewhat distant from necessity, since they are more keen to freedom and play, as are the sciences. Activities of scientific and philosophical nature, although recently associated with labor (given the increased potential of industry, transportation, communication etc. for science; and political life with distinct reflectiveness for philosophy), remain connected to the ludic dimension of human condition and experience, whose field is unrelated to the common limiting and dominant representations of ludicity in terms such as ‘play’, ‘game’ etc.

Dominant currents of Euro-Western history and philosophy, while pinpointing interpretations of Hellenism as their origin, have given privilege to the soul over the body, with special attention to the particular conflicting double conception of ‘human being,’ among the reflections regarding their identity. This is corroborated by the many kinds of platonic commonplaces added to the issue of body and soul. During European Middle Ages, aside from it being an impediment to spiritual development, the body was also vilified by Catholic Church. Come Modern Age, Cartesianism brought the conflict between body and soul even further, contributing to the conception according to which the body, as opposed to the soul, is nothing but mechanical machinery explained primordially in its anatomic-physiologic aspect. Today, corporeity is regarded as an important field of knowledge and a dimension of human experience, thereby providing us with a relevant and supplementary understanding of human beings in their existential condition (^{MOREIRA; SIMÕES, 2016}, p. 137).

According to ^{Estermann (2006}), while the notion of substance comprises one of the main foundational myths in the West, the sense of relatability constitutes a central part of the Andean cosmovision: what western ontology calls ‘being’ (‘substance’ in the Aristotelian sense), is a ‘knot’ of relations in Andean rationale, a point of transition, a relational concentration. These distinct views have significative anthropologic repercussions. Even if ancient and medieval folk, considering European historic development, felt as if they were inserted in an arranged cosmos, denaturalization of human beings and dehumanization of nature progressively ensues and will reach a peak during Cartesian dualism. In this context, particular notions of individuality and autonomy have grown stronger in the modern formation of an identity, whereas, from an Andean standpoint, disconnection from the natural and cosmic bonds would mean to fixate one’s own ‘death sentence’ (^{ESTERMANN, 2006}, p. 107-110). Further on, we will witness as this conception, which is present in Amerindian knowledge, comes close to notions underlying a considerable part of Far-Eastern thinking.

Given certain particularities of globalization processes, this study holds the following objective: from reviewing the philosophic repertoire directed at solving problems related to current transformations in culture and education, we aim to improve comprehension of crucial aspects of identity formation in its relationship with the dimension of corporeity. For that purpose, we first outline the general perspective of given aspects of contemporary cultural phenomena, articulating the notions of globalization, cyberspace and hyperculture; secondly, based on the concepts emerged from the first part of the study, we then give philosophical foundation to another notion of identity from a new paradigm of world and human understanding, linking such notion to a proposition directed towards improving studies on corporeity. Finally, the last topic addresses our final considerations.

GLOBALIZATION, CYBERSPACE AND HYPERCULTURE

With the end of the Cold War, through establishing transnational technological potentials and marketing strategies, the last decade of the past millennium has witnessed the ‘origin’ of a singular process of ‘integration’ among people. This integration is marked by ‘closeness’ produced by telecommunication resources. Such a process―a foundational aspect of globalization―happened gradually, thanks to worldwide spread of the Internet, which has taken human communication, exchange and storage of information to a level never before seen, to a virtual overflowing ‘ocean’. In this context, one phenomenon has radically transformed the existential experience of increasing groups of humans: cyberspace. According to ^{Lévy (2018}, p.17), cyberspace, or net, is the new media of communication emerged with worldwide interconnection of computers. The term not only indicates the material infrastructure of digital communication, but also an ocean-wide universe of data along with all humans that are travelling though that ocean and nurturing it. From this phenomenon arises cyberculture, a set of techniques (be them material or symbolic), practices, values, attitudes, and ways of thinking that emerge along with the cyberspace (^{LÉVY, 2018}, p. 17).

Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has been evidence pointing towards substantial changes in the future. ^{De Masi (2000)} reminds us that by the end of the 1960s, ‘axial principles’ confirmed a tendency towards the transition from an industrial society to post-industrial society. Daniel Bell, in that context, proposed five ‘axial principles’: [1] the transition from producing goods to providing services; [2] the growing importance of liberal professionals and technicians as opposed to the working class; [3] the central role of theoretical knowledge, or as later stated by Dahremdorf, the ‘primacy of ideas’; [4] the issue of managing technical development: technology has become powerful and relevant and could no longer be managed by one individual, or in a few cases, not even by only one State; [5] the creation of a new intellectual technology, i.e., intelligent machinery capable of replacing men not only in physical labor, but also in intellectual activities (^{DE MASI, 2000}, p. 111). On another hand, before the Internet, computers had already been introduced to society and had been showing their potential in developing into something greater than television or radio. As stated by ^{Lévy (2018}, p. 45), computer can be defined as a particular assembly of units that process, transmit, save and provide input and output of information. However, when connected to the cyberspace via internet, the machine then uses other computers’ ability of memorizing and calculating (and those, in turn, do the same), as well as distant devices that read and display information. Therefore, the computer ceases to be a center to become a knot, a terminal, a component of the universal calculating web, with its functions infiltrating each element of the technocosmos. There is, of course, only one computer, but it is not possible to trace its boundaries or define its outlines. The center of the computer is everywhere and its boundaries are nowhere, which makes it a hypertextual computer, alive, disperse and unfinished: cyberspace itself (^{LÉVY, 2018}, p. 45).

Globalization, according to ^{Han (2019a}, p. 79), does not mean solely a connection between Here and There. Globalization creates―through cyberspace―a ‘global Here’, by ‘de-localizing’ and ‘dis-tancing’ the There. Moreover, according to ^{De Masi (2000}, p. 142-146), globalization comprises at the same time [1] ‘flattening diversity’ and [2] proliferating subjectivity and differentiation. The first dimension of the process would involve many factors: [1] among the nearly 20 thousand languages, there seems to be only 7 thousand survivors, which have assumed a new hierarchy; [2] although something similar had happened during the Roman Empire regarding Latin, the language was only spoken by the Elite, whereas current globalization has made English (notwithstanding the recent attention to Mandarin) the main operating language in the web destined to the masses; [3] in the musical plane, American rock music can be heard anywhere in the world where you casually take a cab; [4] in the Amazon, you will find the same Coca-Cola, tour guides and news broadcasting as anywhere else in the world; [5] in multinational production of goods, people go to work in an Italian-designed car whose parts come from many countries, such as Japan or Korea (^{DE MASI, 2000}, p. 142-146).

With regard to the dimension of differentiation seen on globalization, ^{De Masi (2000}, p. 116) states that subjectivity gains value in one sense. While understood as an ‘autonomy of judgement’, subjectivity allows a choice based on individual needs and resources, not on the fact the one belongs to a given group (^{DE MASI, 2000}, p. 116). In this sense, according to ^{Han (2019a}, p. 34-36), globalization does not mean rationalization, as it may seem, just as culture does not follow the ‘logos’, because there is something incomputable and illogic in it. Thus, the new culture that emerges with globalization tends not exclusively to homogenization, seeing as it has also been diversifying itself. As to globalization per se, the South-Korean philosopher believes it will be moved by driving forces as well, as opposed to coercive processes or monotonous standardization. Common expressions such as ‘McDonald’s culture’ or ‘Coca-Cola culture’ would no longer reflect the effective dynamics of culture, given that―as seen in Asia, for example―McDonald’s represents but a small variety of local cuisine and must adapt to the gastronomic idiosyncrasies of each country. There is no denying that products of rationalization, such as efficiency, computability or predictability are currently dominating various fields in life, however, these tendencies cannot put aside the rationality of diverse tastes, spices and aromas (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 34-36).

From the previous considerations, hyperculture can be understood as the novel form of cultural configuration created within cyberspace and virtualized globalization. ^{Han (2019a}, p. 33-34) believes that hyperculture is no hyperdimensional monoculture, seeing as it allows a background of different forms and practices of life that change, amplify and renew themselves, even sometimes bringing back forms of life from the past. The philosopher even considers the hypothesis that in the digital and globalization worlds, we would live in a whole new culture, one that would set us free as a swarm in the vast world, as happy tourists (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 9). Such joy would be substantially distinct from the ‘great national joy’ which is sung among the joyful ‘songs’ of the ‘soul’, since it would emerge from overcoming formation in Here, in Place. The ‘foreign’ would no longer be perceived as a ‘disease’, but rather the worth having ‘new’ (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 17). In another one of his work, ^{Han (2018)} reassesses this situation and states that freedom from digital swarms becomes hell by creating blindness and dumbness on the intellect and sensitivity, and thereby new paradoxical coercions, such as accelerated and senseless self-exploration, self-exposure and self-optimization.

Nevertheless, the particularity of the global culture does require an approach that questions the traditional anthropological notion of culture, which, in the context of an analysis of globalization and clashes among civilizations, tends to place prefixes such as multi, inter or trans to the term in order to describe those processes. In this regard, ^{Han (2019a}, p. 97) points out that both interculturality and multiculturality are in many ways a Western phenomenon which, from a historical standpoint, resides in the context of nationalism and colonialism; and from a philosophical standpoint, presupposes an essentialization of culture. Moreover, the nationalization or ethnicization of culture also gives it a ‘soul’, so that an ‘inter’ must then bring essentialized cultures in ‘dialogic’ relation, and cultural exchange is not a process by means of which culture manifests as it is, but rather a special act, worth exploring (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 97). When trying to describe noteworthy traces of the new culture in the beginning of the 21^st Century, the South-Korean philosopher unfolded the concept of hyperculture by the following terms:

A cultura perde cada vez mais a estrutura que se parece com a de um texto ou livro convencional. Ela não deixa aparecer nenhuma história, teologia, teleologia como uma unidade homogênea e significativa. Desfazem-se os limites ou as vedações nos quais a aparência de uma autenticidade cultural ou originalidade são acentuadas. A cultura arrebenta, por assim dizer, em todas as costuras, em todos os limites ou fendas. Fica des-limitada, sem-fronteira, des-costurada em uma hipercultura. Não são os limites, mas os links e as conexões que organizam o hiperespaço da cultura. [...] O processo de globalização acelera com as novas tecnologias, dis-tanciando o espaço cultural. A proximidade que surge nesse processo produz uma plenitude, um fundo de práticas de vida e formas de se expressar culturais. O processo de globalização atua de modo acumulativo e condensador. Conteúdos culturais heterogêneos apinham-se em uma justaposição. Espaços culturais se sobrepõem e se atravessam. A deslimitação é válida também para o tempo. Na justaposição do diferente, não apenas diferentes lugares, mas também espaços de tempo diversos ficam dis-tanciados. Não é a sensação do trans, inter ou multi, mas do hiper que reproduz de maneira mais exata a espacialidade da cultura atual. As culturas estão se implodindo, ou seja, estão se dis-tanciando em hipercultura (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 22-24).⁴

The hypercultural universe favored by cyberspace is not without economic interests and relations of power. However, according to ^{Han (2019a}, p. 50), the development of the hypercultural world is marked also by the growth of spaces inaccessible by means of economic power, but rather by esthetic power (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 49-50). Formation of an identity, in this context, finds developmental conditions never seen before.

Cyberspace, while a foundational support for hyperculture and an accelerating factor of globalization, as any other technical element, is not in itself good or bad. Its potentiality, however, produces a wide variety of uses which in turn can earn such qualifications. As discussed by ^{Lévy (2018}, p. 25), culture is not determined by technique, though the latter does influence the former, so that a mechanistic philosophical approach does not help understand sociocultural phenomena in its aspects that are not reducible to determinist schemes. To this matter, ^{Lévy (2018}, p. 25) reminds us that there is no identifiable ‘cause’ to a social or cultural state, but rather an infinitely complex and partially indetermined bulk of processes which interact and sustain or inhibit one another. Therefore, albeit desirable to be cultivated within cyberspace, the collective intelligence is seen in the context of interactive digital networks various types of new forms of: [1] isolation and cognitive overload (stress from communication and work in front of a screen); [2] dependence (an addiction to navigating or to virtual world gaming); [3] domination (reinforcement of decision and control centers, an almost monopolar domain of economic potencies over important network functions); [4] exploration (in some cases telework under watch or dislocation of activities in the third world); and even [5] collective foolishness (rumors, conformism, data accumulation with no useful information, ‘interactive television’) (^{LÉVY, 2018}, p. 29-30). Nevertheless, the more forms of intelligence and collective conscience were improved by the cyberspace, thereby transforming relations of power, the better the appropriation, both by individuals and groups, of technical changes, and the fewer the effects of exclusion or human destruction caused by acceleration of the techno-social movement (^{LÉVY, 2018}, p. 29-30).

Moreover, beyond the potential of cultivation of collective intelligence in the field of cyberspace, or in articulation with it, the hyperculturally developed world enables another possibility to be highlighted. According to ^{Han (2019a}, p. 48-50), the new cultural universe favors certain forms of experience of ludicity, which do not necessarily translate into hedonism, consumerism, narcissism or sociocentrism⁵. As an element of a philosophical model of comprehending a significant part of this world, the concept of hyperculturalism differs from the concept of cultural hybridism, whose conceptual history is excessively attached to the colonialist and racist complex of power, domination, oppression and resistance, of a geometry of center and margin or up and down, and disregards the very potential ludicity of culture that could develop within cyberspace and globalization. This possibility points towards concretization of the reign of play and shine and tends to overcome the reign of power, thus promising more freedom. Schiller would allow the conclusion that the founding unbreakable law of such empire is to set free ‘for freedom’ (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 48-50). Yet, just as the universe of labor has been transformed in the sense of creating new coercions based on orientations for using cyberspace, so has the universe of ludicity, in the hypercultural scenario, been impacted by interests that essentially have nothing in common with the Schillerian ideal of play.

IDENTITY, CORPOREITY AND HYPERCULTURE

The sociocultural practices developed in the American continent, due to the colonization character of the region, have allowed the establishment of a globalization strictly related to multiculturalism. When studying the developmental process of nations in the Far-East, however, something different can be noticed. As stated by ^{Han (2019a}, p. 100-101), colonialism and immigration, which are constitutive of multiculturality in the West, do not characterize the Far-East. In addition, unlike a significant part of Western thinking, Far-Eastern thinking is not guided by the substance, but rather by the relation, so that, from a metaphysical standpoint, the world is more accurately understood as a ‘net’ than a ‘being’. Given that this conception of the world and self-comprehension from Asia show a netted character, connectivity is more intensely accelerated there compared to the West. For that reason, despite the lack of multiculturality, the Far-East is increasingly manifesting a hypercultural behavior (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 100-101). Howbeit multiculturalism and ‘hyperculturalism’ do not exclude one another―because hyperculture is also developing fast in the West―, processes of formation of an identity have been happening differently in the West and Far-East.

In this article’s Prelude, we brought attention to the fact that corporeity is a field of knowledge and experience closely related to the human existential condition. We can now advance towards establishing, along with Deepak ^{Chopra (2012}, p. 12-14), an update on the traditional conception of body. This conception, based on a philosophy whose premises are anchored on advancements from modern physics, contributes with studies of corporeity while providing an escape from a systematic and collectively approved hypothesis of social conditioning. For this purpose, it is important to be set free from ten traditional ideas related to the formation of the identity: [1] there is an objective world which is independent from the observer and our bodies are an aspect of that world; [2] the body is comprised of sets of matter separated among one another in time and space; [3] body and mind are separate and independent from each other; [4] materialism is primary, conscience, secondary. In other words, we are physical machines who have learned to think; [5] human conscience can be fully explained as a biochemical product; [6] as individuals, we are disconnected self-sufficient entities; [7] our perception of the world is automatic and gives us a precise view of how things really are; [8] our true nature is totally defined by our body, ego and personality. We are threads of memories and desires wrapped in packages of flesh and bone; [9] time exists as an absolute value and we are its captives. Nobody escapes the devastation caused by time; [10] suffering is necessary―it is a part of reality. We are inevitable victims of disease, ageing and death (^{CHOPRA, 2012}. P. 12-14).

^{Chopra (2012}, p. 14) suggests replacing this paradigm with a more complete and expanded version of the truth. According to Fritjov ^{Capra (2019}), during the transition from the 19^th Century to the first decades of the 20^th Century, physical science has experienced a profound transformation, which was based on the work of thinkers such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, among others. This transformation implied changes in the concepts of space, time, matter, object, cause, effect, etc., i.e., concepts that are too basic for our way of experiencing the world. The changes based on new discoveries, in turn, have shaken the classic mechanistic world view of Cartesian-Newtonian inspiration, which had to be discarded by the beginning of the 20^th Century with the coming of theories such as relativity and quantum physics, being thereby replaced with a more ‘subtle’, ‘holistic’ and ‘organic’ understanding of nature. From these changes, ^{Chopra (2012)} suggests adhering to a new paradigm, based on the following concepts: [1] physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as well as our experience of the world; [2] essentially, our bodies are made of energy and information, not solid matter. This energy and information are manifestations of the infinite fields of energy and information that reach the entire universe; [3] body and mind are inseparable. The unit of ‘I’ separates itself into two courses of experience. I experience the subjective course as thoughts, feelings and desires and the objective course as my body. In a deeper level, both meet into one creative source, from which we are destined to life; [4] the body biochemistry is a byproduct of conscience. Beliefs, thoughts and emotions create the chemical reactions that sustain the life of each cell. One ageing cell is the final product of conscience that has forgotten how to remain young; [5] perception seems to be automatic, but is in fact a learned phenomenon. The world where you live, including your own body’s experience, is completely dictated by the way you learned to perceive it. If you change your perception, you then change the experience of your body and your world; [6] impulses of intelligence create your body in new forms every second. You are comprised of the sum of these impulses and you change by changing your patterns; [7] although each person seems independent and apart from others, we are all connected to intelligence patterns that rule all cosmos. Our bodies are part of a universal body, our minds are an aspect of a universal mind; [8] time does not exist as an absolute value, only eternity does. What we call linear time is a reflection of how we perceive change. If we could perceive the unchangeable, time as we know it would cease to exist. We can start to learn how to process the non-change, the eternity, the absolute. By doing so, we are ready to create the physiology of immortality; [9] each one of us dwells in a reality beyond all changes. Deep within, hidden from the five senses, there exists an intimate essence of being, a field of no change which creates personality, ego and body. This is our essence―what we really are; [10] we are not victims of ageing, disease and death. These things are part of the scenario and not of the observer, who is immune to any form of change. The observing self is the spirit, the expression of the eternal being (^{CHOPRA, 2012}, p. 14-16).

Upon reflecting about each of these ten new assumptions and opposing them to the ‘old paradigm’, we now begin to analyze how certain aspects of the formation of identity have been developing in the hypercultural context. If, according to the ‘new paradigm’, the unit of our identity divides into a set of subjective experiences (thoughts, feelings, emotions) and a set of objective experiences (body), and if both sets in a deeper level converge in one source, we must then ask ourselves what would be the specific mode of experience in hyperspace and its impact on formation of the identity. The inhabitant of the hypercultural universe, according to ^{Han (2019a}, p. 85) would be a species that captures the world through windows, so that identity in that universe would be quite different from the monadologic Leibnizian conception. ^{Han (2019a}, p. 93) believes that in the Leibnizian universe, each one has their own fixed place and identity, whereas in hyperculture, the background of practices of life and forms of expression is comprised of a global space, whose distances are dis-located. In that hyperspace, ^{Han (2019a}, p. 96) describes structures and identities as patchwork, i.e., entangled windows-components from different species. This means that nothing is monadologically enclosed in that universe, and that ‘windowing’, while a specific way of human experience within the hyperspace, removes the monadologic interiority of the house, making its inhabitant a hypercultural tourist (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 85).

The existential condition of a ‘hypercultural tourist’, in turn, has introduced a number of health conditions. According to ^{Han (2018}), if Walter Benjamin described a transformation in the perception during esthetic experience of the film in terms of comparing the old contemplation with the shock caused by art, the latter would not be appropriate to describe more accurately the perceptive experience of the digital world. The shock would be a sort of ‘immune reaction’, close to repulse, whereas nowadays as images circulating in the web are invested with ‘totalizations of consumption’, the experience of windowing in the hyperspace tends to create forms of perception according to which even repulsive images are supposed to entertain people, thereby suppressing every form of immune refrainment. Moreover, ^{Han (2018)} believes that an intense and efficient immune defense would suffocate communication, so that promotion of the acceleration of information which enables capital growth would feed from those reduced immune barriers. Growing or strengthening these barriers would slow information exchange and decrease its consumption. Thus, the South Korean philosopher indicates that what really promotes communication is, rather than immunity, enjoyment of digital webs, whereas the mass of unfiltered information makes perception dull. This situation supports a number of psychic abnormalities, such as information fatigue syndrome (IFS) and depression (^{HAN, 2018}, p. 103-107).

We have reached the matter of suffering in current reality. The tenth idea of the ‘old paradigm’―suffering is necessary, is a part of reality, and we are inevitable victims of disease, ageing and death (^{CHOPRA, 2012})―expresses a nihilist endpoint that holds a significant part of contemporary thinking. This conception, in a certain way, underlies practices of life and forms of expression in hyperculture. This becomes more evident as the aspect of ‘obscenity’ of certain cybercultural practices is highlighted. From Sartre’s Theory of Obscenity, ^{Han (2017a}) points out that the body of current society becomes obscene as it is deprived of all the narrativity, direction and meaning. Regarding the qualities of the excessive amount of obscenity, he suggests that the examination of the social body reveals adiposity, massification and massive proliferation. Furthermore, the philosopher also regards hyperactivity, hyperproduction and hypercommunication beyond the goals, as well as hyperacceleration, which is not completely in motion and does not take anything forward, as obscene (^{HAN, 2017a}, p. 69-70). As we consider the lack of sense in various practices and forms of life and expression in the hyperculturally elaborated world, should we not associate them with the obscenity that characterizes contemporary society? Wouldn’t certain experiences, which tend to assume the windowing modality, be unconsciously marked by attempts to escape and distract oneself from the inevitable suffering?

On another hand, if identities in the hypercultural universe are characterized by essence-windows made of windows by which we capture the world, we must then consider that windows perform two functions, as stated by ^{Han (2019a}): they can be an opening to the outer world or protection from the world. In the latter case, the window can aid a form of windowing with the potential of producing windowed monades by which beings in the world assume the condition of beings in front of the window (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 86). This particular form of windowing, aside from considerably restricting navigation through cyberspace, can aid the consolidation of certain aspects of what ^{Han (2017a}) would call ‘positive society’. While trying to eliminate negativity by protecting oneself from the world through some windows, the hypercultural identities are formed so as to not tolerate ‘any negative feeling’ and they forget how to deal with suffering and pain or how to give them form. Therefore, positive society is about to reorganize the soul in a completely new way, i.e., in the context of its positivation, love is also leveled to pleasant feelings and complex excitations without consequences (^{HAN, 2017a}, p. 18-19). However, the openly exploratory modality of windowing is practiced by developing identities which, according to ^{Han (2019a)}, dwell in a dis-measured world, inside a hypermarket of culture, in a hyperspace of possibilities. In that sense, the South Korean philosopher asks whether hypercultural tourists wouldn’t experience ‘more freedom’, thereby becoming a species of homo liber (as opposed to homo doloris), who starts to enjoy the forthcoming joy (^{Han, 2019a}, p. 17-18). If this question received a positive answer, then windowing would produce a particular experience of time and space and a particular way of formation [Bildung] of an identity and perception never before seen (^{HAN, 2019a}, p. 105).

The aforementioned ideas can be completmented by ^{De Masi (2000)} regarding an emergent category of ‘digital’ people. This sociological category does not exclude tendencies of conservation or transformation of the established tradition. As indicated by the Italian sociologist, like the infinite variety of symphonies which is always a result of combining only seven notes, society also gives life to diverse systems, although made of subjects who are nurtured by eternal feelings as love, hate, hope or malaise. Notwithstanding that diversity, globalization and hypercultural life would have conditioned certain tendencies of formation of an identity of the so-called ‘digital’ people, i.e., a growing number of people who began to adopt a completely new and diverse way of living compared to the industrial society from the past centuries. People in this social category would be completely intimate with informatics and ubiquity, with the achievements of biology and with equal opportunities for both sexes, while enjoying both free time and work, living the night as they live the day, admiring contemporary art, design and all other forms of artistic expression. They would also tend towards eclecticism, collage and patchwork. In addition, they would not be called ‘digital’ solely because they would be almost maniacally identified with the computer, e-mail and Internet, but because the computer would be their symbol, as was television to the generation of mass communication media, and assembly line to the generation of industry. Furthermore, ‘digital’ people would be sensible to sustainable development and likely to live pacifically among different cultures and religions, while not quite distinguishing working days from official holidays. However, the establishment of the innovative traces of the paradigm of identity of ‘digital’ people would involve questioning a few lines of tradition that aim to be conserved by some social groups (^{DE MASI, 2000}, p. 266-271).

On another view, the digital world would not be free from alienating tendencies of identity formation. Windowing processes, while transforming users into hypercultural tourists, contribute to dis-interiorize the formation of an identity. This process seems to bring about just what ^{Han (2017a}, p. 37) believes to be the consolidation of the society of exposure. This context creates a sort of coercion by transparency, whose value of exposure depends mostly on good looks, which then creates coercion through beauty and fitness. Moreover, one should consider the current circulation of ‘paradigms’ that do not warrant interior value, but exterior measures to which we seek to correspond, even if it means to use violent resources sometimes (^{HAN, 2017a}, p. 37). The body, while constantly fitting in to these paradigms, becomes a mere object of exposure in the hypercultural world. It also becomes an object of exploration, however, because the excessive exposure turns everything into a product, whereas capitalist economy subjects everything to expositive coercion, making only exposed acting generate value and leaving aside each and every growth of things. This process can lead to alienation of the body, which is objectified and made into an exposed something that must be optimized (^{HAN, 2017a}, p. 32-33). Exposure and exploration of the body in the hyperspace, in turn, leads to an apparently more severe situation. While we prepare to conclude this study, we analyze the description of such situation below:

Já não é possível morar nele, sendo necessário, então, expô-lo e, assim, explorá-lo. Exposição é exploração, e seu imperativo aniquila o próprio morar. Quando o próprio mundo se transforma em espaço de exposição, já não é possível o habitar, que cede lugar à propaganda, com o objetivo de incrementar o capital da atenção do público. [...] Obscena é a hipervisibilidade, à qual falta qualquer traço de negatividade do oculto, do inacessível e do mistério. Obscenos são também os canais rasos da hipercomunicação, libertos de toda e qualquer negatividade da alteridade. Obscena é a coação de colocar tudo a mercê da comunicação ou da visibilidade. Obsceno é o pornográfico colocar corpo e alma sob foco da visão (^{HAN, 2017a}, p. 33-34).⁶

DENOUEMENT

We have asked if the state of things and certain modalities of identity formation within hyperculture are in accordance with the belief in the ‘old paradigm’ according to which our true nature is completely defined by body, ego and personality, whereas, in that record, we would be but threads of memories and desires wrapped in packages of flesh and bone (^{CHOPRA, 2012}). We also asked ourselves to which point the ideas established by the ‘old paradigm’ have contributed to diseased concretizations of possibilities of the hypercultural world.

However, over the unfolding of this study, we pointed out that the development of cyberspace allowed distinct possibilities of human identity formation to emerge, some of which even opposite to one another. Considering the expansion of conscience and freedom in terms of the ‘new paradigm’, and focusing on the consideration that impulses of intelligence create a new body in new forms each second, that we are the sum of these impulses and that changing their pattern we can change ourselves (^{CHOPRA, 2012}), we can now project new ways and live more healthily within the cyberspace.

Sharing part of one’s life in the hypercultural world is not in itself detrimental, as we could deduce from the critical climax of the previous topic. ^{Han (2017a}) seems to indicate a modality of exposure that responds to certain imperatives, coercion and excess, which can often be unconsciously made subjective. In this line of interpretation, it is possible to experience hyperculture with preserved dimensions of meaning, privacy and narrativity⁷, which are understood here as indicatives of identity in harmony with the ‘new paradigm’. Moreover, there are underlying possibilities of experiencing a new ludicity and the expansion of freedom within hyperculture, mostly regarding formation in the context of globalization and pluralization of different identities, the development of a planetary conscience, supporting a form of Beauty that includes equality, joy and dignity…

On the Prelude of this study, we remembered Heraclitus of Ephesus, who discussed the difficulties of finding “the boundaries of soul by travelling in any direction, so deep is the measure of it” (frag. 45) (RITTER; PRELLER, 1898, p. 138). From given comprehensions of the Logos which have become hegemonic and decisively marked Western tradition, a unilateral valorization of calculus and word in the context of wisdom and science was established. This valorization, in the context of the ‘old paradigm’, according to which body and mind are separate and independent from one another, has smothered a complementary aspect of knowledge, and made physical education a counter pole of the education of the soul. Thus, while knowledge of the soul has asphyxiated the silence and has contributed to a ‘noise era’⁸ (^{KAGGE, 2018}), knowledge of the body has accepted the reduction of its object to mere human motion (or motricity), as if rest was something destined exclusively to the soul apart from the body. According to the ‘new paradigm’, however, body and soul are in fact inseparable. In that sense, the Logos must be in harmony with the silence, which according to the ancient Egyptian Ptahotep⁹ (^s/d, p. 62) is the condition for revelation of intimate mysteries. In turn, motion of the body must be complemented by rest, in order to create the conditions for a fuller formative experience.

If human bodies are not comprised of bulks of matter separated from one another in time and space (old paradigm); and if beliefs, thoughts and emotions create the chemical reactions that sustain life in each cell (new paradigm) (^{CHOPRA, 2012}); now more than ever Philosophy is important for developing studies about the bodies as open sets of connections that provide the basis of human experiences with spirituality, sensitivity, thought, emotions etc. Therefore, the process of nurturing is no longer restricted. We nurture ourselves of sensations, feelings, thoughts, emotions, practices, experiences, theories, coexistence, all processes whose energies travel through our every pore. Considering that all this includes our life within hyperspace, we must then create a hypercultural education for the good and beautiful coexistence in this planet, a culture engaged in essential aspects of the new paradigm of comprehension of our identity formation…