I found Edward Shanken’s take on Technoshamanism deeply fascinating, especially his refusal to treat nature and technology as opposing forces. What really stood out to me was the idea of artists acting as modern shamans using wet (biological), dry (silicon), and moist technologies to build symbiotic relationships between humans, machines, and the broader ecosystem. His framing of interdisciplinary art as a psychic dress rehearsal for the future is a compelling way to look at how we might navigate our current ecological crises. Ultimately, the paper completely shifted my perspective, leaving me thinking a lot about how we can repurpose emerging tech not just for standard innovation, but as genuine tools for expanding consciousness and planetary healing.

I did not expect a paper about shamanism to make me think about my Hydra and TidalCycles setup, but here we are. Shanken’s framing of technoshamanism as a merger of ancient tranceinducing technologies with digital tools actually relates onto what live coding feels like from the inside. There is something about writing patterns in real time and watching sound emerge from syntax, that feels less like programming and more like tuning into something. You are not always fully in control and that is kind of the point.

The part that stuck with me most was Pauline Oliveros. Shanken describes her relationship to music as bodily and preconscious, and her ideal AI chip as something that could “perceive the spiritual connection and interdependence of all beings.” That is a wild ask for a piece of hardware, but I think I get what she means. Deep listening is never passive but a practice of expanding your attention until the boundaries between you and the sound start to blur.

What I am still sitting with is whether the technology actually enables that expanded consciousness or just simulates it. I am curious and that gap feels worth exploring more.