By way of our globalized culture’s heavy dependence on the Internet, perhaps it isn’t so hard to analogize Sobchack’s prosthetic leg to other out-of-body prostheses such as the smartphone (in addition to other various forms of computers which keep us connected to the Internet) which arguably not only “augment” our reality (in one form or another, positively or negatively) — but, more importantly, virtualize it
This means that the fetishization of such objects has advanced from mere, simplistic fetishization to a brand of “requirement” —- a requirement which parallels Sobchack’s explanation of her prosthetic “… as a material but also phenomenologically lived artifact “
Dissimilar to Sobchack’s prosthetic, however, smartphones/computers are not just “lived artifacts” nor are they mere objects which have “life”; within the same vein, they also don’t have identities, per se, “… because there are both an oppositional tension and a dynamic connection between the prosthetic as a tropological figure and a dynamic connection between the prosthetic as a tropological figure and my prosthetic”
The aforementioned is crucial to Sobchack’s definition of her prosthetic and its role on her Reality because a smartphone/computer is a part of the global citizen, an extension of itself AND a manner in which it legitimizes its “global citizenry”
Again, the previous notion does not mean that ”… both the prosthesis and the body are generalized in a form that denies how bodies can and do ‘take up’ technologies of all kinds “
In such instance, the opposite is actually valid: today, smartphones/computers are one of the most definite, specific means to “define” a virtualized reality &/or realized virtuality
In turn, this reality is a confluent, imbricated “reality” which, in turn, is not just subjective & almost completely self-based —- ultimately, it may also banish objectivity & society all the same