Love your robot as yourself

Por:
- - Visto 1002 veces

One topic that seems to unite many of the seemingly disparate problems facing human relations today or at any time in history is violence. People keep dreaming of living in a society free of war and violent crime, but somehow such a society, if it appears at all briefly, doesn’t last very long. Before I delve further into violence itself, I would like to differentiate it from non-violence within my imprint theory. A non-violent imprint is an imprint made by an organism on an organic surface that stimulates the surface to life. A violent imprint is an imprint made by an organism that hurts the organic surface on which it is made. Sometimes the difference between these two different types of imprints gets blurred. One example is when a surgeon has to cut open a patient in order to perform an operation. The cut has painful or uncomfortable side effects, but it will ultimately save or enhance the patient’s life. Another is when people participate in sadistic or masochistic relationships. These are relationships where people derive pleasure from giving or receiving pain. In each of these situations there is a mixture of destructive and constructive aspects to the imprints being made.

Now one of the assumptions that is made about violence is that it is always exclusively directed at some figure: a person, an animal, or even an inanimate object. How many times have we seen or heard about a person taking out his anger by throwing a glass or a dish against the wall or the floor? Our notion of causality assumes that when people are angry, they are always angry with other discrete figures. However, sometimes it is the whole living environment itself that can bring on violent reactions. Because it is hard to act out against an environment, another figure – a person or animal or thing – becomes the object of anger. Anger against the environment can attach itself to a figure with whom or with which a person has a conflict or a grievance. This will exacerbate the response to the figure and lead to a more violent reaction. Sometimes the anger will attach itself to a figure with whom or with which a person is not really angry at all. The person looks for a figure to whom or to which to attach his anger. This can lead to a totally surprising, totally unprovoked violent reaction.

The key is that different kinds of environments bring out different kinds of violence. In traditional organic environments, the danger to the person is that of undifferentiating, of losing his self-definition, as the person tends to be enveloped by all the organic stimuli around him. I said in a previous article that animals strengthen their sense of self through intensely focused attacks on other animals. But the danger, the enemy, is not simply the other animal. It is also aspects of the total organic environment. The animal or the person is also fighting the perishability in the natural environment that leads to undifferentiation of the self. He does that through hardening the sense of self by focusing on an enemy and aiming aggression towards that enemy. This is what can be called goal-oriented violence.


In modern technological environments, a different kind of violence arises. In this case the environmental danger comes from the numbness created by the vacuum living environments that people live and work in. Vacuum environments create situations of entropy: the random distribution of atoms in a vacuum. Psychologically, entropy refers to how people break apart in a vacuum and lose their feeling. People fight to hold themselves together, to maintain their self-coherence, by striking out in any direction to stimulate themselves to life. This is where you get all the random acts of violence in modern society, like from the people who go to public places and start shooting whoever is around. This is what can be called process-oriented violence. A person strikes out violently simply to feel alive and hold himself together.

People can also lose their feeling and become sensorily disrupted by the tension pockets of overstimulating static that float in the vacuum environment today: the bumper-to-bumper traffic, the honking horns, the belching smoke, the clusters of tall buildings that don’t fit together, the blaring modern music, the crowding from people. Again, people have to fight to hold themselves together and prevent themselves from crumbling apart through process-oriented aggression.

There are people who seem to feel threatened by both a loss of self-definition and a loss of self-coherence. These are people who go to public places and shoot both a specific enemy and the random people around them. This should not be confused with acts of war where an enemy is bombed from the air and innocent people who are close by to the military target get injured or killed as well. That is called collateral damage. The principal purpose of traditional military violence is still to target a specific enemy who randomly ends up being surrounded by innocent people or who purposely surrounds himself by innocent people in order to diminish his chances of being hurt.

People thought that, in building modern technological societies, they would create more civilized societies in which violence was eliminated or, at least, significantly diminished. The idea was that, in separating themselves from the natural environments of wild animals, people would lose their violent tendencies. We all see now that this isn’t happening. Violence is simply taking a different form in order to defend a person against the relatively newer dangers of entropy and numbness.

Look at all the cyberaggression that is occurring today. Hackers try to destroy computers, steal personal identities and reveal secret documents. These hackers need to hurt other people to feel alive and to prevent themselves from crumbling apart.

And look at cyberthreats and cyberteasing that occur among students today. One can do horrendous things to a student through a few well-placed comments on Facebook. Cyberviolence can take the form of embarrassing and inappropriate photos placed on social media.

So violence does not go away just because we separate ourselves from the natural environments of wild animals. And it is highly doubtful that it will ever disappear entirely, because it seems to be a psychologically useful process to jolt a person to life when his sense of self is threatened by elements in his external environment. In organic environments, the threat is that of being blended back into an undifferentiating organic grounding. In modern technological environments, the threat is that of crumbling apart from the numbing influences of the vacuum aspects of modern living environments and, alternately, the overstimulating jading influences of the free-floating static stimuli in the tension pocket aspects of modern living environments.

If we want to diminish the appearance of unwanted violence in our living environments, we have to formulate strategies today, just as people used traditional religion to diminish and channel arbitrary violence in more organic living environments. Religion developed rituals that helped put people in transcendental states to stand apart from the wild flow of nature, and it created moral rules to help people stand apart from the violence in nature and the potential for violence in themselves. These rituals and rules became strong psychological figures in people’s minds. With them, people could stand apart from living environments with enveloping grounding that tended to undifferentiate and swallow them up.

Religion was definitely effective in restraining some forms of violence. However, religion didn’t eliminate violence. Instead, it became the foundation for many formalized expressions of violence in war. By making violence less arbitrary and more channeled, it became somehow more predictable and more controllable than the violence experienced in nature. It frequently occurred on battlefields away from people’s homes.

Today, people have a different set of environmental threats to act as triggers for violence. We need more continual blending ground stimulation, not less, to help people feel coherent and, therefore, less in need of process-oriented violence. We need nature, organic art and handicrafts, community, all kinds of primary experience. We need human bonding, parties, celebrations, adventures, doing things with one’s hands. We need face-to-face contact between people. We need opportunities for people to make imprints and hold themselves together without violence.

Humans have created a transcendental technological environment to escape the savagery in nature and have put themselves in a new kind of field of experience that brings out robotic process-oriented violence. Why robotic? Robotic is a variation on mechanical. When we say somebody does something mechanically, we mean that they do it without much desire or feeling. They go through the motions.

When somebody does something robotically, it means that the body is given an order, as if it were a machine, by the sense of self in the mind. It is as if the mind had been reduced to a central computer in order to force the body out of its numbness and jadedness to do something. The body feels numb and foreign to the mind. The mind wants the body to move and do things that are very stimulating, so that it, the mind, can feel alive. The body and mind are alternately numb and jaded, understimulated and overstimulated, from the sensory distortion in the vacuum and tension-pocket living environment they live in. Violence is an explosive way to stimulate the body, and, by extension, the mind. It pulls the person out of his numbness and jadedness.

This is why I talk about robotic process-oriented violence. This kind of violence is a means of dealing with the sensory distortion with which we have to deal today in our modern technological environments. It is an indication of the danger of living in our sensorily distorted environment and modeling ourselves consciously or unconsciously after complex technological entities like computers and robots that play an increasingly important role in our lives.

Acerca de Laurence Mesirow

Durante mi estadía en la Ciudad de México en los años setenta, me di cuenta que esta enorme ciudad contenía en sus colonias distintos "medio ambientes vivenciales", que iban desde muy antiguas a muy recientes; desde muy primitivas a muy modernas.Observé que había diferencias sutiles en la conducta de la gente y en sus interacciones en las diferentes colonias. Esta observación fue fundamental en la fundación de mis teorías con respecto a los efectos de la tecnología moderna sobre los medio ambientes vivenciales y sobre la conducta humana.En México, publiqué mi libro "Paisaje Sin Terreno" (Editorial Pax-México), y luego di conferencias para la U.N.A.M. y la Universidad Anahuac. También, presenté un ensayo para un Congreso de Psicología.Ahora que mis hijas son adultas, tengo el tiempo de explorar mis ideas de vuelta. Le agradezco mucho a ForoJudio.com y en especial al Sr. Daniel Ajzen por la oportunidad de presentar mis ideas.

Deja tu Comentario

A fin de garantizar un intercambio de opiniones respetuoso e interesante, DiarioJudio.com se reserva el derecho a eliminar todos aquellos comentarios que puedan ser considerados difamatorios, vejatorios, insultantes, injuriantes o contrarios a las leyes a estas condiciones. Los comentarios no reflejan la opinión de DiarioJudio.com, sino la de los internautas, y son ellos los únicos responsables de las opiniones vertidas. No se admitirán comentarios con contenido racista, sexista, homófobo, discriminatorio por identidad de género o que insulten a las personas por su nacionalidad, sexo, religión, edad o cualquier tipo de discapacidad física o mental.


El tamaño máximo de subida de archivos: 300 MB. Puedes subir: imagen, audio, vídeo, documento, hoja de cálculo, interactivo, texto, archivo, código, otra. Los enlaces a YouTube, Facebook, Twitter y otros servicios insertados en el texto del comentario se incrustarán automáticamente. Suelta el archivo aquí

Artículos Relacionados: