People live by and for “others” – or for the image we project to other people. Even if the image someone seeks to project is: “I don’t care how others see me” – it is a “sophistication” directed… towards what surrounds him.
Without this “mechanism” social networks would not exist – in all their forms, particularly “electronic” networks, where the need to project an image is “exploited” in a “direct” way and apparently “unrelated” to any other interaction between people – not directly an exchange of goods or money or direct relationships of “power” and “submission”… just “look at me”…
…Apparently – of course, behind the algorithms are the same kind of impulses to generate “profits” and exchange relationships and “power games”…etc. from the “real” world.
With this we do not mean that these networks are going to “disappear” or that a person should “truly” seek to be a “hero” who “does not care” about what happens “around” him. This state exists and we have witnessed it in history in “terrible” cases of isolation. A person who “really” grows without any contact from other people does not develop in the aspects that we consider make us “human”: he does not develop speech, he does not develop awareness of his own body or even his physical movements- they aren´t coordinated. In addition, he will have behaviours that will provoke the rejection or total condescension of those around him – whoever truly has the feeling of “no importance” towards what others think or feel, is not considered part of the “human species” and worse still, since he does not truly relate others to himself, he is unable to develop and be part of society.
In general, this state is not considered something “desirable” and is considered a “tragedy” for anyone.
On the other hand, we can observe how someone who grows up in contact with behaviours and influences that take him or her into account and exchange impressions with him or her, but in an “isolated” or totally “utilitarian” way, will result in “sociopathic” behaviours or serial criminals. But even in this case, in practice, they are still considered part of the species and similar – and very similar – to the “majority”. They can even become respected and imitated – like fraudulent financial executives and compulsive liars or like the attraction that some “famous” serial criminals have exerted on a certain number of women – and other similar cases…
The examples can continue, but the usefulness of mentioning it is to question where this mechanism is heading as it takes on increasingly “disconcerting” forms for any individual:
On the one hand, the desires or self-image of each individual evolve every second towards an image of “sufficiency”, “own merit” and “independence” from any influence other than “himself”. Networks, by “eliminating” “physical” contact and the “immediate” consequences and “responses” of those around us, allow expressions such as “I deserve everything there is in the world, just for existing and being me” in various ways, expressed openly and without any “shame” or “fear” – in the past, only an “Egyptian princess” could have allowed herself to boast in that way.
On the other hand, in practice, the increasingly dependent and closely related system turns the “natural” attitude of each person into a fantasy only possible on “the networks.” Or “impossible” at all: our self-image becomes more dependent and on more people around the globe. Nowadays an “angry mob” made up of people who live from one end of the world to the other and have never seen each other, can “unite” to exclude you and even affect your “income” and “real life” and above all: your “ self-perception.” Today our self-image and behaviour can be affected in a thousand ways, not only by the immediate environment and its competition and criticism, not only by the “famous” examples that are imposed on us, but by someone who lives thousands of kilometres away, you don’t know his face and he speaks another language…etc.
This seems to be a “standard” evolutionary process: an increasing contradiction causing increasing tension until a “rupture” that will force the discovery of a new sensation and perception that includes the parties in total opposition – the way in which the mineral kingdom produces the plant kingdom, and the plant kingdom produces the animal kingdom…the way the universe “appeared,” as far as we can perceive…etc.
In this way, we witness how the more “independent” the sensation is in a person, the more dependent they are on the thoughts of others. Serve others so that they reach a certain goal or use everyone for your own goal…there is less and less space for a “middle point.” The more a person’s desire grows to be above and exclude any “external judgment” …the more the need grows to be above his own “self” – and to include everything external in its most “internal” part – to the extent that the “interconnections” and “limitations” that surround him directly determine his apparent “current state.” ”.
This “evolution” is present in all the sensations and in all the images we seek to project. Even the feeling of “suffering”, which is equivalent to not receiving what you want, if it evolves and develops to its “extreme” or “definitive” point, becomes a feeling of “emptiness” due to not being able to “give” something- “any” thing.
And potentially a more important discovery: that the two sensations are “equivalent.”
We can go through this process by pushing the tension to the limit – wars, crises “disasters”…etc. – or take it into our own hands with education and emulation of the process “by choice” – the equivalent of someone who has grown up “isolated” from any “human” influence, but still has the opportunity to develop “speech”.
Snakeeskin 