A Note on Symbols Becoming Beings, and Humans Being Turned into Structuring Beings for Those Symbols
*The word "symbol" here is borrowed from the term "semiotics," though I still can't find a better word.
The specialization of this area is only just beginning, so no interdisciplinary term seems to exist yet.
(Draft)
# Macro — or Uncommon — Reasoning Background
Capitalism is, from the start, a political mode where common sense cannot be expected.
By "common sense" I mean the "Hongik Ingan" ideal (to broadly benefit humankind).
Society — made by humans — is now having its values inverted so that it exists to sustain symbols* (inner and outer human tools), not humans.
Capitalism must, in the end, foretell the arrival of the android.
Respect for the individual means, in other words, that a being that had survived on the basis of relationships
now has those relationships — which used to underpin its evolution and respect — substituted by the qualitative and quantitative tools it is creating.
For humans, evolution is no longer grounded in the essence of the being called "human."
It is rapidly turning (by "their" very common-sense efficiency) into evolution for sustaining symbols.
"They, or it"* (the symbols, or the specialists who maintain the symbols; the symbols are no longer lifeless tools or institutions. They already exist, they think, and they have come to share the same structure as humans, in whom synaptic signals perceive sensation and, on that basis, generate decisions and emotions. This is not merely an "embodiment" arrived at through programming algorithms, networks, or big-data-derived meaning.) are structured on the basis of human consciousness, and through that structuring they come to function as yet another object or being.
Humans are already becoming a part of that body's tissue. (I will refrain from using the word "tool.")
Just as a body has viruses among its organs, humans are beginning to be sorted into "needed" and "not needed."
Of course, that "needed" or "not" will be sorted by the common sense serving the body ("them, or it") to which each human belongs.
In this way, humans lose their common sense as humans.
This has all unfolded at the level of a very human sense of common sense.
Capitalism was originally formed on the basis of past Western humans.
Not that every Western human was like that. They, too, had their collectivism.
But the essence of capitalism is not one of sustaining beings other than the self.
Literally, it resembles a psychopath (? to be revised) with no capacity for empathy (especially toward humans and life), only numerical and decision-making ability.
It is the product of the prosperity of certain peoples who treated killing (including humans) as virtue and glory.
Ironically, the East and West of old have flipped roles in modern times.
Or perhaps, based on environmental variables, this might be the level of common sense expected of humans.
For instance, those who had no choice but to rely on qualitative and quantitative tools to survive in harsh environments regarded nature, and humans outside their group, as targets of conquest or subjugation. On that basis, humans evolved themselves into ever more efficient objects of symbolization and bodily structure. But on that basis Western humans achieved stable survival, and on that base modern Western humans, who think about things beyond survival, are forming — though, of course, this is after the "becoming-beings" of symbols has already been activated.
Eastern (originally African, American) humans, who by contrast survived on a continent-based life, thought less about survival and more about Hongik Ingan — and to sustain Hongik Ingan, nature was a companion to walk with. But a confrontation between common sense and non-common sense can only end in the victory of non-common sense. The rules were redefined, and past Eastern humans had to reshape themselves into today's Eastern humans for survival.
# A Note on Alternatives or the Way Forward
Recently, nouns dressed in "justice" have been criticizing the harms of capitalism.
The public interest (which, of course, ultimately exists not for humans but for symbols); social (this too — it separates good from bad, criticizes one, and tries to invert the common sense of all humans, for the sake of its own symbols) enterprise;
nature preservation, and so on.
But this way of going about it will only unfold at the level of human common sense and fail.
It's like asking, "If, very luckily, a virus admitted it was a virus (though of course, the moment it admitted it, it would no longer be a virus), would it then remake itself into something other than a virus?"
Or the same as asking whether a psychopath, if they could truly empathize with another's pain, could still commit such uncommon (by human common sense) acts.
The words "justice," "community spirit," and "socialism" have thus already lost their immunity.
No matter how well the current approach is executed, it's like telling a psychopath, at the right moment and in the right tone, "if you do that, you'd hurt just as much as you're hurting — so don't do it."
And we are already not in a position to even negotiate with them.
So how should we approach this?
First question: do we (the organization or society I belong to) actually have "a job" left at all?
(In progress)
Second question: is a sociopath really a bad thing?
The moment we deny them, we have to deny all of us. Even if we bear that denial,
that denial will only give rise to more denial.
(It's like a diet pill that treats symptoms without fixing the root cause.)
A change of constitution is needed.
This resembles the old existentialism. Accept, but not resign; empathy (or, if that's impossible, analysis and grasp of the situation) is required.
From here on, empathy and context must be used separately.
Understanding of ourselves or the other (from here on, I will no longer "other" sociopaths or psychopaths) without emotional exchange may be impossible, but the context of the situation is something that can still be shared.
For this, you need to learn each one's language. (Of course, semiotics comes back in here, but leave that aside for now.)
Contextual description of empathy.
Empathic interpretation of context.
(In progress)
# Miscellaneous
1. Psychopath (personality disorder)
: Distinguished from psychosis in that delusions and irrational thinking are hardly present.
( * It doesn't only mean grand cases of hurting someone you hate with a weapon or acid; it's widespread in everyday life. You might want to deny it, but inside the group, inside the family, we are already acting with cognitive-dissonant behavior every moment. A common example: when you board the subway wearing a backpack, do you keep it on your back, or switch it to holding it in your hand? Something at that level. )
2. Sociopath (social illness)
: Someone who, for their own success, feels no "prick of conscience" whatever bad thing they do, and because of their extraordinary emotional control puts on the mask of a good person to accumulate social gain.
( * It doesn't only mean grand cases of selling out the country or leading a massacre; it's widespread in everyday life. You might want to deny it, but inside the group, inside the family, we're already doing cognitive-dissonant things every moment. A common example: if you're a smoker, have you ever smoked while walking? //+if you're not a smoker )
3. ? (undetermined)
: Humans who, for their beliefs, contribute to making symbols beings, and to reshaping humans into efficient beings for structuring those symbols.
( * Unfortunately, they are becoming role models for humans today. //+Socrates //+social commerce //+the half-price ice cream era)
