Table of contents:
Not a single drop considers itself to be the culprit of the flood
In my last article, I talked about why there is no difference between frivolous credit and throwing away garbage in public places. In the same place he promised to talk about such a phenomenon as "psychodynamics", on the basis of which one can easily see that all people as a whole (as a single organism) deserve what happens to them. I took into account your wishes and tried to make the article shorter.
What is psychodynamics?
In short, this is when "everyone does what he wants, and the result is what it turns out."
For example, many people want their car to make traveling long distances in the city more comfortable and convenient, and also not depend on the schedule of transport or the services of other people. What did it lead to? In the last article, I suggested that you look at typical photographs of the courtyards of residential apartment buildings, study the map of traffic jams and parks of unsold cars. Did people want this result?
No, almost everyone wanted freedom and independence, comfort and convenience, and did not think that everything would turn out like this. But it turned out what happened. At the same time, “no one is to blame,” just as the unscrupulous tourist itself is not to blame for a dump on the beach, because he did not make a landfill, but left only one bottle and a napkin.
I will give another example of the manifestation of psychodynamics associated with cars.
Let's say you drive your car calmly and carefully. Suddenly, some boor, randomly rearranging from one row to another and aggressively honking, almost hitting your car rushes past. You exclaim indignantly: “What a horror! These people provoke accidents, it is because of them that almost 100% of all accidents occur! I wish there were fewer of these!"
In this situation, you are wrong, a significant part of the blame lies just with you; do you know why? I'll explain now, but I'll start from afar - with an example in which a driver who did not break the rules knocks down a pedestrian.
When I was taking driving lessons, the theory teacher said that even if the driver did not formally violate the traffic rules, but knocked down a person who, for example, suddenly jumped out where it is in principle forbidden for him to be, the driver will still be jailed (if the victim dies) or they will appoint another harsh measure of punishment, because he is guilty to a greater extent than the person who was shot down by him.
“How is it,” the disciples were surprised, “are we nostradamus to predict such events? We are driving according to the rules, it is his fault!"
The teacher replied that the judge proceeds from the following considerations.
Firstly, you are protected by the body of the car, which you know in advance, and secondly, you read the traffic rules and are aware in advance that by going out on the road you ALREADY create a situation of increased danger by this fact, which means you KNEW IN ADVANCE that your car during movements pose a threat to society.
You, of course, cannot argue with this, legally this is so, which means that a significant part of the blame for an accident in this case lies with you. A completely different situation is when that person was also in the car while driving. In this case, they look at who violated which traffic rules and who is more wrong than the other.
What does this accident example teach? He teaches that when you get behind the wheel, you automatically become a threat to society. However, your threat extends much further than the legal system describes. And that's why.
Driving in a busy city, you know perfectly well in advance that the roads are crowded, you know that this puts pressure on people, you know that they get nervous, losing 2-3 hours or more a day in traffic jams, you know that your presence on the road ADD this pressure and EXCESSES the situation, you know that you are reasonable and even have a strategic mind, and therefore you can foresee in advance what such pressure will necessarily (that is, no alternative) sooner or later lead to.
And it will lead to the fact that the weakest person in the mental sense, participating in road traffic, will necessarily break off first and begin to behave aggressively; in this way, many desperate people have mechanisms for protecting the psyche from "overheating". And who knows, maybe it was your car that turned out to be the last straw for such a person.
Haven't you seen people like this break loose?
A difficult situation at the intersection: the next candidate for drivers stalled first at a traffic light, apparently worried about the exam. The driver following the student's car aggressively drives around the stalled, squeezing between him and the car from the next lane, simultaneously manages to swear at the student, then turns sharply to the right and rushes right in front of the pedestrian, who barely managed to take a step back.
Is it correct? But another time, you can be brought into thoughtless aggression, and you, with the scrolling of the wheels on the asphalt, jump out in front of the truck, which somehow makes its maneuver too slowly, which forces you to wait too long. How many attempts do you think you have left? And what will the latter look like? Will it be the last one just for you?
Are you to blame for similar failures of other drivers, if you yourself consider yourself respectable? I hope that it is now clear to you that yes. You know in advance that you are involved in creating the pressure that already exceeds all conceivable limits in a crowded city. The snowflake does not understand what is causing the avalanche. It's just that all the blame, as it were, is assumed by the one who broke loose first, and in our society of scattered egoists, few people think about the collective responsibility for this. The main thing is that you yourself feel good … at the cost of someone else's misfortune.
However, do not rush to take the blame or look for excuses for the fact that you, in principle, exist in this world and live as you were taught. The above does NOT mean that you need to give up everything, sell your car and leave Nerezinovka. The reader might get the false impression that I am accusing him of his very existence in this world, the right to which only God can take away. No, this is not our fault at all, now I will explain how I personally see it (including myself).
The mistake is that a person refuses to take responsibility for his life and for what influence he has on its course. I believe that a person can be guilty before himself and before society only in this and in nothing else. All the rest of the guilt (for other things) no longer belongs only to him, although the formal part of this guilt is imputed to him.
If people voluntarily refused to take responsibility for their lives, then it is from here that everything that we are used to seeing around us begins: the closure of the psychodynamics of society on society itself through negative feedback. In this case, everyone suffers alone to the same extent that he tried to create comfortable conditions ONLY for himself.
For example, in the case of traffic, a well-functioning public transport system could solve many problems, but no … everyone wants to live on their own. Reducing the lending rate could help people to concentrate less on the small area of “non-rubber” cities (to substantiate this thesis, see the book of the urban planner Evgeny Chesnov “The Matrix of the Landscape”), but no, if you reduce it, even more obsessive consumption will begin, because “freebie ! " and want!" - everything will only get worse due to the dominant mentality of most people.
When a person has taken responsibility for his life and his actions, he realizes that he is a member of society, and that something depends on him, he begins to see the deep interconnections of his logic of social behavior with the processes taking place in society, and this allows him to correct yourself and the people around you so that the overall quality of life is higher.
Why does he succeed? Because he has taken responsibility, and having taken it, he will realize how important it is to stop being an individual farmer and become a person of a social mentality.
If a person thinks with the logic of “I” and “myself”, then his sole actions through the psychodynamics of society will lead to the fact that “I” and “myself” of other people will begin to interfere with his life, and such a person will suffer. Moreover, he will suffer in exactly the same way, and he will also struggle with his problems.
If a person thinks with the logic of cooperation and takes responsibility for his life and his presence in a certain collective (at the limit, in the whole society), then the interests of a collective consisting of such people will be taken into account more correctly, and this can significantly reduce suffering. But if problems do arise, then the ENTIRE team will overcome them, which will not leave a person alone in trouble. Do you understand the difference?
Please remember the vivid image of the famous parable of the long spoons, which compares heaven and hell.
In Hell, people sit at a round table laden with food, the wonderful atmosphere of the dining room awakens the appetite, and pleasant relaxing music plays. Only some evil people … instead of their usual hands, everyone had cutlery, someone had a fork and a spoon, someone had a knife and a fork. But the appliances were so long that no one could get the food to their mouths. The sinners were furious, angry, but they could not do anything, it was absolutely impossible to taste the food.
And what about paradise? Everything is the same, only people did not feed themselves, but each other, and therefore a benevolent atmosphere of unity and prosperity reigned there. Heaven and hell are one and the same place … it's just that the logic of people's behavior is different.
What is your logic of social behavior, this is the answer you get from society. Your behavior comes back to reflect the behavior of society towards you. Unite, friends, joint problem solving is much more productive than a sole irresponsible existence.
PS. However, tell me, is it enough to take responsibility and get together in a team for everything to become good? My answer is no. This is not enough, but a discussion of this issue is a convenient occasion for the next article. What do you think?