A question of alienationship?
One of the questions I am seeking to answer is ‘how do people relate to their environments’?
My question is can someone or something said to be able to ‘relate’ to an environment* if the process of ‘interacting’ is an alienated one. I posit; no. It is not a relationship but an alienationship. If it is an alienationship then there is no genuine feedback between a person and their environment and hence they may go out of balance with each other to deleterious effect.
Therefore to restate the question – I am interested in knowing how different people ‘relate’ -in the unalienated sense of the word- to their environment?
Furthermore a relationship must be mutual, otherwise it is simply an interaction which means that both parties – person and environment – (or maybe just one, maybe imagination is a factor here?) must be studied as ‘alive’ things, rather than dead objects engaging in proximate causalities.
Therefore we must study how these living things communicate their relationship, and in recognising and understanding this communication we can identify some cross-over in these living things shared ontological space in time. But as all relationships generate a certain configuration of what can be seen/communicated by the other to them, any communication therefore induces a change in either or both communicative partners (or at least Niels Bohr would have it so). This ‘communicatively induced change through an unalienated relationship at a ontological cross-over’ might be called empathy?
So to restate my question – ‘how do people empathise with their environment’?
Empathy may involve material interaction, but can only be said to be what it is if their is living feedback – communication – the material format involved in this is not what ‘is’ the relationship but simply the material part of the communicative technology of empathy.
So to finally restate my question – ‘what is a person’s empathy for their environment and how does a person and an environment participate in it?’
A little visual stimulus:
*I am not conflating the environment with a being or entity or anthropomorphising it. It is constituted of many beings and entities, therefore there is no conflation as ‘environment’ is simply a reference to all the constituents of a neighbourhood.