This post is the fourth of 9 that respond to a practical structure and are intended to present a new functional and social paradigm, which humanity requires to maintain, encourage and protect FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS WALKING.
It is also the number 124 that I have developed consecutively in the Blog with which 4 uninterrupted years with this theme on the walk of the human being.
This post could well be titled: HOMO SOCIABILIS OR SOCIALIS? HUMAN AGGRESSION WALKING AIMLESSLY, incorporates us in the future model of humanity that has much to do with these two apparently related concepts, but are intrinsically divergent; which leads us to ask: When we see a growing panorama of vulnerability and deterioration in “sociability” at the present time, is the human being really sociable by nature?
Much of the confusion on this issue of whether the human being is a social entity or not, comes from long ago, and rests in the very title of this post, so we must ask: What is social and what is sociable, so I think it is necessary from the beginning to define the concepts “sociabilis” and “socialis“, in order to convey the importance of walking in the future of humanity. These two words have been built up over the centuries, primarily since the Greeks. We can find these two concepts among the main ancient philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Plato, Thales of Miletus, Seneca, etc.; some analyzing them directly and others mentioning them indirectly.
On the other hand, also within this millenary culture, the word polis becomes relevant, which in Greek meant a grouping of people or entities, whether groups or villages. Of course, any polis was made up of individuals, where they interacted to achieve a common goal or several goals.
This human conglomeration is what later would be qualified as the sociability of the human being and would mean that every man united in collectivities is social and sociable by nature. Therefore, it is necessary to have a clear and precise definition of what is sociability, being sociable and being social, for this it is necessary to clearly understand some other concepts, such as human nature, instinct, conditioning, necessity and convenience, among others.
I will allow myself to briefly present these conceptualizations -but not definitions-, before entering into what we should understand by this term of sociability, in all its philological extension:
Human nature: it is the conception of what the human being has by essence in its pristine composition.
Instincts: They are the natural impulses that allow and encourage the human being to behave naturally, in his condition coincident with the animals.
Gregariousness: Proclivity of animals to meet with other elements of their own species, with diverse objectives. Propensity of animals to coexist in groups, essentially for their survival.
Social norms: Moral and ethical principles, values, rules of conduct, customs, uses and traditions, by which a group of individuals behaves, in a certain way, in a geographical environment to live together as a community.
What it is to be social or what it is to be sociable, orients us objectively and decisively to better understand the subject:
Social Being (socialis) refers to an individual who lives permanently by his nature and essence within a group of his own species. The Social Being (socialis) is a fraternal, loyal, supportive, unconditional, sincere, empathetic and cooperative individual, who is inclined to maintain bonds of coexistence in human groups.
The Sociable Being (sociabilis) is an individual who is friendly, amiable, affable, kind, cordial and affectionate, because he likes the treatment he receives in general terms within society, but it is not necessarily fraternal, loyal, supportive, unconditional, sincere, empathetic and cooperative, and thus coexists with other human beings to receive benefits that allow him to survive with greater comfort and security, besides helping him to more easily satisfy his needs in general, but he is not necessarily a social being by nature.
The Social Being includes the Sociable Being.
Now, sociability is an interaction and linkage of human beings with other individuals within their environment and represents a behavior that leads to association, company, mixture, identification, unification with other human beings, leading to coexistence relations, harmony, understanding, empathy; however, it also leads to diversity, differences, incomprehension, intolerance, disagreement, incompatibility and antipathy.
And it is precisely in the face of this position of ambivalence of behavior that the perspective of considering it as a natural but very contradictory human condition arises. That is to say, it has to live in society for its own survival needs, both individual and of the species.
Likewise, we must ask ourselves about this condition that we call “gregarious being”, which is attributed to human beings, both in a natural and forced way. In other words, is it an instinct or innate impulse (inborn, congenital) in human beings or a social conditioning, that inclination to be gregarious, sociable, to meet with their peers?
Of course, the human being behaves within society regulated by guidelines, principles and ethical and moral norms that dictate and induce him permanently on how he should behave within it, which transforms him into a very constrained and different being, surely, to what he would be if those rules of behavior did not exist.
The above invites us to mention what Aristotle said: “the human being is a sociable being by nature”; but not social. His statement does not mean that it is natural for him to be and to remain by taste within a plural relationship. I believe that the philosopher of Stagira was referring to the fact that for his own natural survival needs he would have to be in a society by force. Besides, there is that instinct to associate with a “couple” (companion, mate) of the opposite sex, for the procreation of the species; but, in both men and women, it is done for a determined time and for the continuity of the species. And I am not talking about the meeting of couples for love; that is another subject.
It is because of these social norms and customs, imposed throughout life and for multiple generations, that human beings conduct themselves within a particular society. This social way of behaving is acquired, learned, respected and developed throughout one’s existence. Commitment that each individual has to be able to obtain the diverse benefits within the social group that he/she has to live, learning to “be sociable” and exercising in the family nucleus to coexist in society with the objective of being able to survive.
Living within a community allows the human being to develop a self-imposed coexistence through the achievement of social values, such as the following:
HARMONY
PACIFISM
WELFARE
TOLERANCE
EQUALITY
SECURITY
FRATERNITY
SOLIDARITY
KINDNESS
RESPECT
BROTHERHOOD
COMMUNITY
CORDALITY
EMPATHY
COLLABORATION
HELPING OTHERS
BE GRATEFUL
AFFECTIONATE
COOPERATIVE
However, not all individuals can achieve this. How capable is the human being to carry out these ways of acting within any group of individuals? Is he/she incapable or moderately capable?
Because throughout their lives they come up against different obstacles, which society itself imposes on them or induces them to act with:
Indifference
Individualism
Impatience
Selfishness
Violence in general
Aggressiveness
Lack of civic education
Domestic violence
Lack of communication
Intolerance
Infidelity
Need for power
Inconsistency
Need to control
Need to avoid being controlled
To get out of the rules
TO DEFEND THEIR OWN INDIVIDUALISM
As a prescription, we can say that the human being must tend to the universality of social values. In the past, it was claimed that there were universal values, which characterized every human being, regardless of ethnic and cultural differences. It was also stated that a civic education and culture should be imparted, or that civics should be inculcated, trying to globalize this instruction within a civic statute or regulation. But, are all those social values that we have pointed out imputable to his pristine nature, or are they derived from an imposed conditioning, in order to be considered a social being?
It is undeniable that the individual being requires norms of behavior that subject and control him in his aggressive impulses, which is a consequence of the disharmonies and vices pointed out above and his habitual state of being selfish; and perhaps more imperative when he is gathered in small, medium or large groups; These selfish tendencies, which are present in their nature as part of their human genome (natural individualism, the gene of selfishness), cause the cohesion of harmony, which was the initial objective to coexist, survive and develop in community, to break down.
Usually, the final product will be an individual who must learn to coexist with others of the same species and to survive within a society, behaving obligatorily and complying with the imposed social norms, which shows that he is not born with that nature of sociability, but that he develops it as life goes by, since he needs to live within a society to survive and perpetuate the species.
The demonstration of this fallacy is in the growing number of people who prefer to live outside social norms, the high degree of criminality and aggression in today’s societies, especially among the most developed ones.
It is a very interesting controversy. To highlight this disagreement it is enough to point out two thinkers who have had relevance in their studies and conclusions they have formulated regarding the behavior of the human being: J.J. Rousseau and N. Machiavelli.
Rousseau said that the human being by nature is good, and also that society is the direct cause that transforms him into an evil being, since it teaches him that since he is born he must compete and win at all costs, among other impositions and coercions, demands, obligations, conditioning. While Machiavelli expressed that the human being is evil because of his pristine nature, explaining that for this reason he must be educated and regulated in his behaviors, since they are dangerous for society as a whole.
Underlining, being social (socialis) should be understood as the instinctive and natural search of being grouped or wishing to meet with several people, on a daily and practically permanent basis, becoming friendly and amicable, even becoming fraternal, unconditional, loyal, sincere, affable, affectionate; that is, different ways to the concept of being gregarious, where the individual usually seeks a group to defend himself and solve problems such as fear, the threat and aggression he suffers, etc., and in this way, the human being who belongs to the gregarious scale, does not stay within his group in terms of fraternity and empathy, but accepts to submit to certain rules, but not entirely, nor for a simple taste or attraction, as happens in sexual relationships, but to be within a group that gives him security and satisfaction to certain needs, which otherwise, he could not easily achieve.
We can affirm, in summary, that man is not a social being by his natural condition. Man is a sociable being by necessity. He is not inclined, by his natural condition, to meet with other beings of his own species, but is impelled to socialize by external stimuli, to seek protection, greater strength within a group to defend himself, to seek food, to preserve the species. There is no such instinct in human beings that impels them to be social; the only natural impulse that makes them come together is the sexual one, an instinctive need to mate with members of the opposite sex, for the preservation of the species (sapiens animalis = wise animal), for their survival like any other non-rational animal. In most cases, it seeks to maintain the family group because of the need to protect its progeny, until they become self-sufficient and independent.
We rule out that the human being has a social instinct; it is a learned behavior. That is to say, his need to associate in groups is a consequence of those parental affections that the individual receives from birth until he becomes independent and also a result of the filial feelings formed in him during that period. Following the Darwinian evolutionary theoretical line, we could say that this behavior has been the answer that the human being has been able to grant himself through thousands of years, providing himself with a “natural selection” that has allowed him to survive as a species.
What are the differences and similarities between being gregarious and being sociable? An example of the similarities and differences between them can be seen in their comparison with groups of specifically gregarious animals, both in the mammalian group (herds) and within insects (hives, swarms) and fish (schools), where this type of conglomerates abound.
In the animal kingdom these collective behaviors of cooperative nature are observed from the most exemplary insects, such as ants, bees, locusts, even in unicellular organisms, which also form colonies, to the largest mammals such as elephants, through the countless herds of quadrupeds, as well as within birds (migratory) and those of the marine kingdom, in which we can clearly observe the expression of the concepts of association and grouping for the organization of the tasks they develop as strategies as an instinctive instrument to survive and perpetuate their species. For these purposes, we must circumscribe both concepts to the aspect of human relations, within a group or a community:
GREGARIOUS: An individual is qualified as gregarious because he is part of a group or lives in a community, out of necessity. And the question is: Is it natural to be part of a human group? Someone could say that by defining the human being as an individual, he is not necessarily deprived of his gregarious part. Or someone else would say: this distinguishes him from the others in the group and he does not participate in the ideas of the others; hence his qualification as an individual being.
SOCIABLE: A person is sociable because he likes to relate to other people, and only that liking is the normal and natural thing to do. And the question is: Does he really like to socialize, or does he feel needed and obliged to do so?
Freud, in his book Totem and Taboo, expresses: “… man may not be a social animal, and yet live, like the gorilla, with several women of his own…”.
Since the most remote times, human beings have shown their inclination to encourage and strengthen this instinct to mate by means of magical and religious rituals, and by this impulse they live with the chosen couple (or several females) and their litter (progeny), for a peremptory time, while their descendants reach a propitious age to fend for themselves. By the way, it is important to note that it is the mammal that takes the longest time to get up and walk after birth. Could it be because it is one of the few mammals that walk upright only on its two lower limbs?
In fact, that idea that was formerly defined by Aristotle with his politikós anthropós (πολιτικός ανθρωπός), political man, introjected in the culture of the West, that man came to believe himself a gregarious being in essence (according to the Aristotelian definition) and not because of the 9 factors that I will point out below; from which we can derive, the importance of that praxis of politics, for the control of the collectivities, llinikés póleis (ελληνικές πόλεις): Greek cities – from the times of Hellenic cultural hegemony – and their division into social classes that would have no reason to exist, up to our days, with tints of coercion for the exploitation of the various castes and of the most unprotected individuals, considering slavery as a necessary economic good.
Is he sociable by nature, or is he simply a gregarious animal?
Man defined by Aristotle as politikó zóo (πολιτικό ζώο), political animal, is an appropriate epithet to disguise his predisposition to human hierarchy, for his society was under a slave regime, and he had to define, first of all and prior to his political ideas and considerations, that the human being must be hierarchically ordered. First of all, he had to catalog him as an essential part of a guild, collective unit, where by definition he needs to be within a group, and therefore, only in this way could he continue to exist under his “adulterated and imposed instincts” of being gregarious, since otherwise, he would cease to exist as a species.
It is a mistake to think that by its very essence, homo sapiens is a sociable being. This consideration can be analyzed starting from the hominids -associated ancestors of homo sapiens- who stood up, and placing themselves in an upright position, began to walk on their two feet, millions of years ago, since it is precisely in the great majority of archaeological cases that he has been found alone. In the closest findings in which homo sapiens -and his “erectus” ancestors- have been observed living together in a community, it has always been due to the effect of agents or stimuli external to their natural essence, or because of their sexual instincts to perpetuate the species.
The human being always looks for his convenience or individual benefit to make the decision to group with other individuals, in favor of the protection of his own goods and of his progeny, which as we have already said, is the sexual union and the family permanence, as the essential, natural or instinctive-animal union, for the procreation and survival of the species, inscribed in the genetics of any gregarious animal, including not only in the superior ones, but also in the inferior ones, from the unicellular to the ants and the other insects.
In all epochs, from the most remote to the present time, HOMO SAPIENS has grouped in different forms, due to stimuli that forced it to stay within a group. Let us see in a general way which have been those activities, collectivities and organizations with the passage of time:
In remote times:
– To move
– To hunt
– To gather
– To sleep
– To migrate
In less remote times:
– In caves
– To sow
– To harvest
– To worship their divinities
In more recent times:
– In dwellings and rooms
– Sales, inns, and inns
– Taverns
– In villages
– In sanctuaries
– In monasteries (isolated from urban communities)
– For transportation and travel (a great variety)
– Military barracks (To attack or defend)
In modern times
– In buildings
– Hotels
– Museums, theaters and circuses
– In large residential and condominium centers
– In churches, hermitages, mosques, synagogues and temples
– In stadiums
– In cities and large settlements
– For walking (a wide variety)
– Factories, companies and workplaces of all types
– Schools and universities
– Health centers and hospitals
All these physical environments constructed or adapted by the same human being contain several elements in common, which have induced and forced him to become a sociable being, but he is not instinctively social. Some instincts evident in the human being that allow his security, conservation and survival, respond to these “motivations” imposed – by the same environment or by his condition of survival – with actions such as fleeing, escaping, gathering, running, repelling, joining, defending, evading, abandoning, grouping, saving, etc. (Future Post THE WALK AND THE INSTINCTS).
The human being has been able and has allowed himself to be gregarious because of his great capacities of psychological induction since he possesses within himself several potentialities that can be transformed into “gregarious factors”; that is to say, each one of us keeps certain faculties -capacities or skills- of the psychological “stimulus” type, that for diverse factors: dysfunction, inactivity, ignorance, incapacity, impotence, lack of resources (low socioeconomic level) and emotional aspects such as loneliness, can be transmuted into incentives or real and effective needs of association or gregarious impulses, such as:
– Family community
– Professional associations
– Offensive and defensive military and paramilitary groups
– Labor or guild corporations
– Union and cooperative corporations
– Social circles
– Guilds
– Criminal associations
– Criminal gangs
– Charitable institutions
– Social groups
– Economic groups
– Livestock communities
– Political parties
– Communal groups
– Financial consortiums
– Artists’ associations
– Professional associations
– Agricultural communities
– Writers’ groups
– Societies Organizations Clubs
– Religious sects
– Commercial leagues
– Commercial societies
– Churches
– Ecclesiastical congregations
– Mystical brotherhoods
There are 9 common elements that transform the human being into a gregarious, sociable being, and generate a confusion about the conception of being social in its pristine essence, namely:
1. Fear
2. Ignorance (at the time illiteracy)
3. Pain
4. Deception
5. Guilt
6. Convenience and Profit
7. Frustration, Emotional Imbalance, Loneliness
8. Vulnerability (insecurity, weakness, frailty, fragility)
9. Gestural, oral and written communication
Each of these factors are universes of mechanisms that induce human beings to create units or modules of gregarious coexistence to defend themselves and manage to remain as a species.
“Freedom, physical and mental, is born with the human being, it is inherent to him. Any action against it is reflected in a setback in the evolution of the species.
These involutions invade the different psychomotor spheres, which are impacted by subtracting from the human being physiological, psychic, emotional and instinctual aptitudes, both at the individual and collective level.
It is not possible to distinguish with certainty in which of these spheres the impact of the loss of freedom is stronger, however, we must review the one where injuries can be caused whose damage is not easily reversible, or that endangers the existence of the human being, by attacking his instinct of reproduction and survival as a people and as a species. The sense of adaptation as an option for survival has been one of the ways that has shown the greatest damage to the human race; submission to dogma plays a determining role in the suppression of vital instincts, and thus in the prolongation of the status of servility and secular stagnation that peoples currently show” (Pueblos sin Instinto *).
If we carefully analyze each of these 9 vectors of gregarious necessity or convenience -which we should call gregariousness- we will clearly see that homo-sapiens-sapiens has developed within “collectivities” that have had their respective “external stimuli” to strengthen those dependencies and keep him always under the standards of submission of the 9 indicated inducers.
A typical example of this type of behavior is religious behavior, since it clearly combines several of these vectors: fear, pain and guilt; although some specialists in this field also include ignorance and economic benefit.
Another of these stimuli, loneliness (psychic), creates a clear image of what happens to human beings in general, since it generates an imperious need to get together, to associate and to awaken this gregarious need, since loneliness is truly an impulse from individuality to sociality. However, this stimulus can be manipulated as it is now by the mercantilist system that favors homogeneity. The fact that an individual walks in crowded places does not mean that he or she socializes or seeks to socialize. This inclination of seeking to walk where there are conglomerates does not demonstrate that men and women are social beings. In fact, it is when they find themselves in these types of conglomerate relationships that they most openly convey that they are not social beings.
This search may even be a natural and inborn response to achieve an emotional state of solitude.
We must ask ourselves: Is the human being naturally designed for solitude? Let us leave the answer for later.
The educational norm in the West that has given rise to the concept of gregarious behavior and the impulse of sociability (socializing or being social), out of necessity for the survival and conservation of the species, has been disciplinarily shaped – as we have already mentioned – since the Greeks, and the result of these 9 vectors, whatever their structural conformation and weighting in each individual, is physical, emotional, mental and spiritual dependence on a conglomerate that is not 100% identical.
By nature, the human being is a wanderer, that when he is able to walk at 10-24 months after his birth, his first impulses and needs are to move away. His condition of insecurity -and incapacity- during the first months of age, to be able to feed and survive on his own, obliges him to remain under the guardianship of his parents (the “parental home”). The natural protection of the parents towards their children, during the first months of the infant -and sometimes for several years-, transmits to him an awareness of what they can do and of what they are incapable of doing for their survival. Awareness that moves and persuades him to remain in the parental home. It will depend on the parents themselves and on his temperament and character, whether or not he will be able to get out of this dependence, which can condemn him to be a HOMO-SOCIABILIS by induction or convenience (influence-incitement-stimulus-persuasion). (Post THE WALK AND THE INSTINCT TO LEAVE THE PLACE OF ORIGIN).
Now, how does the WALK-RWD system participate in this process of dependence and liberation, which has been going on for at least 5,000 years? Apart from temperament and personality, which are not collective factors, but individual, there is an additional element which is the age of the walker; that is to say, the different stages of growth and development through which the human being goes throughout, and which fill him with experiences, contain determining information for making decisions regarding his state of belonging or not to a certain community, as well as his own feelings regarding seeking or needing solitude, or the group experience with his peers; this is related to a differentiated emotional vision in each person. Therefore, it is very different what young people feel and seek from adolescence and after crossing this stage of bewilderment and psychological fragility, so they are inclined to seek groups to protect themselves and have greater security within themselves. Nowadays, these groups in big cities are so frequent that they are even called urban tribes. That instinctive process of leaving the home of origin (place of origin), taking place at an age of 11-15 years of age, results in the individual strengthening his personality “Strengthen your personality and you will find the way; and when you find the way you will find your destiny” [DISCOVER AND TRAVEL YOUR OWN WAY, IT WILL LEAD YOU TO FIND YOUR DESTINATION]. (Post THE WALK AND THE INSTINCT TO LEAVE THE PLACE OF ORIGIN).
In the same way, the vision will be different for those over 30-40 years old versus those over 50 years old and older.
Before going any further, I would like to emphasize that we must draw a line of separation between what has happened in the Western and Eastern spheres, because they are different idiosyncrasies. In other words, although the treatment is similar, they have different forms of behavior and above all the effects lead us down different paths, although the practice has the same structure.
In this case that we have pointed out in the present Post, we will have to put into practice the WALK-RWD System in an integral and complete way; that is to say, the walking together with the realization of the 3 structured activities, because this will take us to be able to reach the “final cause” that every human being looks for: The WALK-RWD system is a recurrent practice, that must be repeated daily, combining the defined and wandering walking to counteract the actions of fleeing, escaping, etc., with the other 3 activities (reading, writing and drawing) that organize it -consciously and unconsciously- and prepare it to reach the fundamental objectives, which will counteract the 9 elements of dependence, namely: 1) Physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health, 2) Creativity and artistic creation, 3) Concentration, relaxation, meditation and contemplation, 4) Mind-body harmony, 5) Understanding and acceptance of oneself, 6) Perception and knowledge of reality. These 6 transcendental objectives are direct opponents to the 9 dependency inducers that we have been suffering from for an eternity, and each one resolves important parts of these 9 vectors, with the prerogative that these 6 are potentiated as they accumulate in a process of reciprocal cooperation, on calculable periods of time.
The proposal is somewhat complicated regarding the degree of effectiveness that can be effectively obtained with respect to the achievement of these 6 transcendent objectives; however, the WALK-RWD system does allow us to materialize them determinantly, little by little, since we have no doubt of its effectiveness through our own experience; walking and performing the other three structured activities (reading, writing and drawing) will allow us to immediately observe benefits in these 6 different aspirations, of which we can be direct witnesses.
Let’s start with this and work our way up. If for a single individual it is observed as climbing a mountain, if we were talking about half of humanity, it certainly becomes quite difficult; however, let us become aware of it by walking and practicing the system, being witnesses of its effectiveness.
In a specific way we can point out that walking accompanied with one or two people to chat or exchange experiences, talking and listening, can be substituted -to that type of interaction- with the 3 structured activities within the WALK-RWD System, of reading, writing and drawing, since as we have explained in previous Posts, this allows a dialogue with ourselves (Post DIALOGUE WITH OURSELVES AS WE READ AND WALK; DRAWING AND THRESHOLDING, TO KNOW OUR INNER SELF; DRAW, TO KNOW OURSELVES BETTER). It is very likely that interacting with other people allows us to find an adequate understanding and enjoy the company – achieving some entertainment and fun – however, there is also the risk of not finding a dialogue that flows in all directions, and only one person is the only one who leads the conversation, without allowing the rest of the companions to speak. It is difficult to find an affinity of topics, interests and experiences shared in the same way and with the same affinity. The latter makes us lose the incentive to undertake walks accompanied, or in other words, it is difficult to socialize when walking. It transforms us into individuals who are reticent and withdrawn to socializing while walking. We want to remain in solitude in this activity, but not in isolation, not in a closed isolation, only reserved to enjoy our walking alone.
Whether we are gregarious beings or not, we should be aware that all the efforts we put into walking are valuable if we manage to do it, socializing or not.
On the other hand, I would like to direct my arguments and enunciations on the sociability of the human being towards another task, which deals with the future walking of the human being, which is intimately related to the aspects of sociability that I have analyzed. To do this, we must remember, and become aware of the countless times we have been assaulted (aggressions, hostility) by pedestrians and passers-by when we walk along the streets of cities, especially large cities. And in this last part of the post we will have to point out some aspects that we must take into account in order to define a better PARADIGM that will allow us an adequate model to be able to walk in the near future, without this great variety in the type of aggressions.
In this line there are many thinkers who agree that the human being is aggressive by nature, among them we highlight Hobbes, who like Machiavelli, considered that he was evil in essence, therefore he recommended that the State should issue the necessary laws to combat and control that aggressive impulse that germinates and emanates from the natural selfishness that nests in all human beings.
In the process that we will carry out to arrive in the future to define the new Paradigm of walking, we will point out the different and innumerable aggressive manifestations in all the environments and fundamentally when the human being moves walking in the cities, since this aggressive selfishness stands out when it is carried out in the great metropolis.
These aggressive manifestations have different levels of importance, that is to say, they can be slight as the outburst, the tantrum, the irritation; an intermediate level as the rage, the exasperation, the desperation; and a higher level as the anger, the wrath, the fury or the violence itself; that many of these states could be considered synonymous, nevertheless, all of them enclose a different degree of hostility and that is visualized when we are walking in the great agglomerations.
We know that they manifest themselves in human beings in their different activities, but there are also these degrees while walking next to other people. I must point out that the greater the number of people who are walking, the problem of aggression can be potentiated and exacerbated, so that these levels occur especially in large metropolises and in places of high concentration of people.
The recipe is to walk trying to avoid these levels of aggression. But how to achieve this?
I believe that part of what we have raised throughout the last 3 Posts that are structured to get to define the new paradigm of walking (Post THE 9TH GENERATION OF MODERN AGE CREATIVITY AND WALKING. PART I; THE WALK-RWD SYSTEM AND THE INTERDISCIPLINARY FLOW OF IDEAS. PART II; WALKING: A NECESSARY DISCIPLINARY HYBRIDIZATION. PART III ), is focused to begin to organize a design where walking can be achieved without aggressions: The conjunction of diverse disciplines on these aggressive manifestations of the human being could indicate us the path of non-aggression, fundamentally psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, of child development, and some others that will be incorporated to these unpostponable goals, but all of them should be focused on human behavior, while walking in crowded places.
These aggressive manifestations are carried out in a conscious but also unconscious way, and both forms can lead to truly violent situations. Just as we have described the categories of aggression, of which there are many, so too these aggressions occur in different forms, which we could categorize (classify them, order them, by importance) in hundreds: clearly and perfectly differentiable and hierarchical. Later we will deal with that determination; for now, it is enough to say that we will have to know their origins and causes; that we will have to put a remedy to all of them; that the aggression (conscious or unconscious) from one person to another, implies that the second one can also respond with violence towards this first subject generator of the original offense, taking retaliation, or else, deriving it towards other people who have contact or relationship while walking at that moment.
The next actions to be taken -within the specialized hybridization of the disciplines mentioned- will be the definition of civic rules and the unrestricted compliance of a civic culture that includes the basic principles for the new pedestrian of the future. In such a way that in the future, no one will walk in public places, displaying that human selfishness by assaulting other people while walking. We can also underline the efforts we will have to make to strengthen the bonds of unity, solidarity, tolerance, equality, fraternity, brotherhood and cooperation.
Let’s start walking while respecting the pedestrians next to us.
KIND INVITATION: The book “WALK-RWD SYSTEM” will be published shortly, as the first volume, which will include the first 124 posts of this Blog WALKREADANDWRITE.COM, which can be purchased on Amazon. It has the fundamental purpose of providing people interested in this natural activity of the human being, immediate access to these posts, in a single compiled document.
All posts that have been published up to the current date will be included. Each transcribed post has its sequential number, the textual content, the date it was published and its title.
The book will include three indexes: the GENERAL CONTENT, where the posts published during the first 4 years, from July 2018 to June 2022¸ are listed in chronological order noting their sequential number and their title; a THEMATIC INDEX where the most outstanding topics of the Blog are pointed out, and an ANALYTICAL INDEX OF CONCEPTUALIZATION (CONCEPT), where the subtopics and additional relevant aspects that are explained in the different posts that have a close relationship with the Human Being’s Walk are highlighted. This index facilitates its location and accessibility to any of those subtopics and conceptualizations that enrich the compilation, giving it greater dynamism and underlining the capital importance of this essential activity of the human being.
(*) Edel C. Piñera y Loya Lopategui, Carlos, Pueblos sin Instinto, EMULISA, México, 2021.