Conflict between technology and culture: the masked mouth

The image of the speaking with the covered mouth, arising in the social and subjective space, invites a symbolization that the language of dreams, seems to grasp more quickly than our conscious thought. The oral, the memory, the culture, which express relational priorities learned from childhood, deepened and transmitted over generations, enhance the mouth, its voice, and place it at the center of significant exchanges. The voice that explains itself, the voice of the witness. The mouth, ambassador of the heart. Certainly technology can complement the voice, where it cannot reach.
A hearing impaired grandfather can use a hearing aid to hear and respond to their grandchildren.
But trying to shift the living and symbolic center of our interactions – the oral -, through technology, amounts to playing with the ontology of language,
that is to say bet on the loss of dens. The symbolic stakes are double-edged swords, which will not spare those who think they are beyond the reach of their fallout.
Language also acts as a mirror, which returns the new definitions to the subject, and thereby redefines the subject.
To see oneself in the position of one who closes the mouth of the other by force, is to engage in a personal battle already lost, by opening the way to the permanent dissociation between language and memory.
The question, which is too little pondered concerning domination over the other by means of technological tools, is usually explained and justified by advances in scientific “knowledge”.
But when the ethical basis is missing from this process, these tools are an insult to the very idea of ​​knowledge, which implies sharing and transmitting constructive values.
Producing instruments of torture and destruction, and sophisticated their evil applications, should not be placed in the categories of knowledge, but taken as failure, bankruptcy, and proof of moral deficiency.
The ethical values ​​of scientists who signed up for the Nazis disqualify their thinking from the title of knowledge.
Propagandists of these kinds of systems like to believe that they control the elements of language.
With poor arguments from mass psychology, they try to attack colossi who live in their own unconscious, and with whom they have an appointment every night.
Thus the Nazis worked to give all the arguments, to the peoples of the world and to their own descendants, to put an end to their failed and ridiculous social experimentation, which emasculated their national community in its raison d’être, its sincere moral contribution to the good of all.
They woke up as losers in history, those who were to become the proverb, the example not to follow.
Their loss was already announced in their arrogance, making them believe that technology can subdue and replace the oral, that the hands can, or know, dominate the mouth.
The necessary reversal of this false polarity was already taking place as soon as their ideology began to express itself.
From their aesthetic sublimating race, to their policy of terrifying irruption in mass gestures, their language and symbolizations were placed in a program of self-destruction.
The moral bankruptcy of a generation has thus condemned the German language to have nothing to offer to the ears of the world, except to try by all possible means, to extricate itself from the associative slump which points to the historical problem of the finger, towards yourself.
Forcing the other turns out to be too often in the final, only a suicidal bet.
Because the return journey of this approach takes place from the inside, much more than from external causes.
The thirst for power cannot get them out of the psychological trap in which they have placed themselves.
Relying on the argument of technology does not wash them of the tar of their intentions, in the space of their own unconscious.
To flee from language, to deny it by material things, which language names, uses, and dominates, gives these things a character of lies.
The reasoning which leads to this lie is an idolatry, which can only become oppression, and which it will be imperative for the human being to free himself from.
You cannot pass slavery chains for harmless collars. The mirror does not hear the lie.
If we try, we find ourselves in the quicksand of the symbolic, the universal language which speaks all languages, and which sees the infantile fantasies of power like rocks carefully placed, where the blazing ships of human egos, as impressive as they were , systematically fail with a crash and a crash.
The remedy for this confrontation is too simple.
Love and its lack suffices to cover all its aspects.
Is it the mouth of a society feeling guilty, which must cover itself because it speaks badly of others ?
Does this society say words that put populations in danger?
When the mouth says that everything else is ugly, does it lock itself up in solitude at the end: even in public, mouth confined?
Mouth who does not like the voice or the accent of the other, here it is finally behind his small private wall.
An African proverb says:
If you loved me, you wouldn’t kiss me to keep me from talking.