According to Uexkull’s theory,
each species creates its own Umwelt.
A specific entity of an organism,
and creatures’ perception of their surroundings.
According to the theory,
the experience of perceiving the reality
is unique for each species.
that no other species can experience the reality in the same way.
I cannot share my senses with a bug.
All I have is a model
of bug’s Umwelt.
Through science we attempt to build
a model of how the other sees,
but we can only do so
mediated by our subjective point of view,
which we collectively construct
as a shared human sphere of public knowledge.
We act in plural.
Common sense is our invention.
We tend to consider ourselves as a considerably unified species.
But while having a closer look,
not entirely all seems so even.
As we were not
precisely synchronised with each other
in our perception of the reality.
On daily basis.
Symptoms of individual, inner lives.
suspended in common space.
We are a diverse species.
Each one of us represents an autonomous system,
that seems to generate its own Umwelt.
Is entering somebody else’s Umwelt possible?
sharing other’s experiences,
both psychically and somatically.
Getting into the skin of the Other.
Interpret and replicate one’s feelings.
An absolute awareness of the Other.
Isn’t empathy uncanny?
Is it such a pure feeling as we tend to consider it?
Can it make us
Absolute empathy towards the Other
We are too diverse.
There’s too many of us.
We need to hierarchize.
Hierarchy is a construction of humankind.
We judge other constructs
on having their Umwelts,
on their right to exist.
We jettison some of them
beyond the social structure,
and a frequent reason for doing so
is their ambiguous nature.
They are often perceived as a threat to society.
Does a robot have an Umwelt?
“Every creature on Earth, from sea urchins to spiders,
lives within a unique sphere of existence
called an “Umwelt”
or “surrounding world”.
“No creature can enter relation with an object as such.”
Uexkull said as well.
A border between an object and a subject
A no-man’s land of abjecthood.
Limits of perception.
It’s so uncomfortable.
Is that why we give a human form
to the artificial,
in our futuristic imagination,
Lovecraft sketched worlds and creatures in his literature,
that lack proper definition.
these are not creatures and worlds.
These constructs exist and are driven by criteria,
unknown to human knowledge,
Criteria that we cannot encompass.
if we create a form,
that spins relations to its surroundings
and works out a firm web that may carry its existence,
and reveals a specific, unique living strategy,
how can we judge its existence?
Luckily, we have something to stick to.
A rule we perpetually establish,
and which we continuously apply
to the reasoning on the nature of beings:
“While weaving their niche,
beings prepare themselves to be responsive
to certain cues in the world around them,
and even though their behaviour may not be consciously planned,
it is obviously meaningful,
to the extent that it serves:
which proves these beings deserving becoming enlisted in the Universal Hierarchy,
that we created and within which
we consequently force our subjective point of view
as far as we can