Comments on: “Relating to objects” doesn’t have to mean “robotic”. https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/ Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:51:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Textura « fé cega, faca amolada https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15451 Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:51:04 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15451 […] (Imagem digital do autor; poema da diarista anônima do Ballastexistenz) […]

]]>
By: Jesse the K https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15450 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:51:15 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15450 Your song reminds me of an amusing and strange “science fiction” book where the in/animate split isn’t there:
Cory Doctorow’s Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town
Available in full online

Alan’s father was a mountain, and his mother was a washing machine—he kept a roof over their heads and she kept their clothes clean. His brothers were: a dead man, a trio of nesting dolls, a fortune teller, and an island. He only had two or three family portraits, but he treasured them, even if outsiders who saw them often mistook them for landscapes. There was one where his family stood on his father’s slopes, Mom out in the open for a rare exception, a long tail of extension cords snaking away from her to the cave and the diesel generator’s three-prong outlet. He hung it over the mantel, using two hooks and a level to make sure that it came out perfectly even.

]]>
By: Thirza https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15449 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:45:18 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15449 I used to feel better with rocks than people when I was younger, I still kind of do. I actually talk to rocks and make friends with them, sometimes they hitchhike with me for a while until they find a new spot they like, which because of my culture (Cree) isn’t totally unusual, although I still have to hide it. In Cree culture we have animate and inanimate objects in our language and the oral traditions say that a long time ago we routinely talked with objects like pans and rocks and blankets and so on. I haven’t heard the story about how we stopped being able to talk to them. But apparently the animate/inanimate language structure goes back to this. And funny things are animate, like donuts. Who knew?
I was reading somewhere that scientists actually found biorhythms in rocks, corresponding to breathing and heartbeats. Except with a rock it takes something like a month to have one breath and three weeks for a heartbeat. I forget where I read that, I’ll have to look it up. But it’s an interesting point that possibly neurotypicals are just really really out of tune with things in their environment.

]]>
By: Joe https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15448 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:57:04 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15448 hmmm, funny, you like rocks.

so do i.

i have a lot of land, and a tractor, and not much money.
stonework is very expensive, because labor is too expensive.
gone are the days when you could find cheap labor to dig rocks.

i live in new england, and every yard is full of rocks.
you dig them up, they grow back.
old tales talk of devil rocks.

no matter how much you dig them up to grow your gardens,
the rocks always grow back.

there is some reason, but i don’t care.

i love to dig up rocks.
it relaxes me, for reasons i don’t understand.

cutting trees and working the garden just don’t do it.
it has to be rocks.

i make stone walls, without the mortar.
they look like walls from colonial times.
nobody even guesses they are not.
people then would dig rocks.
you put little rocks between the big rocks, to make them stay..
you fill the holes, slowly, little rock, by bigger rock.
then you can place another really big rock.

i make little walls around the gardens.
sometimes i don’t even bother to plant the gardens.
i line the walkways with my little stone walls.
my property front looks like a the remains of an old stone fort.

on the driveway end, at the main road, i built a stonehedge.
a celtic artwork, with very heavy rocks.
the biggest my tractor could move.
sure, the little town thought it was insane, the first year.
the second year i planted yellow tulips around the ring.
the third year i planted clover in the center.
it now is beautiful, and everybody in town loves it.

now i’m collectig rocks to resurface the outside of my house.

i just love to work with the rocks.
when i get home from my computer engineer job.
i just want to take my huge iron pike, and find a cool quartz rock.
or maybe a red granite one.
or go where the stream dried up, and pick smooth brightly colored.

i don’t know why, i don’t care.
i’m past the hump where people laugh.
and it still makes me happy.

]]>
By: Miut&Lore https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15447 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:14:04 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15447 I was also brought up by a cat. Or more accurately, we grew up alongside each other, speaking each other’s language. I appeared to interact with non-human animals, objects and machines more than I did with humans, which of course led to the “robotic”, “withdrawn”, “non-communicative” stereotypes (because communication and empathy with non-humans never seems to get considered communication and empathy, just anthropomorphisation or something).

When I line up objects or stare at them, or focus completely on taking apart a circuit, or show an “unusually” deep connection to fiction (etc.), people tend to claim that I’m “withdrawing from the real world again”. This is far from the truth. If anything, I *need* objects to find some sense in the general chaos of the physical world, as you said.

]]>
By: Riel and Tamsin^Amorpha https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15446 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:37:57 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15446 Heh… one of the things that got people thinking we were “emotionally disturbed” as children was a supposed inability to tell the difference between things that were alive and things that weren’t alive. In other words, that we were attributing thoughts, emotions, etc, to all kinds of objects around us, whether they were considered to be alive by other people or not (rocks, trees, cars, household appliances, etc). Looking back, it seems that it was less the fact that we attributed sentience to things other people didn’t consider alive as that we attributed it to the wrong things– it would have been “okay” if we’d attributed emotions to a doll, because it looks like a human and because that’s considered a “normal” form of childhood play, but it wasn’t “okay” to attribute emotions to spark plugs and pool filters. Or to play about being those things.

I’m still fundamentally confused about why it’s considered so vastly much worse to perceive communication, thought or emotion where it might not exist than to deny it exists when it does. I’m reminded of an article I read once in a magazine where some “expert” was insisting it was bad to “anthropomorphize your pets” (which seemed to mean, in this context, believing they were capable of thought, emotion, and attachment to humans at all, not believing that their mental states were exactly the same as humans’), and someone pressed him to come up with an example of a negative consequence that might come out of this, and he said something like “well, uh, people overfeed their animals because they think they’re asking for food.” Overfeeding versus inflicting physical and emotional suffering on something because you don’t believe it’s capable of feeling that suffering… oh, yeah, that sure is a difficult choice to make. In the case of people who are considered to have “no conscious thought,” the worst that happens is that you just waste your time trying to communicate with someone who can’t comprehend it. I’d rather err on the side of caution and waste my time than condemn someone to that suffering.

And for all the much vaunted “Theory of Mind,” I think there’s something like a theory of mind missing when someone has difficulty perceiving communication in anything that doesn’t look like a human, or in humans who don’t meet your criteria for what people “should look/act like.”

]]>
By: progosk https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15445 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:50:28 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15445 also, on relating to objects: interesting that people will react with less shunning, and indeed spontaneous fascination, to autistics who relate specially to numbers, rather than those who might concentrate on physical objects.

vis. 60 minutes on daniel tammet http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/26/60minutes/main2401846.shtml ; the most interesting quote there: “[Daniel] He believes his large family may have actually forced him to adapt. ‘Because my parents, having nine children, had so much to do, so much to cope with, I realized I had to do for myself,’ he says.”

]]>
By: nichole hoffman https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15444 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:34:42 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15444 You are a great teacher. You are much needed (as in “The Desiderada”). People need to be enlightened to the knowledge that others who don’t communicate the way society dictates as “normal” are still complete in their humanness. I thought I was opened minded and I thought that I understood compassion. When I saw your video “In My Language” and I was deeply affected. I am amazed at how little I “know” now. Your video taught me a great lesson that you, me and all other people have our own languages. I have been compassionate towards other people who have “disabilities”. I believe that those who are considered disabled are usually more “abled” than most of the people I know. But your video really let me see a glimpse through your eyes. Any way we can learn to walk a mile in another person’s shoes is a good lesson.

Thank you for your contribution and sharing your thoughts.
I am glad that you chose to learn how to type and communicate within our community. I pray that your lesson is seen and heard and understood by multitude of people.

P.S.
I thought your poem was beautiful.

“You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;

you have a right to be here,

and whether or not it is clear to you,

no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.”

From “Desiderada”, Author Unknown although some maintain that this piece was written by Max Erhmann.

]]>
By: icksta https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15443 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:34:26 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15443 Ms. Miaow,

You rock. How is your dog/cat/asthma situation? I read about it yesterday, and I hope that you have some trustworthy friends to help you with a solution. It’s essential that you keep your companions, even if the doctor doesn’t understand that.

]]>
By: ballastexistenz https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/relating-to-objects-doesnt-have-to-mean-robotic/#comment-15442 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:33:25 +0000 http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=298#comment-15442 I’ve sung it, actually. (The difficulties I have with speech mostly involve parts of it that don’t necessarily affect singing. A staff person I had who was a speech pathologist actually had some kind of complex explanation of how that works, but I don’t know it, only that it’s relatively common. Think Mel Tillis.)

]]>