H7.EH11 L.
2/5
The electronic screens are not compatible or coherent with facilities that are supposed to be a space designed for culture and social gathering and community activities. They promote a passive cognitive attitude and are centralized, over-elaborated and subject to manipulative techniques of image and discourse, and a mechanized source of information. They impose mediatic type of information as opposed to modes of information that have a palpable nature and are thus authentic and humane. They carry the marketing subculture set of mechanisms inherent to the medium. They have strong light intensity, movement and switching images. These characteristics give them a mutable and active nature, impose the visual and content dynamics typical of videos, and are therefore qualitatively intrusive both on a cognitive and intellectual level and affect the free flow of subconscious which is equal to psychological autonomy and in turn, freedom of thought i.e. rather than naturally developing trains of ideas we are subtly and forcefully imposed trains of ideas. Because the information is penetrative in content and form. As a comparison, a book has quantity of information but it allows us time to criticize and appreciate, for its neutral and passive form. In contrast, the imposed screens are the producers of individuals without criticism as well as without broad creativity. It is I'd say a dystopian type of mind intrusion or even mind theft
They are suitable to totalitarianist commercial marketing mind control performed by unscrupulous marketing corporations. Not to a community facility, unless it is the case of a totalitarian State
They impose mediatic content to the cognitive perception which is invasive and violent, for having an active cognitive character. Electronic screens must not be imposed on people. It is totalitaritarian in essence and effect, regardless of the type of premises. Much more at a community building. It makes an observer question the intrinsic fundaments of Swedish democracy
Besides, it excludes people with higher cognitive awareness, since those individuals' intellect naturally and immediately repeal such form of cognitive manipulation and prevent them to accept it in a mechanism of self protection and even fight-or-flight mechanism causing a complex psychological reaction which may involve great inner suffering. Such exclusion being not more than a corroboration of the previous explanation since these individuals are nothing more than keener observers of content, phenomena and signification and therefore the ones who may indicate such perilous aspects that are not obvious to everybody. They are estimated at 20% of the population, and cognition being the universal and essential human characteristic i.e. a capacity, only varying as a gradation according to personality. Therefore people with lower cognitive awareness also receive the stimuli but do not have defense critical mechanisms to protect from subconscious abuse and intrusion. If a person has higher cognitive awareness and is not aware of having it (which is common), the overstimulation caused by the screens may lead to serious harm, including isolation, depression and suicide. We would be filtering out society's highly capable and critical minds and this would prove an existential impact on humanity which I won't detail here but one may infer. Perhaps most importantly, leveling out everyone's critical and cognitive talents i.e. society's talent as a whole. The impact is equally destructive on people in general, less acutely but perhaps even more dangerous, since with the lack of protective mechanism, all the contents reach the subconscious unfiltered
The community center would therefore be subtly and diametricaly changing from a hub of fostering social development onto essentially a hub of deep social control
