1) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida
3)Rational Imposition VERSUS Religious Imposition
4) Individual Physio-Bodily morality VERSUS Big Systemic Agency
5) The Opprobrium Matrix and The Bodily Vulnerable Heroes it Inexorably Produces
6) Big Systemic Philosophy
7) The Physiologically Cognitive Mode of only Empirical Science
8) The Anthropological Self VERSUS Personality
9) The soul as conceptualization as of our longing for depth
10) TURN SURFACE INTO DEPTH:
11) Religious origin of quotidian delight and its connection to 1)Science; 2)Capitalism-Consumerism
12) In regards to all things human
13) IMPERIAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FREEDOM, IN ORTEGA Y GASSET
14) Decorum Anthropology is Cultural Virtuality
15) Ortega Y Gasset y los estados de suspension antropologicos
16) The Conversion of Physical Violence into Physiologically Rational Violence
17) The Conundrums of Anthropology
18) Opprobic games and rational subversion: COINTELPRO
19.The Culturally Rational versus Physiological Freedom
1) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida [30aug16]
Películas en las que se ven criminales urdiendo su planes mafiosos de la consecución de dinero pero comunicándose por teléfono móvil, que en otros tiempos se llamaban teléfonos celulares que quiere decir conceptualmente que cada telefono es una unidad atómica de un cuerpo-o sistema y red-mas grande y extendido; lo cual denota, empero indirectamente y muy a lo callado, que de hecho se pueda concebir este contexto humano de comunicación del lenguaje en si y en realidad como un sistema técnica y lógicamente bajo el control de otros; todo lo cual, si lo vas pensando con un poco de esfuerzo y rigor, apunta a la muy posible situación de que actividades ilícitas de mayor caldo y enjundia son del todo inconcebibles y dado que los actores humanos integrantes del sistema a nivel de usuario no deben considerar lógicamente que cuenten en realidad con privacidad alguna, pues incluso con solo el metadata la realidad socio-estructural de la entidad individual humana queda totalmente expuesta a la comprensión de terceros; pero que muy lógicamente tampoco no debe descartarse que de hecho el contenido real de las conversaciones también esté simplemente a la disposición de los mismos operarios, y dado que estos no tienen finalmente porqué dar cuenta de nada de lo que hacen a nadie y ni siquiera judicialmente, en vista de la realidad evidente (publica y periodística) de un uso solo cosmético y abiertamente fantoche de las instancias judiciales norteamericanas hacia la consecución de una cobertura propia solo de jure, ilusoria y patentemente falsa. Sin embargo, el nivel de usuario fisiológico y fisiológicamente libre permanece naturalmente y siempre que la comprensión tecnica-racional del individuo no vaya minando esa sensación de libertad, que es una libertad humana pero solo en la vertiente fisiológica de la misma; pero que solo con la sospecha incipiente racional y bien fundada, la experiencia libre pero solo fisiológica se va enfermando, dudando de sí misma y torciéndose. Que quiere decir que no es preciso que la NSA ni confirme ni niega nada, finalmente…
Pero de más importancia es el problema de la representación cinematográfica y que, como desde mediados de los noventa es impossible que una banda de butroneros como el de Robert De Niro en Heat (1995) pudiera de hecho existir-salvo en el caso de que se hubieran servido de palomas mensajeros para comunicarse-su hazañas épicas cinematográficas de una individualidad que intente imponerse (que es la función propia antropológica de la individualidad, en un sentido muy real) resultan del todo increíbles, del todo irreales.
Y un problema que se constata en lo representacional respecto al equilibrio antropológico está pues anunciado.
El problema: la destrucción del contexto humano del oprobio biológico individual, pues la naturaleza social de moralidad como dilema moral que el individuo ha de llevar a cuestas respecto a sí mismo, solo es posible desde un mínimo de intimidad individual. Que quiere decir que se sustituye finalmente una fisiología individual de dilema moral como libertad por la obediencia, a secas y determinada exclusivamente por el terror del individual a las consecuencias ultimas de ser un individuo.
Por eso, aunque se entiende lo expresado por Máximo, no puede negarse lo obvio:
algunos se habrán cruzado de brazos;
algunos habrán incurrido en injustas generalizaciones;
algunos se habrán rasgado las vestiduras de forma sectaria y maniquea;
algunos se habrán hecho cómplices del desfalco económico e institucional;
algunos habrán cultivado una labor democrática de mayor madurez y calibre
… Cada cual tendrá que responsabilizarse de lo que le corresponda, pero en conjunto, como sociedad, claro que hemos hecho.
Las tragaderas de quita y pon, y la indignación a tiempo parcial
son dos caminos en los que lo relevante no es lo acontecido, sino la autoría de lo que acontece. Y esos hábitos no solo se estilan en el seno de tal o cual partido, sino que también se frecuentan entre aquella ciudadanía que decidió ejercer de hooligan (contra el adversario) y de clac (ante los que cataloga como suyos). Llevarse las manos a la cabeza solo ante las siglas ajenas, y mirar para otro lado cuando el desbarre es de los propios, resulta la antítesis de lo cívico.
Por supuesto que es preciso distinguir entre culpables y responsables.
No es lo mismo robar, que votar a ladrones, por poner un ejemplo.
Y no es lo mismo votar a alguien del que desconocemos su desempeño ilícito, que reincidir en el voto cuando ya se ha constatado su palabrería o su abyección.
Siempre hay gradaciones, sí. Pero lo innegable es que a la ciudadanía también le salpica una responsabilidad.
Puede resultar muy pinturero eludir nuestras responsabilidades; pero esos escapismos… nunca pintan bien.
Escapismos nunca pintan bien es sin embargo el caracter críptico de la cultura y los espacios antropológicos, pero ¿de qué exactamente hemos de huir y escapar? De una gravedad y presion atmósferica excesivas de comprension racional, pero respecto la libertad nuestra precisamente fisiológica.
Porque lo racional efectivamente define colectiva y civilmente las posibilidades nuestras del ser y estar fisiologicos (que se dice una fisiología semitoicamente definida, por el bien finalmente civil de todos, y que se inicia al decir de Victor Gomez Pin precisamente en el lenguaje, en sí mismo un espacio fisológico al mismo tiempo que semoticamente racional como orden y patron, que todo individuo del grupo comparte al menos mínimamente, que es orden físio-semiótico y culturalmente racional porque compartido.) Pero la racionalidad en este sentido normativo y cultural (necesariamente) puede desde luego verse trastocada en el conocimiento de verdades superiores, que técnica y empírcamente mayores resultan no obstantes nefastos respecto las posibilidades físio-semióticas de los indiviudos, y dañinos por tanto, a la misma estructuralidad humana antropologica.
Todo lo cual desmboca en la difícil situación en que el tener razón es estar tremendamente equivocado.
Porque la libertad humana antropológica es la libertad fisiológica del ser y estar, cíclica y alternativamente en estados de vigorización y reposo; entre puntos siempre estáticos y estables, pero que desembocan en el inexorable tránisto fisiológico hacia nuevos estados de estímulo. Porque en cierto sentido, la libertad fisiológica de invigoración vital es respecto lo racional en sí; una racionalidad propuesta que los contextos agrícolas han rentabilzar en pos de la posibilidad social, colectiva y estable, que la viabilidad funcional, estrucutral humana y antropologica ha de infundir luego con la crucial tonificación fisiológica, que es el estado biologico propio de la experiencia humana, sin duda, hasta que el cuerpo lo aguante-,
Equilibrio antropológico es pues precisamente respecto a estos dos ámbitos de lo racional culturalmente compartido, culturalmente impuesto al individuo (mediante el oprobio biologico); frente a la tonificación del estimulo fisiológico que es lo unico que da finalmente el sentido causal y profundo de aquél, haciéndonoslo de hecho supportable.
Claramente, entonces, una agresion racional (ahora empírica y fundamentada) respecto lo solo cultramente semiótico significa de cualquier forma un trastocamiento del orden lógico cultural (simbólico, si se prefiere, aunque el término correcto sin duda es semiótico por cuanto se refiere a la estructuralidad humana antropologica, no la naturaleza de lo percibido).
¿Qué hacer, pues?
A pintar, ‘stá claro.
3)Rational Imposition VERSUS Religious Imposition
Believes it lives in a perpetual moving beyond the culturally standard, culturally delimited/Seeks to preserve the impossibility of contradiction as key point of strength of its semiotics and posits.
Discovery becomes a physiology in itself that similarly turns culturally-rational posits likewise into simply functional, physiological pretext / Is a rationally-based pretext to the physiological.
Also opprobrium-based, group extension / Opprobrium-based mechanism of individual-binding, physiological relevance.
The Danger of the Self-Evident is that self-evident truths are not at all truths of discovery (although their origins can be rationally understood or construed) but rather tend to find their chief justification in their physiologically functional entity.
And the physio-mental process of language itself!
Individuality itself as art?
Parallel to a process of culture itself as a subject/object relationship with its own posits and ideals, so too does individuality propose and then physiologically relate to an ideal of itself, as a necessary, external entity it can know itself off of, back on to itself that is not that ideal, but rather only—but significantly, crucially—a living and permanent tension towards becoming that ideal (that, as an ideal, implies the physiologically totemic self is indeed of its own deeper and independent entity; that this ideal is me in my will to be—that forcibly determines me as something more than that ideal—and thus it is ” I” as a certain aspirer to it; and the ideal becomes I tool I use towards a becoming me that indeed makes me always something else, something even greater in my initial and permanent will to be than the ideal itself.
4) —–Individual Physio-Bodily morality——-
—-Big Systemic Agency of the super power self—
- —–Individual Physio-Bodily morality——-
That is in fact the true, underlying foundation of any and all morality;
-That is a physically vulnerable self thus equipped to empathize with the physical experience and predicament of others;
-That is thus likewise capable of transiting from one’s own physical self to also the physiologically totemic and conceptual dignity of others (not just their physical dignity).
-The individual’s knowing some degree of physical vulnerability is thus the key to civil and civilized anthropological, systemic stability; opprobrium itself becomes in fact almost ineffective if the individual becomes too physically remote from need.
-Remoteness from physical need and self-entity becomes a moral ineffectiveness that is also a loss of higher rational acumen.
-And loss of rational capacity towards physio-conceptual coherence of the individual is thus similarly a moral defect and problem. Or;
–Physio-Anthropological Complacency can—in its distortion—become a form of moral defect, decadence and decline (essentially, the thesis and dilemma of Spengler)
- —-Big Systemic Agency of the super power self—
-That is necessarily based on some degree of deceit;
-That is functional only as long as it is deceitful —that it to say, the self-understanding of the power self (in this context) is viable only in so much as she does not fully believe her own legitimacy (that puts her morality in her very knowing herself to be in some degree deceitful).
-Thus, when physiological impetus undoes this sense of cynical self-understanding and entity (that is however still moral in its immorality), physio-semiotic, cultural structure is jeopardized—in that all moral bearing* is lost to the physiological itself and at the highest, most structurally significant level of the social (the structurally and Macro economic)
*Moral Bearing in a proacitve sense, but not in regards to culturally moral (opprobrium-based) coercion; and in specifically the fact that the law is somewhat of a rationalized form of the culturally opprobic and at least in the way individuals end up relating physio-rationally to it. For as a tool also of physiologically rational invigoration of anthropological experience, the law becomes physiologically relevant and binding for the culturally semiotic, opprobrium-based self.
5) Opprobrium Matrix and The Bodily Vulnerable Heroes It Inexorably Produces
Otherwise we would not be able to tolerate
physio-cognitive and rational
And the cultural and semiotic, anthropological matrix survives in effect because of the challenge brought to it—the physiological challenge of individuals and in their own physiologically rational imposition. Individuality is thus the real cryptic monarch of moral possibility in regards to the culturally structural and anthropological; or as a seemingly imposed coincidence—roughly—of individual physiologically rational imposition that, as of agriculture can only be understood as the physiological projection towards culturally imposed ideals the individual lives in. And personality is thus the individually idiosyncratic mode of that projection—probably necessarily as some form of ultimately structurally compliant defiance.
And so among these ideals of the culturally structural itself—paradoxically—is the very physiologically rational mode of the hero, against the opprobic. And thus does representation of the anthropologically structural also contain a form of physiological antidote to its own force of stability albeit in the ideal and fictionally physiological—that nonetheless is physiologically real and thus potentially effective in the worst of all possible scenarios that is the loss itself of culturally structural momentum.
Because when, for whatever reason, culture cannot impose itself, the physiologically real hero comes to the physically real fore, front and center—towards a potentially new founding of further cultural possibility, once again and into the future.
And is thus the physiologically—but not physically—real is the background of working, cultural rationality itself, on perhaps a form of standby and shadow alert, in case she is called back into real and physically moral service, once again.
But in both cases, the human group is ultimately secure in at least its diachrony, through time.
Moral Man Immoral Society (1932)
6) Big Systemic Philosophy
And perhaps to say one has a lot of philosophy, means that individual is more physio-rationally attune to the diachronically abstract—that is an understanding of self outside the self, beyond just the physiological perception and condition of bodily individuality! And Sacrifice Anthropology (that is of course also Exiled-Man Anthropology), in Oriental culture becomes a working, functionally equivalent Nirvana Anthropology as ideal, that effectively sees the physiologically primary, bodily self held in check under a conceptual and semiotic edifice of physiologically rational discipline, rigor—and also surely tolerance; that in both cases and in regards to both cultural spheres, sees culture in the very possibility of in some way overcoming the physiologically primary and non-mediated—that is, finally and in all cases, a rational force of will and conceptual positing against the physiological itself that effectively must be understood as an alternate physiological proposal in itself (that naturally relies intensely on a rational, conceptual—and narrative—understanding of what it seeks above all NOT TO BE!)
7) The Physiologically Cognitive Mode of only Empirical Science: The Historical End of the Renaissance and Renaissance Man in Francis Bacon [Science in A Renaissance Society (1972), W.P.D. Wightman]
[QUOTE] By assuming a radical dualism between observed nature and Man’s self-consciousness he was able to sketch the outline of a possible explanation of the former in purely mechanical terms. By thus submitting the whole of the observable world, including Man’s organs of thought and feeling, to the immense power of mathematical formulation he gave succeeding generations the means of seemingly unending progress in the attainment of the mastery of Man over things; but at the cost of Man’s cosmical alienation. It was another Frenchman* who saw that ‘science without conscience is no other than ruin of the soul’. Four centuries later we can see that it may be the ruin of the world. [END QUOTE]
A physio-psychology of power that is the objectification of reality—really, empirically and scientifically—through the objectification in the same moment of the human observer…Becomes something of an anthropological calamity when Man must depend on his own sense of power as absolute and cannot free himself, therefore, of his own physiology, psycho-physiology and physio-rationality; because he ends up living in distortion in regards to his physiological physicality—that is in fact his very rational nature, that is distortion as a form of radical dualism; because subjectivity cannot in fact be disassociated from the bodily (even in regards to the physiologically rational); and thus an elimination of the subjective becomes itself a mechanism of bodily removal, much in the way culture effects the same process—but in the case of science, it is truly a radical elimination, for the key and underlying root of human, moral impulse is in and because of physical, bodily experience (that only in one’s own sense of bodily self and vulnerability, can one regard just this in others). But the scientific observer, through a convention of elimination of subjectivity, is objectified herself by the very object of analysis; inversely, from object back to subject-agent. And the greatest hell man can know is his own dehumanization that is always a loss of his own subjectivity, in one way or another (and even its positive forms of wholesome restraint, because freedom in a collective sense is actually individual limitation.) Thus like all human phenomena, a warped distortion beyond, finally, man’s ability to revise his own conduct, is the problem; particularly because the physiological nature of human experience lends itself to this. A power rationality as absolute that seldom is capable of understanding the causality of its own physiology, and at the initiating point of procedural imposition. That is thus a rationality that does not concern itself with its own physiology, and so a form in itself finally of physiological removal, along the same structural lines generally of Crucifixion Anthropology, and so not surprisingly would tend not to regard the physiological reality of experience, perception and interpretation of others (logically because it renounces just this in itself).
And like a man who has no deeper, serious regard for his wife (because she is just supposed to be there, anyway.)
* François Rabelais (ca. 1493 – April 9 1553)
8) The Anthropological Self VERSUS Personality
[Vicarious models of physio-identity formation and experimentation: because as of agriculture I live necessarily in the projection of my physiological being (that is, in regards to this that I am and call myself), I also already live vicariously in regards to some form of ideal or model—quite usually imposed to some degree by opprobrium and moral sense—that is a model situationally and especially at first to some degree outside myself and extrinsic to me (that is, of course, the whole point of anthropological, semiotic rection of the individually physiological, anyway); and thus am I also prone to other and new physiological models—as ideals, when I come across them, or in regards to new physiological experiences that befall me (because surely even without a semiotic, rational idea and ideal as that which I shall be in my physiological projection of myself, new physiological experiences might also dictate, as of simply experience itself, new forms of physiologically construed identity arising through experience, first and not as the result of moral ideals or the opprobrium-based pressure of the moral; which is, of course, how the shadow abusers of contemporary political realism and manipulation see individuality, as exactly that which is physiological vulnerability through experience itself (through rape and murder, for example) that physiologically grows on the individual as of initiate and tentative, criminal experience (very probably because shadow abusers of typically American and Anglo-Saxon Intelligence Communities are physiologically accustomed themselves to abusing their citizens, usually—but not necessarily only—through ideas and the semiotic, as the de facto guardians of physio-semiotic and financially aggregate, human order of their societies.) And so would not likely believe very seriously in real independence of individuality itself, anyway. That is, they impose what is their on mediocrity—and from their own position of negligent, decadent advantage over their fellow man—on others. [Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!]
Thus the human proposal of the divine becomes also human, physiologically rational expanse, in regards to which human beings totemically relate in their own physiological projection and identity, that is the very possibility of a vicariously lived, divine-like experiencing of the dignity of the civilized individual (as of really a civilized because god-fearing self that is thus equipped suddenly to regard that same dignity in other human beings); and this in a culturally-structural, anthropological sense, off of which new spaces must also and eventually be physiologically sought, physio-semiotically wrought—such as the dignity of the body sensual of the Italian Renaissance that was perhaps the real beginning of science and behind the possibility itself of somebody like Galileo (who himself is as of the human corporeal in his very methodology and foundation of our contemporary understanding of objectivity and the empirical). And this historically, until something of a new Dark Age came along, at least in regards to the human corporeal and sensory, in the form of the Protestant Reformation that was a loss once again of the dignity of what is bodily human (but that, of course, did not completely succeed in imposing itself, as we all know…)
Depth: Always in the why behind my physiology probably usually in hindsight; but how I see things is the future of my physiological entity and my behavior, and that which will determine how I react (to what degree and in what degree of restraint); because physiological experience in some ways is the horse without a rider, at least momentarily and if you are not an athlete of life (that is the physical and physiologically rational, at the point of very-close-to-complete-unity; but never quite exactly)…
Life feels better when you are the horse (and jockeys are small and insignificant, anyway).
Provable Truths and Galileo: get his original wording in this regard that would seem to suggest he only holds himself to what he can observe, in regards to that which is provably true only in that sense, not intrinsically; that suggests a quality of the instrumental, and not absolute essence….(Hollow Man Conceptualization, once again!)
9) The soul as conceptualization as of our longing for depth
That is a need to conceptually impose depth on physiological experience that we clearly perceive at times as not really having any at all—which frightens the hell out of culture itself, that turns a great part of culture into a permanent process of struggle to impose depth on experience: aesthetic depth, but more importantly—and not just in regards to the West—a conceptual (rational hence logical) depth, and which both become a form of phsyio-psychological reassurance in the power art (as creator and user/connoisseur) and the broader force and tide of text-based cultures since the origen of written language—that is the power to rationally impose on the world as a Cognitive Potency (Cognipotencia (Eschotado)), and that has the parallel, illusory power of cutting into the nebulousness of physiological experience itself and from the standpoint of individual experience (that is probably the high point of 20th century art—particularly literature, in Joyce, Döblin, or Updike—of certain and true ableit artistic understanding of the decorum quality of even the conceptual, that thus sets the individual at odds with the edifice of culture itself, leaving her very much out in the cold, so to speak. Simply because individuals have bodies, but society or culture, or the group of my fellows and peers, do not; that is to say, from the standpoint of individual observation as of the bodily—because human groups as categories are necessarily abstract as the only way the individual will ever truly relate the them. Realting physically to the crowd and mob, is impossible as an individual in reagrds to individuals.) Physio-totemic quality of the others in the physiologically rational mind of the individual…
10) TURN SURFACE INTO DEPTH: The rational method can thus be understood as partly because of (?) artistic endeavor of the Renaissance and its new, intense delight with perception itself (and its plasticity); the possibility of observation was itself due to a turn of the mind away from Christian-medieval postied depth beyond an awful surface of experience that simply had to be transited through phsyio-conceptually (or an impetus to transform it into such because of its misery) that later becomes a physiological rebirth of delight with the observable, as physio-aesthetics of surface (that perhaps really finds depth in the pictorial and in perception of images precisely in the physiological impact perception has on the eye of the beholder; as a refined form of simply pleasure and invigorated civilized forms of physiological experience, eventually endeavor.)
And so sequentially a methodology of observation becomes possible that, inversely, seeks a form of depth once again in the observable as no longer just appearance, surface and superficiality; that is a plastic origin—and culturally—of the possibility of Science itself, specifically in the scientific way of observing. And so appearance and surface become once again a now scientific form of depth, in regards to the production of rational rules of understanding the natural world; but that itself becomes once again a depth of only the rationally physiological, finally, in its very inability to give deeper human meaning to really anything at all, that is the fundamental crux of its very nature (science) as elevating the quality of material, bodily experience, while at the same time ultimately degrading it, in its (Science) deeper and very much complete divorce form the implications of physiological experience of the bodily self with almost no rational approach to it at all—because in the heat of its (Science) fantastic power of technological imposition, it has very little means of preventing itself form becoming as well something like the purely physiological.
Because it would seem to lend itself almost not all to the real act and process of founding a solid and culturally useful understanding of specifically the implications of human physiological experience. It simply ignores this, except in regards to the exploiting of people’s physiological-psysical nature in an economically structural sense, and in regards to a military-financial intelligence community control of phsyio-semiotic order: the turning of people’s physiological nature against them is in fact extremely useful in this context, no doubt, and as long its understanding goes no further than the use made of it as an instrument of cultural contention, containment and definition towards ultimately just systemic, financial order.
Technology, yes; but for really what purpose?
Science should have had a better answer to that, but it doesn’t; and in fact to this day relies falsely on the realm of the spiritual for any and all higher forms of understanding (outrageously!)
MONKEY MAN And so perhaps the reason science cannot ultimately replace religion (at least in regards to the Anglos-Saxon, English language-based, cultural realm of socio-political, cultural definition) is that it came itself into being auxiliary to the Judeo-Christian spiritual definition of anthropological stability; that it could morally detach itself from human reality because of a Christian Crucifixion Anthropology that sees science in a curious coincidence in its own technical methodology of annulling the subjective with a similarly Christian denial of the physical (particularly in its Protestant variation ultimately); in which science is able to in fact decline any higher form of ultimate human meaning precisely because it could—because another physio-semiotics of Christian anthropological stability through a culturally cryptic exile mechanism of primary individual physiology was already culturally operative; and so because of the fantastic results of the empirical, there would seem initially to be no reason at all to actually revise or seriously understand its own deficiencies, and given that ultimate anthropological stability was in fact the result of another realm of semiotic force and foundation; as kind of negligence, finally, and over the last 200 years of science that only had to come to terms with its own destruction as result finally of the catastrophic means of anthropological destruction it became in itself as in fact a result of its own anthropological obliviousness. And thus it comes to be understood as just another fantastic realm of the human physiological in itself, as space of human endeavor and imposition that from at least in its original Protestant historical form, left the important things actually to somebody else, as an ultimate renouncing of higher forms of human understanding…Both Science and Judeo-Christian anthropological stability require the annulling of the human corporeal, conceptually—but also in very real, practical consequences that is, in its worst-case scenario of distortion—in actually both cases—a circumventing of higher moral regard for the value of human life itself.
And so science, form this very much unfortunate standpoint can be regarded as just as stupidly physiological as religion itself, and not really superior to it, only in its technical achievements as kind of physiological blindness that is in fact its very flaw. And so between both realms of the Empirical versus the Religiously Spiritual, the common point is actually physiology itself that in both cases is because of the force of denial and annulling of the bodily (curiously!).
Physiological experience is not moral in itself, and so depends on some form of conceptual (semiotic)—and so necessarily rational, universally comprehensible—order to in fact oversee it, so physiology can safely be in a collective, cultural sense and for your security; chiefly because physiological experience and invigoration cannot be renounced; is the salt of life and so evidently non-negotiable. So culturally and by hook and by crook it has to be overseen. For your security! Because quite obviously, you can’t do it yourself.
Galileo is a physiological perceiver who revels in fact in perception, first and foremost; perception for him is that which is undeniably real! And so it is as of perception that he becomes the scrutinizer, intensely and methodically so. And the possibility thus of science itself (if Galileo is to be understood as first historical intellectual practitioner and patron in a contemporary sense) is ultimately because of this very much Mediterranean-Adriatic infused sensuality of delight with physical experience, under the political-economic and anthropological canopy of essentially spiritual, semiotic stability…and at least initially.
11) Religious origin of quotidian delight and its connection to 1)Science; 2)Capitalism-Consumerism
As of Middle Ages quality of life (comfort) rises, and the Renaissance is in part centered on the rebirth (once again in the Mediterranean-Adriatic) of delight in life, that is nevertheless supported by the stability of religious anthropological physio-semiotic order as key component of this very stability; and Galileo, like art, takes delight as of physical experience, in perception and the human body itself (in itself); that is not initially in conflict with religious semiotics. That is thus in itself a physiology of tolerance and enthusiasm for the physical—in the physical, but also naturally in regards as well to the material.
12) In regards to all things human and in terms of cultural attitudes—philosophical and religious entities, forces and their manifestations—understanding its real and truer connection to the bodily and how it relates to it—and even despite the message and words of its own propositions—is key to understanding its real anthropological entity and significance: ALWAYS IN THE BODILY!!!! Empirical Science and Religion, for example, are in this sense curiously similar on exactly this point as strategies of bodily removal and exile, in both cases, and in the face of contradiction of the fact that deeper moral impulse is always directly founded in the individual’s sense of bodily vulnerability especially to a mechanics of anthro-biological opprobrium. But, in the extreme worst-case scenario of structural distortion, if you have in fact succeeded in removing the bodily from the real force of ideas and the anthropological, you have eliminated moral foundation itself. And so in a contemporary sense (as seems clearly to be the case here in NEF) there is simply no possibility of ethics the way we understand it, without a greater embrace of in fact the bodily itself.
Foundation of Anthropology and Cryptic Nature of Culture: Is because the body cannot be structurally and thoroughly renounced, and this despite the words, message and spirit of a particular geographically, historically determined semiotics; culture is cryptic because, despite a structural semiotics of physiological order that denies the physiologically corporeal and bodily, the structural itself cryptically services the physiologically primary of bodily experience as clearly a form of deeper technical, structural coherence that cryptically centers everything, in fact, on the bodily (that is the true, deeper essence of human groups—in their real survival and necessary invigoration—and is the chief and cryptic defining force of the culturally-posited rational itself)—but all the while without rationally contradicting nor undoing the culturally-posited semiotic; thus true coherence is an overriding, cryptic supervision and balance of cultural space behind the back so to speak of the culturally rational itself—because, yes and perhaps regrettably, physiological reality must inexorably be held in check BY FORCE to some extent (because the physiological nature of people is, at its deepest core rationally opaque—zoomorphic—that is undoubtedly the strong arm element and true muscle man of its own survival—that itself subordinates the rational, as really instrument of its own violent will towards imposition and physical self-preservation, and of which science is just a quite modern, relatively recent avatar of the same original thing albeit a top a never-before-seen power of imposition that is directly—not just potentially—beyond the limits of the anthropological itself—and so inexorably fatal at the species level, and especially if you live in a very sophisticated BUT TOTAL DARKNESS in regards to the mechanics of your own physio-anthropological entity.
13) IMPERIAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FREEDOM, IN ORTEGA Y GASSET
Is a good—simple, clear—example of an animated structural suspension through tension among the parts that all anthropological contexts partake of in the inexorable, universal circumstance of human groups, and bodily singular individuals—that makes all anthropology imperial as a force of semiotic imposition, and in regards to groups and their constitution over and through physical—and physiological—individuality.
Tension: argamasa como fuerza estuctural, entre el individuo y la semiotica de los otros; que es un copiar-emular-y buscar pertnenecer-pero respecto un grupo real que es también fisiológicamente totémico, dentro de un proceso fisio-cognitivo y racional del individuo. Y la tensión se debe al componente biológico individual de oprobio que permite la creación cohesionada de grupos humanos en los que el individuo es semióticamente definido según el grupo, pero respecto de la fisiología individual propia; proceso y circunstancias que son naturalmente una combinación de coerción real y opróbica, más la ilusión y encandilamiento individual por pertenecer.
 Lo simbólico y lo conceptual ambos han de encandilar fisiológicamente el organismo del que contempla; es pues un poder de seducción fisiológica del que percibe y respecto los procesos cognitivos y fisiológicamente racionales del individuo. Con lo cual, en la sujeción fisiológica, y después en el proceso cognitivo fisiológico individual, es preciso hablar de un espacio mental fisiológicamente totémico; que es un lugar cognitivo físio-racional donde el individuo se relaciona posicionándose moralmente como individuo frente a lo percibido y sensorial, que desemboca en la definición tentativa emocional-moral del ser humano frente a la percepción sensorialmente de lo que hay; de aquello que acontece en el espacio inmediatamente físico y también conceptual (pues el observar, leer y finalmente comprender no es otra cosa que una forma interactiva-y viritual- de percepción.)
Resulta crucial pues el encandilamiento fisiológico precisamente como un ser y estar vigorizado como fuerza subyacente y propulsora después de la proyección fisiológica individual que es finalmente un querer ser ante todo totémico y respecto también de alguna clase de ideal, emulación o modelo ante el cual el individuo haya quedado encandilado y hacia el cual uno se va viviendo, o bien como una forma de emulación o bien como un vigorizado rechazo; o ambas cosa a la vez, siendo todo ello el logro supremo de la antropología agrícola y sedentaria que es simplemente una forma de estabilidad física y espacial colectiva, pero fisiológicamente vigorizada.
Con lo cual parece evidente que el proceso permanente histórico de la civilización humana ha de lanzarse sobre todo a un espacio fisiológicamente semiótico como único espacio posible de expansión humana, después de la agricultura y el sedentarismo; que obliga además a la conceptualización de una virtualidad cultural, finalmente, que implica la creación de espacios fisiológicamente vigorizados que sin embargo no minen ni desdibujen la estabilidad colectiva base y real. Que quiere decir que todo antropología a partir de la agricultura es forzosamente una antropología en buena medida estética, pues el orden semiótico es finalmente el orden fisiológico que jamás puede ser tal sin no cuenta con la posibilidad de su propio estímulo y vigorización.
Y las ideas que finalmente rigen un grupo humano solo son aceptados por sus integrantes por medio del vigor fisiológico que dichas ideas brindan; o bien si otros influjos auxiliares fisiológicamente vigorizantes surten sus efectos, garantizando la misma viabilidad físio-semiótica del transcurso existencial-temporal del grupo.
Porque en el caso de que no se pueda lograr la necesaria vigorización de la existencia sedentaria humana, los mismos individuos y en su propia ferocidad fisiológicamente racional de imposición, fatalmente crearán su propia semiótica, y sus propios significados mas al gusto inexorable fisiológico suyo;
Pero eso sería, naturalmente el fin del grupo, y la fundición de nuevo de otro grupo, normalmente a sangre, fuego y hierro siempre candente, como una vision incluso de lo más somero respecto de la historia registrada humana indica.
Y se hace necesario hablar de la libertad fisiológica de los seres humanos, repsecto de los espacios antropologicos semióticos como el problema y sino secreto desde siempre de los grupos humanos sedentarios.
Y esto simplemente porque los contextos materiales y tecnicos han ido cambiando y evolucionando al descurrir del tiempo humano, sobre todo despues de la agricultura, mientras que la fisiología humana y también a partir de la agricultura, ha permanecido universalmente única y siempre la misma.
 Y en la ofensa que de uno se siente está la resistencia empedernida de éste respecto del otro, el ofensor; y otro gran baile historico está pues en el maniobrar con el fin de evitar que el otro se ofenda, en cuanto a mecanismos de persuasión que redundan finalmente y una vez aceptadas, en contextos fisiológicos-semióticos estables cuyo artimaña principal ha de ser siempre el que el otro se aproxime en su querer y voluntad propios, a la manera por ejemplo de la propuesta mesiánica de Cristo que es un salvar de la muerte a aquellos que lo quieran y que obren acorde con ello. Principalmente porque contra la voluntad del otro solo cabe la fuerza cuyo ejercicio finalmente desbocado es, además, del extremo gusto fisiológico de todos, y una vez puestos a ello, siendo esto el principal problema de los contextos antropológicos que son verdaderamente estables solo por cuanto permiten la vigorización fisiológica, o bien directamente por medio de la violencia desabrida, o dentro de modos auxiliares de ejercicio fisiológico, y particularmente semióticos que evitan mediante las ficciones empero fisiológicamente reales el conflicto directamente corpóreo y físico; pero en verdad tanto da el uno que da el otro, pues ambos son formas primeramente de estabilidad fisiológica precisamente en el ejercicio vigorizante del ser y estar fisiológico, aunque las posibilidades culturales de mayor enjundia naturalmente solo se dan respecto de contextos que en algún grado significativo semiotizan los conflictos antes físicamente reales y violentos; y dado que el hombre mejor vigorizado está en cuanto preso del miedo, o dentro de cualquier proceso de autoimposición fisiológica-racional. Y esto a tal extremo y en tal grado, que aquellos contextos antropológicos que rijan semióticamente la fisiología estructural colectiva, pero que no logren dar salida a los espacios fisiológicos de máxima vigorización y tonificación individual, simplemente no son estructural ni temporalmente viables como tal, o al menos respecto de un mayor desarrollo cultural, tal y como lo conocemos nosotros y respecto de la historia humana.
Lo semiótico es tal porque es simbólico al mismo tiempo que es fisiológicamente obligado para el individuo y dentro del espacio totemico, fisio-cognitivo individual; que, con el tiempo y en extensión cuantitativa respecto del colectivo humano particular, se impone oprobícamente al colectivo y respecto de cualquier individuo que pretenda pertenecer o pueda considerarse que pertenezca; y eso incluso naturalmente en el rechazo y desafío individual del mismo, pues la individualidad en sí está en buena medida en el desafiar, en algun grado y de alguna forma…
14) Decorum Anthropology is Cultural Virituality
VERSUS The Physiologically Immediate
The group side of the opprobic is the conceptual side of anthropological experience, that is the reason (whatever form of logic and not necessarily empirical) as to why we do what we do and towards whatever immediate purpose; the meaning to and behind all of which the culturally semiotic must provide and in regards to which individuals physiologically project their own energy and selves—introducing of course and to some degree personalized elements, that become usually closer to a matter of personal style and idiosyncrasy rather than a force of personal creation. Because culture provides the semiotic content for the physiological, but the individual (especially initially) provides the physical, physiological energy.
Thus the structural context (within which people are in the projection of their physiological selves and energy) is viritual in itself and the union between cultural, semiotic structure and human physiology is likewise the very much totemic quality of opprobrium; that is, just as the structurally semiotic is a virituality, so does part of the human self likewise become viritual in and through the opprobic. And so the real, authentic self is always the bodily self (that is in fact the authentic moral self—that knows vulnerability, hence also empathy—and that is also the more authentic and deeper rational self); but the possibilities of self are, of course, mostly in the others:
In a social sense and within the cultural rigors of decorum rationality and its opprobrium-based realm of totemic virtuality and physiological control; but also in regards to the physiologically immediate other who becomes key to a bodily freer social self (as opposed to physiologically immediate isolation, in which the physiologically extrinsic, totemic and culturally rational self—turns against the bodily rational side of personality and the individual’s experiencing of self.)
And so in physiologically immediate contexts of inter-personal exchange does the self once again know and experience her physio-bodily entity, once again and ultimately as a form of relief and respite form the rigors of opprobrium-configured, conceptual and cultural virituality, in which it would seem individuality is permanently held to an only physiological, totemic captivity to her own—or those culturally imposed—ideals of our dummy selves we can certainly never actually be physically:
Because the totemic realm of individual anthropological experience is based always on leaving the body behind; a stepping out momentarily, so to speak, so that the self may be delivered unto the rigors ultimately of survival and stability of the group and its culturally postied logic—in our being in some way as an aspiring to that which we are inexorbably not nor will ever completely be as corporeal individuals.
This is not to say that personal encounters are sudenly no loger subject to the culturally physio-semiotic, but rather opprobrium-based semiotics can in fact be more directly leveraged by the inidividual in situations of face to face, direct inter-phsyiological exchange (that is, in regards to the physiological complexity of conversation, gestures and facial expresions of emotion and personality); that the individual can in fact manipulate, play creatively with—and immediately correct or rectify in regards to the object beholder’s percpetion (naturally as of the subject’s only partial percpetion and understanding of it.) For In direct physiologically immediate experience with physical others, the communicational agent and the human reciever are both momentarily joined suddenly, in a kind of alliance of the physical human world of living individualiy—against this nebulous and inneffable force of the culturally structural that necessarily is to weigh so heavily on the subjects of her universal majesty,
Our sovereign, Lady Anthropology.
Physiologically totemic spaces within the Anthropological
-The cultural and phsyiologicaly semiotic;
-A totemic—cultural side—of self that physio-totemically relates to the rationally vague (rationally blind) authority of the group and in regards to semiotic posits the group arrogates and holds itself to.
-The physiologically totemic relationship man enters into with the divine as his own positing of his own impossible ideal of self, omnipotent precisely in regards to opprobrium that is the central force of definition of the self:
Greek mythology—or at least in specific historical periods of it—considered divinities lived actually in the physiological nature of the bodily individual, which thus becomes an alternate mode of dealing with the same circumstances of bodily, physiological nature that in some way—through some form of conceptual logic and posting—must be imposed upon, subjected and thus defined as ultimately the physiologically semiotic order of a particular human group, through time and imbricate with specific bodily circumstances and context of its living, vital experience.
The Group as the virtual side of the Anthropological
Because after all, where is the human group to be physiologically found, anyway? How often do individuals actually relate physically to the group? And thus the individual experiencing of others (friends or any type of physiologically immediate exchange or context) can never be understood as group experience, either; for the individual in front of you, and similarly to yourself, is not the group, either; but rather, both of you in fact are allied in a certain sense and in that context against the phsyio-semiotic entity of the group and its wearisome posits of right and wrong, and its ever-present, ever-obsessive notions of appropriateness—to the extreme of one’s suddenly knowing freedom from the cultural self and its phsyio-semiotic tyranny, in the physiologically-immediate, inter-personal other.
15) Ortega Y Gasset y los estados de suspension antropologicos
La fatiga de un órgano parece a primera vista un mal que éste sufre. Pensamos, acaso, que
en un ideal de salud la fatiga no existiría. No obstante, la fisiología ha notado que sin un minimum de fatiga el órgano se atrofia. Hace falta que su función sea excitada, que trabaje y se canse para que pueda nutrirse. Es preciso que el órgano reciba frecuentemente pequeñas heridas que lo mantengan alerta. Estas pequeñas heridas han sido llamadas <<estímulos funcionales>>; sin ellas, el organismo no funciona, no vive. [Cáp. 1 de España invertebrada (1922)]
La naturaleza fisiológica de la experiencia humana, condiciona la misma inexorablemente; y dado que los proceso cognitivos son también fisiologicos, la misma violencia física que es el hombre es igualmente la misma violencia fisiológimente racional y cognitiva. Con lo que todo ello contribuye a reforzar el estado permanente de movimiento en el que ha de vivir el hombre-movimiento no necesariamente físico y respecto los contextos agrícolas sino fisiológicamente cognitivo, de base racional y orgánica-que es la entidad base intrínseca nuestra. De manera que una naturaleza que permanentemente ha de hacerse implica una interioridad inicialmente ahuecada.
Conceptualización ahuecada del hombre
-En la entidad nuestra humana de autoconocimiento propio en la inicial percepción de aquello que me consta que no so yo.
-La constitución extrínsica antropologica del yo fisiologico individual en la semiotica del grupo.
-La amenaza corpórea oprobica-y base de la posibilidad moral humana-que convierte la misma identidad individual en una modo fisiológico permanente de reacción, anticipación y cuidadoso acecho respecto del mundo exterior humano y social y semio-culturalmente moral.
-El caracter fisiológico de la existencia que convierte esta en un transcurrir más bien que un ser y estar estácticos; pero esto no solo en cuanto a la edad sino respecto de la permanencia vital del yo que solo en el proceso fisiologico vigorizado mejor se conoce y se reconoce; es decir, precisamente en el transcurso temporal punctual (pero incesantemente reptido) en el que uno es menos consciente de sí, que implica que el proceso fisiologico natural de vigorización es en sí mismo una forma de ligereza y libertad, más allá-está claro-de las demandas moral-estructurales del grupo humano antropológico; lo que convierte la otra parte del yo (este otro elemento contrario) siempre en algo elusivo, siempre de alguna forma más allá de nuestro conocimiento, y nuestra posibildad de apresarlo…Este otro componente que todos designaríamos como nuestra identidad, nuestro yo consciente y razonado.
Lo que sugiere la hipótesis de que la racionalidad humana tal como la conocemos pudiera ser no apta para la naturaleza físico-fisiológica nuestra; e igualmente que al menos en parte se debe (la racionalidad) a un proceso evolutivo visto en conjunto, de lo más feroz y violento, a lo largo de muchos milenios y generaciones humanas; de tal forma que pudieramos asertar un caracter trágico respecto la naturaleza cogniscente humana esencialmente accidental y malamente sobrevenido historica y evolutivamente, con el efecto de desbordamiento del mismísimo sostén físico humano (por no hablar del antropológico, que desde hace un siglo sabíamos crípticamente y sin lugar a duda que se nos estaba quedando pequeño por razones de repente tecnicamente evidentes.) PORQUE el hombre sobrevive en grupos que funcionalmente requieren que parte de la fisiología humana individual se integre a la entitdad mayor grupal; mas no a expenses de la capacidad explosiva humana de respuesta fisiólógica individual, al final y cabo la posibilidad misma y fundamento existencial del grupo. Adicionalmente, la naturaleza potencialmente racional del ser humano como evidente arma mayor del hombre supervivente historico y frente al mundo-que incluye naturalmente otros grupos humanos como ameneza y rival-no puede separse del ser y estar físicos humanos, esto es, de la experiencia corporal y dado que la experiencia humana es experiencia ante todo fisiologica, que es precisamente aquello que la experience grupal y civilizada (que quiere decir sedentaria) busca someter-que es un encauzar vigorizado y un definir-madiante la semiótica. Que (y siguiendo a Spengler) la fisología humana se acabe semiotizando según la propuesta racional solo grupal, no pinta muy bien respecto a un desenlace futuro cultural-estructural, del ser humano cada vez más alejado de las circunstancias físicas originales que vinieron a definir se fisiología una vez evolutiva; y puesto que jamas dejará el hombre de ser acrícola, la huida tecnologica humana hacia adelante tarde o temprano disminuirá sus propias facultades fisio-racionales y cognitivas, porque la huida espengleriana fisologica al futuro racional una vez urbana es una huida finalmente de si mismo, tal como Spenler lo esobza en cuanto al context fisiologico nato humano que solo semioticamente no puede seguir abesteciéndose, nutriéndose; pero también en cuanto sus capacidades racionales e igualmente morales, siendo ambos de origen en buena medida físico a partir de la naturelza fisiológica humana-y crucialmente corpórea-.
16) The Conversion of Physical Violence into Physiologically Rational Violence
Civilization and the problem of our physiological nature
|Cain [4:2] Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. [4:3] In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, [4:10] And the LORD said, “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! [4:11] And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.
[4:12] When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” [4:14] Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.”
[4:15] Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.
|Enoch (son)||Enosh (son)|
|Enoch (City Cain founded, named after his son)||(son) Kenan|
|(son) Irad||(son) Mahalalel|
|(son) Lamech [4:23] Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
[4:24] If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
|(wives) Adah & Zillah||(son) Lamech|
|Adah (son) Jabal the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock||(son) Noah “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.”|
|Adah (son) Jubal ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe.||(sons) Shem-Ham-Japheth|
|Zillah (son) Tubal-cain who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools.
Zillah (daughter) Naama
|A conversion of physical violence towards others into an individual physiological violence of purpose and toil—that becomes an accommodation of human physiological nature by sedentary, agrarian contexts through physio-semiotics (the physiological projection of individuality towards culturally coherent—communally understood—“rational” objectives.) And so inevitably leads to a progressive refinement of language, technical understanding and know how—as well as of the arts and ultimately societal mores.|
17) The Conundrums of Anthropology
- Rationality considered from the standpoint of the physiological is the only way to really understand the rational
Physical experience takes succor in physiological invigoration; like for instance in the permanently needing to scavange, look for, gather and/or hunt for food, in which a physiology of desperation itself becomes a mind numbing opiate in regards to the need for the conceptual understanding of nearly anything; but if rationality as we understand it—subject to and actually a product of originally specific cultural contexts of higher (originally religious) meaning and the need for it—is to be considered hallmark of civilization,
What then becomes of human physiology as of agriculture and this “opiate” quality its invigoration produces?
Because human physiology—it goes without saying—can no longer evolve its way out of its very own historcally-configured biological state and condition, acquired definitively as of more sedentary anthropological contexts (that quite logically and universally impede an active force of human natural selection at least initially in regards the intra-group realm.)
Quite logically the semiotic—that is also aesthetically physiological—becomes the natural outlet for physiological invigoration primitive (pre-sedentary man) had almost no recourse to because pre-sedentary anthropological experience simply is in its own physiology, and thus does not require individuals conceptually define and control their own physiological entity and behavior according to culturally rational and conceptual posits of the group:
Pre and non sedentary human groups live not (or live to a lesser degree) in rationally conceptual posits of their own simply because they do not have a need for them. And thus is primitive culture primitive on this very point, of its being an existence of very close to permanent physiological exertion—exhilaration—and movement from which the higher, more conceptually complex anthropological rationalities of sedentary cultures can only be considered as something like a stately architecture of physiologically semiotic luxury.
But the living and collective needs that define sedentary and agrarian anthropological contexts are, of course, different.
And so if rationality itself is to be hypothetically considered a need experienced by progressively more and more sedentary human groups, a better understanding of the nature and circumstance of such a necessity becomes finally a deeper understanding of the rational mind.
In sedentary contexts human physiology, though it is in itself unaltered and so permanently defined from generation to generation, becomes the center of a new anthropological problem and in fact conundrum:
For the gradual acquisition by human groups of the knowledge of agriculture (of seeds and the conceptual complexity of cause and effect from seed to harvest) had produced a context in which man had no choice but to begin to live aesthetically as a way of tolerating the simple fact of sedentary life as no longer being in only one’s bodily physiology; and this especially because implicit is a form of duress and suffering in the bodily circumstances of immobilization and the suddenly brutal awareness of being trapped—like never before—in the physical limitation of human experience.
For the opiate of physiological invigoration in sedentary—and especially agrarian contexts—is itself no longer immediately available nor apparent; it in fact becomes something that must be carefully cultivated and eventually refined by the structurally anthropological and cultural itself.
And the conundrum is that human will to life and group survival over the millenniums indeed did bring man to the anthropologically sedentary—but at the expense, however, of a deeper and corporeally inherent physiological comfort of the physiological itself; that is the comfort of not being anything more than physiological being.
In this sense, such a change could be very well described, for example, as our being cast out of some kind of previous state of bliss or garden; or in terms of successive stages of human kind and some divinity’s effort and struggle of trail and error the way in fact pre-sedentary man is mythologically understood perhaps almost universally—and as in fact only gradually distinguishable himself from the other living creatures he contemplates.
Because in sedentary and agrarian contexts the opiate of physiological experience in just physiological being—at least initially—no longer works; or rather works inevitably against the configuration of human groups that are no longer themselves in movement. And so what is at one time only a very real aesthetic sensitivity of early Neolithic human physiology, later becomes a physiologically semiotic resource—towards ultimately conceptually defined human groups that physiologically impose rational logics of a fictional nature on their surroundings, and which work a totemic effect back onto the human group itself.
And it would universally seem that the opiate of physiological experience for sedentary man is only viable in the rational possibilities of the physiologically totemic and culturally virtual—because the actual physical consequences of human physiological invigoration quickly overwhelm the very definition of sedentary groups and the possibility of their still being a group.
And physiologically semiotic definition of groups—according to their on opprobrium-enforced logically rational posits in regards to their own surroundings—becomes a means and resource to the group’s sedentary, agrarian-based survival—simply because people can still live physiologically invigorated experience without having to completely renounce group membership and embrace.
Thus is individual moral identity more than just itself a consequence of sedentary group experience, but rather eventually becomes the chief instrument of physiologically invigorated experience in sedentary contexts which must exceed physical limitation—like never before—through the crucial force of fictionally rational imposition that it is nevertheless most certainly physiologically real.
And totemically thus does human rationality begin its historical-cultural ascent through in fact the aesthetic, as of the structurally determined need to hold sedentary groups together while still providing the salt of life that is physio-exhilaration sine qua non.
The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BCE, and the so-called “proto-Neolithic” is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA) between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming.
-Thus religion is an opiate not because it is religion, but because it is physiological—as part of a physiologically totemic order of sedentary physiological projection by individuals towards semiotic idealizations and posits; and that of course works physio-totemically in reverse, back onto the human subject (and by extension, the group) towards her own gradual elevation and physio-rational enhancement—ultimately through time and over the generations.
18) Opprobic games and rational subversion: COINTELPRO
…expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize…
Dependence of individuality on the group is effectively utilized against the moral self of target individual in regards to social medium of individual’s dependence; becomes a game of removed and remote manipulation of that social medium towards controlling agency over those principals, notions and perceptions that come to constitute a physiologically rational group sentiment of belonging—that is effectively a form of subliminal constitution of group rationality itself (a rationality that is physiologically, sensorially and physio-rationally, physio-conceptually, constructed and so thus is not really explicitly rational, or completely so; and thus is effectively vulnerable to a subliminal, sub-rational (that is to say, as of a physiological, physio-sensory presentation) agency over and manipulation of it. Thus to say group-posited rationality is not rational, means that because individuals themselves are opprobically pressured in their own relationship with what the group “knows” to be true, the individual cannot herself rationally approach (nor critically comprehend) her own zoomorphic fear of the group’s rejecting them; individuality, as far as group cohesion and entity is concerned, is the individual’s fear of rejection—ostracism—or the group’s turning violently on the self—that essentially constitutes a blocking of man’s higher cognizance towards supremacy and in fact survival (originally, anthropologically) of the group.
The strategy followed in regards to a subliminal (sub-rational and so physiologically aesthetic) force of agency through human groups (as in the case of COINTELPRO), could effectively be described as using target individual as that agency’s medium of expression—specifically in regards to the group’s physiologically totemic perception of target individual and towards a transitive and controlled revealing of that individual as unworthy of belonging: that is the deviously imposed presentation of the pariah, in regards to the group’s physiologically rational substance of self-identity—and most devastatingly in the folds of the group and in our midst.
But because this is, for all individuals potentially involved (as in fact dependent in some way on group definition and its physiological substance of the opprobic) a sub-rational force of individual definition—of that part of personality that is group-configured—the potential for group-internal violence is easily kindled, as long as meta group agency is effectively hidden and cannot be immediately traced back to a rationally understood—rationally visible—causality.
So you are essentially playing sub-rational, physiologically-totemic forces of human group configuration against the other side of the rational self, much like a hunter exploits the specific physical, physiological and anatomic entity of a particular form of animal prey.
19.The Culturally Rational
versus Physiological Freedom
( [VERSUS] AT&T Anthropology )
1) One is the cryptic causal foundation of the other; and as such can the culturally rational not always be coherent. Chiefly because culture has always feared and violently struck out at physiological anomie. And so the reason of life, after agriculture, is that collective, structural viability requires that people have one; that is, that they rationally project their individual physiology, necessarily towards culturally reasonable, conceptual—semiotic—entities; this is, of course, not to say people are not free in their physiology to be what they want to be, but it does imply being an individual is only as of the conceptual possibilities of the cultural space one’s physical existence takes place in and is dependent on; and that whatever form of defiance human personality builds itself upon, it is also always in regards to specific cultural norms and a particular culturally-bound experiencing of the conceptual.
2) The reason for the culturally rational is thus that it is permanently against physiological anomie, that effectively makes not only language but logic itself a form of necessary—minimum—standardization of the individual and that could be considered the better part of identity itself. But clearly, however, the foundation of logic is also cultural—anthropological, even—as an originally particular sensory experiencing of a specific geographic context, by an originally particular human group. And the particular body experience of particular geographic and environmental contexts, produces a specific form of common sense that is the very much bodily foundation of a specific cultural logic, finally. Thus, the collective will towards semiotic definition of the physiological is also regionally different, although universal in essence as stability through definition, which, in regards to human physiological experience can only ultimately be a meaningful—purposed—engagement of it. And so, all cultures, to one degree or another of both will to rationally impose on the physiological—as well as also a tolerance of it—posit different mechanisms and systems of the conceptual over and through the individually physiological—that is conceptual according to whatever common sense permanently local, bodily experience and over the generations as ended up depending on towards its own functional, collective viability (survival originally).
3) Thus the very reason for culture is ultimately that which originally so very much terrified it; that continues permanently through time and once again to threaten it—given that human physiology, as of agriculture, can no longer evolve in itself. Systemically, however, the threat of physiological anomie is simply the danger of non-definition, and that on careful scrutiny comes to be understood as the real motor of the culturally-posited rational itself (as thus not really an enemy, but rather the natural, physiologically invigorated impetus of individuals, especially in their youth and into middle age). But clearly invigorated human groups originally made for more resilient human groups, and thus it seems clear and universally, that specific anthropological contexts seek not to completely suppress the physiological force of individuality, but rather make it the cryptic center of even the culturally rational itself, and in a very much secret contradiction to and paradox with the logic and narratives of specific cultural experience. And so the foundation of individuality is culturally inherited, but cultural systems cryptically (and necessarily) accommodate individual physiology and personality by allowing—perhaps even secretly (‘cryptically’) encouraging—individuals to define themselves against and even beyond the cultural itself, that is thus initially the reason culture needs to be culture; but with the added advantage that, although human physiology is in fact permanently defined and constituted, cultural systems clearly live to evolve!
4) And thus not only does the stability of the culturally rational need to be invigorated (through simply and permanently human physiology), to be truly stable culture needs to be challenged that becomes thus the need once again to impose itself; and culture is alive in the very challenge that it is brought to it, that is the impetus of its own force through time. But, of course, the circumstance of the physiological is stimulus (through intrinsic need as of specific spatial context, that can be understood as a permanent drive to towards the attainment of satisfaction—or broadly comfort); and the physiological thus never vies well, all the time and in regards to all the phases of individual development with the rational. And worse still, human rationality is very much physiological in itself, being rational conviction much more important than actual rational understanding itself—for bodily experience is bodily in its very singular limitation, and thus can never really know beyond what it can actually apprehend (and this often in a strictly sensorial sense!) But rational conviction has long been demeaned, and in fact overshadowed by the culturally considered higher rigors of the rationally analytical. And this must now be critiqued.
5) Because the rationally analytical, while also always present in all cultural manifestations in all historical periods, has become today as of Western experience (originally) a form itself of physiological anomie—or this in at least the worst distortion of it. Specifically because of its obvious power of material transformation, it has tended to work against the anthropological configuration of human groups—in specifically how empirical imposition—to in fact impose itself the way it has done as of industrialization—posits the methodological elimination of bodily individuality in, first of all, the observer herself; that is a sort of objectifying of the human agent as of the object of analysis; which as a methodological approach, it goes without saying, has been powerfully effective, but that as an ontological position becomes ominously sinister as an observer who renounces the bodily, in regards ultimately thus also to other human beings whose bodily experience similarly—and historically—has become analytically irrelevant also. And thus, in the renouncing of the bodily (this that is referred to as subjectivity) is the technical impossibility of the moral (given that opprobrium is only effective in the individual’s experiencing of bodily vulnerability; that is the reason why the moral—perhaps ultimately rational—possibilities of a computer are no possibilities, no how.) But physiological freedom, as the cryptic cornerstone to the survival and, later, collective civilized viability of human groups, is also historically trigger and detonator of the distortion of science itself, in its very cultural physologicalization beyond just simply the methodology of a very sophisticated, technical form of dorking around with what is in front of you.
Because the freedom of science—its original ontological force—is that it removes itself from the opprobic as a physiology initially of only inference, regardless of the at least theoretical, social consequences of its endeavor; but a physiology of inferences is in itself a powerful thing, that cultural has in fact always carefully controlled, and given that its own stability has always resided in physio-rational definition as limitation: for Icarus is cryptically more than just an admonition, but culture itself cannot be Icarus!
6) One significant example of just this is in economics—or more exactly, in the administration through time of business models—always in regards ultimately to human physiological aggregates, that sees a very much analytical force of analysis and highly refined, technical precision, applied however to the necessarily unaware human object; in such a way and method that physiologically invigorated experience—that naturally precludes to a great degree higher forms of rational awareness—becomes chief tactical asset of technical imposition and that (in regards to banks, and to some extent all business models that seek essentially the same financial stability of account balances, through time) works permanently to maintain this informational discrepancy through multiple strategies of conceptual vagueness, never-clearly-understood technical circumstances and difficulties; and through a very much fostering itself of physiological freedom of individuals, but ultimately—spuriously—towards just its own reinforced, leveraged position over human contexts, through time.
AT&T Anthropology in effect is about the control of aggregate human, physiological contexts, through time and in regards to human experience only in terms of purchases based on new, induced and very much fabricated needs—all of which can only come ultimately through a force of impingement on the culturally conceptual itself. Thus AT&T Anthropology, in its historical form of technical climax after 1980, could have only come into being through a furious, never-before-seen process of media consolidation that computer cybernetics only made all the more formidable and absolute, after the early 1990s. And thus a higher realm of truly intellectual, physiologically rational endeavor and cultural entity, eventually becomes only in itself a culturally functional cliché, seemingly as a higher point on the cultural spectrum of light and understanding, but that is only, finally, a form of just lip service and auxiliary support to a physiological obliviousness the culturally structural cryptically founds itself on—and with the added convenience and advantage that structural agency never has to feel guilty about what it is nor ever account for its own reality of cultural dominance, as long as loftier semiotics of cultural cliché holds…
But AT&T Anthropology is defective anthropology, specifically in the fact that it does not work towards the reinforcement of the individual, as natural anthropological spaces do, but rather permanently towards just its own structural leveraging of the human physiological and aggregate where the big money is and has always been!
And it is human physiological freedom that AT&T Anthropology so fiercely protects, as a form of living hagiography of praise towards individuality, but that paradoxically must refrain from ever openly explaining where its real structural legitimacy actually comes from; that is no legitimacy at all, but rather simply a structural leveraging of human—and consumer—aggregate physiological experience, through time.