Index
1) Glossary of Conceptual Terms
2) Exiled Man Anthropology IS Crucifixtion Anthropology
3) Glossary Games and Exercises in terminology
- What is the difference between Dairy Queen Anthropology [AND] Animal Laborans Anthropology?
- Exiled Man Anthropology [and] Anthropological removal of physiologically primary self
3.What is this that is The Big Systemic?
-AT&T Anthropology
4) NOTEBOOK5 Triangles
5) Decorum Rationality/ Opprobrium-Driven, Bodily Rationality
6) Anthropology’s Problem of the Individual’s Bodily Self [28jun16]
7) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)
8) NOTES 4JUL16
9) Semiotic-controlled physiology, or just Image-controlled physiology
10) The Physiologically Cognitive Mode of only Empirical Science: The Historical End of the Renaissance And Renaissance Man in Francis Bacon
11) What is Anthropology?
12) Aspects of Anthropology
13) Glossary Notes Again
14) Social, Cultural Individuality versus a Bodily Moral (bodily vulnerable) Self
15) Anthropological Mechanisms of the Physiologically-Extrinsic
****(POR COMENTAR)*****
16) Decorum Anthropology (versus ?)…Bodily-Balanced Anthropology
17) Semiotic-controlled physiology, or just Image-controlled physiology
18) El hecho irracional del hombre es más bien las circunstancias fisiológicas humanas.
1) Glossary of Conceptual Terms
-The structurally cultural and semiotic
-Biology of Opprobrium (for individuals in human groups)
-Physiologically Real Perception (?)
-The Physiologically Binding (Relevant)
-Opprobrium Rationality VERSUS Culturally-Posited Rationality
-The Culturally-Posited Rational and Semiotic
-The Physio-Totemic
-Physio-Rational Imposition
-Predatory Psychology of Self that serves itself of social interaction to in fact affirm itself, and so is insecure at its deepest core
-Spengler’s Dilemma
-Rebellion-of-the-Masses Culture
-Agrarian Immobilization
-Anthropological Complacency
-Physiological Milieu [Versus] Psychological Ken
-Physiological Milieu and The Big Systemic
-Inter-physiological dependence
-The Opprobrium Self [VERSUS] A Psycho-Affective Self (?)
-The Semiotic Self [is]
The Social Self
Physio-Extrinsic Self
The Cultural Self
The Anthropologically Structural Self
-The Opprobrium Self [is] necessarily only a bodily Self at its core; because morality is only originally (but also permanently) found in bodily vulnerability, first above all, and foremost. The opprobrium Self is a Moral Self in its capacity to know the moral threat of opprobrium and only, of course, through bodily vulnerability; and thus is the Moral, Bodily self also necessarily rational in its need towards cognitive anticipation (of her own conduct) and the availing of logic versus the superior numerical force of number that is the group.
-Physio- titillation/ Physio-moral titillation: is a physiological morality of utlimately opprobrium-based, bodily vulnerablity and terror—and thus produces in the subject a powerfully invigorated but-intellectually-numbing state of hightened alertness and alram; that because it is invigorating to such a degree, ends up becoming of a from opiate (with almost chemical properities and effect on the human organism!)
–Dairy Queen Anthropology
–Animal Laborans Anthropology
-Priority of Physiology/Supremacy of Physiology
-Force of Physiological Immobilization of Agrarian-based Anthropology
-Semiotic Expanse
-Semiotic Lift-Off/Semiotic Uprising (Historically)
-The Big Systemic
–AT&T Anthropology
–Crucifixion Anthropology
-Dance Model Anthropology
-Nirvana Anthropology
-Corporeal Semiotics
-Narrative Semiotics
-Conceptual Semiotics
-The Physiologically Conceptual
-Inference Physiology/ A Physiology of Inference
-Physiologically Totemic and Cultural Virituality
–Social, Cultural Individuality versus a Bodily Moral (bodily vulnerable) Self
–Percpetion of depth is also impostion of depth on the physiologically intolerable flatness of experience;
-Physiology itself can be a form of invigorated substance.
–The Physiologically Totemic becomes thus the union of the conceptual and physio-corporeal: for the realm of the conceptual is of course physiologically totemic for the individual and thus makes necessary a physiological understanding of rationality itself.
-Inevitable from this one has no choice but to begin to posit a virtual character to culture itself, because a very big realm of physiological experience need not be physically real. (Is, for example morality physically real? Not necessarily, but it is always—unfailingly—physiologically real!)
– Physio-totemic quality of the others in the physiologically rational mind of the individual…[element of a cultural virituality]
________________________________
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Covert physiological experience
Hollow Man concept/Conceptualization
The Napoleonic self (of consumer anthropology)
-physiologically extrinsic self [versus]
-self of higher semiotic agency
-The physiologically predatory and self-serving self
-[is]a physiologically irresponsible self;
-The Fugitive Self
-Different degrees of anthropological dependence of self
Physiological shadows
-of self;
-of culture itself.
The semiotic mediation of physiological experience
–by culture (is the structure of anthropology and human groups, through biological force of opprobrium)
–by individuals (is the “cryptic-but-real” motor of anthropology; that is both culture’s impulse and a threat to it—and off which does the culturally structural permanently define itself, as finally a form of structural invigoration)
–Inter-physiological dependence because physiology is a physical (and temporal) reaction to something else. Thus that which is to be considered systemic in regards to the structurally anthropological, would in effect be based on just this in its very entity; and the quality of the systemic becomes this inter-dependence, through time.
–Physiologically relevant and binding specifically in regards to opprobrium, and structural-semiotic force (of the group) over opprobrium aspect of human biology, and human group experience as dictate over—and definition of—the culturally specific nature of individuality itself.
–Anthropological Complacency feeds on itself, making disruptions to it all the more traumatic for more anthropologically dependent individuals (for all individuality per se and to some degree)
Individual physiological projection (towards semiotic and opprobrium-driven idealizations) [IS]
Anthropological subjection and order
Reversed “peeping tom” and Panopticon mechanism (of agricultural-based anthropology and its functional use of opprobrium in individual DNA and perception)
Exiled Man Anthropology [and] Anthropological removal of physiologically primary self (is the physiologically extrinsic, opprobrium-driven self) And thus is Cain’s exile really in the ideas you live in and to some extent away from your more primary physiological nature, otherwise there is no possibility of the social. And we all know that Cain founded cities to the East of Eden, and so never really went anywhere, naturally. Exiled Man Anthropology is Crucifixion Anthropology is Anthropological Removal of Physiologically Primary Self is the Physiologically Extrinsic Self, or, Physio-Semiotic Anthropological Self.
2) Exiled Man Anthropology IS Crucifixtion Anthropology
Christ is—additionally—the recasting of a Cain narrative, but that is more grammatically complex in that the object of Cain’s (our) violence is the co-structural center of the story of the body in Christ—as a holy subject and Redeemer who is also the bodily object of slaughter; as spectacle that becomes physiologically semiotic, through the victim’s blood and mangled body as sign and image, but forever outstreched towards the perciever’s own heart of violence: [Velazquez’s Christ]
Culturally-posited physiological rationality of the semiotic [versus] Broader and unmediated physiological experience (is a source of anthropological invigoration for individuals, for finally the culturally structural itself.)
A cultural beyond (is broader physiological experience)**********
The problem and circumstance of Anthropological immobilization of agriculture-based culture (against the hunter nature of Orion Man in our physiology and vital drive for expanse.)
Physiological Transit is movement in sedentary contexts, and so thus is usually NOT physical, rather necessarily semiotic and through the physiologically semiotic.
3) Glossary Games and Exercises in terminology
- What is the difference between Dairy Queen Anthropology [AND] Animal Laborans Anthropology?
–DQ stresses a sweetness of complacency, despite the physiological impetus of projection as form of movement (without really going anywhere that is the nature of agrarian immobilization from the standpoint of human physiological experience). And so the very stability of agrarian anthropology is in fact in physiological impetus of projection as a personal being strictly in the present but permanently in regards to the future; and that thus becomes of form of suspended moving animation towards the effective possibility of collective life and organization—a fantastic achievement of material wellbeing, and the somewhat illusory development of a realm of semiotic expanse (cultural semiotics and conceptual adventures not always actually understood as such by people, chiefly due to ambivalence of semiotic experience that is also physiological); all of which becomes something of waiting mode against the biological clock of each individual that is the process of aging she is naturally subject to…AL is only the emphasis on physiological projection as movement (work) and the opprobrium-based understanding of deserving of merit and the profiting personally from it (DQ)
-Thus entertainment becomes a characteristic of DQ/AL, as a physiological necessity of invigoration due to structural circumstances of agrarian anthropological immobilization and the still-today-underlying-nature of physiological man as Orion the hunter. Clearly then, the conceptual-physiological circumstances of money—and crucially its abstract quality—allow for a parallel virtuality of the abstract, to which people gleefully subject their physiological being in our very own aspirations albeit structurally contained (in the physiological and crucially, in the conceptual); which naturally pushes us into the need of a fantasy physiological realm of invigorated quest of inference and discovery (in its highest, more refined mode), or as just an additional physiological exercising of the self, very often beyond the mundane moral constraints of the real and physiologically binding circumstances of the social (because entertainment semiotics is physiologically real, but not physically; hence not subject to the normal rigors of opprobrium in a socially real way)—because always is the individual vulnerable to the structural circumstances of being of a physiological mettle that is permanently ill-suited to the agrarian mode of anthropological existence, through time; and so because the individual truly needs other forms of physiological invigoration, structural systemic integrity of living context also requires that it be provided sine qua non.
- Exiled Man Anthropology [and] Anthropological removal of physiologically primary self is the physiologically extrinsic, opprobrium-driven self. And thus is Cain’s exile really in the ideas we live in and to some extent away from our more primary physiological nature, otherwise there is no possibility of the social. And we all know that Cain founded cities to the East of Eden, and so never really went anywhere, naturally.
3.What is this that is The Big Systemic?
When as a supermarket shopper who goes to great lengths and effort to find food items on sale and at only a temporary discount price (that frequently and prior to entering the establishment you are not expecting at all) through long aisles and mental scenarios of 3 for 5 calculations and comparisons of actual volume price regarding sale price versus the normal price; and on sale items versus non-sale competing brands; and as this super market shopper you become in a physiology of rational quest, calculation and inference, The Big Systemic appears when, at the final check out moment (after additionally waiting for your fellow shoppers to pay for their own items) you find out that you had mistakenly perceived items on sale that were not actually on sale; through really no fault of your own, but because in your physiological intensity of quest, calculation and inference, you misread, misinterpreted—or misunderstood—the price labels in regards to the items said labels were actually making reference to;
And The Big Systemic is what is before you in the physiological build-up and expense that has just been your shopping experience, as you stand before the cashier or store attendant in that final check out moment, and additionally in your finally knowing that the logic that had motivated you is false; and the contemplation of The Big Systemic—if you should in fact care to see it—begins in the very moment, in that situation, in which you decide you don’t give a damn about going back and re-selecting your food items:
The Big Systemic thus becomes only for you something like a physiological inconvenience, that when you look at it from the standpoint of the hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of store shoppers, chain-wide, and in all the companies stores—is in fact the business administration vision of economic planning and management, through time.
And because for the individual, this proposed physiological experience that is your shopping experience (that is actually fun, in a certain way), could only ever be understood as simply that: an inconvenience; but that in regards to hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of other individuals, becomes significantly more valid as a moral dilemma, in at least your own understanding.
Because The Big Systemic is not you—is not really about you as an individual—but rather is naturally a bigger system you end up forming part of, and that is unquestionably based on the situational discrepancy that is your physiological experience versus a structural logic as strategy as a rational tool and instrument of the utilization of individual physiological experience (but that is not, at least initially, physiological in itself).
And so an inconvenience that is actually fun (in the sense of an invigorated activity) depends crucially on its being an activity of a certain physiologically rational intensity as a quite serious behavioral ploy towards business viability;
That, of course as a system, gives jobs to people, creates wealth and contributes directly to a possible American socio-economic effervescence of basically finance, ultimately…
So how are you going to really complain, anyway?
- AT&T Anthropology
No longer an act of consumption as choice, rather creation of contexts in which all physiological options of the individual are set to, and in exchange for a price. This obviously can only really take place in the Physiologically Semiotic (or virtual reality), because individual freedom of physical movement, is of course, something considered part and parcel exclusively of individuality.
4)NOTEBOOK5 Triangles
Physical / Physiological (Time)
Inconvenience / Discomfort (Physiology)
Semiotic / The Physiological (The Anthropologically Structural)
Semiotic / The Physiological (Biology of Opprobrium)
Semiotic / The physiological (Opprobrium Rationality)
Semiotic / The Physiological (The Culturally Rational)
Semiotic / The Physiological (Time, Money; Collective Physiological Aggregate)
Physio-Semiotic / Opprobrium-Driven Cultural Rationality (Opprobrium-Self)
Physio-Semiotic / Opprobrium-Driven Cultural Rationality (Physio-Extrinsic Self)
Physio-Semiotic / Opprobrium-Driven Cultural Rationality (Technical Agency Over Aggregate)
Physio-Semiotic/Opprobrium-Driven Cultural Rationality (Bodily Self)
Physio-Semiotic/Bodily Self (Rationality, Logic)
Physio-Semiotic/Bodily Self (Morality)
Physio-Semiotic/Bodily Morality (Subject-Object Construct)
Physio-Semiotic/Bodily Morality (Culturally-Posited Morality)
5) Decorum Rationality/ Opprobrium-Driven, Bodily Rationality
The one defines itself against the other; But the former still cryptically requires that it be permanently challenged by exactly that which it seeks to subject; Biological Opprobrium is present in both, as an opprobrium self that is later a Semiotic and Physiologically Extrinsic Self—as ideally a mutual limiting of each one by the other—and so the distortion of cultural systems can take place exactly in regards to this equilibrium.
There is no physiology without Semiotics, after agriculture; there is no semiotics without opprobrium (the reason why making the semiotic and culturally rational one’s own is so important to the individual); Opprobrium is biological and thus makes portions of the semiotic physiologically relevant, physiologically binding for the individual.
How opprobrium in the individual becomes the Physio-Semiotic, is the Cultural or Anthropologically Structural, in regards to specific cultural, geographic (hence originally body-based) experience. But posited, cultural rationality (that becomes simply the Physio-Semiotic and Anthropologically Structural) always and at its core must be as and in a permanent tension against the deeper Opprobrium-rational self at the core of individual, bodily experience; and it is this force of bodily rationality of the individual who, in the semiotic as narrative may be understood as banished (a Cain narrative of exile), but that really must structurally remain albeit cryptically at the center of the culturally systemic and structural, for a physio-semiotic positing of what we are that is how we are to live as what we know ourselves to be takes place, in civilized contexts—against the silent partner of the core opprobrium, bodily-Self;
Whom they might very well say was exiled long ago, when the truth is, however, culture may only just say that: because culture couldn’t be what it is without this silent partner that is the deeper you.
And you aren’t supposed to believe everything you hear, anyway.
6) Anthropology’s Problem of the Individual’s Bodily Self [28jun16]
Is resolved (at least on this point) by exiling the physiologically primary, bodily individual in the semiotic; while at the same time keeping her at the cryptic and real structural center of everything.
-The Semiotic Self is necessarily and to some degree a physiologically extrinsic self;
-The Opprobrium Self is a bodily moral-rational self, once it is forced from the zoomorphic into her own bodily awareness and regard as of external, social reality always in the others; and because contemplating what I am not, is the first physio-sensory step towards knowing what I am.
-While the Semiotic Self naturally contains also an Opprobrium Self, what is physiologically relevant and binding for the Semiotic Self becomes a more superficial and culturally dependent mechanism of the opprobic; and thus the Semiotic Self must also vie (permanently) with a deeper, true opprobrium bodily self that in fact has not really gone anywhere; and that in regards to the possible loss of semiotic impetus of the culturally structural re-emerges on dime and in a heartbeat, so to speak.
–Physio-rational Imposition (that is effectively the force of individual semiotic /symbolic creation, and thus not that of the culturally structural) would seem to be more of the realm of a deeper opprobrium self and in the circumstances of necessity; that thus draws on the semiotic, but truly imposes as of the physiologically rational force probably more akin to deeper levels of the opprobrium self; Because the opprobrium-driven, bodily self is ultimately a fierce and shrewdly rational self, before and prior to the physiologically semiotic.
-The Opprobrium Self additionally is a fiercely moral self as of individual corporeal experience versus the group; and so all of us in our own opprobrium selves are permanently biased towards the underdog; that is to say, in regards the social world we contemplate and the empathy we cannot help but physiologically profess in our perception of injustice, and especially towards the weaker or outnumbered individual—because such a situation is in fact our deeper, natural condition permanently as of our belonging to a group that, nevertheless, is a being as belonging that cannot ever be complete.
7) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)
The Opprobrium Self is a bodily moral-rational self, once it is forced from the zoomorphic into her own bodily awareness and regard as of external, social reality always in the others; and because contemplating what I am not, is the first physio-sensory step towards knowing what I am.
And may very well be the only step the individual actually takes as self, finally, in permanent tension with being in what it she is not; as negatively-defined and so a situational, positional sense of self with regards to the others. Because the core of opprobrium is zoomorphic and so inaccessible to the rational mind that is itself based-paradoxically and culturally-in fact on it; and it is as if the character of a story would then impossibly seek to address the author and the character’s creator. And opprobrium becomes the culturally structural enforcer of individuality itself, in our belonging to the group that can in fact never completely be; and opprobrium’s force is in fact in its inaccessibility by the individual, much in the way religion itself must posit its logical tenets on exactly that which can never be contradicted (nor empirically confirmed) so that it may, too, be permanently beyond the possibility of further physiologically rational imposition by individuals (although fortunately for culture itself, they are still going to try!)
Because historical religions are also a tale of spin-offs, and an evolution of physiologically-rational imposition by different –usually geographic specific groups–in regards to the same basic tenets and postulations of a specific, original creed.
Why is that?
_________________________
Inferences: individuality in its physio-rational nature is a permanent (astronomical) energy expense in physiological terms; and subjectivity is costly from a technical, systemic standpoint-and impossible in its natural condition, in the context of structural need to assign energy resources to other functions, such as the structurally systemic and collective preservation of the individual body itself.
8) NOTES 4JUL16
1)Opprobrium [DRIVES] semiotic assimilation [DETERMINES] collectively structural, physiological paradigms;
2)Physio-totemic process of the mind [BECOMES] opprobrium-based, moral positioning of the individual in regards to perceived mental and conceptual imagery.
3)Physiology [CAN ALSO] create semiotics [THROUGH] physio-rational imposition, if in fact necessity forces individuals actually towards symbolic (semiotic) creation, as postulations that can effectively be made in and on an abstract realm that cannot easily be contradicted…And so thus can people phsyio-rationally impose upon reality, because there is no reason, outside of logic itself, not to; and is thus really a resource on which to postulate rational (logical) affirmations that later serve towards further logical inferences, until they are effectively contradicted by experience itself…Physiologically real and rational—though also fictional, and as long as it is useful.
4) Does cultural provide space for people’s possibility of physio-rational impostion, given that culture itself is intrinsically and to some degree in its very defining of the semiotic so that individuals do not have to do it for themselves (and in regards to the structural, systemic problem this would imply an a ultimately frustratingly diffuse anthropology of multiple semiotic posits).
5) Definition, yes; but not brutal, total homogenization. But media phsyio-totemic can be an instrument of just this, and most destructively, as if individuality were extracted from the human interior and made singularly individual in the social itself!
6)[Individual physio-totemic process] VERSUS [media physio-totemic]
7) Anthropology itself as physio-semiotic realm of the totemic VERSUS the real physical imposition of people over their circumstances?
9)Semiotic-controlled physiology, or;
Image-controlled physiology
The semiotic is physiological, in both a conceptual and imagery form; and the physiologically primary and corporal does in fact serve to transmit limited forms of situational meaning with regards to the individual’s experiencing of group situations (that is meaning in and only because of the group itself and when the conceptually semiotic is absent; that also implies a physical immediacy.)
Conceptual Semiotics and/or Narrative Semiotics VERSUS the physiologically primary and corporal:
In all cases it is the bodily individual in and before her own experiencing of the group that makes meaning possible-in all three cases.
Conceptual Semiotics is not necessarily the same as Narrative Semiotics, and both can indeed include imagery; and both to some extent overlap and perhaps form a contiuum of difference and similarity between one and the other.
The physiologically conceptual refers to conceptual semiotics that are cognitively managed by the individual in the form of images (and thus have physiological impact on the subject), even though originally it is language surely that creates the conceptual itself;
In all cases, additionally—in regards to image semiotics, and narrative-conceptual semiotics—the individual’s ability to make logical inferences (that is, the use of logic itself) is key and always present—in all semiotic contexts of whatever nature, and to some degree:
Because the physiologically rational-moral force of opprobrium in the individual and in regards to the anthropological, human group, becomes structurally the very same primitivism and its ramifications throughout the entirety of the possibility of human cognizance, and is the focal point itself of a question and perpetual logical dilemma of individuality:
I am them in my dependence on them (as in fact life itself); but they are not me in my own physiological, corporal being-what am I?(*)
(That sounds pretty rational to me!)
Perhaps this is the real physiological context, again and again of human being and group integration, and thus underlies—and in fact actually supports—just about everything and anything that might appear on the universally human horizon of individual but also collective experience and possibility.
_______________________
Tentative answer is thus I am guilt; because it is in my dependence on them that yet I cannot to annul and effectively annihilate me, that I must be certainly in a being of defiance—and very much to some degree also in transgression itself! Otherwise, how could I actually be me? And so guilt (and the physio-rational games perhaps the individual plays with it) is my way of playing the middle, of being me but still belonging; and guilt (and its biology of opprobrium) limits me, while at the same time invigorates my sense of self because in my physiologically-rational experiencing of limitation is effectively my very self-definition of at least what they are not! Guilt junkies: because in my guilt, I permanently know I am not you,
Hijos de la gran putaaaaaaa
Tentative answer 2) is not what I am, rather where; that is out in the cold so to speak—that is the real center of the cultural itself, and against which the culturally structural musters all the warmth of embrace it can; and to which the individual will thus permanently seek to reintegrate itself, and permanently simply because she never completely can! [18aug16]
10) 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 a 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)
11) What is Anthropology? (sedentary)
The conceptual, logically rational, control of human physiological experience, through time; Thus is culture the product of the human group’s will to imposition over—and accommodation of—the physiological, as primarily its limitation that is ultimately its very definition; what is essentially the physiologically semiotic. And as Jose Luis Alvarez one wrote (in an article that apparently is no longer publicly available in El País), the parallels between an elite methodology of business administration and anthropology understood in pretty close to exactly this sense, are stark and unmistakably clear.
12) Aspects of Anthropology
Animal Laborans Anthropology
Exiled Man Anthropology
Crucifixion Anthropology
Nirvana Anthropology
Physio-Circumspect Anthropology
Physio-Extrinsic Empiricism
Hollow Man Anthropology
Dairy Queen Anthropology
Dance Model Anthropology is Animated Suspension Anthropology
The Collective Physio-Structural Consequences of Genetic Variation
AT&T Anthropology
Decorum Anthropology (versus (*))…Bodily-Balanced Anthropology
13) Glossary Notes Again
Decorum Rationality is not always rational because, as a form of decorum, it posits itself against primary physiology.
Exiled Man Anthropology thus requires a Decorum Rationality as foundation of cultural experience (that one is, but which one can also naturally defy—that the culturally structural actually requires that people live in some degree of defiance of, and towards a necessary systemically structural invigoration; additionally, morality is also and at its core something that works against decorum rationality (and hence is a source of structural invigoration) because morality is ultimately because of bodily experience and the physical vulnerability this implies—that is, of course, the foundation of biological opprobrium (that only physical experience can provide; and that only people as members of groups but who live in singular physical bodies actually need). And so bodily vulnerability is an individual reality, permanently and often against the culturally-posited rational and semiotic (and so becomes in itself an anthropologically structural resource of invigoration).
The Physiologically Extrinsic Self is thus the self of Exiled Man Anthropology (or Crucifixion Anthropology and that in all three cases is a culturally achieved exile of the bodily and physiologically uncouth.) And so bodily vulnerability is functionally ambivalent, in that opprobrium does indeed solidify human groups towards a physiological, moral and conceptually rational standardization—while at the same time priming individuals in their very physiological entity towards a structurally necessary individual possibility of defiance: because anthropological cornerstone is in fact the singular, bodily individual albeit cryptically and very much behind the back of semiotic narrative and its cultural logic.
14) Social, Cultural Individuality versus a Bodily Moral (bodily vulnerable) Self
The opprobrium-based, physiologically extrinsic definition of individuality in the culturally-posited rational, is a group and culturally-produced mode of self, and thus is inexorably always to some degree against a deeper reality of the bodily vulnerable aspect of self; that is, of course, the realm of individual physiological entity that interacts opprobically with the rational posits of meaning the group imposes. But in its physiological force, opprobrium is also rationally blind and opaque, given that the whole point of opprobrium from the standpoint of the group is the unmediated, blind physiological response of individuals—that only as a form of physiological dread seeks safety in its own rational arrogation of the group’s posits, that becomes thus a form of human cultural rationality that is however physiologically unaware of the deeper origin of that rationally (extrinsically, its own working mode of cultural group rationality.)
The Bodily Moral (bodily vulnerable self) is thus the deeper sub-cultural self of the individual that is exactly what the culturally-posited rational ends up commandeering; but even in regards to this deeper mode of bodily vulnerability (hence also of the moral in its foundation and very possibility) the extrinsic characteristic of human experience is also present in, for example, the human sensory mode of relating to reality that produces a primary sense of self really only in the subject’s confirmation of what perception allows her to know she is not; that is to say, neither at the sub-cultural and bodily can the individual know her own self in her own rational awareness, but rather only what she perceives she is not and in her physiological reaction to stimulus (in itself a form of only extrinsic identity and being.) And a Hollow Man mode of human experience in the physiological becomes surely the greatest motivation as human drive towards meaning, desperately and obsessively constant, especially after agriculture and a then novel context of not being able to simply be in just one’s own physiology. And so it would seem a state of empty forlornness precisely in man’s only limited rational awareness—for he is trapped in fact in his physiology—is key to explaining our mode of anthropological existence in our biology up until agriculture, and in the physiologically semiotic nature of our history afterwards.
15) Anthropological Mechanisms of the Physiologically-Extrinsic
-Ancient Greek and Homeric physio-semiotic relationship with divinities
-Exiled-Man Narrative of Cain
-Christian Sacrifice Anthropology
-Nirvana Anthropology
-Physiologically Extrinsic Consequences of Empiricism
-Anthropological Consequences of physioloigcally circumspect Individuals:
Ends up becoming a similar mode of the physiologically extrinsic individual who sees the interest of others as one’s own personal power of imposition (in the regard for and service of those interests.) It is at least a personal will to live outside and beyond one’s own physiological awareness and sense of self. But can a systemic order actually take hold if everybody is physiologically and physio-rationally circumspect? Not everybody is circumspect in the sense here described, nor perhaps could everybody ever be; but of course nobody is always physiologically circumspect all the time, principally because higher forms of physio-rational, physio-semiotic self-control is simply an effort expended and thus cannot ever be permanently exerted…
___________________
All modes of the physiologically extrinsic are prone to distortion in the never permanently resolved problem of getting too extrinsically removed from the bodily self—which has, in all cases, the consequences of impeding empathy in regards to other bodily individuals (for if one ends up not physiologically knowing one’s own bodily vulnerability, one can hardly have any serious regard for the bodily vulnerability of others.)
Decorum Anthropology (versus ?)…Bodily-Balanced Anthropology
The physiological and corporeal self versus the power self
16) Semiotic-controlled physiology, or just Image-controlled physiology
17) El hecho irracional del hombre es más bien las circunstancias fisiológicas humanas.
Physiological Man 