6. Human Groups


1) A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

2) Genetic Variation

3) Human Groups Versus The Bodily Individual in Four Points

4) Genetic Variation in Human Groups (2)

5)Exiled Man Anthropology Or Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology


7) Individuality begins in the human group. Explain:

8)Perceive and So Shall You Be: The Force and Violence of Human Perception

9) The Apocalypse Man in You

10) Of Human Violence Of Human Physiological Bondage

11)Semiotic Function Semiotic City of Christ

12) Science  Religion Physio-Semiotics (and Physiological Milieu)

13)Hazañas humanas de superación biológica y cultural

14) Cariz fisiológica de la experiencia humana y social[15aug16]

15) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida

16) The Culturally Rational versus Physiological Freedom versus AT&T Anthropology


1)A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Man_and_Immoral_Society (1932)

From the standpoint of opprobrium, explain why the logic contained in the title of the book would almost inevitably always be true; specifically, what situational circumstance of individuality (from the standpoint of opprobrium) insures this?


A social need of self is directly produced as of the zoomorphic circumstances of opprobrium (as biological feature of human beings, and probably similarly in regards to all mammals, birds, fish and possibly insects); because a sense of self as of the contemplation of especially social reality in terms of fear and the consequences of one’s being rejected, ostracized, expelled—or murdered by the very human group one is intensely, biologically dependent on, is of course also the logical implication and confirmation of self, as at least perceiver who, additionally, must foresee and eventually anticipate the consequences of her own behavior. This eventual need of social foresight regarding one’s own behavior is necessarily the seed of what we understand as morality, and perhaps as well, a very important component of rationality itself, in regards at least to human beings who take the herd concept far above and beyond the point of any other living species on the planet. And it is certainly a form of biological force of urgency towards the need and development of a rational self in and against the group, and given that only individual experience is corporeal, bodily experience.


Thus the problem of anthropology as individual, bodily experience but paradoxically configured as of a group becomes the very structural center of anthropology that, in the physiologically immediate circumstances of the inter-personal realm of group life through time physiologically (and already thus morally in a physical sense) begins to define the parameters of the group, its structure, and thus imposes a physiological appropriateness on different individuals in regards to what becomes the vital purpose of the group itself, towards its perseverance and ultimate, group survival.


Because in pre-agricultural contexts, survival is quite clearly in the group itself sine qua non; and in the biology originally of human beings, as well that becomes, of course, the foundation of biological opprobrium that is initially—but also logically—a priority of the group over individuals.


So, seemingly individuality would thus become a problem, and even a threat to group viability, and in a certain, technical sense—it is; but a problem as really an inexorable circumstances of bodily experience only individuals live in, and in its quality of the logically inexorable, is solved by making it the true, underlying—cryptic—cornerstone of the structurally collective, simply because individually resilient members of a group (and quite naturally at times against the group) ultimately make for more resilient groups. Thus the accommodation of the force of individuality becomes a commandeering of it by the anthropological group and, eventually, culture; because inexorably only individuals live physiologically corporeal experience.


And so the morality of individuality is thus clear from the very beginning as the numerically inferior underdog, who lives permanently in a paradoxical, Catch-22 context of needing biologically to belong to the group, while being permanently prevented from ever completely belonging because of the corporeally singular experience of the body:


Thus even for the individual, can the corporeal become a problem as indeed permanent obstacle towards total, group integration; and so for the individual, corporeal-based individuality is permanently a form of burden.


Naturally, as of agriculture and definitively sedentary experience of the group itself, culture’s ability to mediate individual experience through the semiotic, becomes key in regards to a new mode of anthropological functionality, that is naturally (intrinsically) a distancing of individuals more and more from physical and physiologically corporeal experience through the ideas a human biology of opprobrium makes physiologically relevant, and physiologically binding for the individual; and situationally these ideas are simply the notions the numerically superior force of the group hold as real, of whatever nature and regardless of said notions actually being real or not—as long as they are anthropologically effective.


Situationally is this thus a geometry of opprobrium of a relative, situational nature, and that of course changes as the notions of the group are modified, or in regards to an altogether new group the individual may, circumstantially, need to integrate with.


Because even immorality is a still conceptually within the scope of the moral, that becomes the structural hotspot of individuality, after sedentary experience in which physiology can no longer just physically be the way it could in pre-agricultural (pre-sedentary contexts) and only physiologically held in check by a body logic of the group; as of agriculture it becomes a physiology of moral dilemma itself that substitutes the physiological being of pre-agricultural human history. And so individuality becomes a structural requirement, if one is to belong to agricultural-based, human groups in which moral dilemma as tension is the primary, living source of simply invigoration, the anthropologically structural, however, cannot do without.


And the individual’s function is that of living in moral tension towards really structural viability itself, given that the nature of human physiology is still that of pre-sedentary human groups, for how can human biology evolve through a mechanism of human natural selection, in highly refined, dynamic contexts of collective, physiologically-structured human groups?


The answer is, it can’t; not as of certainly agriculture. And in the historical immediacy just previous to it, only cultural and group relevant biological evolution (as process of natural selection) could have taken place, and for a little while longer; because agriculture definitively halts human biological evolution in that it no longer allows for the force of human, natural selection.


But if only individual experience is truly physical experience, who really are the others whom the individual physio-rationally toils with and under, permanently as the human group of individual dependence? Because every individual you actually talk to, is an individual just like you—and whom, if you talk long enough to him or her, you know is in some sense not one of them, of the others; but rather is this individual before you and in his or her physicality you know to be very much like yourself?


Because the circumstances of opprobrium are crucially physiological, not really rational, although you can intellectually apprehend a conceptual understanding that, however, is not comparable to the direct physiological force of biological opprobrium—because opprobrium is the cause of the individual’s need to be in and towards the rational, but is intrinsically irrational (zoomorphic) in itself.


And so always is the group one is dependent on a figment of physiological experience, that necessarily only just verges on the rational, but that is not rational itself. Because the demanding nature of pre-agricultural, pre-sedentary group experience, demanded also a direct command over human, physiological response of the individual; and originally through natural selection, the biology of opprobrium and the physiological mode of being it dictates, is simply our biology to this day.


And thus from a strictly structural standpoint, individuality is guilt, remorse, fear and dread—and perhaps also inevitably empathy in regards to the plight of others one knows so well as of one’s own experience of self as the underdog that is intrinsically (in its very structural circumstances) individuality;


But from the standpoint of singular, corporeal experience, individuality is also a criterion of the bodily self versus the group; and so becomes fear and dread—jealsoy, envy and hatred—but is also a sense of fairness, and fear of excessive brutality of the group against the individual (because individuality is the very context of being an underdog), and an acute sense of justice and equanimity, in the physio-biological experience of individuality always and permanently at the mercy of the group; and to the group is also individuality an appeal for order in fact through justice;


And, of course, defiance that is also at times the cold and calculating moving against the group to one’s own advantage through rational acumen, for how else can advantage be gained over the numerically superior force of number of the group?


And individuality is also thus at times the need to hide, and in fact deceive, as a protecting of what is individually intimate against the anticipated fear of the consequences of the group’s taking offense—and thus its rejection of you.


But the good news is that, in all the turmoil of being of the self, in the commandeering of your physiological response by the collectively structural, and thus the individual’s need rationally, strategically to protect herself, it is culture itself that depends crucially—and waits thus expectantly—for individuality to challenge it, though lady culture in her silence and perhaps enigmatic and subtle smile, says nothing in this sense,


Because the burden is naturally always on you to actually be you;


That is in fact how she really prefers it, and despite perhaps the individual’s initial understanding of just prohibition; because she is not really about prohibiting—structural viability is in cryptically accommodating that which inexorably is, and even if she doesn’t make this explicit; she can’t, because you are supposed to, finally, not so much in your acts and words, but rather more likely, attitude.


It is then in this sense that exactly what you are in becoming you, as thus a response to the physio-semiotic constriction through the oprobric that is the culturally-posited rational itself, still in some way belongs very much to her.


That is to say, you could not be the you you are if not for culture, and specifically the human group you depend on that effectively makes you what you are, and very much in physiologically rational counter-response to it.


And so then does your defiance as self-affirmation also in this sense belong to her.



Genetic Variation is a form of natural difference perhaps also towards simply a form of intrinsic, group invigoration—as ultimately a structural elasticity as group resilience; that could then perhaps explain the ultimate meaningless and defective quality of genetic variation in regards to human beings—given that moral dilemma itself, after agriculture, would seem to override any other form of strictly biological difference in regards specifically to group intrinsic mechanism of invigoration. (Page wonders about the possible reason for genetic variation and its apparent residual quality from an evolutionary standpoint in regards to human populations; because ultimately being as a self is permanent being in difference and against the natural, intrinsic pull of the group itself over individuals, to the point that biological differences of genetic variation lose their purpose and have effectively been substituted.) [INNER GROUP COHESION IN PHYSIOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT AND STRIFE]




2)Genetic Variation

            Intra-group difference [BECOMES] intra-group division and tension

                        [BECAUSE OF] individual physiological nature


Division helps to engage physiological nature of individuals; engaged physiology is an internal (group intrinsic) form of stability. And so definition of physiology is an engaging of it, and its very invigoration; and thus becomes an elasticity of group structure in the possibility of physiological invigoration of different individuals that additionally, will seek further forms of invigoration and definition externally and in regards to inter-group differences (that is, of course, also an opportunity of the group’s own definition through and against other groups).


Thus once again does the structural accommodate individual physiology in the contextual invigoration and engagement of it; as if all anthropological groups universally can only be groups if individual physiology is in some way subordinated to the group itself, in at least its very invigoration as ultimately the only real possibility of group stability. Because non-engaged physiology is more destructive in its unpredictability, and thus is itself a threat intra-group dynamics counters by effectively providing a context of division, that is invigoration, that is thus finally a consolidation of the group itself.



3) Human Groups Versus The Bodily Individual in Four Points

  1. Physical and Physiological Core of The Individual

Zoomorphic Bodily Vulnerability g Biological Opprobrium g

Morality based on Bodily Vulnerability g Rationality Based on Bodily Vulnerability g

Genetic Impulse to Belong, but Impossibly Beyond the singularly Physical + Physiological g

Situational Continuum with-for-against The Group g

Situational-Conceptual, Subject/Object Continuum g

Individual Possibility of Empathy in regards to Other Individuals.


AND CRUCIALLY Capacity to perceive (especially visually) depth.



  1. Collectively Structural Side of Human Groups

-Biological Opprobrium and the Group

-Physiological Relevance of the Semiotic

-A Group-Posited Physio-Semiotics against the individually physiological

-Becomes functionally collective, opprobrium-based secondary physiology;

-But that cryptically defines itself off of and against deeper, real physiological core of the individual

-And so also cryptically (and in contradiction to the semiotic) reinforces remotely, indirectly individuality itself.


  1. Real But Cryptic Cornerstone of human Groups is Thus the Individual


  1. A Structural Stability Diachrony

Is the Individual’s effect of physiologically violent invigoration on the structural itself, as finally a suspended state of systemic, structural tension, through time. That becomes a structural relationship of mutually physiological dependence between bodily individuality, and the collectively opprobic virtuality of a culturally-determined and specific physio-semiotics.





4) Genetic Variation in Human Groups (2)

Allows for individuality as space against the physio-semiotic; that is also a source of physiological invigoration as difference, division and strife, which in effect reinforces difference and thus engagement in regards to physiological nature of human experience—that is thus a systemically centralized means of stability at the very structural center of the anthropological itself as individual experience; that is thus an immediate instrument of ultimately group stability, through similarly invigoration and physiological engagement—crucially because individuals survive as members of a group. But real group stability as the structural is itself only possible if individuals are physiologically invigorated mas non troppo and through mechanisms the culturally structural can ultimately adapt to and thereby benefit form—especially in the form of systemic and cryptic opposition to it, because this probably feels more invigorating and even if it is never explicitly—rationally—understood.



5)Exiled Man Anthropology


The Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology

That, in the exclusively bodily, thus accounts for the moral patrimony of really indiviudality itself—as the only way to begin to know the moral that is in your own physical, bodily vulnerablity; and biological opprobrium is about moral threat that is ultimatly physiologically experienced as physical, bodily threat; but structurally, it is the physical which human groups can never actually asimílate that effectively leaves the individual permanently out in the cold, so to speak, and that is in fact the very realm of moral possibility, in regards really to the anthropological itself.


And so the general and broadly stated rule of thumb is human groups have difficulty with morality because only individuals live in bodies; groups are a physiologically semiotic reality, but not physical. But groups can, of course, control the physical circumstances of bodily trangressors…


So are human grupos real?

The individual relates to other indiviudals, and thus seldom physically understands herself as part of a group; the group is however very real in physiological sense although not rationally. A case-in-point could be human aesthetic sensitivity to group-like formations of uniform objects (groups of elongated pine and cypress trees; rows and colums of chairs and desks; groupings of houses and buidings that permanently denote in the human observer’s perception a conceptualization of human presence and potential activity; an extension of rows and columns of automobiles awaiting shipment…); but while such images are physiologically sharp and poignant, they are effectively opague to rational and intellectual anaylisis, at least initially.


In evoltionary terms (both biological and thus also orginally social, between rival human groups) physiological experience would seem to have proved itself supreme, as the constant, underlying pillar to all posterior semiotic expanse; because the semiotic is also physiological, and thus the realm of real physiological expanse and transit for human beings after agriculture. Becuase as a constant, there was really no place else human physiological drive and impetus could expand into, except into the symbolic through language (while the physiologically rational force of art became auxiliar—and in some sense in opposition—to the culturally-posited rational itself.)


Because art services the deeper physiological nature of people and experience by circumventing the culturally-posited rational.


So it would seem the physiological nature of indiviudality relates totemically to the group more cognitively than actually in a physical sense, especially so after agriculture; thus is indiviudal moral dilemma a physiologically rational experiencing of  the group albeit through the anticipated aprehension of the consequences of one’s own behavior and the sense of bodily vulnerabilty this could potentially incurr.


And so bodily experience for the individual is—in a social sense (that is perahps ultimately the only sense of individuality) in regards to a deeper subconcious (subcultural) stratum of anthropological, group configuration—because of and in pitted opposition to a very much nebulous sense of physiological dread and loathing, chiefly in regards to the anticipated consequences of one’s own bodily behavoir (and even if only in words, it is still easily conceptualized as really an individual, bodily act with regards to another human being or human group.)


Thus in a strictly collective sense (as, again, perhaps ultimately the only sense) individuality could be conceptualized as simply the possibility of guilt, remorse and an underlying state of bodily vulnerablity and apprehension.


The only sense because the human, social universe begins for the individual at exaclty this point and at the earliest of ages in one’s physical-psychological development.


And, is there any other universe except the social, really?


All indiviudality is thus socially produced in the very contradiction as necessary group integration of the individual (towards individual safety that is the group’s survival); but as a singular human corporality that never can compeletely belong.


And that space between belonging to the group, and the physical impossibility of complete group integration, is you.


No wonder the whole thing propelled itself into the physiologically totemic and abstract.


And this particularly because physical human interaction directly with other physically real individuals, is often percieved ultimately as a form of relief from the physiologically moral and totemic tension the individual lives in (in her mind and as the better part of the physiologically rational itself.)


Because culture ultimately wants your physiology, but not really your body.


You have to take care of that.


(Because cryptically culture in this indirect way, needs you to be you!)





-Is not physical;

-But is physical rather in the physiological and the physiologically binding force of opprobrium biology.

-The human group of civilization is thus a figment of the physiological mind and cognizance of the individual;

-That is, however, rationally opaque and so not intellectually apparent (because the original human group of universal anthropology stakes its ultimate survival on the raw and ferocious physiological response of the individual, that only the physiological and non-rationally mediated could effectively make explosive.)

-But individuals are in fact physiologically and aesthetically sensitive to the group.

-Crucially important to this argument is the fact that physical experience itself (direct and face to face physio-situational, physiologically immediate human interaction among individuals) is a form of delightful relief precisely from the physiologically mental ardors of opprobrium and the physiologically totemic turmoil of the individual’s really group and collective configuration she is, however, rationally unaware of.

-And this becomes very probably the chief reason why culture is cryptic; because rationality is itself cryptic from the standpoint of only human physiological response and its violence, though from the standpoint of culturally-posited rationality, it is the body world of opprobrium that is in fact the cryptic, shadow realm of cultural experience.



Practicing with Ideal Models of Self

The great missionary, like the great artist, is able to convince some people of the truth of ideas they already half hold, but have been impeded by propaganda or restraints form adopting. Thus he liberates them to become what they have partly wanted to be all along, and so they move in the new direction not only without regrets but with joy. Francois de Sales was learning this lesson about the human heart…(Pg.142, The ‘ Peaceful Conversion’ of Chablais (Nef))


-How you believe you are seen is like an ideal of you up, so to speak, on a stage; that is opprobrium as bodily destruction at the hands of your peers only at a deeper physio-zoomorphic level, and so transformed (?) physio-totemically into almost a graphic experiencing of an ideal of yourself—in the mind’s eye and always in the body’s heart (that is, of course, the real force of opprobrium); and so naturally is the individual caught internally between both planes or realms, that is the ideal and very much extrinsically-wrought you (based on what you would yourself be in the eys of others and in regards to their approval or not) versus the body’s physiological turmoil as very much also resentment towards the power fear in this social sense has over the bodily self that is also you.


Vicarious Propositions of God towards a Better, Original Human Self And so in the ideal of god as a human projection of the Super Self (above and beyond specifically opprobrium) can man thus viscerally play at being a better—perhaps higher—self; in thus experiencing himself the impossible role of God, while interacting also as a totemic object of the same initial projection. And faith becomes historically a prototype of psychiatric therapy and exercise; a mechanism of physiologically moral transit and vicarious formation, towards a higher social being…



7) Individuality begins in the human group. Explain:

-Illusions are physiologically real. The physiologically real is probably more important in regards to human experience in many ways than reality itself. (?)

Genetic Variation is due to—or ends up being useful in regards to—the physiological nature of human experience as individuals dependent on human groups. As a form of food for the eyes and senses, physical and personality differences among individuals of the same group produce an effect of physiological engagement and delight that is probably hugely significant in regards to ultimate group cohesion that, because of the physiological nature of human experience, must also be an invigorated group cohesion.

-Art works very much like a code, as a signifier that usually very loosely references some form of meaning; and the meaning of art is the broader realm of non-mediated, human physiology—outside behind, and around the culturally-posited rational itself. And this is so in such a way that what may in fact be rationally opaque (for instance the zoomorphic nature of biological opprobrium) can still be aesthetically referenced in the biological mettle and sensitivity of the individual.

-A history of totemic exercise and growth—that is human history, as of agriculture. Explain:




8)Perceive and So Shall You Be: The Force and Violence of Human Perception

Sound-of-rain-on-your roof-mechanism of physiological conformity with physical limitation as definition, is also a form of higher physiological contemplation of what you are; that allows you to physiologically step outside yourself—given that you are the object of an external force of pressure and onslaught; and through that externality is the possibility of looking back at and down on your satisfied, physiological self; that is satisfied –because protected—because safe and sound, which the perception of external force only heightens, reinforces (through ultimately the physiological idea of bodily sanctuary, refuge, safety.) And it becomes a physiological use of the external that is finally a physiologically-conceptual force of comfort in the individual, very much along the lines of religion and the posting of rational logic onto exactly that which cannot be contradicted, as also a way for people (or cultural groups) to step outside themselves and thus acquire similarly an image of themselves through the eyes of the divinity as super self,  albeit above and beyond the rigors of the opprobic and physical limitation itself,


Towards a rough-cut and violently forged sense of ultimate bodily security and quotidian stability.


In regards to which eventually someone will come along and set down the logical, culturally-imposed precepts to its mediation (codification) by the group; which will become the conceptually semiotic side of all permanently future mechanisms of opprobrium-driven configuration of the group,


As long as the base and initial physiological illusion never loses its effect:


And how can it, if the logical foundation of the culturally-posited rational utilizes human, physical limitation in such a way as to permanently remove itself from the possibility of being contradicted?


But was this intentionally done through some kind of original cleverly crafted, human design?


Not at all; picture if you will a Jason Bourn fight scene in which two thoroughly trained men go at each another while seeking to avail themselves individually and against the other, of any object or spatial circumstance they might come across, and phsyio-rationally understand (almost instantaneously) the tactical use they can make of it, towards only the purpose and contingency of need to physically impose themselves on their rival.


And the violence of human perception is the human force of rational imposition, when it needs to be.


Tom Hanks on His Island in Cast Away (2000)

Is something of a case study of cultural man albeit outside of any culture whatsoever, that becomes a physiology of need that is portrayed finally as a physiology of logical inference towards the individual’s ability to physically survive, but ultimately in regards also to the ability to impose symbolic meaning on his circumstances,


And given that no one has previously done it for him.


And so his ability to do just this is powerfully enhanced when he finds (creates for himself) a way back into language, through his physiologically totemic relationship with Wilson, the volleyball;


That capacitates him to in fact recover other elements of the civilization he is originally a product of (like mathematics, for example) as further tools towards an above all rational imposition over his bodily circumstances, that is however ultimately of a logical, mental nature of essentially the mind.


And the violence of man is his violence, once again and back into the wilderness of pre-agricultural (pre-cultural) man, that could be understood narratively as Adam himself in the very contingency of violent need towards a violence of rational creation, in regards to anything he can avail himself of;


And in regards to human beings, this means precisely limitation itself the human subject turns to her favor in the rational license not fully knowing allows us:


For in regards to the non-apprehensible, we can say whatever we finally need to, as long as it is permanently non-apprehensible and thus forever beyond the possibility of being contradicted.


Because physiologically rational inference and imposition does not have to be right, as long as it works; that is to say, as long as the individual—eventually the greater cultural group—can successfully avail herself of it.




9)The Apocalypse Man in You

The reason for the cryptic foundation of culture, that thus allows for fantastically cohesive—yet invigorated—human groups by semiotically defining, and thus limiting primary, human physiology, is that human groups historically did not always survive, and so individuals also had to be of the fiercest mettle as also the imposer of meaning exactly when meaning was no longer available structurally from the group itself, which the individual is in fact capacitated—potentially and universally—to do.


And thus is the contingency of anthropology covered from both angles, that is the normal stability of human groups in the survival of the group, through time and over the generations—but not individuals (naturally); or in the event of the entire group’s demise, a single survivor in her core and primary physiological rationality (that group configuration always makes the cryptic center of its own edifice, anyway, by in fact defining and limiting, but not completely suppressing it) forces the individual to revert openly back to a warrior-builder physio-rationality that must create for itself and as an individual what the group can no longer impose—until a new group naturally arises.


Physiologically Real but not Physically Real

The irrational—or zoomorphic—and subconscious to which people nevertheless are aesthetically sensitive and receptive, becomes a physiologically relevant entity through biological opprobrium that is in and regards to the individual, the instrument of the group’s imposition as definition; and that is nevertheless initially opaque to rational thought; and so is to be understood as physiologically relevant, but rationally opaque.


Physical Experience is Not Diachronic because it’s sensory Experience

So Jorge Guillen’s poem (Más allá) is all our poetics in the daily renewed consciousness of bodily experience and knowing ourselves once again and day after day, in very probably the body’s initial perception of exactly that which we are not—that is the visual (and often aural) conformation of material reality, as well as the human world of a moving, interacting others.


And in seeing what I am not, I am…

And so human being is the experiencing permanently of a kind of bodily exile in regards to a material (and animal) world you know you are not—and to some degree, not really part of almost at all.


Thus is being finally a permanent state of limitation that not surprisingly (that is to say, logically) makes the real and human spirit one of overcoming and imposition, and this most fiercely and constantly so, as a physiological fact and circumstance of this that we are in our sensory being…


With regards then to the physiological possibilities of the semiotic, it is certainly no wonder at all human beings would push ferociously into it, historically, as simply a resource swiftly understood—or perceived and felt—as useful, if only one can conceptualize the real pressure that is the physical limitation of bodily experience.

And so as soon as man needed to, he began a much more intense construction of his own symbolic and semiotic cathedral as culturally conceptual universe, according to and at pace with the historical progression his linguistic capacities allowed for.


And that original need most intensely in an historical sense was the long and progressive advent of agriculture.


Because when you are actually physically sedentary and permanently settled in one place, you suddenly must bear the greatest of physiological pressure to actually be by moving and in movement, and to a degree hitherto never felt before:


And thus almost desperately does the individual need at that point to project her physiological self, rather than simply be physiologically—because the possibility of group cohesion as of agriculture is in the ideas of the group itself and the physiological relevance of those ideas for the individual’s ability to belong (through opprobrium.)


But “project” one’s physiology in regards to what, towards what end, goal or objective?

While it is certainly true that you ultimately decide, the availability of possible modes of social being as available—and appropriate—ideals and working models towards our own individual being as projection, are surely only available in that they are in fact appropriate—that is, culturally conceivable according to standard, semiotic culturally shared convictions of the group in regards to which the individual can choose—and surely make some form of customized and individually peculiar adaptation—but in no case can she actually invent social roles that are not at least socially conceivable and broadly understood by the group.


Supremacy, finally, of the physiological

Cultural change thus does take place when the culturally construed (opprobrium-configured) semiotic plane of the culturally-posited rational is no longer relevant in regards to actual and collective, physiological experience; that is physiological experience in its own impetus and vital autonomy that no longer relates successfully to the culturally semiotic and structural, and that begins logically to live in its own physiologically rational imposition of meaning, as is also universally inherent to human experience and its physiological substance.


But of course human, physiological experience and impetus is the deeper driving force of culture itself, below and behind the a culturally-posited logic of its own only culturally rational understanding of itself; and thus milder forms of non-violent social unrest and existential turmoil are historical forms of actually cultural opportunity, at the level of the anthropologically systemic, towards its regained and once again renewed synchronization with the living physiological projection of individuals.



And the meaning of life, after agriculture, is specifically in the fact the experience must have a purpose, if complex social structure is to exist in a working, vital cohesion of all its elements, through time; For how else can physically separate and distinct individuals actually be part of a single living, systemic entity? And individual purpose towards necessarily some degree of personal, ultimately physiological definition in regards to the nature of what one is in one’s doing as being, becomes the group’s instrument of effective individual standardization; and that as the structurally standardized, must seek out physiological opportunity of invigoration (in genetic variation itself and the stimulus—difference and strife—it becomes; and in regards to structurally auxiliary spaces of physiological exercise—the arts, sports, and sundry forms of culturally-defined physiological entertainment as really invigoration.)





10) Of Human Violence of Human Physiological Bondage

Is in imposition (that is perhaps the essence of physiological entity in the power to attain comfort); in the semiotic capacity of also physiological transit from one state of limitation, finally, to a new state of stimulus—and at least initially—until that too, grows stale, at which point can one move on once again from limitation into novelty, once again and successively; or one can simply go back again to the first and original point, that in the individual’s returning is physiological novelty to be once again had and experienced.


And the physiological is thus movement, is transition from the static to stimulus, in novelty itself; or as a perpetual back-and-forth, back-and-forth between alternating states of stimulus as relief from the physiologically novel that has inexorably gone stale, once again…


But man is also violence in his moral entity:

Because morality—perhaps meaning itself—is ultimately based on the individual’s physiological (and so not immediately rational) sense of bodily vulnerability that is the core biological element of Opprobrium, and in regards to the risk of being savagely dismembered by your fellow group members, because of the offense you caused; or the dread similarly of your being simply abandoned by them, also because you have fallen out of grace with them and their approval, and to the very real extent that you are yourself in their approval of you


And the problem of individuals who survive ultimately only as members of a group, but who are physically—corporeally—independent, makes morality also a very violent thing, and specifically in the underdog’s explosive force of moral outrage that is, even for us today, a physical ferociousness at the injustice done to the weak at the hands of not the strong, nor even necessarily the right—but just the numerically superior.


And it is the underdog who can avail herself of just herself, who aesthetically takes her place on the throne of the anthropologically sacred and functional,


As the cryptic—but real—monarch of the group, for she is the will towards meaning, finally, through the moral; and rational coherence is often her chief weapon of defense against and in fact over the group.


And who is the underdog?


The bodily moral individual in her bodily vulnerability that is the anthropologically structural possibility of you!



11)Semiotic Function Semiotic City of Christ

“Jesus Still Delivers Today”

In the Old Testament, God appointed some cities as cities of refuge where men are shielded against the wrath of men-slayers and remained secured until the death of the high priest but today, Jesus our high priest ever lives, therefore, there is no end to our security-Num.35:6/Rev. 1:18



Bishop David Oyedepo (Winners Chapel Int’l Lanham, MD)

Numbers 35:6

“Six of the towns you give the Levites will be cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee. In addition, give them forty-two other towns.


I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.



And so just as the figure of Christ is also an iconic representation of our murdering him (additionally to an imagery narrative of sacrifice, that is the Alpha and the Omega who is also subject and object), Oyedepo portarys human violence as also part of the indignity of our primary, bodily nature, from which we also need refuge that would be the very anthropological function of a Christian semiotics, that becomes ultimately a very much necessary extrinsic physiological defining of the individual; and given that your primary—physically core—nature is understood and codified as a burden, it is in fact from this that Christ releases you—that is the crucial part from a structurally anthropological standpoint (although to do this, death must be also codified as—not desirable, exaclty, but still a form of reward if you have lived in Christ.


And so the idea of sin within a Christian conceptual imagery as a living, aesthetic force of physiological control and definition, corresponds structurally, of course, to the problem of individual members of a human group killing other members of that same group—that is the central problem of human groups per se; and that as of agriculture is compounded by the circumstances of human experience as a physioloigcal mode of being that has been substituted by sedentary life which thus essentially must seek out physioloigcal opportunity towards its own structural invigoration—because it can no longer be physiologically in the way it was previous to agriculture;


In this sense, prior to agriculture there can be no art in the way we understand it; and generally, aesthetic experience is itself physiological opportunity, that in regards to nomadic, hunting-gather groups is of course not as necessary, given that such groups live physiologically and in contexts of close to constant movement.


Agrarian-based anthropology is not physiological in this way, and so must seek out and create physiological opportunity (that is culture, finally, as balance between group stability in basically sedentary contexts, and the servicing of the phsyiological demands of human experience; physiological experience and being that must be understood as not being able to evolve its way out of its evolutionarily original and primary configuration);


And semiotic expanse—as structurally the only space thus to advance in—becomes essentially a social creation and construct, in a new way of being in the physiologically conceptual itself; that because it is a permanent social act of being, it is in itself totemic, less physical and to a very great degree a figement of the physiological mind; that depends, additionally on the supression as much as possible of immediate, intra-group violence among individuals—most crucially because in stable, sedentary contexts the traumatic effects of interpersonal violence are all the more devastating.


Chiefly, because you are no longer you used to it—and you shouldn’t be!


Thank you Jesus!




12) Science  Religion Physio-Semiotics (and Physiological Milieu)


Science VERSUS the Unknown

Refuses to posit on to it (though sometimes it does, but not formally);

-Is in only what it knows, not what it doesn’t.

-Works against the unknown, to the extent that there is no unknown (and so is only what it knows, and only that which it can actually speak about (Wittgenstein, dixit));

-Is also what it can conjecture, hypothesizes; so ultimately can also be a form of reasoned—empirically-determined—conjecture and so methodical, rational imposition (very much along the lines of religious conceptual imposition)

-Becomes clearly a power mechanism also in a physiological sense.


Religion VERSUS the Unknown

-Posits on it (because it can; because a posit in regards to the unknown cannot be contradicted)

-Inevitably becomes a form of contextual stability that, however, enters into a form of contradiction with the nature of human physiological experience—in religion’s needing to in fact preserve the unknown!

-Thus it should be clear that cultural definition is human physiological contention, that, given the violence of human physiologically rational imposition (in regards originally to religion itself), can only be understood and universally as a violently wrought form of tentative balance; and violent above all in man’s physiologically rational nature.



  • Religion Posits Higher Omnipotent Self Exactly that which you would be if you could in fact overcome, go beyond the physical limitation that defines you; that is thus a super self. Individual and group relate totemically to conceptual entity they have posited, that is elastic and malleable precisely in regards to changing, collective circumstances. So within the limits of the collective and culturally-posited the individual is both contained (as a form of comfort as stability, and physiological complacency finally) while being free at the same time in the very physiological nature of experience and its perception; that becomes freedom of the corporally rational self within an also inevitable physiology of inference as natural patrimony of physical, bodily experience; that is, however, intensely curtailed and given that a basic and broader cultural meaning is already imposed on the individual whom thus is spared the task of physio-rationally imposing meaning herself on reality from scratch, but only limitedly and in a certain sense always only auxiliary to the nature of culturally specific, anthropological logic.
  • Science: Posits itself—tacitly—as invincible in its physically limited entity (and so does not renounce it); and lives physiologically against the unknown, in a permanent posture of rational aggression against it—that becomes physiological (necessarily in itself) also; and although the violence of science is its very rationality—and to the bitter, bitter end—it is itself a physiological mode of relating to reality, and so curiously similar on this point to the spiritual itself which is ultimately really about human physiology, through time, anyway).
  • Religion could be understood, finally, as a positing of a human ideal in the divine that human groups use physio-totemically towards an at least functional resolution of the problem of human groups and the individual; an ideal that becomes a permanent process of physiological, physio-totemic approximation towards a higher mode of group cohesion in progressively more complex social structure; and it is the anthropological stability such phsyio-semiotic mechanisms provide that universally allow for higher forms of rationally-posited, text-based cultural experience (and eventually in regards to Western experience, particularly the Italian Renaissance, and the conceptual possibility of science itself—paradoxically in origin as of a renewed delight with physical experience!)
  • Science, on the other hand, inexorably accelerates cultural change, in the form of technology that human physiology quickly adapts to; and that because of the nature of physiological experience, becomes itself a wild form of permanent invigoration of the anthropologically structural albeit in regards to a human physiology that is essentially and at its deepest core immutable, given that it is no longer open to the force of human natural selection (and so cannot obviously evolve.) And this circumstance—in the immutability of the nature of human experience that can thus only be invigorated through change, but never really altered in itself—becomes one among several other indications of a hollow man quality of experience, that to be effectively real and stable, must necessarily attach itself to higher ideals (that are ultimately of a spiritual nature and depth, even if they are not directly related to the superiorly divine); but that science in and of itself, has never effectively provided humanity. And one of the reasons for this is that science, like religion, also anthropologically removes and exiles the bodily (that science refers to as subjectivity); but science, however, does not cryptically reinforce individuality the way cultures (and so religious-based anthropological spaces) do, and cryptically—physio-aesthetically—against and in contradiction to their own culturally rational and semiotic posits—science is exactly what it says it is, although it ultimately does not understood the physiological aspect of its own entity. And that is historically a serious problem for everyone.
  • To the point that very often and typically, religion still persists to this day as the ultimate foundation of anthropological stability, as the underlying moral base to even science itself—and this very much outrageously; as if science were to be more of a comfort provider of technology and physiological engagement as the invigorated, structural stability it produces—and given that it cannot posit itself higher conceptual forms of meaning for people to live by and under, while at the same time disavowing (pretty much completely) any intellectual attempt to this effect as the serious positing of higher conceptual understandings, but that cannot be unequivocally proven.
  • What is Orange?






13)Hazañas humanas de superación biológica y cultural

1)Defenestración del canibalismo intragrupal y familiar;

2)Defenestración de en general la fuerza de selección natural intragrupal.

3)Capacitación técnica aprendida de la agricultura que nos aboca a estados sedentarios históricos progresivamente más afincados.

4) El despegue semiótico cultural que la agricultura permitió—que en verdad exigía, técnica y estructuralmente debido a naturaleza permanente fisiológica humana que dejó efectivamente de evolucionar.

5) El lenguaje humano finalmente escrito y la capacitación cultural de transmisión diacrónica de su propia esencia semiótica-y por tanto culturalmente también fisiológica-a través del tiempo más allá de una actualidad real, física según una geometría socio-situacional de oprobio (respecto la biología individual, los otros y las nociones conceptuales que a estos les definan); que originalmente del ADN humano (remontándose ciertamente hasta al inicio zoomorfa de la especie), el oprobio es asimismo vector socio-grupal de la esencia fisiológica-cultural y también conceptual a través del tiempo y más allá de la muerte física individual.

6) La forja lógica-cultural y conceptual de lo divino es asimismo una forma de mediación propuesta sobre las circunstancias crípticamente opróbicas del individuo frente al grupo, como verdadero estado y posibilidad de la gracia divina social y no solo respecto la capacidad individual de contención fisiológica de sí mismo ante las consecuencia temidas del comportamiento propio; sino que, como un super yo de proyección que está por encima de lo opróbico, las divinidades tienen un poder propuesto igualmente sobre la fuerza numérica de los grupos humanos; que es una forma una vez más de superación-de principio a fin humana-respecto la configuración base y subyacente de la mecánica feroz y bastante inmisericorde de los grupos humanos, y de cómo la individualidad universal y corpórea se relaciona con ellos a partir crucialmente de los contextos históricos ya sedentarios.



Y posiblemente, es también una de las inconvenientes de la espacio cultural entendido como arte, y cualquier clase de refinamiento estético, en el hecho de que remite al menos subliminalmente a una orden superior estructural de naturaleza viviente sí, pero claramente diacrónico, que no debe de sentar muy bien a la vitalidad corporal y también existencial nuestra; o esto desde luego no siempre y claramente para algunos, nunca jamás. Porque, claro, a todos nos sobrepasa individualmente.


Religion and Science: Can both be considered similarly in the same light; that is, as also forms of transcending what is essentially physical limitation and the physiological circumstance of sedentary experience (that in fact requires some form of transcending, given that human physiology is consolidated before agriculture and thus a product of a prior anthropological context.) And that as of sedentary experience, the only real form of invigorated movement is in the semiotic itself, that is also structurally determined by a new need to in fact live physiologically in the conceptual and semiotic—that thus makes the positing of a higher arbitrating power under which man can totemically govern himself, inevitable (in the case of religion); while science drives towards a similar objective, but through a different mode of relating to the unknown that no longer physio-rationally imposes on it, but rather seeks to counter it through a physiology of inference, and that in some way could be understood as a more primarily original physiological mode of being but only intellectually, rationally—in the abstract and theoretically semiotic; but that in many ways is a savagery of physio-rational inference, and thus equally physiological in its historical form as once again an alternative mode of physio-rational imposition, finally, towards the very same ultimate objectives as that of religion: a form of physiologically-invigorated comfort in rational understanding and meaning as human  imposition, through time. And so science understood in this way, inversely allows for the conceptualization of religion itself as also a similar form and mode of physiologically-rational, human imposition; but that in both cases is in fact ultimately the same force of physiological, rational imposition necessarily as of agriculture, that thus become different modes of response to the same circumstance of agriculture, and the contradiction that is a human physio-biology of movement in, however, fixed and sedentary contexts (that sees thus the logical posting of cultural and secondary proxy physiologies which only cryptically—and so seldom openly and rationally—service the deeper physical and physiological realties of human experience culture and its posited rationality, of course, must ignore and effectively deny.)




14) Cariz fisiológica de la experiencia humana y social[15aug16]

Structural need to live in need

Need as possibility of knowing vulnerability,

 And perhaps possibility to still suffer



At the core of opprobrium is bodily vulnerability; behind morality at its base is bodily vulnerability. Morality begins in individual, bodily vulnerability. And key aspect of group and social structure, as of bodily vulnerability, is in human perception itself and the individual who begins to know what she is in the especially visual confirmation of that which she is not—that becomes the logically natural context of the possibility of empathy itself, from the individual’s original sense of self as bodily vulnerability back onto the social, and particularly in regards to other physiologically immediate individuals. And so in the other is the self, known to its self in exactly what she is not that becomes the anticipated—feared—consequences of one’s own behavior:


And the need for physiologically conceptual ascent into the abstract and semiotic is thus structurally obvious—and structurally determined, given that after agriculture and sedentary experience, people can no longer be only what they intrinsically are in their physiology.


And so does the semiotically structural and its geometry of biological opprobrium, claim at its very center the individually physical and corporeal, that is bodily vulnerability of the individual in regards first and foremost to the group itself; and in the very individual essence of needing to need that becomes simultaneously the true force of cultural experience as also the reason why culture is culture.


But how then can need be satisfied without jeopardizing structural stability itself?


Individuality creates new needs through the nature of physiological experience itself, and it’s very essence of needing to need to be.


Culture is equilibrium in this sense; and the individually corporeal is the true—cryptic—center and foundation of the physiologically semiotic and collectively structural.


Because it would seem that only as of the bodily comes morality; rationality and perhaps the possibility of meaning at all. But in the anthropology of planet Earth, historically, only groups ultimately survive, over—and through individuality its self.


That is the paradox.






15) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida   [30aug16]

1.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 teléfono es una unidad atómica de un cuerpo-o sistema y red-más 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 sí 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 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 técnica-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 medios 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.


  1. http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/31/culpables-y-responsables-de-oscar-sanchez-alonso-en-el-pais/

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 caliber

… 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.




16) 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 eventually 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 a 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 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, 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 and towards its 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, as thus a form in fact of anthropological context in itself—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, physio-semiotic dominance, as long as a 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.


Because de facto control and dominance over the minds—and thus the bodies—of the human, physiological medium must shirk any pretense whatsoever to legitimacy, or at least as a rational and reasoned exposé;


For ultimately cultural agency in this sense knows not even a real purpose, except for the physiological in its object, that is also its own physiological impetus;


And so, to the extent that it permanently, definitively avoids a rational understanding of its own entity, culture itself becomes very much only a form of physiological flight, through time.


Thus must we conclude that human collective and anthropological experience does not really need to mean anything at all, but rather ultimately founds itself on something closer to physiologically rational and semiotic pretext;


That then logically prompts the question as to what exactly is wrong with that?






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.