1. Physio-Semiotics


1)Conceptual Terms

2)Contrasted Physiological Anthropologies

3)”Is controlled by his social relations

4) “Trained Incapacity” derives form structural sources:


6)Physiological Drivers (as ultimately conceptualizations of just pretext)



9) Estrofa de Valle-Inclán y la supremacía fisiológica respecto la semiótica



12) Some Notes on the Physiologically Semiotic (excerpt)

13) Falta de limites es falta de definicion 

14) Inferences on/from Eco

15) La funcion subliminal del mito frente a la complacencia anthropologica

16) Cultrual Logics & Spengler’s Dilemma

17) Sant Jordi y los dragones Gustavo Martin Garzo

18) Dark Side of the Moon (1972-73) and the Phantom Side of Culture

19) Physio-Semiotic Contexts or Models (George Steiner A sus 88 años)


21) No sólo es la economía…, de Juan-José López Burniol en La Vanguardia

22) Mason Pro Shop Tennis Warriors:




26) (Is JC, DQ?) What JC is the response and answer to



27)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition



30)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability: The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs








Situational Arcane;

Reference to something beyond the spatial and sensorial immediate: a kind of intrigue to and behind the surface of the immediately perceivable itself; is thus a will towards some form of structural depth that are, for example,

-logo types in the individual’s perception and in (a very mundane) reference to the semiotic-conceptual; because the possibility of reference becomes in itself a form of movement against the force of immobilization of agrarian-based anthropology.

-personal memory associations with whatever objects, people or situations that may present themselves to perception;

-the culturally arcane itself that becomes a form of comfort in its rational possibility of at least some form of conceptual reference and partial comprehension, outside and additionally to the force of physiological projection that one’s bodily experience already takes place in.

-The notion simply of cause and effect (or a retracing from a effect back to a not immediately visible or understood cause) in regards to initially perceived sensorial experience and observation;

… And in the land of milk honey also an aggressively implemented semiotics of strategically established reference towards imposition over others (and not just commercially), when the semiotic is wielded afferently, back on to the individual and in conjunction with some form of opprobic force towards impingement on individual’s rational mind, sense of identity and social sense of self-key and intitially to posterior acts of consumer society integration (for example) in regards to structurally human circumstances of money;

-Can thus become physio-psychologically an illusory form of power and impostion from the standpoint of the individual’s will towards physio-rational imposition; but is initially not transcendental in regards external, social reality.

-Physiological underground of anthropological experience is exactly that which is not culturally mediated and so NOT part of the culturally-posited rational and semiotic; and so arises directly from and is permanently auxiliary to the odd-man-out nature of bodily individuality in-and to some extent situationally against-the human group the individual is dependent on. The notion of a cultural mainstream also becomes relevant in regards to the culturally-posited rational itself, in that there are subgroups of one form or another of social agency that very well may understand the individual’s vulnerability to her very own psycho-physiology of dependence on the group-and so an individuality that thus can be strategically approached on exactly this point of vulnerability (in the form of behaviorist tactics of persuasion and conditioning) in regards to which the individual is thoroughly, utterly oblivious.

-The phsyio-extrinisc, semiotic self-that is not necessarily physio-semiotic projection, but rather a potential distortion of it; because in a certain sense semiotic self is always anthropologically an extrinsic self that is the structural circumstance of the very promise of anthropological stability and its physiological, rational complacency. And so distorion in the very drift culture can impose on bodily phsyio-rationality itself—in culture’s opprobrium-enforced propostion of its own phsyio-semiotics, pegged structurally and always to the rationally dark realm of primary (but orginal, primary phsyiolgical, phsyio-rational nature); and if the distance of culture’s proposed rationality –as really regimentation of physiology itself-grows too great, its structural reason for being as its indeed technical legitimacy, also dissipates.

-the culturally-posited rational and semiotic is better understood as a working rationality because it hinges on, is determined by, physiological underground and opprobrium forces of a particular cultural experience and mediation, and so is actually determined often by exactly what it seeks not to be, that in effect makes it what it is to some extent…[is clearly not just coherent and objective-at times not at all-but they still outnumber you so it is what they know it to be…];

The physio-corporal self is not the semiotic self, though both can certainly reach a healthy consensus…

The semiotic, narrative self becomes an internal physio-totemic projection of personal physiology towards social, opprobrium-based model of personal choice from the acceptable availability of culturally-presented options; but its origins are as of the existence historically of sufficient linguistic capacity of man to narrate, and so is cornerstone of anthropological mechanism of semiotic subjection of primary physiology and the very structure, configuration of what we call free will-in regards to agriculture-based systems of sedentary immobilization. And language itself becomes in fact the solution and imperious need of agricultural anthropology, that historically sky rockets to the heights of syntactic complexity, every time and probably against in fact the image itself, once again as a form of human imposition of rational standards over the physiologically disturbing generally and the chaos it produces…(See evolution of Ancient Greek; or historical development of Romance languages off of and out of Latin, for example): becomes historical force of direction, clearly as of human physiology and sensorial experience, with regards to the circumstance of collective, living entities through time in specific geographical limitation (as definition). Language over images because images do not admit the nuance only syntactic structure can provide; because images have direct physiological impact on the beholder that is clearly an obstacle to greater stability of collective, social circumstances. Thus is born the pitted struggle-as perhaps functional balance- universally between cultural force of rational (necessarily linguistic, syntactic-conceptual) control over the physiological versus the broader, living realm of the culturally cryptic and physiologically unmediated. Because culture controls physiology by mediating it ma non troppo; or rather not completely which is very much appreciated by the esteemed public and anthropologically dependent.

Underlying substratus, however, of the culturally-posited rational and how the narrative self relates to it, is the always difficult and permanently tensed connection of the zoomorphic, bodily self to the human group she is dependent on and in fact a product of sine qua non.


2)Contrasted Physiological Anthropologies

1)Don Quijote

His use of the semiotic

His Physiological Projection

2)Don Quijote

Pychological Denial standarly understood as an intentional not seeing, but not really from a position of self-assertion and power.

“Rational power denial” through the semiotic (and hence also physiological projection) of the circumstances of physical immediacy and limitation.

-Is a mechanism in exactly this way inherent to culture itself.

-Is thus more of an openly power rationality of decision and so also in its physiology;

-So is thus not really a form of physchological denial; becomes a form of personal agency in a social-antrhopological context of projection (that in comparison, is ultimately a form of active complacency.)


Don Quijote’s Semiotic, High Arcane (in regards to what else finally if not physiological projection?)

Becomes inversely a physiological game in the semiotic arcane he postulates, in his physiology he projects and the rule-based, physio-sensorial interpretations he lives in—but that he can also adjust in his own form of physio-rational impostion in regards to those rules, and as circumstances warrant.

3) Concentration Camp Experience (Des Pres, 1976)

Physiology of Obedience (Outside of opprobrium-based rationality and anthropological context)

Power-movement of renouncing the bodily to some degree as a form of elevating one’s sense of self above it—as a mental, psychological savagery proportional to that which structure subjects the individual corporeal to; that makes survival of the self as a resistance beyond the physically corporeal, anatomic—as thus a will to perseverance that concedes partially the physical itself, and so then can take its own form of solace in the physiological, on its own terms and from a power-positioning of the self:

Movement 1) thus allows for, sets up possibility of position 2); because only in some sense of power is the self able to forebear. Forbearance becomes defiance, is personal power option—becomes a physiology of rational imposition in and against an anthropology of destruction of the bodily.

3)”Is Controlled by his Social Relations”

Because anthropological efficiency and survival of primitive (pre-agrarian) human groups depended on it; but not of course to the point of completely eliminating the violence (physio-existential and moral!) of the individual, who systemically becomes the core-but cryptic-force of the group itself; physio-existential violence of the individual is subject to a mechanism of tempering, but remains essentially unaltered (because physio-existential ferociousness in the individual is key to survival of the group!) This mechanism is man’s biology of opprobrium that fiercely violent anthropological contexts of multiple human groups under the force of natural selection, endowed human experience with, and is still key defining force of agrarian anthropology today (more importantly, more powerfully than probably sexuality itself!)…Thus culture (even in regards to the physiologically moral and semiotic, as in the case and context here described) can be understood as an alternative physiological proposal on the part of physiologically immediate, context-bound individuals-but in favor of and towards the group’s stability and survival; in the physiological even, initially—but most especially in the semiotic as of only just sedentary contexts that allow for (in fact require!) forms of ritual and belief that capacitate individuals—hence the group—to actually tolerate sedentary experience! Because in a certain sense, human physiology is less suitable to the sedentary than it is to strictly physiological contexts of movement; which of course, later and as of agriculture, becomes the very vital force and impetus of in fact human and historical semiotic expansion (through primarily language and an ever increasing capacity of syntactic nuance against the physiological disturbance of imagery, that becomes culture proper and as we know it). Although there were a few explorers, too who actually—physically—went some where…

The eventual historical appeal of art, while physio-cognitively always present, could be understood as form of complacency (and power) in regards to a refined cultural context empowered itself and very seriously over the realm of imagery—firstly and primarly in its culturally rational force over the physiological.

4) “Trained Incapacity” derives form structural sources: (1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations; (2)Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes (3)This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules (4)Thus, the very elements which conduce towards efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specific instances, full realization of the inadequacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings which the rules have for them. These rules in time become symbolic in cast, rather than strictly utilitarian. [Becomes a strictly physiological self in regards to a semiotic arcane that effectively has become opaque, of clear danger for the non-defined or only structurally-defined individual; and so becomes in itself an example of a culturally-imposed secondary physiology, through a specific, secondary semiotics, as well-but illustrates what, in regards broader anthropological contexts, becomes a similar process of physiological complacency in regards, finally, to rational coherence itself versus only the culturally-posited rational; that thus allows for the analogy of the anthropological itself as in fact a bureaucracy of physiological control and definition, that similarly tends towards a degree of rational opacity in favor of just the physiological; as perhaps initially positive towards the indiviudal’s better bearing of experience in a physiologically stable invigoration that very legitimately may, to a certain degree, turn its back on the harsh rigors of rational challenge and coherence; but that in its extreme point of excess and distortion, becomes an ever-increasing cultural drift away from the inexorable bodily reality of the physiological (Spengler’s Dilemma). Because human experience is initially in regards to the challenge of human need itself—as a progressively more intricate physiological response to the challenges of the natural and social mediums; and human DNA itself is thus configured to in fact a physiology of challenge as of the terminal point of human biological evolution, as of the historical consolidation of agriculture proper: A plethora of physiological response, historically, that (after agriculture or at least sedentary experience) includes the physiologically rational and semiotic, as well. Because meaning guarantees the structural and systemic possibility of the physiological, as ultimately the individual’s projection of it towards idealizations of whatever collective and cultural nature and rationality (as ultimately a form of self-realization), and that sedentary contexts actually end up requiring. But in regards to the complexity of high semiotic culture (like ours today, and very much universally), it is still however the individual who is structurally supposed to bear a certain role and function as cultural contender and physio-rational challenger of the cultural edifice proper. ]

(Same as it ever was!)



4) and 5) based on readings from Bureaucratic Structure and Personality (in Social Theory and Social Structure (1957), by Robert K Merton)



Education/Entertainment? From Amusing Ourselves to Death(1985,)by Neil Postman

Cicero remarked that the purpose of education is to free the student from the tyranny of the present, which cannot be pleasurable for those, like the young, who are struggling hard to do the opposite–that is, accommodate themselves to the present.

And that, of course,is what we have got in “the Voyage of the Mimi.” the fact that this adventure sit-com is accompanied by lavishly illustrated books and

computer games only underscores that the television presentation controls the curriculum. The books whose pictures the students will scan and the computer games the students will play are dictated by the content of the television shows, not the other way around. books, it would appear, have now become an audio-visual aid; the principal carrier of the content of education is the television show, and its principal claim for a preeminent place in the curriculum is that it is entertaining. Of course, a television production can be used to stimulate interest in lessons, or even as the focal point of a lesson. But what is happening here is that the content of the school curriculum is being determined by the character of television, and even worse, that character is apparently not included as part of what is studied.

“With ‘Sesame Street,'” he said, “it took five or six years, but eventually you can start bringing in the money with T-shirts and cookie jars.” [So becomes a semiotic construction of physiological context, and ultimately bodily, physiological projection by the individual towards consumer activity and its physiology of proposed need.] Two realms of experience of different physiological, physiologically rational modes of being; and the first and higher-tiered form of agency is the proposal itself (much like culture and its tradition does in regards to the broader anthropological) in regards to the lower realm of simply physiological, physiologically rational individuality and experience we know it as life, in a specific culturally-bound setting of the social; but the proposal is techicnally skewed in that it is only technical, from the standpoint of a group people-and only in regards to their objectives (the nature of which is always to some extent self-serving, even if only in regards to objectives themselves and that, once proposed, become necessarily a form of physioloigical projection for the agents, inexorably); and technically from the standpoint of that agency, in the availing of the obliviousness of human physiological experience of individuals-towards  technically defined, pre-established objectives (often just of monetary gain; or strategies that at lest run the risk of being just that, and perniciously under the false guise of something else)

And, in the end, what will the students have learned? They will, to be sure, have learned something about whales, perhaps about navigation and map reading, most of which they could have learned just as well by other means. Mainly, they will have learned that learning is a form of entertainment or, more precisely, that anything worth learning can take the form of an entertainment, and ought to. And they will not rebel if their English teacher asks them to learn the eight parts of speech through the medium of rock music. Or if their social studies teacher sings to them the facts about the War of 1812. Or if their physics comes to them on cookies and T-shirts. Indeed, they will expect it and thus will be well prepared to receive their politics, their religion, their news and their commerce in the same delightful way.


[26jun16]And so the physiological and its paradigms of human behavior and activity are effectively fixed and defined by the semiotic (in this case a television narrative as “educational” series); physiological paradigms that are additionally-and ultimately-defined by the accessories-later and as of the television series itself-supplied (sold) to students, with which surely secondary learning activities will take place-as in fact a physiological and bodily exercising of themes, material and content actually contained in the television series; but surely in a most trivial sense, being the actual learning experience student’s watching of TV itself. But it is in the use of accessory learning aides (work books, audiocassettes and additional activities) where the physiological takes supremacy as very possibly only a pretext to corporate financial agency only under the cover and guise, finally, of educational experience;

And thus is the example something of a prototype case study in regards to broader cultural structures configured in similar terms of a semiotic structural that is reference later and pretext to specific forms of human decision and general physiological projection (that is once again the real realm of aggregate consumer activity). And as long the ideas of that structural realm of the semiotic are not interfered with, to the point that real and more serious economic agency can only really take place in the semiotic itself, that is to say, through media forms of very much one-directional and panopticonic structure over and through the human physiological medium of specifically sensorial-conceputal perception. [IRRELEVANT, NOW; BUT IN THE CRITIQUE OF SOMETHING IS ALSO ITS VERY IMPLIED PRESENCE OF ENTITY, THAT SO CAN BECOME A FORM OF INVIGORATED APPROACH AND IN FACT REINFORCEMENT OF IT, GIVEN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF RATIONAL VOICE OF ALMOST ANY KIND IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE; THUS ALSO CAN BECOME PHYSIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL OUTLET FOR THE CRITIC OR WRITER…]

6)Physiological Drivers (as ultimately conceptualizations of just pretext) [16jun16]

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot. The most common type of MacGuffin is an object, place, or person; other, more abstract types include money, victory, glory, survival, power, love, or some unexplained driving force.

(HITCHCOCK) It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, “What’s that package up there in the baggage rack?” And the other answers, “Oh, that’s a MacGuffin”. The first one asks, “What’s a MacGuffin?” “Well,” the other man says, “it’s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.” The first man says, “But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,” and the other one answers, “Well then, that’s no MacGuffin!” So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.

In TV interviews, Hitchcock defined a MacGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, but as to what that object specifically is, he declared, “the audience don’t care”.

[An Impossibility of Empathy in Empty People]

Is the falcon (statuette) in the Maltese Falcon (1941) just an object? It is also sold to the audience conceptually in regards to the history of the Island of Malta and its connection to Spain, the Crusades and European military history; and is posited in the film as merely a container, finally, for diamonds it is supposed to have inside (in line with the real theme of the film which is something like the emotional-moral emptiness of individuals and their ruthlessness; and perhaps the preservation itself of  physiological pretext in life, in regards to ideas that contribute to the enthusiasm of people (but that as ideas really don’t matter and are effectively more a form of pretext for invigorated human movement and expanse!)

But even so, ideas still have to make-at least initially-some kind of sense!

A film in which it is good to be a clown and somewhat foolish as a person (rather than a murderer); in which it is also good to be an adulterer up to a certain point (rather than a murderer). And in this film it is important to be alive as a self in your natural vitality and hence faults and imperfections (that makes having a sense of humor very important); and it is this being a self that ultimately allows you to value the lives of others, and that which in the end keeps you from being a murderer.

So it is Bogart who throws himself savagely at the defense of such circumstances as really a defense of the order of civilization against the violence and savagery of the empty, unfeeling non-selves in their very physiological incapacity to feel empathy in regards to their fellows. And so he is very, very pissed off—that is a form of certainly invigorated personal physiological projection in his case, also as well; in addition to the fact that the individuals he is up against will no hesitate to bury him in any number of manners through false representation and manipulation. But it is curious however, to see how still at least a public profile of moral upstanding is defended (even desperately) by such individuals, when in fact their true physio-social modus operandi is essentially predatory in regards to social situations, in above all their personal psychology, that implies something of crisis of personality when they are forced to accept the consequences of their true behavior and deeper psychological conduct.

For filmmaker and drama writing theorist Yves Lavandier, in the strictly Hitchcockian sense, a MacGuffin is a secret that motivates the villains.[12] North by Northwest‘s supposed MacGuffin is nothing that motivates the protagonist; Roger Thornhill’s objective is to extricate himself from the predicament that the mistaken identity has created, and what matters to Vandamm and the CIA is of little importance to Thornhill. A similar lack of motivating power applies to the alleged MacGuffins of The Lady VanishesThe 39 Steps, and Foreign Correspondent. In a broader sense, says Lavandier, a MacGuffin denotes any justification for the external conflictual premises of a work.[13]

Examples in film include the Maltese Falcon;

the meaning of “rosebud” in Citizen Kane (1941);[15]

the NOC list in Mission: Impossible (1996);

the Rabbit’s Foot in Mission: Impossible III (2006);[16][17]

the Heart of the Ocean necklace in Titanic;[18]

and the mineral unobtainium in Avatar (2009).

In both film and literature, the Holy Grail is often used as a MacGuffin.[19] (The cult classic surreal comedic film Monty Python and the Holy Grail is loosely structured around a knightly quest for the sacred relic.) [16jun16]






[CITA] Como otros grupos yihadistas, el ISIS comulga con la doctrina wahabí que realiza una interpretación literal de los textos sagrados islámicos, defiende un estricto monoteísmo y pretende erradicar toda práctica considerada desviada. Hace un siglo, la dinastía saudí no dudó en recurrir a la yihad para imponer el wahabismo a la población del reino, que desde su nacimiento se ha regido por el principio de “promoción de la virtud y prohibición del vicio”. Todos aquellos que se negaron a aceptar el wahabismo o se enfrentaron a los Saud fueron tachados de apóstatas, incluida la propia dinastía hachemí que descendía de Mahoma y gobernaba la ciudad sagrada de La Meca.

Los ulemas wahabíes también persiguieron a los chiíes, a los que consideraban infieles. Este mismo argumento fue desempolvado por Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, creador de Al Qaeda en Mesopotamia y padre intelectual del ISIS, para lanzar una guerra sin cuartel contra la comunidad chií iraquí. En una misiva fechada en febrero de 2004 fijó la hoja de ruta a seguir: “La única solución es golpear a los cuadros religiosos, políticos y militares chiíes una vez tras otra hasta doblegarlos: son como la serpiente al acecho, el escorpión malicioso y el veneno penetrante”. 

[Los Chiís son natural aliado de Iran que tambien es por tanto enemigo de ISIS]

[CITA]No mejor suerte corren otras corrientes más o menos emparentadas con el chiísmo como los alauíes, los ismailíes o los drusos, que son tachados de apóstatas y, en consecuencia, merecen ser aniquilados. El ISIS suele recurrir a Ibn Taymiya para justificar sus posiciones. Dicho teólogo medieval consideró que estas minorías eran peores que los infieles y los idólatras y emitió un fatua según la cual “sus mujeres pueden ser tomadas como esclavas y los hombres tienen que ser asesinados allá donde se les encuentre, siendo lícito requisar sus propiedades”. Un trato similar se reserva a los yazidíes —a los que por desconocimiento se acusa de adorar al diablo—, contra quienes el ISIS ha emprendido un auténtico genocidio que contempla la eliminación física de los hombres y la esclavización de las mujeres. A las comunidades cristianas, cada vez más hostigadas en Irak y Siria, se les permite elegir entre la conversión al islam o el pago de un impuesto de capitación (el mismo que fue abolido por los sultanes otomanos a mediados del siglo XIX por las presiones de las potencias europeas).

El ISIS no solo persigue a las minorías confesionales, sino también a todo aquel que se opone a su proyecto mesiánico:

quienes defienden los valores democráticos

o comulgan con el nacionalismo, el socialismo o el liberalismo


son considerados herejes y se convierten en un objetivo legítimo, puesto que no son leales al islam ni tampoco aceptan la preeminencia de la sharía en los asuntos políticos, sociales y económicos.

Además de contra los occidentales, debe dirigirse contra los musulmanes reacios a aceptar el credo wahabí. Se considera que aquellos musulmanes que no respetan esta rigorista y puritana interpretación de la sharía viven en la ignorancia y, por tanto, deben ser sometidos por medio de la violencia para que vuelvan al redil.


… los gobernantes que no aplican la sharía, que son tachados de tiranos y deben ser derrocados. Abu Umar Al Bagdadi, otrora líder del Estado Islámico de Irak, señaló: “Los gobernantes de los territorios islámicos son traidores, infieles, pecadores, mentirosos y criminales” y “la lucha contra ellos es más importante que la lucha contra los cruzados ocupantes”

El segundo enemigo son los occidentales, a los que el propio Abu Umar tachó de “infieles a los que se debe atacar en su propio territorio”

Pero quizás uno de los elementos más desconocidos del ISIS es su visión apocalíptica del mundo, ya que interpreta que está librando un combate crucial entre musulmanes e infieles que precederá el fin de los tiempos.

…se librará una devastadora guerra que terminará con la llegada del Mesías. Al Adnani ha arengado a las tropas yihadistas para que “estuviesen preparadas para la batalla final contra los cruzados” en el curso de la cual “conquistaremos Roma, destruiremos sus cruces y esclavizaremos a sus mujeres con el permiso de Dios”.

[a partir de profecias aporcrifas]


Ignacio Álvarez-Ossorio es profesor de Estudios Árabes en la Universidad de Alicante y coordinador de Oriente Medio y Magreb en la Fundación Alternativas. LA FURIA APOCALIPTICA DE ISIS en El Pais, 29jun16

DESMORONARSE COMO UN CASTILLO EN LA ARENA que es el sino político mas probable de ISIS según el autor, lo es también de toda fisiología estructural antropológica semióticamente primada, y ante el paso del tiempo y lo que son los cambios inexorables del marco conceptual-semiótico humano y antropológico; o respecto de la propia autodestrucción físio-semiótica de dicho marco antropológico, mediante efectivamente una fisiología colectiva resoluta en su incapacidad de freno, que por lo visto es históricamente el verdadero ciclo humano-antropológico(*), o al menos hasta la llegada de formas mas refinadas de autocomprensión (o sea, la semiótica lingüística y específicamente el lenguaje escrito.) Porque la fisiología no se puede parar respecto de la experiencia vital humana y que solo pasajeramente se puede definir conceptual y semióticamente, empero no sin los mayores esfuerzos de reforzamiento físio-semiotico y cultural, de forma esencialmente continua de permanente constitución semiotica colectiva renovada que es la consagración humana a su propia indentidad conceptual como finalmente una fisiologia colectiva regimentada en la misma proyección real fisiologica de los seres humanos súbditos culturales y antropológicos, que somos todos en mente y alma-pero sobre todo respecto lo corporalmente fisiológico, individual.

Y el ambito de lo civilizado es pues terreno de la fisio-racionalidad individual misma-como una idea que es un altar ante el cual individuo se arrodilla [Conrad]-si bien comparte el espacio fisio-racional y cognitivo individual con el apoyo auxiliar de Caín el desterrado quien en realidad no ha ido a ningun lado y cuyo exilio tiene lugar en el mismo centro críptico y velado de lo antropologicamente estructural-cultural.

Porque lo oprórico, como verdadero transversal y solera arquitectónico del edificio antropologico humano universal, se ocupa de lo fisio-corporal individual respecto siempre al grupo y la consituticion semiotica particular que lo pudiera definir; en lo fisiologico primario, y respecto las formas de funcionalidad social mas elevadas por cuanto abstractas y de sustancia ceirtamente solo semiotica; respecto a una fisiologia individual primaria, pero tambien en caunto a la fisiologia estipulada y secondaria de lo solo culturalmente racional-siempre que haya un grupo al que pertenecer sin que importen las cambios, evoluciones en la misma racionalidad postulada cultural de este (porque a medida que se vaya alterando la sustancia semiotica y respecto aquello que el grupo efectivamente postula como real, asimismo se irá modificando la forma y paradigma de la individualidad específicamente cultural.)

Porque la indiviudalidad semiotica (o sea,la nuestra a partir de la agricultura historicamente) se da y es porque-y a cuasa de -las circunstancias en realidad del grupo y el quehacer fisiologico del pertenecer del individuo, siempre y permanentemente de apremio, sin duda.

Y estructuralmente dictada asimismo en la propia furia vital y fisiologica del yo corporal que en lo semiotica hemos de entender bajo cualquier avatar conceptual-narrativo del mal, es sin embargo cripticamente la piedra angular real del impulso cultural de invencion humana como imposicion sobre, claro esta, la misma naturaleza primaria (real) humana y fisiologica, que en lo social es ciertamente una forma de desorden y la misma imposibilidad por indefinicion efectivamente de lo los social en si.

Porque estructuralmente la cultura en realidad depende del desafio fisiologico individual (o sea, de la violencia moral-racional del yo corpoal ante la fuerza numérica superior del grupo); porque en siendo tu físio-corporalmente tu, la cultura tiene sentido y su razón (velada pero definitiva) de ser.

La cultura es pues la eminente consecución de un equilibrio.


*A Short History of Progress (2004), Ronald Wright


If semiotic, religious projection and postulation is in regards to actually very specific human need, socially and towards the ultimate purpose and consequence of reinforced stability of the collective itself, it surely would then be possible to trace in semiotic postulations the actual physiological circumstances the semeiotic is in itself a response to.

Case in point1

The early Yahweh of Genesis, effectively, is a brutal father-figure surely in his own struggle for balance and always in his own love (fear) for his children; and so it is god himself that is to be the greatest of all models (anti-model, even) of an almost psychotic brutality (out of fear for his loved ones) available socially to individuals and that intentionally as at least narrative, far exceeds the very violence they themselves are capable of, also for the very same reasons and in the very same physiological excess in regards to their own loved ones and physiologically proximate; that God’s nature is then to be a very powerful call and imposition in regards to particularly the male individual’s own conduct who must fear god for the very same reasons he must fear part of himself (all of this of course in the very possibility and defense of the social itself).

Because additionally, the development and evolution of Yahweh himself over the rest of the chronologically posterior experience of the Tanakh and finally in regards to the Old Testament itself, is in regards later to the maintaining of a rational decorum in an almost contemporary understanding of culture versus and against physiological disturbance; but clearly no longer in regards to inner-clan, socio-affective violence that is perceptible in the early semiotics of Judaism, in regards to problems posterior cultural evolution no longer needed to deal with in the same way, and concurrent to higher conceptual (and linguistic) complexity.



9) Estrofa de Valle-Inclán y la supremacía fisiológica incluso respecto la semiótica   [30jun16]

Mientras hilan las Parcas mi mortaja,

una curz de ceniza hago en la frente;

el tiempo es la carcoma, que trabaja

por Satanás. ¡Y Dios es el Presente!

Lo estructural antropológico y temporal es siniestro, más allá de la limitación fisiológica humana, en comparación con lo fisio-corporal y inmediato donde si caben, en cambio, los actos directos nuestros con propósitos firmes de resolución más o menos lógica; pero la contemplación humana ante lo que se nos insinúa una mecánica estructural a través del tiempo y respecto las vidas de millones de seres humanos, por las generaciones de grandes agregados demográficos-culturales cíclicamente renovados, es una mirada necesariamente fría y difícilmente sostenida por mucho tiempo. Y pues Dios es el presente se vuelve la posibilidad efectiva de lo corporal y fisiológicamente individual como caloroso abrazo de lo contextual-antropológico, en realidad semiótico y que es en si mismo lo que apuntala la posibilidad fisiológica colectiva, necesariamente estable y ordenada. Pero claramente se constata en la cita de Valle-Inclán-como el mismo texto lo afirma y lo establece-la semiótica es simplemente un pretexto ya concientemente comprendida como tal por el individuo respecto la posibilidad fisiológica que, como está culturalmente definida y consabida, alivia al individuo adicionalmente de cualquier esfuerzo sobrehumano y de pelea por forjar lógicas culturales nuevas; cuando entonces el plano fisiológico es el preferible y complaciente baño antropológico que ahorrándonos el esfuerzo, dolor y amarga constancia irredenta de lo racional, nos permite al mismo tiempo no tomar con mucha seriedad los rigores oficialistas semióticos, mientras lo nuestro del fuero interior y respecto los demás (por lo general) nos lo callamos.

Y lo abstracto-conceptual en si deviene una forma de profundidad, algo así como el saber que hay de hecho algo debajo de aquella piedra; de lo que la estabilidad fisiológica del espacio antropológico particular puede servirse respecto a una necesaria arcanidad conceptual (arcana y mas allá de lo aparentemente visible y evidente) que acaba siendo una fuente alternativa de acompañamiento físio-existencial, como idea y noción al que se relacionan el artista y el pensador (por ejemplo) respecto una realidad inmediata roma en su limitación, finalmente, que es la causa natural humana y histórica del esfuerzo nuestro por superar, en la semiótica misma, nuestras limitaciones físicas y de índole sensorial y fisiológico. Tiene que haber algo más es lo que solemos puntualmente decir mas o menos y a tal efecto…

Los dos planos vitales de Valle-Inclán al menos en su vejez (que en realidad es una forma de corrección y reajuste individual del plano semiótico en sí)

En uno, la semiótica, soy en mis ideas solo del estar social lo que haya que ser respecto a la aprobación y complacencia por parte de los demás; Pero en lo fisiológico verdaderamente personal mío, soy de mi propia invención y preferencia (es de suponer con ciertos limites, claro pues valoro la civilización): porque como solo es fisiología (que en sí no significa nada, aunque no por ello deja de ser crucial) tampoco lo paso mal pues no hace falta adherirse a una semiótica que no comparto como creencia; semiótica que tengo culturalmente a mi disposición como una identidad, y que como tal es una forma y modo de confort al que puedo recurrir como finalmente opción existencialmente auxiliar y de cara en realidad a otros espacios fisiológicamente racionales mios de mi propia y muy necesaria imposición fisiológica-conceptual; espacios reales a los que no puedo ni pienso renunciar.

A Valle-Inclanesque Phyisio-Semiotics

1.Opprobrium-acquired semiotics determines the nature of semiotic-based physiological projection (because semiotics determines the physiological in a socially collective, anthropologically systemic and functional sense.)

2.But an undestanding that any physiology can be an apt physiology-because the physiological in itself does not ultimately signify-and so depends culturally on the adscripition of meaning to it-suggests the structural physiology one lives in thus requires the semiotic and functionally cultural logic be adapted to it, and not the other way around. And so it would seem the individual will then impose a personal semiotics of at least the self in regards to the culturally structural and collective as a form of personal semiotic correction and ajustment; that is itself culturally valid (undoubtedly) as long as it never becomes publically nor socially—much less politically—relevant.

  1. In the structurally cultural and semiotic, likewise will the physiological tend finally to reign supreme over rational coherence of the conceptual itself; as less a form physio-rational imposition that inividuals live in, and that is more of a cultural force of impetus and, ultimately, drift in specifically the circumstances probablly orginally of the early 20th Century (before and as of WWI)—but technologically tied to the immediate preceeding second half of the 19 century (specifically in regards to photography, the invention and implimentation of the telegraph, and later the telephone, as well as radio transmision (later) and the cultural establishment of cinema); circumstances that contributed generally to a rebellion of the masses western cultural context in which indiviudality begins to in fact turn from the rationally complex to self-affirmation in the physiological itself-through particularly the circumstances of incipient consumer-based anthropology, by then and in very much the contempary sense of today, specifcially in regards to a physio-psychological, physio-rational foundation of more heavily imposed-upon culturally stuctural individuality (in and because of a new and progressively expanding power of the semioitic through almost contemporary media forms and their power to make the experiencing of reality by people more and more physiologically binding in the individually human biology of opprobrium.)


Deception in the sense of a rational descrepancy between agent of deceit and human target of that deciet, in regards to the matter of truth and what is real, or not; or phsyiological deception as illusion that of course hinges on feeding the individual misleading information in the appearance of natural and non-manipulated experience of sensory percpetion, so that she herself reaches her own inferred—but false—conculsions (assuming as a matter of fact people put more stake in what they see for themselves, rather than what they are told).

But the individual’s physiology of sensory percpetion can also be used in also more subtle ways, in capaciting the individual in regards to a physio-psychological attainment of comfort (that is physiological satisfaction, no doubt) but that also occludes in its very physioloigcal nature the individual’s need to rationally understand the sturctural circumstances of that satisfaction; that in the face of potential disagreement, defiance and protest, even more satisfaction is facilitated on to and for the individual to physiologically condition the individual away from higher forms of racional understanding as need, that no longer is at all;

That becomes finally only another strategy of playing the individual’s very physiological nature against her, and towards the much more signficant attainment of the higher-tiered (usually financial) agency´s real-but-covert objectives, and from the outset.

Because in this way, and through such a structure, the problem of indiviudality itself (from the standpoint of higher-tiered agency) is in fact circumvented completely because—and this is the most import structual aspect of all—who actually wants an indiviudal´s money when the “Big Money” is in demographic mass itself?



Porque la fisiologia va por otros derroteros y, evidentemente, la percepcion del entorno conceptual-semiotico a partir de lo fisiologico que siempre es en el presente y en su propia vitalidad intrinseca, cambia. Y esto quiere decir-o al menos apunta en esa direccion y sentido-que el totem fisiologico interno del proceso fisiologico-mental humano individual tambien puede postularse respecto del sentir colectivo de cualquier momento presente; que igualmente lo fisiologico se sujeta por y en lo semiotico pero que es al mismo tiempo una fuerza del tiempo como entidad que es un hacerse y realizarse temporal, siempre presente y siempre necesitado simultaneamente del prexto semiotico y signficante como verdadera sosten de una perpetua imovilidad en el realizarse que es su naturaleza real y viviente.

Y la contradiccion que pudiera parecer la dependencia fisologica en lo semiotico no lo es tanto si constatamos que lo semiotico deviene muchas veces y en muchos contextos mero pretexto a favor de la experiencia fisiologica en si; y que es finalmente la misma fisiologia que, segun las necesidades de la contigencia real y fisica, postula y forja sus propios significados al calor mismo de su propia voluntad y fuerza hacia la autoimposicion de si misma, que es una forma de conceptualizar la necesidad vital-existencial humana como estrategias de la consecucion del confort a partir de la urgencia fisiologica de la necesidad.

Que quiere decir que la fisiologia es impermeable al tiempo porque es intrinsicamente temporal en si misma siendo desde luego un verdadero potro desbocado que siempre ha obligado a su jinete humano a buscar un sosten semantico, significante y semiotico donde y como pudiera, incluso forjandoselo el o ella  mismo (que es en realidad mas bien la norma nuestra vital, sin duda).

De manera que lo simbolico-concpetual (la semiotica) se queda atrás siempre mordiendo el polvo respecto el sincretismo natural a que es vulnerable todo sosten simbolico al que nos hemos agarrado, y ante la apetencia permanente y feroz de movimiento vital que es el caballo y montura nuestra y a traves del tiempo…

Y la cultura entonces ha de ser metaforicamente algo asi como establo y prado bien cotado y delimitado, que en su estrtuctura semiotica lo hace todo mas llevadero-que tambien apetece-y sobre todo en la presencia de inumberables caballos, mulos, borricos y jumentos de gran variedad y diferencia de personalidad, que no solo uno.


Cultural normative and regulation becomes imperative: and physiology needs to be fixed and set structurally (and for the love God!)—initially, through ritual (that is physiological meaning removed from time, outside in fact of the reaches of the physiological itself; and so preserved to some extent form the erosion of meaning the physiological inevitably incurs); subsequently through ideas and the semiotic, that become the great physiological enforcer of culture and the cultural stability of a structurally, systemic and channeled physiology of projection by individuals themselves in regards to those ideas and idealizations. Because if culture doesn’t impose itself on the physiological, people will end up imposing their own “culture” on each another (and that is not a pretty thing, at all). PHYSIOLOGY CREATES MEANING that’s how powerful it is; so that meaning has to be managed to insure the possibility of collective, culturally systemic physiology itself. Culture manages meaning so physiology may be free to be without destroying itself (because it will)—thus implied is the true supremacy of the physiological itself, and that all anthropological stability would seem to necessarily include (as in fact a structural inevitability) the loss of conceptual coherence in the semiotic in favor of the fisiological that becomes the very nature of culture itself, and to some degree (because logic is still ulitmatley of the greatest importance to the opprobrium-configured anthropological self; and, if forced to actually think about things, will not tolerate the excessive flight from the rational and logical that culture (through the physiological) can create and incur; but of course this logically outraged individual is ultimately good for culture in the challenge she becomes to anthropological, structural complacency itself. And being challenged (in regards to the structural or individuals themselves) is one of the greatest things that can happen to you.

12) Some Notes on the Physiologically Semiotic (excerpt)

-A priority of physiology requires either fear in the individual or, as invigorated physiological complacency, a conceptual sense and security of some form of power in the very ideas the individual lives in-exactly so physiology may exert itself almost at the expense of reason itself (where true physiological invigoration is to be had); from the opposing side and standpoint this is a liability, broadly speaking, of anthropological modus operandi in which typically individuals can be held and in suspension for some period of time in their very physiology-to some degree at the expense initially of reason itself (and just as in fact the biology of culture does in the suspension of aspects of rationality in favor of instinctive physiological response of the individual in regards to extreme situations of duress and threat.)

Or to put it another way the physiological smacks of the real when the semiotic-and reason itself- can in fact be simply taken for granted by the individual at least for a time…

Phantom of culture from the standpoint of culturally-posited rational and semiotic: the bodily and physiological experience; or the physiologically cognitive? Explain we live our life in a dream-exactly in what way, in regards to what?



13) Falta de limites es falta de definicion 

El problema del concepto de libertad dentro de la cultura de rebellion de las masas es primeramente una confusion de planos respecto de un agregado humano cuya rebellion solo tiene lugar en realidad individualmente fisiologicamente y como coartada conceptual-semiotico donde lo conceptual (como suele ocurrir) se vuelve finalmente mero prextexto respecto la posibilidad y modus fisilologicos.

De convenincia ruin y callada hay que calificar, sin embargo, al plano tecnico-economico que en principio no se comporta fisiologicamente sino en terminos de calculo agregado y diacronico, a traves del tiempo y hacia objetivos tecnicos de acumulacion quantativa, lo que convierte la fisiologia humana no circumspecta en su principal instrumento de facto de imposicion agregada y estructural.

Si bien la cuestion moral (obvia pero siempre esquiva historicamente) tambien puede abordarse fisiologicamente respecto el plano agentivo estrucrual factico que es el de la inversion y planificacion economica, punto de inicio que plasmo en la siguiente interrogacion retorica-conceptual:

¿Por qué el poder intelectual-cultural mas conservador historicamente jamas se ha sentido comodo conceputalmente con la semiotica? (término y concepto de verdadera anatema intelectual precisamente porque atenta contra la nocion de libertad tal y como popularmente se entiende ser libre; que desde la óptica de una rección cultural-economica (y por tanto fisiologica respecto del tiempo vital sistemica humana colectiva) ciertamente habria que sentirse incomodo ante una herramienta que buscara una conceptualizacion de la verdadera dependencia colectiva en la que vive el ser humano individual y que corresponde mucho mejor como idea con la naturaleza mas profunda del yo antropologico que es y debe su impetu vital social precisamente al grupo, hasta tal punto que no se puede entender la invidualiad humana sino por un pertenecer siempre adversarial respecto del grupo; y que verdaderamente es el grupo que produce finalmente la individualidad, y no los individuos que por simple accumulacion numerica y como si dijeramos fisico y espacial produzcan el grupo.

Y asi las circunstancias antropologicas humanas se mezclan (bastante burdamente) con otra logicas de planteamiento estructural-agregado y temporal, dentro de una agencia tecnica imposiblmente fisiologica en su pretendida alcance y extension respecto del medio humano; y que, sin embargo, precisamente de la fisiologia individual se vale centralmente y como piedra angular propia, mediante un desface conceptual-logico entre dos planos distintos que su propia agencia tecnica no hizo historicamente mas que fomentar principalmente en el fraude en cierto sentido que es nuestra conceptualizacion popular de libertad personal.






14) Inferences on/from Eco

Apocalittici e integrati (1964 – Partial English translation: Apocalypse Postponed, 1994)

1)Semiotics is ultimately a physiological defining at the culturally systemic;

A cultural regime of the physiological (through the semiotic) is foundation of economic possibility and stability.

A dramatic and abrupt alteration of the semiotic has collectively systemic physiological consequences, ultimately in regards to material possibilities and stability of society itself.

2)Semiotics is in regards to the physiological and becomes in itself a culturally-posited rationality.

Because the culturally-posited rational and semiotic is also against the physiological of a more primary human nature and disturbance in regards to social order, the culturally rational is a decorum mechanism.

The semiotic is thus the substitution of non-defined physiological disturbance and chaos for a proposed physiology of social stability and order through the force of opprobrium internally in all individuals in regards to the group; the assimilation of the particularly rational and semiotic of specific cultural experience is thus not an option for the individual.

Thus is a construed phsyio-semiotic artifice erected and physio-totemically imposed at the anthropological (as if the anthropological itself were to be considered in terms of individual physiology a totem system and mechanism); but certainly defective in the real physical question of structural drift away from the physiologically corporal-into only the culturally physiological. [Spengler] And this is compounded probably crucially because of the semiotic force of expanse against agrarian physiological immobilization as the trigger, additionally, of social-cultural development of human groups and ultimately civilization through specifically language (how else can physiology be imposed upon towards its cultural definition in regards to people who are no longer permanently in search of food or at war?), but always fictionally finally as an auxiliary and parallel physiology in regards to a real corporal, bodily physiology that is still structurally the more significant and off which culturally-positied rationality and its physiology cryptically defines itself in response to, anyway.

3) Corporal experience is opprobrium-defined, inevitably and in regards to all realms of physiological order and phenomena.

Because human beings do not actually exist except in relation to groups in an anthropologically systemic adversarial belonging of the individual to the group. Inexorably. Physiological morality is thus primary point of a social rationality of self in regards to the others; and it is the fear and regard for social consequences of behavior that becomes moral threat which opprobrium forces on the individual-and moral threat is thus physiological threat and is constructive in the very process of reasoning it turns into cognitively in the mind of the physically vulnerable individual in regards to one or another of the group’s Alpha male; or in regards to the group itself in the possibility of their scorn, anger and superior force of number as their ultimate savagery in response to what they consider to be transgression and offense. And they are always right in this context and from the standpoint of just singular, bodily individuality.

And so because the body is cornerstone of cultural division of the physiological, opprobrium is also permanently part of both realms of cultural experience-within its semiotically imposed regime of the physiological, or outside and around the culturally-posited rational; because, given decorum rationality is actually cryptically about what it seeks to control and deny, the culturally extemporaneous and peripheral can also only be considered finally of the culturally systemic itself-in exactly the implied force of definition it becomes with regards to the culturally rational.

Bodily rational/Bodily cultural; Opprobrium self/ Antropological self/ Semiotic self; Opprobrium is rationality, is the body, but the danger of the semiotic is thus that it can fictionally come to forget this, given that it is in many ways an alternatively proposed physiological order. [Spengler]

Alternative to what?

(Physiological anomie)


-The physiologically real is culturally-defined, and is also outside of culture itself. Real division of cultural experience that sees the human bodily (+opprobrium) as central cornerstone base and foundation in regards to both realms. And so the fictional (in stories and through visual medium) must also be considered physiologically real in its very physiological reality; but is, of course not real from the standpoint of the culturally-posited rational and semiotic.

-Anthropological understanding of Deception (in opprobrium) and the understanding of the indiviudal’s anger and embarrassment at being deceived (also in terms of opprobrium) [13jun16]



15) La funcion subliminal del mito frente a la complacencia anthropologica

Que postulamos sea un mecanismo de rodeo de lo culturalmente postulado racional y semiotico en si respecto realidades fisio-psicologicas humanas mas profundas que no forman parte del discurso semiotico y culturalmente racional pero que no por ello sean menos reales; el mito constituye pues una forma de ejercicio de dichas realidades subyacentes sin que sea necesario racionalizarlas ni atentar contra ni distorsionar de ninguna manera la logica cultural semiotica particular de la experiencia cultural; que la logica cultural es, por encima de cualquier otro factor, garante misma de posibilidad social por cuanto precisamente la fisiologia humana digamos cotidiana y de andar por casa que es fisiologica adicionalmente por cuanto no requiere cognitivamente de pensamiento racional alguno salvo el pretexto que ya constituye la semiótica estandar y culturalmente compartida; y sin embargo la experiencia humana es mas profunda e verdaderamente incompleta en cuanto solo lo cultural semiótico y oficial pues la estabilidad de facto antropologica es precisamente una respuesta a aquellas realidades humanas fisiológicas mas profundas y a menudo inaptas precesiamente respecto de la vida en comun social-y el mito es pues el porqué secreto de lo antropologico en sí, que conviene de hecho que tampoco fisiologicamente nos olvidemos de ello porque entonces la razon de ser antropologica y su propia legitimidad de facto fisiologica se desvanecería; pero esto a expensas de la logica cultural postualada, racional y semioitica no puede ser de ninguna manera, y es el mito que se ocupa pues de forma remota de esta desfase de dos planos distintos de la experiencia humana; y se vuleve finalmente una forma de invigoracion secreta y velada respecto de lo estructural antropologica y social, en su mismo mantenimiento tonificador a traves del tiempo. Porque el cuerpo no pide siempre solo orden y una ferreamente regulada complacencia; pide tambien guerra de distintas formas que lo racional cultural le resulta dificil (si no imposible) de explicar y racionalizar. Asi que funcionalmente prescinde de ello del todo y se vuelca en solo el control, represion y canalizacion fisiologica humana que es la fundacion misma de nuestra racionalidad, esto es un esfuerzo vital humano por el orden ante todo fisiologico y, bien mirado en conjunto, de bastante éxito histórico ciertamente; Y es el mito que se ocupa impunemente y sin consecuencias-como un susurro-de ello, precisamente en donde la cultura digamos diurna no se atreve a adentrarse (porque significaria de hecho su propia modificacion siempre traumática para con la fisiología nuestra colectiva y sistémica, que debe pues su propia estabilidad temporal a las ideas en las que vivimos ante todo colectivamente, ante todo como forma de complacencia fisio-antropológica.)


-So certain aspects of art and the mythological-aesthetic are because of the culturally structural, culturally-posited rational and semiotic?


16) Cultural Logics (& Spengler’s Dilemma)

Spare me the strife, fear and pain of my own logical inferences; to the point that anthropological complacency becomes a physiology of rational containment (although culture will seldom admit this). Because rationally alert and tensed individuals are not complacent individuals-are to some extent physiologically de-culturized individuals. Or expressed more moderately in regards to a scale or continuum between a physiology of rational complacency versus a physiology of rational inference, the resource of human logic in regards to unexpected inferences forced on the individual (of an ultimately moderate nature) is also an additional source of reinforcement of the structural-that is precisely in the individual’s very physiological invigoration (outside what is understood as a personal comfort zone). The mythological, then in this context, is similarly something of an exercise in physiological invigoration in regards to deeper points of anthropological configuration of individuality in regards to the group (opprobrium), but that culture makes its own necessarily and given mythological narrative, in its remote circumventing of the culturally rational itself, is still only representational, not real and a form of physiological fiction in its telling, even if it is also considered akin to something like the reality of scripture (but that is still a story and narrative in itself).

Because I am truly powerless from the standpoint of my own physiological and physical milieu-and so it is in the group itself that I have always taken refuge and vital shelter, at the furthest depths of my internal self and whether I knew it or not, or even despite culture’s opacity on this point: for this is my deepest nature as compulsion towards security and stability that only the logic I essentially live in, of a cultural nature, would have me deny at times and in the pressure that is the living obligation I also bear to be an individual (because I am my own body). But my biology is group-based to a much greater extent than culture allows me to understand, despite and also in addition to the physiological and physical circumstances of my own corporal experience.




Spengler’s book Der Untergang des Abendlandes (‘the down fall of the West’); or in the Spanish as La Decadencia de Occidente, is erroneously titled according even to his own words and theory; that is not really in regards only to the West, but as universal process of the contradiction and defectiveness of culture itself, that in fact seeks to impose upon the physiological (through the alternatively physiological of the semiotic itself), but in so doing drifts precariously away form the human physical itself; thus exposing itself once again to the vulnerability of its own semiotic distortion regarding a human reality it no longer heeds-because all culture, in the paraphrased words and ideas of Spengler, is a decorum mechanism that, in going too far in precisely the very force of what it is loses itself in regards to the human physical and physiological essence it functionally (and logically!) seeks to substitute. It is in exactly this sense that culture can be seen as a contradiction, and thus understood as intrinsically defective; probably because it is in fact really a state of balance as tension, and will insatiably move in the very direction of tension itself, blindly and to its own ultimate and systemic detriment. AND THE PROBLEM OF INVIGORATION IS ONCE AGAIN THE PROBLEM OF AGRICULTURE IN REGARDS TO DEEPER PHYSIOLOGICAL ESSENCE OF PEOPLE-HENCE CULTURE AS DEFECTIVE RESPONSE TO AN HISTORICAL PROBLEM, THAT IS AGRICULTURE ITSELF; ALTHOUGH SPENGLER CONSIDERED THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUPREMACY OF THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL AS BALANCE AS EXACLTY THAT WHICH INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT VIOLATED; BUT EVEN ORIGINAL AGRAIAN-BASED ANTRHOPOLOGY IS ALSO DEFECTIVE IN EXACLTY THE SAME WAY (BECAUSE IN A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IT WOULD ULTIMATELY LEAD ONCE AGAIN TO THE SAME PROCESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION.) BUT SPENGLER’S REAL SOURCE OF DATA WAS ACTUALLY THE STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL PROCESS OF THE EVENTUAL DECLINE OF CIVILIZATION PER SE-IN REGARDS TO ALL HISTORICAL FORMS OF AGRARIAN-BASED CIVILIZATION AS A NATURAL AND ORGANIC (INTRINSIC) PROCESS.

17) Sant Jordi y los dragones Gustavo Martin Garzo

El reforzamiento mitologico y una conformidad en tension por parte del sujeto semiótico respecto lo structura-antropológico (esto del dominio, definicion y cauce fisiológico del grupo en su misma racionalidad postulada y semiótica) tampoco siempre satisface en todos los tiempos y todo experiencia cultural puesto que la temporalidad fisiologica tiende a buscar lo novedoso-precisamente aquello que renueve una vez mas una verderara vigorización fisiológica y vital (que en cuanto vital solo puede ser efectivamente como vigorización); y no es de extrañar pues que una función subliminal del heroe narrativo como compensación esquiva y secreta de la misma subyugación antropológica de la individualidad sea percibido a veces en la misma brutalidad que representa, como precisamente artimaña y contrafuerza que no deja de ser por ello finalmente un rasgo de lo formalmente estructural; que induce a su vez y muy lógicamente a grupos de individuos a buscar variantes aunque sean solo simbólicos (y de menor presencia y fuerza tal como esboza Martin Garzo) pero dentro de una rebelión contra la rebelión que es efectivamente la función subliminal del heroe narrativo per se pero que quizá por pura repetición y en la misma brutalidad estructural que acaba por constituir y al parecer fisiológico de unos cuantos, pierda un punto de capacidad vigorizante real. Y en el mejor espíritu humano nuestro, cogemos y buscamos simplemente la vida por otros espacios como otras oportunidades del ser y estar fisiológicos, entremezcladas con lo que forzosamente hay que ver y sin que quede otra.




18) Dark Side of the Moon (1972-73) and the Phantom Side of Culture

The Dark Side of the Moon became one of the best-selling albums of all time[90] and is in the top 25 of a list of best-selling albums in the United States.[47][91] Although it held the number one spot in the US for only a week, it remained in the Billboard album chart for 741 weeks.[92] 14 years. The album re-appeared on the Billboard charts with the introduction of the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart in May 1991, and has been a perennial feature since then.[93] In the UK it is the eighth-best-selling album of all time.[94]

In the US the LP was released before the introduction of platinum awards on 1 January 1976. It therefore held only a gold disc until 16 February 1990, when it was certified 11× platinum.

-On 4 June 1998 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the album 15× platinum,[47] denoting sales of fifteen million in the United States – making it their biggest-selling work there.

– “Money” has sold well as a single, and as with “Time”, remains a radio favourite; in the US, for the year ending 20 April 2005,

-“Time” was played on 13,723 occasions, and “Money” on 13,731 occasions.[nb 8]

-Industry sources suggest that worldwide sales of the album total about 50 million.[96] “On a slow week” between 8,000 and 9,000 copies are sold,[90] and a total of 400,000 were sold in 2002, making it the 200th-best-selling album of that year – nearly three decades after its initial release. The album has sold 9,502,000 copies in the US since 1991 when Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales for Billboard.[97]

-To this day, it occupies a prominent spot onBillboard‘s Pop Catalog Chart. It reached number one when the 2003 hybrid CD/SACD edition was released and sold 800,000 copies in the US.[47]

-On the week of 5 May 2006 The Dark Side of the Moon achieved a combined total of 1,500 weeks [aprox. 29 years] on the Billboard 200 and Pop Catalog charts.[60]One in every fourteen people in the US under the age of 50 is estimated to own, or to have owned, a copy.[47] Upon a chart rule change in 2009 allowing catalog titles to re-enter the Billboard 200The Dark Side of the Moon returned to the chart at number 189 on 12 December of that year for its 742nd charting week.[98]

-It has continued to sporadically appear on the Billboard 200 since then, reaching 900 weeks on the chart in April 2015.[99]

A meditation on physical experience, perception as limitation in regards, however to culture as in fact something of an exclusion of the individually corporal itself; two different domains of physiological experience that leaves the individual always out in the cold so to speak, given the collective, living anthropological structural is non-apprehensible as of only human corporal perception and individual entity; is thus clear and stark contrast between the reality as cultural, semiotic invention civilized man lives in against and clearly removed from his singular bodily reality;

significance is thus in people’s sensitivity (perennial) to this state and predicament only art itself can address, and that culture proper seemingly can tell you not the first thing about—as a form of permanent, silent alienation of the deeper reality of true human experience as of the opprobrium-based self and her zoomorphic subject/object rationality; a corporal and physiological phantom the culturally-posited rational and semiotic requires part of you to be; and particularly in regards to certain and very real forms of economic-financial vision and technical imposition.


Human physiology simply is in its physiologically rational entity; or it requires a semiotics in which to project itself in contexts in which it cannot simply be in and of itself. The human self is opprobrium-based and thus already lives in a physiological morality of group configuration as individual, bodily awareness through the others that is also a physiological semiotics in primary form; and even after agriculture and in the semiotic itself, does the physiological self live on (evidently because human experience is singular, bodily experience): But of these two different physiological domains, which one is really the mask? Which one the truly intrinsic versus the extrinsic? In any case and on both side of the divide, opprobrium is the key. [19may16]

19) Physio-Semiotic Contexts or Models (George Steiner A sus 88 años, en El Pais)


A)Muchos dicen que las utopías son idioteces. Pero en todo caso serán idioteces vitales.

B)…Sus textos consiguen llevar al lector de la mano por todo el espacio de la cultura europea, la clásica tanto como la moderna, y hacerle participar en una especie de rito iniciático permanente. [Enrique Lynch; articulo en Babelia misma fecha]

  1. C) Le diré algo que le impactará: ¡Yo le debo todo aHitler! Mis escuelas, mis idiomas, mis lecturas, mis viajes… todo. En todos los lugares y situaciones hay cosas que aprender. Ningún lugar es aburrido si me dan una mesa, buen café y unos libros. Eso es una patria. “Nada humano me es ajeno”. ¿Por qué Heidegger es tan importante para mí? Porque nos enseña que somos los invitados de la vida. Y tenemos que aprender a ser buenos invitados. Y, como judío, tener siempre la maleta preparada y si hay que partir, partir. Y no quejarse.




Civilization and its Physiological Construct

Pre-semiotic (non or only primary linguistic-based) society is necessarily also pre-agrarian; because Semiotic Society is a physiological construct of projection, and not of just physiological being; pre-agrarian experience, on the other hand, is physiological in and of itself, not through the ideas sedentary experience forces people to live in.

And so while Semiotic Society is also about physiology and all our constant movement as vital being, it is on the whole less physiologically demanding than pre-agrarian experience; because people actually live in ideas that define ultimately collective physiological experience in a truly collective, structural sense.

Agrarian and Semiotic Society individuals experience a greater part of their personal physiology cognitively, not actually in physical terms.

Inferred thus is a savings of overall energy in vital cognitive experience over and dominant in regards to physiological expenditure of a less semiotic, strictly physical nature.

Greater longevity (for example) is thus intrinsic to civilization itself per se and not just because of technological advances.

And at an aggregate systemic and structural level, the cognitively physiological and semiotic is perhaps a more invigorated experiencing of the physiologically real at a hugely significant discount of human expenditure of vital force and energy.

The ideas people live in, then, is precisely what allows for the natural removal from the strictly physical culture has to impose on individuals, as a likewise natural response to the circumstances of sedentary, agrarian experience; semiotic lift-off  and development in the history of human societies is thus natural outlet for human physiology that can no longer be in and of itself, but rather must exist as a regime of physiological order-as projection-according to societal ideas opprobrium forces the individual herself to assimilate.

Significantly, however, is the fact that semiotic physiology as projection is a less physical physiology.

This aspect thus of human aggregate energy in comparison and contrast between Semiotic Society and pre-agrarian human experience, is of tremendous significance from a technical standpoint and understanding. [3jun16]


Semiotic=cognitive physiology, not necessarily physical physiology; and the physiologically real can thus either or both be physical and cognitive. Technical expenditure difference in comparison of one to the other would seem obvious, but is not available as part of culturally-posited rational understanding-although it should be understood that it is in fact a technical reality of the human realm of understanding beyond the culturally-posited and rational itself.













21) No sólo es la economía…, de Juan-José López Burniol en La Vanguardiael 4 junio, 2016

Tony Judt tomó una cita de J.B. Priestley para describir “la era de la opulencia” que vivió Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y que ha terminado con la crisis del 2008. 


“(Un) sistema consistente en una producción creciente,

MAS la inflación,

MAS un nivel de vida cada vez más alto,

MAS la publicidad y las técnicas de venta agresivas,

MAS los medios de comunicación de masas,

MAS la democracia cultural y la creación de un pensamiento de masas, de un hombre de masas”. 

En esta sociedad se ha dado “la victoria del animal laborans” –denunciada por Hannah Arendt en La condición humana– , es decir:

-el actual predominio de la mentalidad privado-profesional en la vida de la mayor parte de las gentes,

-compatible y potenciada por un hedonismo según el cual “sólo las sensaciones corporales son reales”,

-razón por la que hay que tender a “un modo de vida no político, totalmente privado, el verdadero cumplimiento de la sentencia de Epicuro: vive en lo oculto y no te ocupes del mundo”.

-Lo que se ha encarnado en el “totalitarismo permisivo” característico del capitalismo tardío, que –según Alejandro Llano– permite al ciudadano privado:

una amplia gama de gratificaciones sensibles, con tal de que no interfiera con su participación en los procesos públicos, gestionados por expertos anónimos apoyados, a su vez, por grupos de presión.


Este estado de cosas duró lo que duró. Y en el 2008 llegó su fin.

El establishment aún no se ha enterado de que se acabó lo que se daba. Sí lo ha sufrido, en cambio, la gente del común, que ha pagado los costes de la crisis en forma de una devaluación interna concretada en inestabilidad laboral, rebajas salariales y drásticas disminuciones de las prestaciones del Estado de bienestar. A lo que hay que añadir su indignación creciente por una desigualdad social obscena y una corrupción rampante. Lo que ha dado lugar a la convicción cada vez más extendida de que los dirigentes políticos –las cúpulas de los grandes partidos que han monopolizado hasta ahora el juego de la democracia representativa– están muy imbricados, en una relación de connvivencia cuando no de colusión, con un establishment del que, de hecho, forman parte.


Dairy Queen Anthropology?-Human Livestock Anthropology?-Of sweet human bondage Anthropology?-Animal laborans anthropolgy?…But in any case the system cannot provide full (and deserved!) gratification without some form of opposing but-actually-defining force of threat to (like the sound and idea of rain on one’s roof) reinforce an exhilarating satisfaction (hence invigorated conformity) with exactly what you have that is most importantly the idea of, for example: crime in terms of the violence of human nature itself, but also especially organized forms of threat towards society (gangs and mafias of whatever ethnic origin; narco groups as an idea and combination of drugs and firearms; the idea of threat of human weakness itself in terms of alcohol abuse and drug culture as the very darkness of defiance at its deepest level, along with the nihilistic wrath of poverty in especially black culture in regards to US context); the idea and conceptual notion of higher-tiered and even more secretive political-financial power groups of permanent conspiracy towards special interest leverage and control; all of which becomes the structural cherry on top of an animal laborans anthropology—but systemically inconceivable if not for the physiologically moral invigoration of threat people also need to permanently feel towards their own physiologically invigorated conformity to what simply is. [Threat in the sense here described becomes force of systemic invigoration and definition, finally, of stability of anthropological order; and is thus an essential ingredient to the possibility of physio-anthropological “complacency” of culture and its contrived space of posited rationality.]

But why groups as “threat workers” and concept?

Because of opprobrium and the greatest physio-titillation the core zoomorphic point of human rationality can produce, again and again—that is individuality itself born of the physical threat of the individual’s vulnerability to the violence of the group and its superior force of numbers; a physio-biological (zoomorphic) nut graph of the human animal as always (believe it or not!) a social organism, who ultimately needs to understand herself as in fact a conscious individuality-only because of the group, anyway and in defining opposition to it (despite what surface level cultural rationality tells you; because they are right not because they are right, but because there are always more of them!);

And so the same dichotomy of opposition at the semiotic of one’s own cultural group versus threat elements of especially other human groups, takes place similarly at the very phsyio-psychological core of anthropology as well, in the individual’s very rational sense of self in-because of-and against the group and the anthropological structural it ends up forming; because while you too, bask in the warm embrace of the cultural and anthropologically structural, part of you in your very corporality does not-that is an ultimate awareness of the impossibility of your ever really completely belonging because your body is not theirs; which is the very curse (in a certain sense) of individuality itself, as an inexorable responsibility nobody else can really help you with, ultimately; that is finally a form of mutual interdependence, between individuality and the culturally structural and semiotic, in that the former becomes also force of definition in regards to the latter-in the very violence of will to imposition of the individual as true—but cryptic—life force of the human and anthropologically structural itself. It is thus opprobrium as anthropological pillar, in the biology of the individual and the configuration of the anthropological and semiotic self, up to the highest arch of the semiotically conceptual itself.

And something like the greatest ghost and horror story ever told (probably universally and in all cultures) in reference to groups and their plans that you may or may not be part of; or that you are the very object of!

RIVISE ****************

Because you better snap to, take a good look and know where you stand!

(That’s when you know you are an individual on the social plane, in a social sense!)


*Posited cultural rationality-always in regards to and against something. What?

 –una amplia gama de gratificaciones sensibles: And so to some extent the physiologically semiotic of the anthropological becomes more physiological than rationally semiotic; that could be expressed as evolution as of semiotic pretext into the strictly physiological as part of anthropologically complacent itself! Because key to the anthropological, in some degree and universally, is physiological complacency according to the conceptually structural and semiotic that frequently is not as really important as they tell you it is! And this because physiological invigoration- feels good, God damn it! (Patriotism-for example- is a physiology, is it not?)

La victoria del animal laborans

[develop] Curious hedonist element and logic-I work (that often becomes physiological substitute for-and numbing of-the rational mind) I deserve (opprobrium!) to eat, rest and play!








22) Mason Pro Shop Tennis Warriors: A Moral Frontier (that Shall Beckon Not)

La crueldad y/o incompetencia del Banco de España, de Vicenç Navarro en Público

el 7 junio, 2016

…Pero al impacto sumamente negativo sobre el bienestar y calidad de vida de las clases populares que han tenido las políticas promovidas por el Banco de España y por el gobierno Rajoy, hay que sumarle el enorme daño al quehacer económico. El Estado español, que estaba en superávit cuando se inició la crisis (2007), y que tenía una deuda pública de solo algo más de un 30% del PIB, hoy tiene un elevado déficit y en un nivel de deuda pública que sobrepasa ya el 100% del PIB.


…Hoy las rentas del capital en España (como porcentaje de las rentas totales) son ya superiores a las rentas del trabajo. Una situación única en la UE-15 (el grupo de países de semejante nivel de desarrollo al que tiene España). Y ahí está la raíz del problema. La pobreza de la demanda y la pobreza de la población y del sector público se deben a que la mayoría de ingresos al Estado proceden de las rentas del trabajo. Al descender estas, desciende la demanda y aumenta la pobreza.

…Está claro que o son incompetentes (lo cual no descarto para el equipo de dirección del Banco de España), o son tan fanáticos con su dogma neoliberal que a pesar de todo siguen siendo insensibles al enorme daño que están causando. En realidad es justa la pregunta de cómo pueden ser tan insensibles. Y la respuesta es también fácil de ver. Es su servilismo y docilidad hacia el capital financiero (a la banca privada) y hacia el mundo empresarial, que están consiguiendo lo que siempre desearon. [But logic does not make sense itself, in that it cannot be logically accepted that the money classes, and especially at the highest technically financial level, would actually intend to undermine the very source and possibility ultimately of the their own social-anthropological structural dominance, yes?]


Un sorpasso logico y de la coherencia misma que es un confiarse en la prioridad de la posibilidad fisiologica humana colectiva, por encima ya de la coherenica racional que se arropa de logicas culturales especificas pero al mismo tiempo distorsionadas en su misma manutencion tambien fisiológica a expensas de lo racional, siendo esto como una especie de devualuación interna verdaderamente cognitiva que es precisamente aquello que permite la supremacia como posibilidad del ser y más bien estar fisiológicos; respecto permanentemente de la posibilidad finalmente económica-vital de lo estructural antropologica humana (porque la fisiología agregada sistémica humana a través del tiempo es simplmente la circunstancia misma del dinero que quiere decir tambien del bienestar material base colectivo y de la posibilidad asimismo de su propia y bien vigorizada critica intelectual-moral, igualmente y al gusto del imperioso sentir vital de unos cuantos; siempre que se este dispuesto a mantener las apariencias y aceptar la necesidad lógica (verdaderamente) del esfuerzo racional mediante la irracionalidad que no es mas quizá que una forma de flexibilidad intelectual-vital en su nivel mas elevado y extremo por perseverar fisiológicamente y hasta el cuerpo aguante que se dice…Sin que se altere lo semióticamente estructual que es la misma posibidad estructural de lo fisiologico-colectivo y sistémico, o al menos tal como lo concemos respecto un punto histórico concreto, resultado tambien de una evolución histórica anterior.



-El dinero = fisiologia colectiva agregada;

-La fisiologia = [depende de] la semitiótica, esto es, las ideas que rigen el quehacer vital humano colectivo, que el oprobrio obliga al individuo a asimiliar respecto su propio ser fisiológico y social.

-Cambios en la semiótica = [devienen] cambios en la proyección indivdual fisiológica

-Cambios en la fisiología colectiva pueden llegar a socavar lo economicamente esctructural de golpe y sopetón.


Sin lo estructural economico (en su dependencia tanto fisiológica como semiótica) hay crisis antropológica en un sentido mucho mas siniestro, en vez de solo crisis económica.


La clave pues es el dinero precisamente en su dependencia semiótica (que logicamente determina a su vez el componente fisiológico) por cuanto contexto físio-racional colectivo al que da lugar.

Develop Notes

-Notion of depth as circumstance and in fact preference of human perception (to the point of the individual’s need to project it on to reality). Why?

-A priority of physiology requires either fear in the individual or, as invigorated physiological complacency, a conceptual sense and security of some form of power in the very ideas the individual lives in-exactly so physiology may exert itself almost at the expense of reason itself (where true physiological invigoration is to be had); from the opposing side and standpoint this is a liability, broadly speaking, of anthropological modus operandi in which typically individuals can be held and in suspension for some period of time in their very physiology—to some degree at the expense initially of reason itself (and just as in fact the biology of culture does in the suspension of aspects of rationality in favor of instinctive physiological response of the individual in regards to extreme situations of duress and threat.

Or to put it another way the physiological smacks of the real when the semiotic—and reason itself—can in fact be simply taken for granted by the individual at least for a time…

Phantom of culture from the standpoint of culturally-posited rational and semiotic: the bodily and physiological experience; or the physiologically cognitive? Explain we live our life in a dream-exactly in what way, in regards to what?

-Problema conceptual de la semiotica para el poder intelectual histórico mas conservador:

Apocalittici e integrati (1964 – Partial English translation: Apocalypse Postponed, 1994)









This can mean peace, but is more consistently (and necessarily) a form of contained tension around some form of violence, politically and in the semiotic that is of course a direct servicing of the deeper physiological and cryptic foundation of culture itself. So what do olives really mean symbolically and in regards the anthropological?


1)Explain post-Franco experience of terrorism in Spain regarding an anthropology that is, however, bodily self-sufficient in that people’s relationship with the body is much more individually intrinsic (in the individual’s plenitude of physical nature, and not mediated in the semiotic to the degree personal, physical entity is in Protestant culture, for example).

Because the presence of real physical violence, in a low-intensity conflict that hides itself ambivalently in certain regional demographics, becomes a form of real, external invigoration human physiology cannot cryptically cultivate as culture itself (because it is in fact manifest); that real violence is in a sense logically real in a cultural context that lives of the bodily and physical more directly, as well; all of which keeps a grounded bodily seriousness of collective experience, that is generally less of the physiologically totemic and semiotic-because culturally, at all different levels, the physical and physiological of human experience is not disdained, but rather is held much more at the center of the cultural itself.

And so people are (or traditionally were) much less inclined to live off in a semiotic and physiologically totemic bubble of only a faux invigoration of just the semiotic, but rather remain much more seriously inclined towards direct interaction (in conversation, personal engagement that might help to explain the local inclinations of people to remain at all costs in their regions of origin); physiologically immediate connection with other people—that could have seemed to the eyes and in the opinion of the Anglo-Saxon as a cultural trait of a much less cerebral nature in Spanish people’s vitality and non-stop will to be necessarily through the company of others…

But this, of course, is a confusion actually in the eyes, heart and mind of the usually English or German-speaking on-looker; of frequently a consumer society sociological configuration (that structurally disdains human engagement outside of some form of commercial transaction and monetary purpose), and in her initial cultural approach to what she herself is not.

But still and universally, some form of violence on the immediate and local human horizon was systemically necessary, as perhaps the key to a seriousness of life people cannot renounce, that is typically wrought (and universally so, as well) of the suffering and loss of life, other human beings experience—in our contemplation of them.

For ultimately, where else is the moral to be found?

Because physiologically moral struggle and dilemma served on a cultural theater of the semiotic, is the greatest titillation of the anthropological itself, that only a physiologically moral and feeling self can know.

Same as it ever was.

(The cruelty of culture, according to Nietzsche in A Fish Called Wanda (1988) and the anthro-maintance of the human physiological as stability itself!)

Because that deeper, pre-civilized (pre-agricultural) physiology remains—and it will see its own satisfaction, one way or the other (that is exactly the problem that becomes the technical purpose of agricultural anthropology, in response to it).


2)A secularized catholic embrace of all beasts great and small and the water from which all our bodily thirst is quenched; becomes (was) thus underlying social force (on the political left and right) that holds the bodily nature of people at its center, despite whatever people socially adorn themselves with and in regards to whatever cultural direction their personal will takes them. And this physical dignity is their very dignity as need-driven, suffering individuals. And so in light of this there certainly is a right and wrong way of doing things; and to this right way of doing things will you also hold yourself as an individual and in regards to others.

Comparison to Protestant-based cultural contexts: would thus seem to be of a more cerebral nature in regards to a preference for physical removal as in fact a shunning whenever possible of the bodily itself—and even in regards to explosions of physical violence as a very much traumatic and cultural anathema that is even more horrendously disturbing beyond the moral itself—especially because of the raw, physical intensity of images that could be considered as something like a veiled and momentary destruction of underlying cultural framework and order that is, much more so than in other body-based cultural rationalities, a permanent attempt and chokehold with regard to physiological disturbance of the phsyio-sensorial itself. And so violence of a phsyio-social nature, when it does erupt, is all the more savage. [NOTE REVISE –PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY AFRAID OF THEMSELVES IN THEIR CAPACITY FOR VIOLENCE]

Pre-agricultural contrast with semiotic-based anthropology: So the actual real need of human groups to live in conflict with others (as culture anchored to a realm of violence out of physiological necessity and progressively ????so the more significant sedentary experience becomes???) is logical from the standpoint of opprobrium, and the reinforcement of the group through individual’s outlet of violence regarding other groups, and not their own (although there are other aspects); but while originally physical, the physiologically but not physically real of semiotic-based human systems (as of agriculture, or at least sedentary experience, necessarily) would logically tend towards elaboration of semiotic elements as cultural ideas of violence, suffering and wanton slaughter, as of historical events from the past and that as ideas in fact stave off the need for further and renewed, real physical violence in the present, as an exemplum of a contemplation dark, that in its darkness also positively invigorates the physiological present (as of really only a cultural notion and idea!): WWII and the European Holocaust + Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a good example of just this, in how Western culture (and so to a great degree the world, also) historically holds this centrally to their own force of contemplation and ultimate identity as a searing, permanent example of what is never to happen again…But that is by no means the first example of this in human history, as naturally logical in regards to all human groups with a sense of historical identity, lore and collective myth…

But this is hard to imagine as having been possible before progressively more and more sedentary, human experience.

In Regards to the Big Systemic (beyond individual’s physiological milieu):

Becomes once again a form of semiotic hearsay (but that is essentially culturally binding through the opprobic) that, barring specific personal experience beyond the physiological-cultural milieu of standard individuality and the semiotic self, becomes a reality that is because it in fact cannot be directly observed physiologically and through bodily perception-that is thus only really in the semiotic as at least the physiologically real, but is also the rationally imposed and normally believed and unquestioned (basically because its on TV, and from the standpoint of not every one, but certainly for a great many people and massively). To the point that not being able to directly confirm through some form of direct and bodily observation in regards to events that are nevertheless understood to be real, establishes a kind of equivalency with history itself in exactly that which culture must cultivate, otherwise it would not effectively exist in the minds of people (and thus would not be of anyone’s physiological reality, ultimately); and so what is erected in regards to the past, can also be made immediate in the social and physiological present through the semiotic and, crucially, through the physical limitation of individuals to actually know reality. [Shell Game theme; and ideas of CW Mills]

Phyisio-totemic Inference:

And the self with regards to the semiotic thus positions herself internally as physiologically cognitive process of the mind—that is a moral positioning of self-definition through fear, moral threat (opprobrium) and physiological response to sensorial—and cognitive—perception, of in fact ideas and the semiotic itself; as a broadly understood realm of physiological moral dilemma of self internal to the individual, but that is the natural outlet and space for the corporal and logical self of opprobrium-based bodily vulnerability to the group, once again and as the birth point of at least the socially rational (outside of the psycho-affective sphere of family), although its force is permanently of the human biological and therefore of also permanent irrational origin and nature (despite one’s intellectual understanding of it.) But you and your body in regards to and versus the others is certainly a predicament and circumstance of very much rational self-awareness, indeed. Enter: calculation—discretion—manners—forms of deception, and tactics of social diplomacy, for how else can advantage be gained by the individual, before and potentially faced with the very numerical superiority of the group itself?

Real social (physical and physiological) interaction, is of course a different matter with the regards to the physio-totemic self; to the point that interpersonal, social exchange becomes in some ways relief from it and the rigors of the physiologically cognitive process of the mind that is permanently subject itself to the opprobrium force of moral threat; that because in the mind the world in its individually-conceived entirety is something of a personal matter until it can in fact be contrasted through the perception and physiological acceptance of others (even if disapprovingly), reality itself can not really be said to begin except through others—and because your real, more wholesome self is actually in them, anyway. This at least anthropologically is the reason why you need and so have a self, to begin with (the self of non-sedentary groups is different, and not the self we understand as our own, and after agriculture.)







(Violence of creation, also)

And so this becomes a previous apocalypse that is retrospectively guarantor of the future itself and from the past (is the possibility of the stability and identity of the now, and that physiological experience must be reminded of from time to time through culturally rational force of the semiotic…)

And a remembered violence begets peace, it would seem.


Nifty little mechanism in my life time that was like a whisper in regards to 1960s, black social violence in most major cities of the US—that was seldom referred to but that you knew had happened; although there was hardly any semiotic trace of it in the culturally-standardized rational, whatsoever (and even less as the decades moved on.) And only really exits if you in fact want to find it, through conversation especially with Afro-Americans of a certain age, and perhaps also of a specific personal ideology that in fact allows them to recall and communicate their memories of experience lived and witnessed (because not all individuals will freely—expansively—talk of such things…

Other contexts cultivate reinforcement of cultural legacy as also a necessary impingement of the semiotic on current physiological experience.

And at the deeper structurally anthropological, underlying sub-cultural physiology must also be serviced (reminded of and reinforced in contradiction in fact with the culturally-posited) as actually real cornerstone of the possibility of the culturally rational itself in the systemic physiological viability this servicing provides anthropological context, auxiliary and in regards to physiological needs of people the culturally rational cannot easily heed.


How is this done?

-Generally, in the semiotic;

music, dance, different forms of ritual; and generally in the physiologically real but fictional experiencing of the aesthetic and representational.

-Physically also in sports

-The presence of violence in society is also part of this, really structural phenomenon;

Perennial violence of human groups out towards other groups (because of the rigors of the opprobic, violence that is of course not tolerated inside the group, is in fact possible—supported even–outside  and in regards to other, different human groups. Same as it ever was. Specifically, because this form of outer group violence is very probably a form of phsyio-oprobic relief for individuals, and from the opprobrium mechanics their own individuality is based on and that is a structural dictate (to a great and powerful degree) of their own group.

Counter cultural phenomena; and naturally so because the real force of individuality is the structural opposition it necessarily enters into with regards to the culturally structural itself, as of the basic configuration of human groups anyway, and long before its contemporary conceptualization; and it is the individual who becomes the real—but veiled and cryptic—force of the culturally structural—that is as long as it is required to be (through in fact its being challenged physiologically as well as physio-rationally by bodily rational individuality.)


Bodily Rationality versus The Cultrually-Posited Rational and Semiotic


And the powder-keg problem mass media becomes in regards to physiological process of the human mind and the physiological mental and totemic; and to which it seems evident historically, the development of the Pop-Cultural (and not just the Cold-War principle of dissuasion through mutual destruction) was key finally to post WWII-basically global-stability. And the process could be succinctly understood of a servicing of the human physiological—behind so to speak the rational veil of culture itself.


Decorum Rationality that is thus not always rational, but rather physiologically invested in as well in its very functionality of hiding, containing the physiologically disturbing and physiologically unmediated.

So Rationality has to work anthropologically as a veil, in its very standardization that thus excludes the individually non-communicable and singularly irrelevant (from the standpoint of the collective itself); and in a situation where reality were to be found so adverse that it could not actually be spoken of (and so thus once again physiologically overwhelming and even in its conceptualization), rationality would consist then of creation of some form of fictionalized mode of continued social perseverance as a further form of culturally-configured standardization of ideas—still and alwyas against the physiological, physio-conceptual and sensorial uncouth.

26) (Is JC, DQ?) What JC is the response and answer to

That is a context of warring human groups—specifically through what Marvin Harris referred to as the personal charisma of messianic, guerilla warriors and their messianic warrior life style; for most naturally do anthropological contexts of sedentary experience need to divide themselves up into opposing groups and factions, out of physiologically rational necessity and towards their own invigoration, against the force of physiological immobilization of sedentary, agrarian-based anthropology (and before, of course, the existence of televised, spectator sports!)

The thesis proposed by Harris (1975) is that JC was a narrative figure perhaps also initially modeled on the same charisma as that of political-military guerilla leaders, who necessarily lived on the fringes of social experience; strategically, but also because of the obvious threat they intentionally represented, popularly and in regards to the occupying powers who were their direct and structurally systemic (“inter-physiological”) opponents.

Sound enough like Jesus?

The force of Christ, of course, is not physical violence, but rather the ideas he is a bearer of; and most especially in conceptual imagery and narrative (physiologically conceptual) of a violence finally and definitively overcome!

As thus a form of powerful anthropological intervention in regards to the problem agrarian-based anthropology is invariably some form of answer to; Problem that consists essentially of the contradiction in invigorated human violence as structural need towards stability itself-specifically in the possibility and problem of physiological invigoration in the very realm of human need and nature civilized experience cannot formally satisfy.

Needs that are thus frequently left to contingency itself, that over time indeed does formalize itself as the very entity and anti-center of cultural stability in violence itself;

Unbridled invigoration finally as a stability of physiological duress, pain and loss (and most outrageously, probably for the majority of local inhabitants!)

So JC is the presentation of the act and strategy of overcoming, really, certain defective characteristics of that historically specific anthropological context, but probably ultimately in regards to a deeper physiologically rational element of human individual entity and nature,

And that which sedentary culture invariably is in its struggle with.


Semiotic contexts (of ideologies based on the advent of the messianic liberator) that allow for structurally controlled pockets of inter-group (us and them) violence, structurally in the de facto and culturally central, military force of the occupier, and whom rebel groups oppose; and in a certain sense oppose parasitically in regards to a necessary stability they themselves are not responsible for (because rebels, of course, are the invigoration side and systemic (inter-physiological) force. Really probably in a sense of physio-rational impostion and violence, of more physiological importance than actual significance of meaning…Until JC arrived on the scene.

And so bodily (and political) sacrifice is finally a mechanism of semiotic imposition and the conceptually significant—spurred by intrigue and also physiological force of sensory impact, in the narrative of Christ’s death; so that the fierce and angry will of the moral individual can thus embrace the physio-semiotic presentation of what is physiologically conceptual (and eventually physiologically binding); and so is itself also an eminently physiological proposal, finally:

And in one man’s death is all our deaths—and all our murders, as well and forever more. Definitively.

And physiologically proposed is also then on and forever more, the individual’s ongoing, living will of embrace of the Christ, which is never exactly simple, never easy:

Anthropologically, it’s not supposed to be!

You have to want it, and physiologically and physio-morally work for it(*)-and therein lays the figure’s real effective power over the anthropological itself—in the believer’s own physiological projection and the historically beneficial effect this undeniably had over Western experience, especially.


*There is, on this point, a serious difference between Protestant and Catholic visions of Christ (and perhaps in regards to other realms of Christianity);

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.


Crucially, the acceptance and embrace of JC (and the violence of pacisfism he imposes over human contexts) is preseneted in such way to the individual that it can only be perceived in itelf as a form ultimately of indiviudal power of imposition, and no longer weakness.


27)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

-Human perception itself, especially visual


-The physio-totemic as process

-Language in its structural workings

-Existential-narrative belief as imposition over only partially understood and controlable reality.

-As human need to impose on reality (at least through physiologically rational conviction) what circumstances and perhaps the culturally-posited rational itself do not immediately reveal. Because if you cannot simply take for granted the culturally-posited rational, use personal, rationally-based conviction to make your own actions effectively possible; because you need auxiliary support of some form of at least incipient rationality and logic—when that rationality and logic is not simply anthropologically evident of itself.

-Through physio-rational imposition I effectively make myself bigger than the reality of limitation I live in and struggle against in my own physiological milieu and ken; this is of course generally only possible in—or supported by—the semiotic itself. And one of the reasons I need to make my self bigger than the limitation I live in and defines me after agriculture, is the force of physiological immobilization of the agrarian anthropological itself; and that because I am physiologically sentient and rationally aware—but cannot actually go anywhere because of the nature of sedentary existence—I need to make reality itself bigger than it is in just my perception of it.


As semiotic, physio-rational projection and elaboration, reinforced over the generations—but towards always collective and systemic physiological stability and invigoration (that because stable, effectively requires invigoration.)


Physiological strife and invigoration of agrarian experience (in the semiotic) that goes physically nowhere; but that is, in its invigoration, a lifting of the weight of sedentary physiological experience (and given human physiology is not, in an evolutionary sense, really designed for—or suitable to—the permanently sedentary.) That becomes a lifting of the weight of waiting that is a good way to describe the experience and circumstances of human beings as of their own, underlying perception of existence, historically and after agriculture.

Or you can be an explorer (or more likely still, go to war!)


How to be physiologically rational in another language, and the attainment of competency of physio-rational, linguistic imposition.

-Language: A form of physio-rational invention and imposition, based on a limited set of rules the individual has at her physio-rational disposition; that is culturally reinforced as of is its physiological relevance for the individual through the opprobrium mechanism. And the linguistic opprobrium self becomes the poet in all of us as of an opprobrium-forced, linguistic competency of individuality; that nevertheless is also linguistically free to the degree language allows for and towards the individual’s own capacity of physio-linguistic imposition and invention.


Rules and definition of language allow for the possibility of physiologically-rational, linguistic freedom towards self-imposition…(other wise language itself would have never become popular)





Decontextualization that stimulates target-beholder to physio-rationally impose semantic context on what is visually presented to perception; as a strategy that would seem to play on human tendency to impose on perception itself. But that is more specifically directed at the individual’s capacity to guess—or, really, formulate—meaning in regards to presented sensorial prompts that initially in and of themselves offer none; and over time, it becomes a semiotics in itself, in regards to a foundational set of basic references upon which new conceptualizations can be introduced, as once again and ultimately a physiological imposition over the individual towards in fact her own capacity to physio-rationally impose meaning on the sensorially perceived.

30)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability:

The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

Logic under the cover of the deceased who obviously cannot confirm or deny proposed, working logic and explanation the living in fact understand themselves through. And it is this impossibility of rationally knowing that allows the group and cultural logic to operate, towards the effective logical sequencing of events of cause and effect; towards finally what is essentially a comfort in logic itself, in regards to a Big Systemic beyond anyone’s control—so the circumstances of human mortality are a little easier to bear in a logic-based understanding, and at least from a physiologically immediate cultural standpoint;

And logic-based it is, even though it is certainly NOT real–but the death of others in its contemplation by the individual is very much physiologically real and requires some form of human ability to control thus temper, and alleviate—and this crucially in a collective sense; otherwise the group would dissipate. The logic of the culturally-proposed rational is the instrument to such an effect.

And it would inexorably come into being through cultural tradition as of originally the human need to physio-rationally impose on reality itself; a need which is in fact permanently felt, permanently renewed as loss of those physiologically proximate.

So somebody posited that very logical imposition, because the original human, Carib group had to sine qua non, although any other logically sound explanation would have similarly worked.

But such a positing of the logically conceptual from the standpoint of human need is only possible on to that which cannot be logically approached, neither confirmed nor—more importantly—contradicted; because in just this non-approachable quality is its supreme value, in the very creation of a context of collective physiological stability protected from further physiologically rational imposition by other individuals (that is people’s very physiologically rational nature!); As in some sense, a mechanism and mode—or structure—ultimately of protecting the collective group from human, individual nature itself.

In this way, the group’s physiology and physiological projection is essentially limited in the posited, conceptual definition of it—because individuals cannot undo logical tenets of what becomes a cultural proposition: its logic is beyond contradiction, and thus inaccessible to individual force of rational will and physio-rational imposition. And group integrity as stability (in its ideas and thus in individual’s physiological response and projection) is effectively put beyond the reach of the force of individuality itself.

Cargo Cults, the Kenaima and God (for example) all follow the same central structuring and positing of logic on the non-apprehensible, logically non-approachable and that which necessarily cannot be contradicted; that assures group preservation through the containment of individual physio-rational will of imposition. And cultural logic, because it is held desperately on to by the group as of extreme physiological duress and need, becomes eventually, a form of normative authority over the limits of individual experience—that is finally an authority over identity, or the better part of it; but of course, not completely because the cultural and anthropologically structural requires the challenge individuality is to it—is in fact structurally dependent on it as culture’s very reason for being;

And typically after agriculture (or at least sedentary experience that is the anthropological context of the Carib Indians, and in regards to their need for postulating of the Kenaima) that authority will eventually require custodians, as a priestly class as component of anthropology and human societies Upton Sinclair would later refer to universally as The Priestly Lie.

Because the tacitly perceived assault on humanity by greater forces, and in regards to people’s helplessness, ultimately, at the mercy of the broader unknown mechanics and force of the natural world, becomes physiologically an invigorated conformity with exactly what people know to be real—that which they can touch, gain warmth from and protect themselves with; circumstances and conditions of immediate bodily experience, that, if not for a postulated counterforce of permanent cosmic and existential siege, would be less bearable in themselves. That is, a logic-based, semiotic explanation as not only a comfort in rational understanding (though not empirical, but still rational), but also a crucial source of exhilaration through fear towards living, finally, in a physiology of gratefulness for what one in fact is, and for what one in fact does have.

And that need crucially from the standpoint of a force of physiological immobilization of agrarian anthropology, over the millennium and to the present has not changed at all; rather only in regards to the sources of culturally-postulated fear, which need not be necessarily of a religious nature, but only remote enough so that its rational positing cannot be easily challenged by individuals and only from the vantage point of just individual experience.


WWII experience of science, like an all-powerful individuality naturally removed from the physio-opprobic restraints as definition of the group who could very well know no limits whatsoever… (Hitler, Japanese Militarism.)


From The Central Caribs, William Curtis Farbee. University of Pennsylvania (University Museum) 1924

“The Kenaimas are little people who live in the depths of the forest and come out at night to attack people—to kill them outright or to inflict some punishment upon them which will eventually cause their death. They may be hiding in lonely places waiting an opportunity to spring upon a passing victim. They are real men, not spirits, but they can do things that other men cannot do. No man ever saw one of these kenaimas; they are known only by what they accomplish. They never attack a man except when he is alone. Therefore a man never travels alone, hunts alone, nor even goes out of his house alone at night for any purpose. The reason the kenaima will not attack two people is because they must not be seen, not because they are afraid. Another peculiarity about the Kenaima, a very significant one, is that he never draws blood nor leaves visible signs of his attack. The victim always dies in three days. There is no cure. The things the kenaima does to his victim are very interesting. He catches him, throws him down and pierces his tongue with a poisoned stick, which causes it to swell up so he cannot speak plainly. The victim goes home and dies in three days. Or, he throws his victim down, presses out the end of the intestine and pricks it or ties it up so there can be no evacuation, or, he may simply wrestle with the victim causing irritation of the skin. In every case the victim dies in three days. No wonder the kenaimas are feared above all things. The piazong has no power over the Keniamas and may himself be attacked by them.”

“A man never dies a natural death, he is always killed either by the Kenaimas or the evil spirits sent by the piazong of an enemy tribe”…(Pg. 74-75)

“Man should live forever if it where not for the kenaimas and evil spirits which lurk about and kill him whenever opportunity offers. “(Pg. 81)

The Central Caribs, William Curtis Farbee. University of Pennsylvania (University Museum) 1924

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 )

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.