3. Physiologically Rational Imposition

INDEX

1)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

2) A CULTURAL NOTION

3)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS

4)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability:

The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

5) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)

(6)Two-component and compartmentalized entities: how one side relates to the other and relationships of mutual inter-physiological dependence that arise.

(7)YUXTAPOSICION Y CAUSALIDAD (CRASO ERROR)

 

 

1)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

-Human perception itself, especially visual

-Opprobrium

-The physio-totemic as process

-Language in its structural workings

-Existential-narrative belief as imposition over only partially understood and controllable 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 myself 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.

 

ENTER THE DIVINE

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

 

WEIGHT LIFTING-OR PUMPING IRON(1977) & SHOOT TO THRILL(1981)

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!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) A CULTURAL NOTION

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.

 

_____________________

Notes

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

 

 

3)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS

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.

 

 

 

 

 

4)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 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 to imposition. And cultural logic, because it is held desperately on to by the group as of extreme physiological duress and need, becomes a 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 in its 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 a 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.)

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)

The Opprobrium Self is a bodily moral-rational self, once it is forced from the zoomorphic into her own bodily awareness and regard as of external, social reality always in the others; and because contemplating what I am not, is the first physio-sensory step towards knowing what I am.

 

And may very well be the only step the individual actually takes as self, finally, in permanent tension with being in what it she is not; as negatively-defined and so a situational, positional sense of self with regards to the others. Because the core of opprobrium is zoomorphic and so inaccessible to the rational mind that is itself based—paradoxically and culturally—in fact on it; and it is as if the character of a story would then impossibly seek to address the author and the character’s creator. And opprobrium becomes the culturally structural enforcer of individuality itself, in our belonging to the group that can in fact never completely be; and opprobrium’s force is in fact in its inaccessibility by the individual, much in the way religion itself must posit its logical tenets on exactly that which can never be contradicted (nor empirically confirmed) so that it may, too, be permanently beyond the possibility of further physiologically rational imposition by individuals (although fortunately for culture itself, they are still going to try!)

 

Because historical religions are also a tale of spin-offs, and an evolution of physiologically-rational imposition by different, usually geographically specific, human groups, in regards to the same basic tenets and postulations of a once specific and original creed.

 

Why is that?

 

_________________________

 

 

 

(6)Two-component and compartmentalized entities: how once side relates to the other and the relationships of mutual inter-physiological dependence that arise.

[5jul16]

Cultural tradition and ideas at the service of collectively systemic physiological possibility and its stability

 

Because a social and culturally systemic context is created of structurally physiological stability—in the anthropological grounding tradition offers; as a where to go back to, and that which culturally can be taken for granted, ultimately, by everyone. Identity, yes; but specifically a physiological stability and freedom because of the ideas tradition provides, off of which and in contrast to, other modes of physiological being can take place: calmly and in an invigorated security of a culturally contextual safety belt and tether.

 

De-contextualized propositions cannot be contradicted

And become logically non-approachable; and that if broad enough can be re-edified in regards and response to new changes, adjustments and evolution of the culturally rational. One step beyond and one step ahead, into the realm of the logically non-approachable and therefore impossibly contradicted; and truth becomes what the powerful (for whatever reason and circumstances; as of whatever form of legitimacy) say it is.

 

 

Semiotics [DEFINES] anthropologically structural human physiology;

 

BUT

A physiology of conviction can end up imposing on the semiotic through physio-rational imposition; because physiologically rational imposition of meaning is true, underlying force of the anthropological.

 

 

Thus anthropological stability is a business of semiotic control; first and foremost as definition, but necessarily also as some form of cultural imposition-against the physiologically rational nature and force of individuals. Ideally, of course, control that is ultimate systemic physiological stability does not necessarily negate the possibility of auxiliary spaces of physiological and physiologically rational exhilaration (such as the pop-cultural, and generally the representational aspect of the semiotic—and all that is effectively art from this anthropologically structural standpoint); but such spaces and such a servicing of the deeper, intrinsic realms of physiological experience must be structurally subordinate to the extrinsically cultural and semiotic itself.

 

Because only through logic is the force of physiologically rational imposition of individuality held in check; in the normative force of the culturally conceptual and semiotic offered to and over the individual, and as a physiologically relevant (opprobrium-enforced) certainty of what is from the group’s standpoint; in regards to how we approach knowing itself, as the group we ultimately become—and for all individualities of mind through the body who would also know themselves as one of us.

 

Because if culture cannot tell you what are, you will end up imposing your own logical understanding on your experience (because you need to through an intrinsic physiology towards comfort that is the deeper nature of physiological experience, and so thus requires of the rational logic of the collective group; that is rational first and foremost because it is collective, and not always necessarily empirical). But the comfort of anthropological stability, and the complacency individuals truly demand of it, is because a logic of knowing is unfailingly always provided for the individual;

 

As cultural narratives in multiple forms, origin and nature, towards an understanding of what we are—or perhaps more crucially—could be, that is existentially our permanent becoming, and really optimum mode of physiological being.

 

And structurally it is individuality as will towards physiologically rational imposition—even in civilized contexts given my intrinsic, deeper opprobrium-based physiological nature remains—that becomes culture’s opportunity of being in its own renewal as an exercising of itself—in the very challenge individuality represents to it.

 

And so the two sides of the anthropologically structural achieve a most invigorated equilibrium of opposing force as balance, in the comfort of the culturally-posited rational on one hand (along with the extrinsic, opprobrium-driven quality of socially functional individuality)—versus the true underlying physiologically rational nature of individual struggle to be as belonging to the group, but forever corporeally excluded.

 

And paradox becomes the foundation of individual experience, of the anthropologically real itself, and not just a literary notion:

 

And it is in her zoomorphic terror of not belonging that the need as relief of the rational itself is so powerful for the individual—because it is a form of being as belonging in at least the physiologically conceptual realm of the individual, in a rationality that is rational first and foremost because it is collective; that is a belonging as finally a partaking of whatsoever things the group posits as true.

 

And in their truth is also their physiology; and so in my partaking of their truths, also is my physiology similarly one and the same. But no closer will the nature of my bodily experience ever allow me to approach…

 

And so it is that the unreasonableness of the irritated individual is proximate to a form of responsibility in the anthropologically structural as well, as a necessary bearing of the circumstances of the problem of bodily experience for the individual.

 

Because everything else around her, frequently from the standpoint of the culturally rational (more so in consumer anthropology) is frequently about ignoring what you intrinsically are.

 

Because aggregated consumer models of market business administration and study of demand, do not really know what to do with deeper nuances of individuality.

 

I mean how much money can you make off of just an individual, anyway?

 

Bigger investment planning favors a more structural individuality and physiological uniformity, anyway.

 

Because serious investment planning towards capital return, over time, has always taken place at an anthropological level of agency through human, physiological demographics.

 

(Correct me if I am wrong!)

 

 

 

(7)YUXTAPOSICION Y CAUSALIDAD (CRASO ERROR)

La paradoja económica globalLEÓNEL FERNÁNDEZ

8 JUL 2016 – 18:00 EDT

Ese predominio del sector financiero o financiarización de la economía global, que empezó a surgir hace más de tres décadas, ha implicado una desnaturalización de la manera en que un sistema económico debe funcionar, y ha sido, por consiguiente, la causa fundamental que desató la crisis financiera global y de que ésta todavía no haya podido ser superada. [FALSA CAUSALIDAD INICIAL NO LOGICAMENTE DETERMINADA]

 

 

[ARGUMENTO LOGICO POSTERIOR POR TANTO DISVIRTUADO]

-Como consecuencia de la evolución de ese fenómeno de financiarización, entre 1980 y 2014, los activos financieros a nivel mundial se expandieron de 12 billones a 294 billones de dólares.

 

-En el mismo periodo, los contratos de derivados pasaron de un billón a 692 billones de dólares, una suma fabulosa, sin antecedentes en la historia, que implica que han pasado a representar cerca del 70% de los activos financieros a nivel global.

 

-Más aun, los derivados cuyo valor era cercano al PIB mundial en 1980, pasaron a representar 10 veces el valor de la capacidad mundial de generación de riquezas a partir de la segunda mitad de la década del 2000.

 

-Debido al volumen de los montos señalados, puede considerarse que, en estos momentos, en la economía global no hay falta de liquidez, sino todo lo contrario. Si es así, ¿cómo es posible que haya una situación de virtual parálisis en el crecimiento de la economía mundial, sobre la base de una presunta falta de liquidez?

 

-El exceso de liquidez que actualmente encontramos en la economía mundial no se utiliza para invertir en la producción industrial, de alimentos, de fuentes de energía o de obras de infraestructuras. Al revés, se emplea, fundamentalmente, en la realización de transacciones financieras, que en lugar de contribuir a crear un tipo de riqueza material que satisfaga la demanda de los consumidores, crea, más bien, un tipo de riqueza artificial fundamentado en papeles comerciales.

 

-De esa manera, suscita un potencial de crisis que es generado por la existencia de una riqueza ficticia que se incrementa a gran velocidad, sobrepasando al mismo tiempo los volúmenes de producción y de comercio a nivel mundial.

 

-Como consecuencia del predominio de un modelo de financiarización de la economía global, desde el 2007 hasta el 2014, la deuda pública mundial, en lugar de disminuir, se ha incrementado en 60 billones de dólares, para un total de 200 billones de dólares. [FALSA CAUSALIDAD, DE NUEVO]

 

-La humanidad nunca conoció cifras semejantes. Todo eso desborda la imaginación y toda capacidad de raciocinio. Sin embargo, es la realidad en la que el mundo se encuentra en estos momentos; y es, naturalmente, lo que explica el estancamiento secular en el crecimiento de la economía mundial y la razón por la cual, a pesar de todos los esfuerzos desplegados, aún no se logra superar la crisis financiera global iniciada en el 2007.

 

-Por tales motivos, se requiere enfrentar esta situación y desactivar lo que a todas luces constituye una bomba de tiempo. Se trata de poner en ejecución un plan global de regulación del sistema financiero, que puede ser liderada, en el marco de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, por las principales instituciones financieras multilaterales.

 

-Desafortunadamente, a pesar de la irrefutable necesidad de ese cambio, todavía hay voces, que en defensa de sus privilegios, se levantan en franca oposición, poniendo en peligro al resto de la humanidad.

 

_______________________________________________________________

Leonel Fernández, expresidente de República Dominicana, es fundador de la Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The counter-assumption, that “correlation proves causation,” is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “with this, therefore because of this,” and “false cause.” A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”)

 

[Sequential correlation (temporal) is not necessarily causation; Coincidence of two elements thus in time or in space, is not necessarily causation (but does not either rule out causation!)-and so thus becomes a form of ambivalence/ambiguity the physiologically rational will of human imposition tends often to rush blindly into, simply because it is available as a possible act of logical inference; and that a physiology of rational conviction in some sense could be understood as having right to in fact do so!]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

 

The following is a simple example:

The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

 

En cualquier caso:

Planteamiento logicamente disvirtuado que aun retiene valor real y práctico, precisamente en la dualidad de experiencia que establece entre lo racionalmente comprendida frente a la posibilidad misma de lo social tal y como lo conocemos; situación en la que el no tener que enfrentarse a una racionalidad insoportable se convierte en proposito por tanto real y lógico (y pues racionalemente justificado; esto es en el no ser racional intencionadamente por evadir los rigores imposibles logicos del ahora histórico y actual); lo social en tanto bienestar material basado sobre el orden fisiologico estrcutral-colectivo y sistemico, que es el sustento tecnico base del orden antropologico finalmente, y a traves de la circunstancia del dinero.

 

Como ficcion crucial y sine qua non respecto la posibilidad de mantener las ideas en las que vivimos y que son la base verdadera-aunque pocas veces comprendida-de la experiencia civilizada en si…

 

El contexto precisa por tanto de aquellos otros elementos negativos que igualmente avalan en su misma contradiccion y enfrentamiento la estabildad base misma; esto es, en la critica racional del mismo contexto (no siempre y necesariamente  ni estricta ni formalmente logica); y respecto la protesta que solo en contadas veces deviene y degenra en violencia real pero esencialmente limitada en su alcance;

 

Pero en todos los casos respecto en realidad la posibilidad fisiologica vigorizada que todos conocemos y damos por tipicamente real como experiencia de los entornos y contextos colectivos civilizados (que por su misma natureleza de retencion estructural que es una contencion efectiva de la violencia fisiologica y fisio-racional del ser humano requieren de la posibilidad de espacios de vigorizacion, que es como una suspension estructural fisiologica sin la cual la misma viabilidad esturctural no es posible-porque llegamos fisiologicamente a no poder tolerar la immobilizacion fisiolgica real de la que de repente depende la civilizacion, a partir historicamente de la agricultura.)

 

______________________________

Pero Leonel Fernández (el autor del texto inicial) no es consciente de nada de esto que dices…

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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