1. Systemic Women Beget Systemic Non-Women
2. The Law is The Sun
3. Individual Physiology, Semiotics and the Culturally-Posited Rational
4. Anthropological Subjection of Individuals by Groups and Groups by Individuality
5. Knowing and Deception in Anthropological Circumstances
6. Evasive Aerial Maneuverers
7. Why Socrates spent practically all of his time and energy engaging the Sophists:
8. Norberto Elias Canetti y Spengler-Gasset conoce al Sr Nietzsche
9. Human Groups Know Better
10. The Age of Nationalism and Reform 1850-1890, Norman Rich, 1977
11. Semiotics and Physiology; Anthropological Individuality and Human Personality
12. A Culturally Contrived Standardization of Rationality
13. Constantin Guys (1802-1892) and Totemic Political Being
14. Moral-conceptual weight in imagery compositions
15. Doves Take Hawks
16. A Leveraging of Mother
17. Torture Games and Simulacra
18. A Clinical Dentist Technician
19. Demographic Faith and Summer Resort Towns in The Off Season
20. El demiurgo perenne del subsuelo contemporaneo
Different physical and spatial circumstances, different physiological milieu; different physiological milieu, distinctly defined rational mode of being, for human beings.
Systemic Women Beget Systemic Non-Women
Feminism defines itself as of the probably universal, cultural plight of women, although it can also move quickly into its own distortion by attacking the abusers, the bashers, the chauvinists and general category of male patronizes that clearly becomes a physio-political outlet of illusory, physiologically rational imposition for some women. And the attack on the chauvinist in this categorical sense, becomes an attack on the nature of being a male and an indictment, finally, of culture itself although this is never explicitly said, for it seems the physiologically rational charge that captures all individuals on all sides of the issue is enough to forever keep it out of the realm of a more arduous exertion of logical thought; and this, if one looks carefully, seems to actually be enough for society as whole. It is, of course, no secret that physiological and physiologically rational invigoration takes real supremacy over rationality itself as the true form of higher, functionally viable anthropological stability in sedentary contexts.
But it is true also that the physio-cultural circumstances of being a woman depend on the cultural configuration of men and women as a single systemic entity; and that, given the historical problem of the physical nature and superiority (in terms of strength and explosive force of physical violence) of men, you probably couldn’t really be able to serve women if you cannot help men to understand themselves.
But one side’s self-comprehension is naturally only in the possibility of the other side’s own self-comprehension; and so the demonizing of one side by another is effectively the opting out of understanding altogether, mutually but to the heightened and generalized, physiological exhilaration of all, no doubt!
The Law is The Sun
The nature of life in Andalusia cannot be approached without understanding its climate, particularly the extreme heat from really early Spring, through the summer, and into early October. Although within the region itself there are variations to some extent and degree, according to specific and differing geographic circumstances, the fact does remain that Gazpacho (a cold tomato soup) is only really made systemically what it is in itself through its opposite, so to speak, that is the defining force of extreme heat over the lives and physiological milieu of generations of a broadly defined—but still singular—geographic and climate-bound human group. One can certainly elaborate a similar tomato-based, Gazpacho-like concoction in Madrid or even Washington D.C., but it will only approach an Andalusian taste and physiological effect of consumption for the perceiver when eaten—or drunk—at only the highest point of summer heat one’s non-Andalusian July or August is capable of meting out.
It is of little wonder, then, that not all culturally foreign and imported influences, products and artifices, take hold as quickly, to the same degree—or even at all—in regards to the cultural reality and day-to-day, morning- to-afternoon-to-evening existence of those individuals who live, more or less permanently, in the region.
And it might be that imported audio-visual media and entertainment, though it certainly may be approachable in a physiologically cultural sense for the Andalusian perceiver as consumer, it is also clear that such a physio-semiotic presentation frequently excludes part of that individual’s bodily and physio-cultural experience.
Because the heat in the better part of Andalusia can only be understood as extreme, the consequences of this circumstance are hugely—but also subtly—significant for the overall physio-anthropological structure of this particular, extended, human group.
Individual Physiology, Semiotics and the Culturally-Posited Rational
Sedentary anthropological contexts require individuals to project their physiological and social selves with regards to opprobrium-imposed and enforced, semiotic ideals; that is to say, physio-anthropological order hinges critically on the structurally functional channeling of individuals vital will to socially be, which can only take place in regards to a commonly understood physiologically relevant (‘opprobrium-enforced’) semiotics. Anthropologically, and in regards to specific human groups and the possible broader networks of groups they may be comprised of, individual physiological projection of the social self is systemically intertwined with—or bound by—a common semiotics that is, in its broadest dimension, that particular group’s posting of its own cultural rationality.
Anthropological Subjection of Individuals by Groups and Groups by Individuality
Individuals are subject to the group, but the group is also subjected cryptically by individuality; Biological opprobrium subjects the individual´s physiological and physiologically rational entity, but it is the Opprobrium Rational-Moral Hero of culturally universal narrative and representation who rises to a subliminal pinnacle of physiologically moral and physio-sensory authority over the group; that is an authority existing, however, only in the onlooker´s perception, and outside for the most part of the collective group´s rational understanding—unless of course specific interpretations of that perception gain collectively common, semiotic extension (‘codification’) thereby impinging on a collectively rational—and so political—understanding. And it becomes paradox in this case, as more than just a literary device, that actually accommodates two different planes of social structure—in the semiotic configuration of the culturally rational and collectively understood versus an actually group-bound, opprobrium-configured physio-sensory perception in the singular individual; thus does paradox allow for two different but simultaneous logics to run their course reflecting the singularly human circumstance of the anthropological, that is that part of your very individuality is not yours, but rather belongs to the opprobic force of the group’s rational-moral posits—in your own singular, bodily physiology and perception, a priori and before you even open your mouth to complain, disagree or dispute.
Knowing and Deception in Anthropological Circumstances
As foundation and bedrock of human groups, biological opprobrium in the individual also insures that knowing is belonging; this is in regards of course to a particular language, but also to a specifically delimited vision of the real, the specific human group is in possession of. In such a context, then, the individual’s understanding of having lived mistakenly in regards to her understanding of reality—or of in fact having been deceived—can only be physiologically traumatic. Because knowing is belonging, there can perhaps be nothing so critically important to individuality than to insure the security of the group’s sanctuary in one’s own understanding of the world precisely in the group’s understanding of the world. As a corollary to this, knowing more than the group knows, can become a point of terrible self-affirmation and, from the standpoint of the opprobic, a physiologically rational position of power—and this is generally because individuality is first achieved in belonging, but then later can only be maintained, serviced and fully developed through defiance as belonging, given that you are still singularly, and in your physically corporeal entity, you; and this no matter how much you would wish to actually be them. The good news is defiance is cryptically expected of you, anyway, and the ethereal circumstances of the group—in its language, rationality and particular mores—quite intentionally (from an anthropologically systemic standpoint, that is) excludes physical experience itself—you (‘the physical individual’) is supposed to take care of that and is so charged by Lady Anthropology herself.
Evasive Aerial Maneuverers
Under the physiological duress caused by an attacking Hawk, pigeons will form progressively tighter flying formations according to the intensity of the predator’s onslaught and insistence; that such a defensive response is effectively successful in thwarting the aggressor suggests that behavior of the pigeons has darwinisitically been defined by some attribute in the hawk itself. That is to say, both species have come to form a mutually determined dependence on each another as a form of living cohesion through the different and separate attributes of each one, but under a single, common empire of physical survival as need, through time: and by simple but prolonged observation, there can be no doubt that it is the Hawk’s inability to visually perceive depth that has become the pigeon’s survival niche and opportunity which their own physiological will to life, in this specific context and over the generations, has naturally taken advantage of, much in the way water relates to the cracks and crevices of rock surfaces it flows over reaching and occupying whatever spaces it can, through its own mass and inertia. And so, it is only the straggler pigeon and the one who cannot quite integrate herself fully into the flying formation who is ever visible to the perception of the predator, for the herd—flock or school—makes individuals invisible to the non-human eye. And only individuals are really finite; the groups they belong to, of course, transpire ceaselessly in their very renewal, modification and evolution through time the comprehension of which, of course, entirely escapes the sensory and present-bound, living individual herself.
Why Socrates spent practically all of his time and energy engaging the Sophists:
Because from a position of opposition to them, he is himself dependent on them; but it is also true that because of his, in a certain sense higher synthesis of them, they exist meta conceptually only in Socrate’s opposition to them. It thus would seem evidently conclusive that perhaps the most important theme of philosophical enquiry is actually really the first—perhaps finally only—theme of man’s rational approach to himself, and that is his ultimate impossibility of living beyond his own physiological nature.
Heidegger’s Dasein conceptualization (which to me would seem irrevocably dependent on the ideas of Nietzsche) is considered still today as the most poignant philosophical insight to have ever been made, but that has today yet to be seriously resolved, perhaps even addressed. For it would seem, our rationality is forever dependent on the physiological substance of our being (mortality is just one aspect of this, but not really the most important); and it can even be proposed that our very individuality (and the cultural mode of its rationality) is itself configured through and dependent on a subcultural and individually zoomorphic force of individual self-preservation in the human group, that is however, forever necessarily opaque to rational understanding—not, of course, in an intellectual sense, but rather in regards to a living, physiologically rational mode of human being that garners its very resilience precisely in the circumstances of its own limitation, for physiologically does man postulate against the physical realm of limitation he is dependent on, thanks to and very much because of his defective rational capacities, in favor of an explosive physiological and physiologically rational decisiveness.
And thus Sophist is man himself in his physiologically rational mode of imposition on his circumstance, as both a subject of his own anthropology (in its very group-postulated, opprobrium-configured and imposed semiotics) and also individually in his—or her—own physiologically rational agency of personal imposition of meaning.
Man would not be what we are, in the physiologically real imposition of culture (that is however, not physically real), if it were not for the limitation we live in and that defines us; a limitation that culture, of course, has always rejected, universally and in its very origins!
The mind is in fact able to oppose the body because of a third realm of our experience we as of yet don’t really have a name for, although we are irremissibly dependent on it as the salt of our most vital, living sophistry, day in day out and over the millennium.
And so, Did Socrates really do anything for the Sophists? might perhaps be a more pertinent point of initial inquiry, finally.
Most certainly, he did!
But alas, it would seem we need Socrates as a point of physiologically conceptual expanse as of—and off of—the physiological substance of our experience, that is the rational aspiring towards our own elevation, as culture intrinsically has always done and is always about; but not a single step beyond him can we really go:
Simply put, our rationality cannot ever completely remove itself from its own physiological substance.
Which is a good thing—or such do you make it, given that you are ultimately powerless to change it.
Technical and material science, however, at least methodologically, utterly removes itself from the confines of such a dilemma as perhaps the greatest feat of physiologically rational, physio-anthropological sophistry and illusion the world has ever known—specifically because it works, and in the dramatic power of transformation it wields in regards to the physical world.
But such a powerful force on Earth of human, rational imposition will surely wonder at the contradiction it incurs in through its own incapacity to empirically comprehend the very physiological nature it inevitably acquires—and is thus itself naturally trapped by.
-What did he do for the Sophists, exactly?
-What is the significance of (material) Science in this context, specifically in its at least methodological and complete dissociation form the physiological substance of human experience (including, of course, the rational agency of the scientist herself, and in regards to anthro and culturally dependent bystanders who physio-totemically relate to an inevitable semiotic representation of all things scientific?)
Norberto Elias Canetti y Spengler-Gasset conoce al Sr Nietzsche
El que se alcancen mayores grados de capacidad de síntesis por parte de una sociedad o cultura pudiera acarrear el problema finalmente de una mayor rigidez fisiorracional de esa misma sociedad o cultura, debido a la naturaleza intrínseca fisiológica de los seres humanos que experimentan su existencia inexorablemente como distintas y cambiantes formas, circunstancias y momentos de imposición y autoafirmación; y el problema de un mayor poderío lógico-intelectual alcanzado en este sentido, por lo visto antropológicamente típico de las culturas humanas, plantearía de nuevo un problema parecido al de Spengler, en el que el ímpetu fisorracional humano se adelanta a la capacidad real de las sociedades humanas de controlar sus circunstancias, que es una forma finalmente de rebasar la propia naturaleza física y fisioantropologica humana, pero sin posibilidad de suplantarla con ninguna otra, ni de encargarse realmente el hombre de sí mismo y desde una posición de control real y efectivo. Y desbordada la sociedad humana de esta forma, busca como única opción de salida su propio revuelo, disrupción y autodestrucción, finalmente que es el perenne depositar de toda esperanza de nuevo en su anomia innata y fisiovital, como siempre lo ha hecho de forma críptica y más allá del mero atrezzo de su propia racionalidad cultural.
Human Groups Know Better
The possibility of morality and meaning itself is in the individual’s physical, bodily vulnerability—vulnerability to the force of biological opprobrium, in the case of human group and cultural configuration; and the entire culturally virtual edifice of collective meaning, never actually strays beyond its tether to the sense of bodily vulnerability the individual forever lives in and which the human institutions and the very concepts those institutions use to configure themselves can never really move beyond, and this despite an upwardly spiraling architecture of collective, representational impetus…That is to say, if it doesn’t matter it doesn’t mean. How then does meaning itself actually matter to people? What matters depends on the community itself—in fact, and following this line of logic to its ultimate inferences, individuality itself is only because of that community which produces it; human personality then is only one component of a systemic situation in which all that really is, is because of and in the community itself. The condition of being what and who one is, is cryptically and in itself always a group dynamics.
The Age of Nationalism and Reform 1850-1890, Norman Rich, 1977
Disruption of the Concert of Europe
Imperial Foreign Policy
…In foreign policy, as in domestic, Napoleon III showed a rare ability to understand the popular forces of his day, but his efforts to exploit or placate these forces, instead of increasing his power or improving the international position of his country, involved him in ruinous political adventures. It was above all in international relations that the name Napoleon played him false. The French people had given him their overwhelming endorsement in the 1848 elections and had enthusiastically approved the restoration of the empire in 1852, but with that restoration they anticipated a new succession of military victories, a revival of French glory, the reestablishment of France as the Great Nation of Europe. These expectations too Napoleon understood, and fatefully, he undertook to satisfy them.
In May, 1870, the French people were asked to approve by plebiscite the recent liberalizing legislation, and thus, in effect, to cast a vote of confidence in the imperial regime. The returns gave Napoleon III a victory as great as any he had scored at the beginning of his reign.
…These triumphs in the domestic arena were short-lived. Five months later the Second Empire was swept away as a result of mistakes in the conduct of foreign affairs. (pg. 97)
Paradox becomes initially in this case a supporting of structurally anthropological, physiological stability, on one hand, that however requires of some form of exo tension and expanse in regards to the outside and foreign context of France, beyond itself and in the engagement of and sought imposition over, other political-human groups as nations. And so what is an invigorated context of social and physio-anthropological stability can seemingly only remain so as long more violent and intense forms of invigoration are achieved in the only way possible, that is, in the form of a culturally comprehensible aggression outside the group itself, that is indeed licit from the standpoint of biological opprobrium; as if the problem of sedentary human groups were in fact the problem of their own physiological invigoration without, paradoxically, destroying their very own existence as a group. The need in this sense of licit engaging of physiological and physio-semiotic aggression in regards to rival human groups (who are thus beyond the physiologically opprobic force of the original group) becomes, horrendously, something of structural dictate, perhaps, of sedentary contexts, intrinsically in themselves.
A conceptualization of paradox as exactly that which allows for dual planes of action in accordance with a group’s culturally-posited rationality (itself subject to the opprobic), while a subcultural physiological and physio-anthropological essence can also be inexorably catered to outside and beyond opprobic confines of the group, and given that human evolution at this deeper, biological level is effectively impossible after agriculture itself.
Semiotics and Physiology; Anthropological Individuality and Human Personality:
Semiotics is the possibility of sedentary, collective physiology. Living collective, and structural cohesion is possible because people project their physiological, social self, according to the same general, broadly-defined (but also culturally particular and specific) parameters of conceptual and physio-conceptual definition of physio-sensory experience, and that itself becomes a culturally-specific, phsyio-semiotic rationality (ie ‘collectively understood in its opprobrium-based, physio-moral relevance for individuals’).
Specific physio-semiotic anthropologies similarly create—necessarily require—a particular, broad and generally defined—but cultural and group-specific—individuality physical individuals must acquire as physio-culturally integrated members of the group—precisely through the acquiring of the group’s culturally posited phsyio-semiotics and rationality.
Human personality, as of the physical attributes of a particular individual, and through indiviudal’s psychological development, comes into social being through this group-defined parameter of the physio-semiotic and rational, specifically as a rigorous and permanent process of opprobrium the individual must conform to but also defy, given that one’s physical entity is not really in fact a cultural entity at all, but is rather the cryptic, supporting force of the cultural itself, through which the culturally physiological and semiotic is challenged in its very need to be, and to be effectively in force.
The differences, of course, among anthropologically subject individuals of the same living context and in regards to social modes of being as belonging, are due inevitably to the physical and singularly corporeal entity of each one of us, and in regards ultimately to the paradox that is the opprobrium-driven force of individual belonging to the group on one hand, but in the real physical circumstances of individual, corporeal limitation as definition that is effectively the impossibility of ever completely belonging or being them; that is, conversely, the inexorable charge of being as a singular, separate, bodily vulnerable individual.
Structural anthropological balance is achieved thus through the empire of the group’s physio-semiotic and rational vision of experience, by means of the biologically opprobic and in regards to the parameters of individuality itself; but it is the opprobically rational, opprobically moral and bodily vulnerable, singularly physical individual who cryptically and in physio-sensory representation is something of a monarch in the offings as the phsyio-opprobic and rational hero universally triumphant in all cultural narratives—specifically because the state of the anthropological individual is physio-rationally, physio-aesthetically laid bare for all to see, and for all to know themselves cryptically and on the zoomorphic plane of the group configuration of their own individual entity—in the hero who is ultimately moral because she is right, and very much at times against the group itself (and in the different variations that are possible as antiheroes who are still, however, very much structural heroes on the plane of the opprobic.)
Conceptual Problem of Sensory Physiology and the Physiologically Rational
While not necessarily intellectually incomprehensible, the idea of a deeper, collective and collectively determined nature of individuality, on the plane of biological opprobrium and in regards to its physiological relevance for the anthropological individual, escapes the physiologically immediate and rational experiencing of existence by the individual—most likely because the resilience of human groups depended finally on the physiologically and physio-rationally explosive, decisiveness of individuals that still today bypasses higher forms of rational understanding or reflection.
Individuals survive anthropologically in specific human groups that impose a specific parameter of cultural individuality on its members—that becomes that group’s own culturally posited rationality; but only bodily vulnerable individuals need to belong to human groups, making the bodily vulnerable individual the true and deeper moral-rational tether of the group itself and of the group’s possibility of survival, through time.
Differences of personality in regards to anthropological individuals, become a form of physio-social variation in regards to the group’s possibilities of invigorated experience that is crucial for the functional viability of sedentary, human contexts, through time.
Universal Principles of Language can analogously be Universal Principles of Anthropological Individuality.
A Culturally Contrived Standardization of Rationality
The numerical sequence 563 could be alternatively represented by, among others, also one of the following forms:
The first three are licit forms of reference to the original numerical sequence in that the sum of their numbers (14) is equivalent to the sum of 5+6+3; the fourth element is equally valid, but in regards to a different parameter of meaning and reference, in the visual circumstances of human perception of the figures 6 and 9, that are perceptible visual equivalents or derivatives one of another, and thus are permanently interchangeable from exclusively the standpoint of visual form and shape, which in this case makes 89—or 98—licitly derived forms of 86;
More importantly, however, is the possibility of the communication of some form of meaning—or reference—through recourse to a commonly understood paradigm of meaning, that is rational because it is referentially paradigmatic, and not just in the fact that reference can indeed be comprehensibly followed; that is to say, it is comprehensible because it structurally envelops both message sender and receiver as an available standardization both can make reference to—as if this invisible-but-culturally-real unity of at least part of all our individual minds, were the true context and very possibility of communication itself.
Is human language, then, only a code?
It is from the standpoint of its different mechanisms of reference, but not in regards to a sphere of the human physiological and physio-sensory it takes place in. Languages are alive—and so more than codes—because physical individuals avail themselves of them towards the consecution and reinforcement of their own cultural individuality with regards to the human group they are dependent on and inexorably subject to; to the point that the physical individual becomes a culturally rational individual through the group’s language and—crucially—in the group’s mode of being an individual, as a conceptualization of individuality very much dictated by the group, but in the physical individual’s fury to be by socially belonging.
A code, however, never acquires such a degree of charged tension through the physiological subject’s struggle to be by belonging; and this very much sub rational (sub cultural) predicament is further aggravated by the fact that the physical individual must be in her belonging to the group but never, however, at the expense of her own physical entity—that becomes for her a latently incensed and permanent paradox of complying necessarily through some degree of defiance, for culture universally tends to not only suppress the circumstances of individual, physical and physiological reality, but also ignores them—and thus places an in fact even greater anthropologically structural burden on the physical individual, who effectively has almost no rational means whatsoever of understanding this.
Because the rational itself is a standardization of the group’s making, maintenance and empire, through time.
But if you think about it, human groups only have bodies as a metaphor and analogy, construed and heard repeatedly throughout human history (at least after the appearance of writing), which leaves the bodily physical and physiological individual out in the cold so to speak; and that appears to imply culture remains viable as long as she in fact never comes in.
Constantin Guys(1802-1892) and Totemic Political Being
Lithography—and not photography—is more demanding initially of the mind, and especially in the case of Guys, who must artistically represent a still very much objective physiologically rational perception of events—that thus equally requires of the viewer a similar physio-aesthetic rationality of interpretation.
The construction of a modern pictorial and graphic ken, popularly and very much in the terms we understand it today, can only be considered to have established itself as of the technical possibility of the popular dissemination of the physio-aesthetic object of interpretation, massively and in the form of lithography contained in newspapers and periodicals.
The significance of this is huge, and in the form of a very much contemporary consolidation of a physio-aesthetic and physiologically totemic realm of the political, that is finally, a totemic form of individually collective being through a journalistic media; but still, the newly consecrated empire of the physio-aesthetic image, popularly and towards a coming Rebellion of the Masses must still be considered differently in the form of lithography (that has still to be physio-artistically “codified”), as opposed to direct photographic images; and different yet again from what later would be the combination of image and sound (film after 1928), and eventually, television.
Radio culture after 1920 is perhaps physiologically closer to silent film in regards to the effects on the perceiving subject, although the realm of direct and structurally conceptual thought radio can be a vector to, cannot be found directly in images (and thus sides reading and radio against silent film); but the combination of image and sound seems to produce a very much enveloping effect on the viewer as form of physiological isolation and detachment from higher, individual rationality—specifically because the experience seems to commandeer physio-rationality itself through a pitting of the linguistic against the physio-aesthetic perception of images, binding both together in a greater force of imposition over the individual´s perception and physiologically cognitive process of mind.
How Moral-Conceptual Weight in pictorial compositions is achieved
-The human figure (or apparent reference to it, even through anthropomorphic figures of animals)
-The human face (or apparent reference to it)
-Crowds, groups, families, psycho-affective interconnection (or a series of similar, inanimate objects as also physio-aesthetic, generally sub rational, reference to groups)
-Objects (or symbols) that only denote human physio-anthropological experience:
houses, cities, perpendicular-lined grids, architecture, traffic; rows and columns of chairs, shoes, bottles, etc.; or the symbols human societies live under and articulate some form of meaning (‘value’) around (money, brand names, political symbols, status symbols, cultural—semiotic references).
-Or the absence, specifically, of all of the above, can also become a mode and recourse to a remote referencing of the human.
-The physio-sensory, aesthetic effect of emotion on the beholder as of whatever of pictorial composition is in itself an invigoration of the individual´s sense of self that, of course, can only really be physio-sensorially perceived as of the generally unconscious, sub-cultural impositions of the group and the relationship of socio-genetic dependence it imposes on the singularly physical individual—that thus effectively becomes a form of more remote connection to in fact the rationally moral or its possibility.
How does La generación del 27 maintain moral reference in regards to a poetics that technically proposes to have very little at all, preferring a plasticity of images in a certain sense against higher conceptual transcendence? This can only be possible in the way contemporary art also seeks to de-physiologicalize aesthetic experience beyond the rational-moral (and socio-genetic) implications of our perception and its physio-cognitive process in us—placing it into the realm of artistic expression we call the abstract. It would seem clear, then, the possibility of this kind of artistic production as of the historical period of the avant guard, is because of the specific physio-semiotic stability of a defined historical moment and its anthropological structure, being exactly that which can support an external countering of its cultural rationality through a defying of the rational itself; that is a placing of the ultimate meaning of what it is, in that which it purports specifically not to be. And so inversely, an anthropological context that lacks such a culturally rational stability could never support a form of artistic expression that renounces reason itself—it would maintain not even remotely a connection to any sense whatsoever, except as only physiological stimulus, that of course, would no longer be art; anthropologically, people would surely be busy with the attainment of comfort as of a different kind of necessity.
[21mar17] The physio-semiotic stability of anthropological contexts requires, once achieved and ceaselessly through time, new contingencies as in fact further physiological possibilities in regards to impossibly accepted states of the physiologically static; and just as the corporeal side of individuality is incorporated into the anthropologically structural as charger and tension provider (through in fact the physio-rational titillation of moral dilemma itself), so too is cultural stability cryptically provided and ensured through the possibility of necessarily always further possibility of physiological and physio-rational expanse for individuals, as of and to some extent against the physiologically rational order of already established physio-semiotic, anthropological stability.
Doves Take Hawks (To an Anthropological Safety of Simulacrum)
In a not too distant human time and place, some rival warring groups eventually chose hawks as symbols to represent themselves, whereas the Christians opted to symbolize themselves through the victims or prey of the hawk; and thus, the symbol of the Christian Holy Spirit (a dove) came to take on a much more socially significant form of power, over the very nature seemingly of its opponents, and ultimately over the nature of all men—and the human, psychological subject itself:
And so, it is the violence of your very nature you are powerless to control that we position against you yourself, and to our advantage, such is the power of our god…
The choice—at least in regards to the symbolic representation of one’s identity—to embody the role of object of human violence, rather than the agent of it, is indeed a power position that effectively subjugates conceptually the act of violence to the human object it seeks to destroy,
For in your violent fury there is finally only me, beyond whom your rage itself cannot survive; and my power is in forcing you to come to terms with yourself, precisely because I offer (theoretically) only my flesh, blood and body—but no physical resistance whatsoever, if necessary, and towards the promise one day of your knowing yourself for what you are, but are by no means condemned to be…
And as time progressed, it became historically apparent that this very appeal to the power of individual self-restraint as in fact power of an individual possession and domain, fueled the spread of Christianity through multiple human groups, over the centuries and in an increasing crescendo of social stability and development.
But of course, to embrace the anthropologically structural role of human object and victim of violence—precisely as cornerstone to one’s own possibility of self-affirmation—one is inexorably dependent on the existence of a human agency of violence one is in fact object of, and towards really the very possibility of one’s own definition:
In a posterior development of North African, European and Eurasian social history, it is no surprise, then, that exo-group conflict and war were something of an anthropological requirement for complex human groups and their need for invigorated self-affirmation and reinforcement through belligerent, cultural others.
The moral impetus, however, of requiring at least a bodily respect for others, in at least a living theoretical and ideal modus operandi of individual conduct, allowed for progressively more elaborate development of a completely conceptual space for human endeavor—passions and dialectic violence—substituting, to some extent the need for actual physical exchange, although this displacement of the physical to the physiologically conceptual is, of course, something intrinsic and ultimately inevitable to all sedentary anthropological experience, over time, to some degree and in differing forms—and is the prototypical origin of representation, art or, generally, anthropological simulacra of all types.
In this sense and on a humorous note, later forces of Christian doctrine and theology made no secret that the existence of heretics was actually convenient towards the church’s own possibility of cultural exercise and imposition, always renewed and through the invigorated, living awe of a robustly teary-eyed, passingly mass-elated Christendom…
And from a structurally anthropological standpoint, the persecution of heretics (of all kinds, but specifically dissidents of conceptual doctrine) constitutes a necessary anthropological tension—another form of simulacrum, in fact—that can be considered preferable to warfare itself,
At least, and if only that.
A Leveraging of Mother
I looked back and searched for a memory form childhood—this actually was painstaking—and I found something I could use, which was this: I said to her, “Do you remember the time you said to me I was a bad egg that got fertilized?”; of course, she didn’t, but even so it greatly mortified her, and so it became something I could pull out whenever I needed to and that allowed me to “even up” the situation whenever she fixated too much on some complaint or criticism of hers towards me…
But: Why is it really effective?
Because it contradicts the image of herself she relates to and lives under as to what a mother should be, according to an obvious socially correct model of mother—and perhaps stereotypically romanticized, but always in adherence to an irreproachable cannon of mother idealized; so that when confronted with what seems to her to be an ultimately undermining assault on this socially regularized ideal, her very individuality is in a sense re-affirmed through finding herself suddenly—and in her own physio-rationality—at odds with the group and so brutally immersed in a conflict of opprobrium, between the singularly physical and physiological part of anthropological individuality versus the more physiologically sensory and opprobrium-configured social self;
A re-invigoration of the self for it imposes on the individual, once again, a renewed sense of separate, physical identity in the only way really possible, that is, through the threat of expulsion form the physio-sensory and mental collective that holds such power over our physiologically rational, social individuality; a threat that is really something of a mental, physiological impression of an image, and is enough to throw us back into a physiologically internal struggle to impose ourselves once again towards a regaining of social-collective (or even tribal) legitimacy as a singularly physical member of the group.
Thus, the idea arises of in fact a therapeutic value in the need to physio-mentally struggle to regain a certain form of self-esteem that is actually an extrinsically imposed, mental and physiologically rational projection of an achieved adherence, once again, to this that I am in the eyes of the others—that is, of course only what I can myself physio-opprobically construe in regards to what I believe they see that I am;
Or, similarly to this case her described, according to the physiological and sensorial prompts presented by others to my perception and the group-regulated, physio-cognitive process of my own mind and socio-genetic individuality.
But of course, frequently—perhaps to some extent almost inevitably—physiological experience, once established and through repetition, becomes in itself a form of comfort for the individual and especially when it also provides a momentary effect of invigoration, like in the story here related. Because of this, turmoil for the individual produced by the force of opprobrium and the conflict created between ideals of human group correction and the permanent state of impossibly complete conformity for the individual, is often not readily given up, becoming something of a comfort providing indulgence of self.
Torture Games and Simulacra
Even if you unequivocally “know” I am ultimately not going to really hurt you, I could still pressure you in sundry ways—and assuming I had a factic and complete dominance over the entirety of your sensory perception—to the point that you would begin to doubt the truth that was initially evident for you (that I am only subjecting you to a simulacrum of torture); because I would have the power to physiologically envelope you, so that your body eventually would require of the other side of your rational mind to ascribe a logic of cause in regards to your physiological experience of sensory perception.
And at first you would manage to maintain parallel logics of separate entity, between what sensory experience tells you, and what you know to be true; gradually, however, the increasing intensity of the experience first pressures, and then undermines altogether, the logically rational side of your cultural self.
It is thus the physiologically sensory reality of your body that will finally require you to break the already established logic of your rational mind, so that inexorably you are worked into a state of genuine fear—bodily genuine terror that impinges completely on the rational side of your individuality, to the point that, momentarily, you have stepped out of the culturally rational altogether and are in state of physiologically rational integration culture specifically seeks to divide you from, towards the human group’s priorities of collectively physiological structure and exercise—but as a transitory permanence of process, through time.
And interestingly, I can repeat the exact same procedure with you tomorrow—and the next and every other day—with exactly the same identical and perpetually renewed result: authentic fear and terror, even when at the outset, you know it is only simulation.
A Clinical Dentist Technician
Needs to calm patient—for technical purposes—so, quickly tells a seemingly personal story about her son and in a somewhat intricate narrative progression of events; but it is clearly a prepared story for the only technical purpose of engaging patient’s physiologically cognitive process of mind—strategically in the most physiologically direct way possible, that is the personal (seemingly) revelation by a physically immediate individual, in one’s own presence, that brings to a sudden and intense state of activation of your own socio-genetic and bio-oprobic force of bodily moral regard (both of others, and therefore of self); and it is the specifically presented, affective nature of the story which physiologically binds mother-son and the patient herself, collectively, so to speak, and to the greatest in fact moral seriousness of socially physical, physio-sensory experience between people.
And achieved is an immediate calmness in the patient—or physiological subject—before the technician’s drill or electric-powered cleaning instrument begins to whirl on approach to an open wide mouth, teeth and gums…
Demographic Faith and Summer Resort Towns in The Off Season
Your body feels the absence of human presence in the empty streets, and in your perception of the dark and silent windows of the apartment towers you gaze up at; in the silence that is also the absence of almost any vehicle traffic whatsoever albeit paradoxically, in regards to wide avenues of two-lane roadways and broadly laid out, urban intersections of mass transit;
And it is the motionless and still life quality of what you see that brings your mind to the rescue, so to speak, of your body and what your physiologically sensory perception registers—as perhaps the inexorable need to impose a logic of cause on a sensory perception of such a force and displeasure of intensity—in regards to an impression of collective inexistence—that is finally a form of relief only rational thought can lend to the sensory discomfort of the body…
And so, a summer demographics of touristic crowds in their routines—making their summer time way from apartment-to the beach-to the restaurants-and back—exactly that which weighs so heavily as absence on the impressions of the body, is also that which the mind can replace with a mentally envisioned current reality of the absent summer time throngs:
And so it is back in the major cities and metropolitan environs of the Eastern United States that my mind needs to see them, on the phone in their corporate offices, or in their family cars taking their children to school—relishing their suburban houses and lives according to the normal and winter time projections of their winter time, consumer society selves—back in New York and Philadelphia, under another empire of mental imagery provided to a winter time consumer demographics, 9-to-5 and day in, day out; those working family masses who, every year sometime after January to April or May, live in the renewed reassurance of knowing someday very soon they will find themselves back on the beach, one future sunny day come July or August, and if they continue to labor and toil hard enough to be able to pay for it;
But who, in any case—for me right now—are not gone; that is, they are not here, now in this empty New Jersey, summertime town on the coast—but indeed are somewhere else, in some other form of vital endeavor, structurally and through time, in their needs and satisfaction, and the economies of at least conceptual scale they become as the living, systemic vitality of money itself:
And thus, it is logic that allows me to leverage my experiencing of my own bodily perception, towards simply the subtle comfort of control as rational imposition—that perhaps calms me and serves to softly brace me against the surge of my deeper physiologically sensory, bodily self.
It is thus through logic that I turn my body’s perception of collective human absence into the promise at least of a future cause to at least a future and collective materialization incarnate; in a similarly physiological invigoration of my mind albeit fictionally, that is an alternate, logically justified and for me physiologically poignant, mental vision of their vitality in a living work in progress, now, and in the financial realization of a (for me) physically remote but living present,
I, however, need not unequivocally know to be actually real or not.
For in my availing myself of a logically rational force of mental imposition, I have in fact reestablished my own physiological, physiologically rational equilibrium, mind and body.
Right here, in my physical physiologically experienced now:
And I push on.
(Such are the advantages of only bodily experience and its limitation!)
El demiurgo perenne del subsuelo contemporaneo
…”Observemos de pasada que las percepciones de Dick se nutrían de un fenómeno que en los años ´60 perturbaba a los estadounidenses: el avance imparable de la industria japonés de la copia (este influjo se aprecia nítidamente en su obra maestra, The Man in the High Castle). Con este y otros datos del contexto, el escritor elaboró su visión del mundo, adobándola con las creencias gnósticas vulgarizadas en los años ´50 por Ron Hubbard, un escritor de ciencia ficción más conocido como el fundador de la Ciencialogía. La creencia en un demiurgo que teje un manto de engaño sobre el mundo sostiene su visión de la realidad como un puro montaje (Disneylandia, cerca de la cual residía Dick, le parecía unos de esos despliegues ilusorios). No era el único en abrigar pensamientos de ese tenor. Del otro lado del Atlántico y libre de cualquier traza de misticismo, Guy Debord llegaba a conclusiones similares acerca del espectáculo engañoso en el que se ha tornado la vida moderna. Baudrillard toma esa idea de ambos y la convierte en la clave de bóveda del edificio conceptual de su etapa posmoderna, inaugurada con De la seducción(1978).”
Baudrillard, una sociología de ciencia ficción, pág.2 Pablo Francescutti (UCM, 2011)
Una categoría fisiológica humana inherente al componente críptico de la individualidad antropológica, como sostén causal pero secreto de la racionalidad humana, y que en nuestra percepción ha de lucirse precisamente en su naturaleza indomable (para poder mejor ceñirnos por efecto inverso a nuestra entidad culturalmente racional); pero debido a esta para nosotros majestuosa libertad, se va haciendo con posiciones y espacios de control, o por lo menos se presta fácilmente a nuestro propio ímpetu fisiorracional y en las perpetuamente sucesivas visiones del mundo que vayamos construyendo, imponiendo, y que nacen de la necesidad seguramente de mayor y más vastos horizontes vitales, siempre hacia la entonación fisioexistencial intensificada, de la que tanto dependemos en nuestra esencia fisiológicamente sensorial y frente a las circunstancias fisiológicamente atrofiadas de los contextos antropológicos sedentarios.
El demiurgo es pues una causalidad fisiorracional nuestra que nos impele a una posible confrontación con el rival existencial para así poder ser al menos en la auto afirmación contraria nuestra:
Y la existencia necesaria del demiurgo deviene mi propia posibilidad ontológica de ser, como respuesta contraria y combatiente.
Y en tal contexto enconado de lucha fisiológicamente conceptual, puedo fisiorracionalmente ir construyendo sucesivas conceptualizaciones cada vez más pormenorizadas de oposición y resistencia que suponen verdaderamente un contexto de vida fisiológica vigorizada. Pero, aunque yo llegue a vivir acorde con algunos de las postulaciones que voy confeccionado, tiene lugar primeramente y sobre todo en un espacio socio-conceptual interno mío que permanece sin embargo fisiológicamente en tensión, sin que llegue a ser nunca (o al menos pocas veces) ni social ni mucho menos políticamente real.
Y es que es casi preferible, según mi parecer, que el demiurgo exista subversiva y periféricamente, como si dijéramos, respecto la racionalidad cultural estándar, lo que me permite transitar entre dos ámbitos diferentes posibilitando que haga yo tolerable las limitaciones de uno mediante el poder mío de vivir en referencia al menos fisiorracional al otro; pues a través del demiurgo fisiorracional y conceptual no tengo porqué dejarme constreñir solo por la conformidad antropológica (todo lo vigorizada que se quiera, eso sí), sino que puedo ser otro siéndolo de modo mayor y fisiorracionalmente más amplio en mi propia rivalidad, resistencia y combate-al margen y subversivamente-con el demiurgo.
Aunque gnóstico que se dice en toda regla no soy porque eso de enfrentarse abiertamente con la racionalidad socio-conceptual y antropológica-esa que es políticamente real y con garra-hombre, que se lleva uno muchos palos, stá claro.
Y es así de esta forma que el estable y complaciente orden antropológico socialmente congruente del que pende mi propia individualidad socio-racional y cultural, lo someto críptica y sutilmente mediante el recurso al otro yo subyacente y físiosensorial que, tan indomable como siempre en su función base culturalmente subversiva (hacia una mayor tonificación finalmente fisiológica de todos, claro está), tiene el recurso estructuralmente lícito de abrazar su propia racionalidad fisiológica y adversaria, sobre todo fisiosensorial al tanto que también conceptual, siempre que, de un estado socio-conceptual incipiente y potencial, no pase nunca al escenario iluminadísimo de la racionalidad finalmente política con todo las consecuencias que ello consigna desde luego a la transgresión.