5. The Big Systemic

INDEX

1)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

2)Extrinsically Defined Physiologically Collective Structure

3)Business Anthropology Sketches (Orange)

4)BIG SYSTEMIC HOUSES

5)DANCER (Eli Wallach in The Line Up (1958))

6)La violencia de Billy en A History of Violence(2005) versus la violencia físio-moral de Tom Stall e hijo

7) Geometric Opprobrium Games

8) Two Families of Objects (From Umberto Eco Travels in Hyperreality, 1990)

 

 

 

 

1)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

A group of monkeys is in a room with a banana tethered form the ceiling. They can reach the banana by hopping up on a box. But whenever one of them does this, they are all sprayed with water. Monkeys don’t like water…[because of genetically imposed fear of crocodiles hiding under surface of rivers, a form of aversion to depth and the threat hence of what is there but cannot be observed]

 

So, after a while, they all avoid hopping up on the box and even restrain each other form doing so. Then a monkey is removed and replaced by a new monkey. It is naïve so it climbs up on the box to get the banana. The others quickly pull it down and eventually it too stops trying to get the banana.

 

[DIACHRONY]

One by one the monkeys get replaced this way, and one by one the naïve ones are trained by the others not to jump up on the box, until none of the original monkeys remain.

 

At this point not one of the monkeys knows why, but they all avoid climbing the box to get the banana. As far as they know, they have always behaved that way [NEW DIACHRONY]

 

 

_________________________

Taken and adapted from Wired For Culture. Origins of the Human Social Mind (2012)

 

 

2)Extrinsically Defined Physiologically Collective Structure

Can in fact be expressed semiotic and rationally through an analogy and imagery of an exile—literarily in the story of Cain (for example), who only figuratively (narratively) goes anywhere at all, but that rather is a narrative explanation and version of a physiologically cultural process of extrinsic, opprobrium-imposed physiological definition; that is the conceptualized story of expulsion primed however in and by the ultimate force of individual biological opprobrium—that makes said narrative physiologically binding for the individual in the individual’s own terror of the threat of expulsion, and that becomes on aggregate the phsyio-anthropologically structural itself, as the very collectively structural mechanics of at least that specific human group, defined in and under said narrative.

 

A literary Love-Hate Story

Artistic ambivalence thus can be understood as reflecting the structural ambivalence of individuality itself, the contradiction that is belonging as also a terror of rejection in regards to the individual’s singular experiencing of the physical, but only in the embrace of the group that never can actually fully ever be, and for as long one’s singular physical experience remains forever the true barrier to real communion with the group.

 

And so, quite logically, there must also arise resentment (that people seldom really understand as such) in regards to what is a deep and silent brutality of the anthropological itself and that most bitterly can physiologically push the individual to despise exactly that which she is at all levels really dependent on; while at times brought to effervescence, so to speak, in the fact that—quite logically as well—the group itself knows not either what are the deeper, true causes of its own physiological responses and particularly in regards to individual transgression—that is clearly, the nature and problem of individuality itself as a form of permanent in fact structural transgression, anyway.

 

 

3)Business Anthropology Sketches

 

1.What is this that is The Big Systemic?

When as a supermarket shopper who goes to great lengths and effort to find food items on sale and at only a temporary discount price (that frequently and prior to entering the establishment you are not expecting at all) through long aisles and mental scenarios of 3 for 5 calculations and comparisons of actual volume price regarding sale price versus the normal price; and on sale items versus non-sale competing brands; and as this super market shopper you become in a physiology of rational quest, calculation and inference, The Big Systemic appears when, at the final check out moment (after additionally waiting for your fellow shoppers to pay for their own items) you find out that you had mistakenly perceived items on sale that were not actually on sale; through really no fault of your own, but because in your physiological intensity of quest, calculation and inference, you misread, misinterpreted-or misunderstood-the price labels in regards to the items said labels were actually making reference to;

 

And The Big Systemic is what is before you in the physiological build-up and expense that has just been your shopping experience, as you stand before the cashier or store attendant in that final check-out moment, and additionally in your finally knowing that the logic that had motivated you is false; and the contemplation of The Big Systemic—if you should in fact care to see it—begins in the very moment, in that situation, in which you decide you don’t give a damn about going back and re-selecting your food items:

 

The Big Systemic thus becomes only for you something like a physiological inconvenience, that when you look at it form the standpoint of the hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of store shoppers, chain-wide, and in all the company’s stores—is in fact the business administration vision of economic planning and management, through time.

 

And because for the individual, this proposed physiological experience that is your shopping experience (that is actually fun, in a certain way), could only ever be understood as simply that: an inconvenience; but that in regards to hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of other individuals, becomes significantly more valid as a moral dilemma, in at least your own understanding.

 

Because The Big Systemic is not you—is not really about you as an individual—but rather is naturally a bigger system you end up forming part of, and that is unquestionably based on the situational discrepancy that is your physiological experience, in regards to a structural logic as strategy as a rational tool and instrument of the utilization of individual physiological experience (but that as higher-tiered agency of calculation and system management, is not, at least initially, physiological in itself).

 

And so an inconvenience that is actually fun (in the sense of an invigorated, logic-based activity) depends crucially on its being an activity of a certain physiologically rational intensity as a quite serious behavioral ploy towards business viability;

 

That, of course as a system, gives jobs to people, creates wealth and contributes directly to a possible American socio-economic effervescence of basically finance, ultimately…

 

So how are you going to really complain, anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

  1. AGGREGATE STATISTIC PROPOSALS OF ANALISIS AND CONFUSION

Say, for example, Americans watch an average of 4 hours of TV (hypothetically and in the terms of a former understanding of culture) how many aggregate hours of TV are being watched by individuals a day?

 

And there would seem to be confusion in regards to the logical limit of only 24 hours to an actual day, but that is really more like a preference of our minds (because perhaps of the bodily nature of experience itself) and that the paradigms of our understanding—that we also read and reinforce our sense of self from—also share this same tendency to see things from the standpoint of the individual—and even in regards to a statistical prototype of individual, over time.

 

But of course there in fact are the number of hours in day as there are people who live those hours, on Earth—potentially, or at least in regards to specific consumer-cultural contexts; and this is a form of incongruence, at least initially and in our first step of approach towards its conceptualization;

 

That is to say, if the average American (statistically) watches 4 hours of television a day, 1275.6* million TV hours are experienced daily, in a single 24 hour period; that initially would seem to go against logic that is ultimately the logic of individual bodily experience, subject to the circumstances of planet Earth (as all life is) and the time it takes the planet to complete a full revolution on its axis—and perhaps owing to our tendency to conceptualize experience as in fact the way we actually live it.

 

Perhaps in regards also to the awkwardness (grotesqueness, even) of conceptualizing what is strictly physiological, body experience in regards to millions of human beings, that effectively—perhaps terrifyingly—goes beyond the comfort of our own self-understanding as an individual.

 

Because to understand aggregate experience, you of course must move conceptually beyond physical experience (that is, of individuality which is the only experience you actually know); and so from this standpoint, the conceptual trappings as insulation of culture itself and the comfort culture conceptually provides us—so that we may be physically at peace with ourselves in our very limitation and powerlessness—is suddenly stripped away in regards to a technical and very much clinical vision of what collectively structural experience of human beings, through time, actually consists of.

 

Because it is, at first, simply uncouth in the untrained eye’s conceptual perception of it.

 

Curiously, however, form the standpoint of the administration of human intuitions and collective entities such as business models in regards to aggregate markets—markets that are essentially, collective and bulk human physiological experience, through time—to say that some one billion hours of television are consumed every 24 hour period in the United States, is of course, not incongruent at all; neither is it perceived awkwardly, neither hesitantly, nor much less as uncouth:

 

If you are somehow and professionally connected to the television industry (who really isn’t in some way, ultimately, through the socio-economic structure it creates), and especially as an executive in regards to the real living object of your technical-economic endeavor, such a presentation of data is in fact crucial to the very technical coherence it is assumed you work in and under.

 

But for people and the average Joe on the street (so to speak) it is a contemplation as a form of disturbance, psychologically—that is physiologically disturbing in its perception; as a vision and thus contemplative experience beyond culture itself, and given that culture also consists of a conceptual comfort and placidness of ideas for people to live—and be—in at the exclusion of even concepts (and the unpleasant mental images they can create.)

 

Thus does there in fact exist a psychological-physiological discrepancy between technical thought and its implementation (at least in regards to business models), and the actual physiological nature of cultural experience from the standpoint of just bodily individuality.

 

And it begs the question why wouldn’t a technical effort of economic strategy, and planning towards economic gain seek to avail itself of this very discrepancy, in regards to a body social that in its very cultural mettle is naturally oblivious (necessarily and in its very quality of being culturally) to higher, anthropological forms of conceptual, technical imposition?

 

____________________________

*Technical nuance and correction of calculation as an average that cannot later be extrapolated back to the aggregate (against its very quality of being only an average): Google listed population of The United States is 318.9 million [multiplied by] 4; all the same, the point can still be made in regards ultimately to a discrepancy of perception, between technical planning and implementation versus the physiologically sensory of individual experience—which in fact becomes the object of a technical, higher-tired and behaviorist approach; and in regards additionally to a conceptual perception of a clearly disturbing quality for people, that is in fact outside of culturally-contained, anthropologically-defined experience itself… And by adding a twist to a popular phrase perhaps a good description is given, in thinking inside the box, but from outside and over the box that conveys the technical, structural agency herein conceptually implied.

 

 

 

  1. An AT&T Anthropology (Orange)

No longer an act of consumption as choice, rather the creation of contexts in which all physiological options of the individual are set to—and in exchange for—a price; that obviously can only really take place in the physiologically semiotic (or only virtually real), because individual freedom of physical movement, is of course, something considered part and parcel exclusively of individuality as we understand it and within the conceptual limitation—hence definition—our anthropological space and tradition imposes on us; but the physiologically real need not necessarily be physically real, and the assumption that physical experience still belongs to me becomes no more than a conciliatory point, suddenly, of almost only a structural reference;

 

And so what had been the traditional catering to human need and its satisfaction through time, moves from only the auxiliary economic into—through and over—the human physiological itself, as process, implementation and forced cultural evolution that permanently requires an element of duplicity, given a deeper conceptual understanding by individuals would generate some form of defiance, opposition—resistance, finally, to what is the cultural-economic impetus of our time.

 

But serious business administration acumen has undoubtedly always been in the anthropological itself, through time and in regards to aggregate human demographics whose natural state and condition of physiological invigoration as stability—in conjunction with a cultural force of ideas and conceptual definition eventually set against it—ends up dangerously separating human experience from higher forms of purpose—of meaning at all. Because AT&T Anthropology is a strictly a technical form of advance that delegates higher forms of coherence (responsibility, finally) to some force of opposition it depends on to limit its own force of inertia,

 

For it knows not any limits in and of itself.

 

Paradoxically, however, because AT&T Anthropology as only a technical design in regards to living contexts of human physiology towards only technical objectives it cannot openly explain, and while it does effectively engage individual physiological experience that is indeed a form of physiologically invigorated, collective stability—any real and structurally crucial opposition to it is (or at least has been) progressively more and more inconceivable.

 

Historically, however, anthropological balance has always been (paradoxically, once again) in really the structurally covert fostering of individuality itself.

 

Because structural integrity, through time, ultimately depends crucially on it; and while the structural has a center and technical hub, and perhaps a core pillar architectural design and artifice,

 

Only individuals have a heart.

 

Because the greatest comfort anthropology as always provided fiercely against the brutality of the natural world is human intention itself that only the bodily experience of individuality produces.

 

Anthropology has always universally made the problem of individuality really the solution, if you look at it carefully.

 

____________________________________

 

 

4) BIG SYSTEMIC HOUSES

Neighborhoods of individual house developments of a massive, technical extension as a structurally singular unity, but that consists of a body-based illusion of autonomy in regards to physio-bodily experience of individuals in every house, and sub-structural unit, or atomic part; according to an illusory reign of every man and woman as king of his or her house.

 

Culture

Successive realms of two-component movement, inexorably always fueled (propelled) by the technical circumstances of agrarian anthropology—and the contradiction it represents in regards to permanently fixed and non-evolutionary, human physiology;

 

And so is in a certain sense a physiological dead end that must effectively be denied by cultural physio-semiotics, perpetually in movement perpetually as a dance that becomes living analogy of the act of culture and anthropological space: going physically nowhere, but physiologically always in movement, in one direction or another; affirming itself in one sense—and also in its very denial, in another sense, from another or opposite standpoint; that thus as a system depends crucially on different forms of socio-physiological and semiotic division and opposition—that is thus a channeling of the circumstances of physiological difference (age, physio-preference, physio-ideology, and geographic difference) into a form of subtle but furious conflict that depends on the body act of a state of consumer society life to jacket—insulate—itself in a very much mundane possibility of self-affirmation, very much against somebody else as a figment especially of the power individual’s mind and physio-semiotics, but that seldom if ever seeks to fortify itself in deeper forms of conceptualization and thus does not consider nor is ever seriously tempted by, nor attracted to, real forms of physical violence and as self-affirmation, and except only as a form of especially fascinating fear cultural restraint ends up pro-actively depending on in regards to a basically illusive criminal human nature, out there in the shadows perpetually somewhere out there on the urban horizon of the mind

 

5)DANCER (Eli Wallach in The Line Up (1958))

Structural dead end of agrarian anthropology requires an exercising of physiological invigoration in the only realm really possible that is the physiologically semiotic. Set in San Francisco under the image of highway overpasses only partially completed at the time (and so dead-end abruptly in an overall atmosphere of construction and innuendo of economic mass in still initial, historical effervescence and after WWII), the film situates us preeminent and permanently before the vision and view of the Pacific Ocean, as not only an American no-way-forward towards the West (that has effectively become the Orient and the Far East), but rather in regards to something like the anthropological itself, as a state of now necessarily ritualized physiology and dance (because sedentary, agrarian anthropology is, simply, sedentary);

 

But physiology can only ever be ritualized if its ideas, at least initially, are—or at least feel—free and open towards bigger horizons beyond the physically limited and mundane quotidian; so while ocean imagery of the film is in fact horizon, true expanse takes place in the ideas the film aggressively sets out to portray—and to some extent conceptually nuance—for the viewer:

 

And while the horizon is physically (spatially) just the blue nothingness of open sea, physiologically invigorated transit is truly forced on us through a detailed plot of heroin smuggling (naturally from the Orient into, apparently, a thriving American market); numerous dialogue references (and in the form of objects) are constantly made to Hong Kong, China and Japan, in regards to generally unawares tourists and ship crew members who are targeted by the intelligence units of a gangster organization for the donkey job of passing through US Port Customs in physical possession of quite large amounts of pure heroin they are however not aware of.

 

And the opening scene of the film is in itself of a violent attempt at snatching the drug-laden luggage from an unawares tourist who just got off a ship from the Far East; that becomes a violent shoot-out and a car chase and smash up, as the criminal operative tries to force his way out of the port.

 

And so is the rest of the film a progressively more nuanced repetition of the same attempt, later and in the company of vaudeville-like pair of sociopathic pick-up men and killers, as they operate through a list of additional passengers whose heroine load must also be recovered, but in only a single day and by no later than 4:30 in the afternoon (as the viewer is constantly, subtly reminded of).

 

But anthropological expanse here is the physiological itself (and given that physically can one no longer really go anywhere), in regards especially to a fascinating mythology of the criminal side of human nature, psychology and its violence; always in the shadows, always ready to strike according to its own actually furiously technical needs that is the real motivation in fact of its violence, and at least in this case.

 

And so a pair of anti-individuals become in fact anti-heroes, specifically in the structurally fatalistic problem their personalities and behavior represent for civilized society, but that becomes an escalating tension, structurally, for not only the law enforcement community of San Francisco—and some of its citizens—but also, of course, for the viewer who has been physio-artistically positioned not towards identifying exactly with the criminal fugitives, but certainly pushed towards an awful empathy, perhaps, with the struggle for civilized individuals to actually be civilized, that only if subliminally, is perceived as somehow not a problem just for the criminally insane or asocial.

 

And so structurally, Dancer (Eli Wallach) is all our dance partner as the dark side phantom popular culture—or just culture?—has long ago set out to compensate for the basic physiological immobilization we live in anthropologically, as of in fact agriculture originally, and that makes us analogously also dancers of a ritualized physio-semiotic context of a necessary, collective nature,

 

And given that we can no longer be just physiologically, but rather are condemned to live semiotically, in some working form of ideas and conceptualization agrarian anthropology requires, and that becomes the possibility of the social itself in being exactly NOT just what we physiologically, and physically are.

 

And physio-semiotic invigoration is really the only expanse we’ll ever know, as well.

 

Or would you rather go to war?

 

 

6)La violencia de Billy en A History of Violence(2005) versus la violencia físio-moral de Tom Stall e hijo

La diferencia inicialmente radica en una especie de afición fisiológica (y verdadero gusto personal) de Billy, quien claramente rellena el vacío emocional del psicópata que es con la violencia despiadada y brutal que ejerce sobre otros; pero se ha aficionado a una fisiologia del ejercicio de la violencia irremediablemente que acaba por anular las capas más elevadas y necesariamente social de la personalidad (a igual parece que su compañero de fechorías);

 

Por contra, la parte más luminosa de la historia es de hecho una violencia parecida pero justificada que se origina en la necesidad física finalmente inexorable de defenderse; de ahí que sea una violencia moral, al menos en su origen quizá opróbico de supervivencia corporal sine qua non. Lo que convierte la historia en una suerte de aventura antropológica y físio-psicológica; respecto un presente civilizado, por una parte, y un fantasma—en realidad no solo del pasado personal de Tom, sino antropológicamente y respecto un modo físio-racional diferente y claramente incompatible con la los contextos civilizados, que de hecho éstos defenestran efectivamente y por lo general, del ámbito social real y cívico.

 

Porque el oprobio biológico individual, que es respecto siempre el pertenecer del individuo al grupo (y el terror por tanto de aquél ante el posible rechazo de éste) es también una fuerza alumbradora y reforzante a la vez de la misma individualidad físio-corporal, racional y moral en esto que soy que no es de ellos y que mi propia ímpetu vital por pertenecer simultáneamente no me deja olvidar nunca que es algo así como el intersticio y cruz entre el ser y estar grupal por una parte; y lo obligación físio-racional, moral—por otra—de un inexorable acarrear con la propia individualidad a partir de lo corpóreo personal, en la conciencia vital individual y permanente del mismo;

 

Y viene a ser precisamente respecto a estas dos fuerzas aparentemente contradictorias lo que la semiótica propuesta cultural se esfuerza tanto en atemperar, por medio principalmente de la expulsión perpetua y renovada de Caín, como si dijéramos; que es la defenestración efectiva de la ferocidad del yo oprobico más primario, aquello dentro de nosotros que circunstancialmente—pero legítimamente desde una logica corporal y zoomorfa—experimenta la fuerza de la envidia y los celos (por ejemplo) no como una falta social, sino una verdadera amenaza a la integridad y pertenencia grupal propias del individuo; un estado de terror fisiológico que natural y lógicamente llevará al yo zoomorfa e instintivo hasta matar por eliminar el rival y causante lógico de una temida perdida del individuo respecto la integridad física y corpórea propia, que es asimismo la verdadera fuerza base del oprobio y su biología respecto al pertenecer grupal.

 

La semiótica propuesta y cultural, esto es, las ideas que rigen la posibilidad social de un grupo humano antropológico concreto, sojuzgan parcialmente los instintos más primarios y fundamentalmente opróbicos del yo zoomorfa y corporal adueñándose la semiótica misma de la biología humana opróbica; de tal forma que la semiótica particular del grupo será también oprópicamente impuesta a la experiencia fisio-psicológica individual, respecto ideas compartidas morales que llegan a ser fisiológicamente relevantes para el individuo (bajo la amenaza de nuevo pero siempre de la expulsión potencial del individuo del grupo, ahora según una logica social propuesta secundaria, que es la de cualquier tradición cultural en su forma particular de rección fisiológica colectiva y a partir de su igualmente particular forma de mediatización—y por tanto definición—de la individualidad misma, que por razones anatómicas humanas obvias no puede distar en mucho de la forma y modo de cualquier otro.)

 

Secundaria porque la fisiología humana obligada semiótica y cultural se enfrenta de hecho y estructuralmente a la base misma opróbica individual, que acaba adueñándose de ella parcialmente, pero no del todo pues la racionalidad humana es a partir originalmente del punto híbrido zoomorfo que se vuelve racional, exactamente en la comprobación permanente de saberse uno físicamente, pero respecto aquellos otros de la experiencia física inmediata que el individuo percibe como físicamente extraños a sí mismo, aunque en todo otro sentido (respecto la pertenencia, y en la propia identidad cultural compartida) sí que se integra; pero no en lo corporal, evidentemente.

 

Y la base biológica zoomorfa y opróbica del individuo-también por razones evidentes-no se va realmente a ninguna parte, nunca; puede quedarse a la merced de otras semióticas nuevas o totalmente diferentes y ajenas, que con el tiempo también se hacen fisiológicamente relevantes y por fuerza, debido al desplazamiento físico del individuo extranjero que por razones siempre imperiosas ha de incorporase a otros grupos humanos diferentes. Pero el mecanismo base de la racionalidad humana, en su fondo subconsciente y siempre subcultural, finalmente, es en origen irracional y que solo respecto a un grupo al que haya de integrase el individuo, se produce una racionalización—también de base moral propia—de individualidad a partir de la necesidad de un pertenecer siempre imposible del todo, que es la puerta de acceso mismo al ser individualmente respecto siempre del grupo; y es, por implicación en verdad estructural, una tensión permanente fisiológica-racional por ser perteneciendo, pero en la obligación simultánea de acarrear con lo que no puede pertenecer nunca, que es el ser fisiológico primario y físico.

 

Por otra parte, la semiótica histórica más elevada o que se estuviera empezando digamos a remontar y alzarse, depende crucialmente del lenguaje humano, y sobre todo el lenguaje escrito; lo cual sugiere que la historia humana en su grueso temporal de, pongamos unos 200 mil años, ha tenido lugar sobre todo extramuros del lenguaje en sí, pues consideramos que el lenguaje escrito no tuvo lugar hasta hace 5 mil años solamente; y que sin la agricultura que se suele fechar en solo 10 mil años atrás, es ciertamente inconcebible que hubiera desarrollo lingüístico más que rudimentario; o lo que es lo mismo, que la experiencia cada vez más sedentaria obligó a la creación físiorracional humana del lenguaje como necesidad en realidad semiótica respecto al problema de una fisiología ya inmovilizada, y el problema de orden social que significaba ante sobre todo la necesidad de autoexplicarse a ellos mismos; y para ello crearon dioses, como otra forma parecida de imposición físiorracional una vez más, pero solo narrativamente posible dentro ya del lenguaje que solemos confundir con el origen del hombre, según muchas tradiciones que postulan más o menos esto de que en el principio fue el verbo, que es cierto en un sentido antropológico estructural sedentario, pero en ningún case respecto a la creación biológica real de nada.

 

Que hubo antes muchos milenios anteriores de no verbo en absoluto, pero sí de vida crucialmente significativa al menos como antecedente y evolución posible de lo que después vendría.

 

Y con el lenguaje tiene lugar históricamente un verdadero despegue semiótico como espacio técnicamente necesario de expansión humana posible y siempre frente al problema que acarrea la misma agricultura, que es a saber, el desfase evolutivo de una fisiología humana para entonces ya fija NO SEDENTARIA, empero dentro de contextos cada vez más sedentarios e inmovilizados; contextos ya de por sí lo suficientemente cívicos como para resultar blindados ya para siempre respecto la fuerza de selección natural humana, que quiere decir que tampoco cabía esperarse que la biología humana se hubiera adaptado al contexto sedentario y agrícola puesto que el mismo motor de la evolución de la especie quedó de repente imposibilitado.

 

Y necesariamente la propuesta semiótica de un grupo ha de ser igualmente una propuesta fisiológica y respecto al problema base y subyacente, entre una naturaleza física y fisiológica humana no apta para los contextos agrícolas, y que por la misma razón técnica no puede ya evolucionar.

 

De manera que las tradiciones culturales particulares acaban siendo propuestas semióticas a partir de una experiencia colectiva geográficamente definido, y siempre hacia una régimen fisiológico simplemente civil (que no quiere decir del todo pacífico), y al menos respecto del grupo inmediato propio; y la violencia que se logra erradicar internamente (mediante cualquier lógica rectora y normalmente respecto a un plano cósmico superior) sí cabe ejercerla exteriormente y de cara a otros grupos humanos diferentes, que por circunstancias técnicas de nuevo a modo de una necesidad de desahogo estructural (y puesto que la fisiología real humana es en verdad óptima para el ejercicio de la violencia) suele históricamente llevarse a cabo con la mayor furia y saña, hacia lo ajeno y culturalmente extranjero, como deleite fisiológico y desinhibido, libre por fin y al menos pasajeramente del contexto opróbico del grupo propio.

 

Y el modo de implantación fisiológica de tal propuesta semiótica cultural está, una vez más, en la biología opróbica individual, que condiciona el pertenecer al grupo en la misma calidad de obligación fisiológica respecto de aquellos entidades conceptuales y semióticas que el grupo en sí es y que el pertenecer individual no tiene más remedio que arrogarse igualmente para sí; que si no, no se es individualmente del grupo y por tanto expuesto naturalmente a la ira del grupo y su expulsión del mismo, en caso de que el individuo transgresor no sea físicamente aniquilado.

 

Con esto no quiere decir que el individuo llegue realmente a sopesar sus posibles opciones, o al menos no inicialmente. Pues que el pertenecer antropológico de la individualidad es la mismísima definición de individualidad al dictado en verdad del grupo sobre lo individual; y esto el yo no puede percibirlo como opcional, sino que acaba siendo su misma sustancia personal y fisiológica, aunque la base moral humana en verdad es a partir de la corporeidad propia e individual (dado que la experiencia física no deja nunca de ser singular), con lo cual hay que postular la individualidad como verdadera piedra angular incluso de una racionalidad colectiva y solo culturalmente postulada, lo que convierte el individuo más bien en un problema frente a lo estructural antropológico del grupo; problema que las antropologías históricas resuelven (aunque sin resolver nunca, como más bien una tensión permanente) fijando crípticamente al centro de cualquier experiencia cultural de fisiología finalmente secundaria, la fuerza corporalmente moral de yo;

 

Crípticamente pues porque toda lógica cultural narrativamente tiende hacia la canalización, si no sojuzgamiento, de las fuerza primarias del individuo en pos de la posibilidad misma de lo social; pero al mismo tiempo queda siempre corto en este mismo empeño, y hasta el extremo de permanecer en silencio en cuanto a la muy legitima enjundia individual y respecto de la cual-siempre guardando un mínimo de razonable decoro-no tiene en verdad casi nunca mucho que decir. Y como originalmente los individuos más tercamente resistentes en su propia individualidad, hacen finalmente grupos más fuertes-con probabilidades más serias de supervivencia-el mecanismo cultural opróbico de los grupos humanos muy lógicamente jamás ha querido nunca ni deshacerse de la individualidad ni siquiera seriamente perturbarla, sino todo lo contrario que es el refuerzo de la misma,

 

Aunque abiertamente no puede la lógica cultural defender narrativamente este propósito, siendo lo suyo necesaria e inicialmente una lógica de prohibición, puesto que depende la cultura crípticamente y para su propio ejercicio fáctico, del desafío que toda individualidad intrínsecamente representa:

 

Porque lo estructural antropológico y cultural es en repuesta a y contestando el desafío individual, como lo es toda su propuesta semiótica, finalmente fisiológica en respuesta al perenne desafío que es el individuo que es ni más ni menos la propia fuerza grupal-estructural, a través del tiempo y siempre renovada de generación en generación.

 

Que es aquello que naturalmente da lugar a una evolución social que es el permanecer cultural a través del cambio y dado que la fisiología humana es siempre la misma, siempre más de lo mismo e idéntico—pero histórica, cultural y contextualmente diferente.

 

Resulta de apremio pues el desmenuzar la relación real entre estas dos zonas-o cameras bimembres-del hecho cultural humano y antropológico respecto de un proceso paradójico de sojuzgamiento del individuo por una parte al grupo, mientras crípticamente es la individualidad que queda al centro real y estructural de edificio antropológico; que es la individualidad secretamente enaltecida como máximo valor estructural, finalmente, y en contradicción evidente con las lógicas narrativas culturales de la superficie racional y colectiva, e incluso cuando la lógica cultural en verdad bastante falsamente propone ella misma la glorificación oficial del individualismo, cuando estructuralmente el hecho antropológico siempre e universalmente prioriza al grupo siempre por encima del individuo, de tal forma y en tal extremo que es ciertamente el individuo que pende de-y es social y semióticamente producido por-el grupo, y no al revés.

 

Y puesto que la posibilidad misma del espacio social resulta fundada en un sentido y mecanismo practico de definición extrínseca-semiótica del individuo (mediante el oprobio biológico y su geometría físio-social; esto es, entre la realidad corporal individual, la presencia de los otros, y respecto las ideas que ellos comparten y esencialmente son) la misma estabilidad de lo colectivo está precisamente-paradójicamente-en el valor real, siempre renovada de la violencia moral del individuo corpóreo; como máximo guardián último de la fuerza vital cultural (y crucialmente estructural) que por si mismo no puede vigorizarse si no es mediante el desafío que le trae en su mismísimas narices como si dijéramos, el individuo.

 

Porque el individuo—como los niños también—da mucha vida crucialmente para la otra parte y actor cultural que es esta nebulosa e incorpórea fuerza salvaje de lo estructural, intensamente aterrorizado y que, por lo tanto, se ensaña en su furiosa voluntad de prohibición, dominio y sojuzgamiento de todo aquello que considera una amenaza para sí.

 

Y particularmente (con especial ahínco furioso) respecto a lo corporal y físico, aquello que precisamente no es, o solo de forma remota y semióticamente mediatizada, como única forma que lo físico, carnal le es finalmente tolerable.

 

______________________

Y se produce una divinización de la naturaleza humana, culturalmente ofrecida al sacrificio semiótico como proposición del mal que es la parte vital y demoniaca de nuestra naturaleza crucialmente física (respecto al menos el cristianismo y su base judaica; o asimismo dentro de la cultura griega clásica, bajo otros avatares y dentro de otras dicotomías); pero como es tal su enjundia viviente, lo estructural no puede permitirse ignorar ni subestimarlo-y lo pone en su mismísimo centro, alzándolo en lo alto, enmascarado bajo distintos avatares semióticos del bien y del mal; del dios y diablo cristianos, como finalmente uno y lo mismo, indistintamente respecto de la fuente antropológicamente perenne de todo, que es el problema técnico permanente de lo experiencia física individual, pero respecto del grupo humano, y entre la multitud cultural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7) Geometric Opprobrium Games

http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/09/populistas-incorrectos-de-ricardo-dudda-en-el-pais/

Una característica fundamental del populismo es el rechazo a la corrección política. De Donald Trump a Marine Le Pen o Nigel Farage, los líderes populistas utilizan un lenguaje que busca romper los tabúes, que dice las cosas “como son” y utiliza significantes vacíos como el “sentido común”. La incorrección política sirve al populista para justificar su retórica divisiva y polarizadora: Donald Trump nunca aceptaría que sus discursos son racistas, para él son solo políticamente incorrectos. Sus seguidores aprecian su autenticidad, su aparente valentía a la hora de decir lo que, según ellos, todos piensan pero no se atreven a decir. Creen que hay una dictadura del “buenismo” y el pensamiento bienintencionado que les impide decir lo que consideran verdad, y que pone en peligro sus libertades.

 

Tabúes del grupo y su propuesta de incorrección política bienpensante

 

Retórica divisiva, polarizadora del populista

 

Gancho político propio en el físiorrechazo opróbico de individualidad antropológico

 

Es una preocupación muy estadounidense, y forma parte de una cultura muy arraigada de la libertad de expresión.[Mecánica cultural y formalista; como formalismo y cliché físio-semiotico cultural y antropológico] Muchos ciudadanos de Estados Unidos sienten que no solo les han arrebatado el país y frustrado sus esperanzas, sino que también las élites les han impedido quejarse de ello. Su rechazo a la corrección política es un rechazo al lenguaje que utilizan las élites para ocultar la verdad, es una manera simbólica de luchar contra el establishment. Los votantes de Trump ven su retórica incendiaria más como una expresión de integridad y sinceridad, y un rechazo al lenguaje mojigato y excesivamente calculado de los políticos de carrera, que como una muestra de racismo, machismo y mala educación. También sirve a Trump para protegerse de sus críticos. No es posible realizar una rendición de cuentas, porque es todo superficie y discurso: lo importante de Trump no es lo que dice, sino su show políticamente incorrecto. En la era de la política posfactual, en la que Trump es el rey, lo verdaderamente importante es la apariencia de autenticidad. Ninguno de sus votantes cree que vaya a construir un muro con México; les basta solo con que se atreva a proponerlo.

 

Tras las críticas a la corrección política hay parte de razón. Aunque es una manera bienintencionada de determinar las reglas de un debate civilizado, y suele ser una defensa de la integración y el respeto de las minorías, sus excesos han puesto en peligro en ocasiones la libertad de expresión: en las universidades estadounidenses, muchos estudiantes han censurado o intentado censurar opiniones que consideran ofensivas. A veces tiene como consecuencia justo lo que busca cambiar: en nombre de las minorías y la corrección política, muchos caen en una actitud paternalista que promueve la intolerancia y desprecia el pluralismo.

La derecha ha sido la principal preocupada por la corrección política, que considera característica de una izquierda mojigata y acomplejada. Pero la incorrección política es en esencia transversal y populista. Es, en cierto modo, una negación de la política, una defensa falaz de una verdad previa a la política institucional. El populista incorrecto no busca solo rescatar a las personas del establishment, sino también recuperar el lenguaje.

 

Aunque los líderes de Podemos utilizan la corrección política como una manera de crear hegemonía y no perder votos de sectores estratégicos, también buscan romper tabúes y cuestionan la “corrección política” o hegemonía cultural del sistema. Errejón afirmó en una entrevista que hay puntos en común entre el patriotismo del Frente Nacional y el de Podemos, y que al decir esto estaba siendo políticamente incorrecto. Quiere “construir pueblo mediante la batalla cultural” y convertir Podemos en un “partido-movimiento” de corte nacional-popular.

 

En un discurso en el Congreso en la pasada legislatura, Pablo Iglesias declaró que “decir la verdad, y tener principios, se ha vuelto algo extraño”, y se ofreció como la alternativa “decente” que no tiene miedo a decir la verdad. Pareció sugerir que, hasta la llegada de Podemos al Parlamento, nadie se había atrevido a decir lo que realmente había que decir. Es una defensa de una verdad “popular”, de sentido común (que es una característica de la incorrección política), propiedad del pueblo antes de que la política se la robara, y que es necesario rescatar. Pero, como se ha visto en la campaña del Brexit y en la de Trump, para recuperar la verdad que han ocultado los poderosos, el populista incorrecto acaba siempre usando la mentira.

Ricardo Dudda es periodista y miembro de la redacción de Letras Libres.

 

________________________________

Movimiento más bien antropológico respecto la ambivalencia base de individualidad grupal y antropológico-estructural, y al que se le puede atraer provocando (que es finalmente un vigorizar) precisamente sobre el punto del agobio estructural-grupal que solo se alivia natural y antropológicamente en el rechazo físiorracional del mismo (que es el modo antropológico de la verdadera individualidad tonificante y finalmente corporal)—y esto políticamente en torno a un modelo coreografiado físio-semiótico y patrón de individualidad a seguir, que es el líder—presidente o Fuhrer—y respecto finalmente sus tabúes propuestos propios que es finalmente la suplantación de una semiótica anterior por una nueva de dominio personal, del partido—o grupo y estamento oscuro de presión—como nuevo paradigma (en verdad físio-antropológico) de un nuevo orden político, semiótico y finalmente colectivamente fisiológico, ciertamente como remedo estructural mayor y antropológico, sin embargo al servicio de unos fines poco circunspectos y finalmente provincianos, dado que su propio ímpetu de exclusivamente dominio geométrico y situacional, no está ni interesado ni capacitado para una posible gestión sistémica-estructural mayor respecto el espacio humano antropológico en sí.

 

El dominio político así entendido es y se propone ser en realidad un caloroso y paternal abrazo antropológico de la individualidad afligida físio-antropológica humana y estructural; pero ruin ciertamente en lo no confesado y respecto las intenciones iniciales siempre vacíos y solo situacionales, de forcejeo y lucha ocultos respecto al espacio físio-psicológico de individualidad antropológica, debajo de la superficie social racional y coherente, lejos siempre de la luz diurna.

 

El Donald es una mierda, pero tonifica

-Falaz (y verdaderamente avieso) porque el contenido conceptual (más bien poco) está siempre al servicio de uno fines finalmente siempre fisiológicos, nada más.

 

-Los procesos históricos llamados así populistas (pero que en realidad son de una propuesta manipulación fisiologica-psicologica y físio-semiótica) parecen adquirir una especial carácter virulento a partir especialmente de la prensa escrita y el telégrafo; la posibilidad técnica de fotografías impresas en los periódicos; y el cine y la radio que arraigan social y físiopsicologicamente al mismo tiempo, más o menos, y durante las mismas décadas del siglo XX (los años veinte y treinta); hasta tal punto que sería lícito afirmar que el fenómeno de Adolph Hitler no hubiera sido posible de la misma forma ni en la misma rapidez y virulencia sin esto que era un nuevo mecanismo de franqueo de la mente (y de la misma individualidad estructural y antropológica) del ser humano; que efectivamente actúa como fuerza catalizadora sobre los elementos del sustrato cultural alemán y respecto de una noción grupal orgánica y organicista especifica.

 

Exiled Man Anthropology

Or

Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology

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

 

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

 

(Don’t forget that!)

 

 

 

8) Two Families of Objects (From Umberto Eco Travels in Hyperreality, 1990)

[FINAL TWO PARAGRAPHS]…The objects are of two types. The first are the “beautiful” objects, desirable, fairly accesible. They include easy chairs, lamps, sausages, liquors, motorboats, swimming pools. The visitor loves them and would like to own them. He cannot perhaps buy a motorboat but he can think of the remote possibility—one day, who knows?—of making such a purchase. But there is one thing he doesn’t desire: to accumulate objects of a single type. He may want an ashtray, but not a hundred ashtrays; a rubber boat, but not a thousand rubber boats. So his desire is keen but not frantic; it can be postponed, but its difficulty never creates the drama of impossibility. When you think about it, these “beautiful” objects are all consumer goods.

 

Then there are the others. They are “ugly”, because they are cranes, cement mixers, lathes, hods, excavators, hydraulic presses (actually, they are very beautiful, more beautiful than the first, but the visitor doesn’t know this). Since they are ugly and cumbersome, they are undesirable, also because they seem strangely defunctionalized, with their wheels spinning pointlessly, their blades striking the air without slicing anything…They are inaccessible, but the visitor doesn’t care. He knows that even if he could buy a machine tool, it would be of no use to him. Because these objects, unlike the others, function only if they are accumulable. A thousand ashtrays are useless, but a thousand machine tools make big industry. At the end of his rounds, the ordinary visitor believes he has chosen. He desires beautiful objects, accessible, and not accumulable, and rejects those that are ugly and accumulable (but inaccessible). In reality, he has not chosen; he has only accepted his role as consumer of consumer goods since he cannot be a proprietor of means of production. But he is content. Tomorrow he will work harder in order to be able to buy, one day, an easy chair and a refrigerator. He will work at the lathe, which is not his because (the fair has told him) he doesn’t want it. (1970)

 

Implict: Are two different levels of logic where one is subordinated to and contained by the other; thus a natural border and barrier arises in which the logic of the higher, containing level cannot be completely frank and forthcoming with regards to the greater part of the individuals who make up the lower level (although individuals who understand and work in higher logic also belong in also their own physiology to the lower). And thus a utilitarian relationship is formed between a natural anthropological illusion in which individuals live, that becomes a physiological freedom of a discerning, fundamentally hedonist and comfort-seeking self; while the logic and designs of the higher, structural level are (initially) conceptual and so corporeally remote—as specifically a force of temporal imposition through time, from initial investment, strategically towards ultimately a tacit put permanent structural control of the very contexts in which the greater breadth and with of collective social experience takes place physio-semiotically through time; that is thus a form finally of semiotic-controlled, semiotic-limited and thus defined, physiological possibility of the human collective—that becomes quite directly a collective and culturally physiological medium as object of higher-tiered, technical design and imposition.

 

Such a situation therefore is optimal also for other cryptic cultural forces which have of course most accidently ended up adopting the very mode of anthropological mechanisms of individual physiological subjugation and definition towards group cohesion, order and stability; accidently because human groups do in fact survive as groups in the very physiological engagement and invigoration of individuals—and this not only in regards to a long term financial reassurance for investors and their political structures, but rather in and because of the very physiological nature of human experience as of ever, universally and in all geographic points and historical moments;

 

Accidentally especially because such a self-serving mode of relating utilitarianly to the rest of society would be, even for those individuals at the highest pinnacle of structural understanding and implementation, morally intolerable if forced in its true rational dimensions on the conscience of individuals.

 

Certainly because the real union between both levels is in fact the physiological itself, that thus turns the labor of structurally technical consideration, implementation and control potentially also into a process of physiological engagement and invigoration for those individuals and given that even the conceptually rational is of course simply another realm of human physiology—as intellectual comprehension in some sense as just another form of perception and human physiologically rational imposition;

 

Because most necessarily—perhaps fatally—do human beings need to live physiologically invigorated existences, at all costs and in regards to all agrarian, sedentary cultural experience; and so it is that man’s achieved—but primary—cognizance allowed him to compensate in the semiotic for what he could not do physically simply because the semiotic and representational is physiological—is physiologically real and despite all physical limitation and impossibility.

 

And so rationally unawares to mankind—though not aesthetically—it becomes the physiological that is our perpetual armor and protecting bulwark against the rational itself:

 

And this in regards as well to culturally sturctural adminstrators and decision makers, whom we must necessarily suppose and attribute a labor of at least minimally technical, rationl nature…

 

But a truly rational existence is true grit if it is to be part of social experience.

 

(Is damn near impossible, in fact!)

 

And so the illusory cultural phantom, actually becomes the rational, and not the permanent steadfast will to life of the human physiological and corporeal individual.

 

 

 

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.