10. Logical-Conceptual Possibility from Socio-Genetic Physiology

1.Transcription of Human, Socio-Genetic Physiology into Logical-Conceptual Meaning:

Very much probably so that people continue to live ultimately in the mystery of their own physiological entity in the underlying, invigorated complacency the group provides, and until the impetus of physiological individuality reaches progressive degrees of maturity, then declining into the senectud of individual ontogeny. Moral dilemma (in a Judeo-Christian logic, for example) weights itself precisely against a phylogenetically established, physio and socio-cognitive, human nature, in itself a resource available to sedentary anthropological contexts towards their own tension and invigoration, and given that a formerly more hostile and dire physical world that conditioned such a phylogenetic evolution no longer exists in the same way…


The culturally rational self is based on and primed by, the intimacy of the corporeally physiological, opprobrium-configured self. That is, the culturally rational, moral life of human groups is, in this working sense, due to a secrecy (or ‘opacity’) of individual corporeal, body life—under and peripheral to, the collective congruence of our rational understanding of ourselves. Established semiotic stability (atop the opprobrium-configured, physio-corporeal realm of human groups) ultimately must preserve itself in the stimulated invigoration of the very physiological complacency it provides anthropological individuals by recourse, once again, to the physiological—especially sensorial—realm of the body. By implication, then, any state of living definition of the culturally rational is also an inchoative state of still-to-be-projected physio-semiotic impetus of individual physiological energy and vitality, that only supports itself of a broader, opprobrium-configured, semiotic and conceptual structure, at a distance so to speak, while remaining in itself only a living, potential projection of individual, bodily vigor.


  1. Revision of Unabomber´s Revision

The notion of being somehow displaced in regards to our phylogenetic essence and technological change, goes back even further in our past to the transition from nomadic to sedentary human groups. This is in fact the foundation of culture itself as we know it, particularly religion—long before somebody the likes of the Unabomber. The story of Cain and Abel—for example—is the transcription of a paradox of sorts between a previous state of semi-sedentary human groups and agriculture; and that the unresolvable dilemma of agricultural (or sedentary) man becomes our physiological and physiologically sensorial entity whose violence is only manageable for us in the projection of our physiological vitality in the form of labour and the different professions, due to the fact that we no longer live simply in movement itself; for it is Cain’s decedents who found not only cities, but the artisanal professions of leather crafts, music, and metallurgy as what constitute really proxy activities into which human beings can violently throw themselves, in all their energy and fury, albeit collectively secure in the conceptually moral framework the sedentary individual is compelled to live in and effectively know herself through.  And the logic itself of not being lazy, for example, is really because of the problems our physiological nature causes in sedentary circumstances (1), if we cannot project our vitality through some culturally congruent, physiologically semiotic channel: the day to day security of collective, sedentary anthropological contexts depends on it.



(1)Lorenz, Konrad; On Aggression (1963); Routledge Classics, 2002; pg. 245: Clearly, the task of compensation devolving on responsible morality increases at the same rate at which the ecological and sociological conditions created by culture deviate from those to which human instinctive behaviour is phylogenetically adapted. Not only does this deviation continue to increase, but it does so with an acceleration that is truly frightening.

  1. Myth itself is constant re-presentation of our physiological, socio-genetic and sensorial essence:

But becomes an object of logical-conceptual contemplation for us and is therefore a form of rationality in the social, collective congruence it constitutes. And in reference to it can one avail herself towards one’s own notion of the socially congruent self; that is, as an individuality who understands herself because of the physio-conceptual, physio-rational definition she can bestow on herself through resource to physio-social congruence, and in conjunction, of course with the force of biological opprobrium and its impingement on—that is in fact the true supporting foundation of—our physiologically rational, sensory experience (how she believes others see/regard her). And so collectively congruent, physiological and physio-sensorial entity becomes itself a form of physio-corporeal congruence, previous to whatever form of logic culture later imposes on it! Such a physiological entity is, in a sense, a form of underlying tautology….



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.