Self-preservation in the context of human groups becomes a sustained, physiologically sensorial (but not real nor even rational) experiencing of mob killing—necessarily in individual metabolic and physiologically sensory entity; and this, naturally because human groups can hardly afford to regularly gang up on, maul, murder or expel individual transgressors, except eventually only in the form of a spectacle of ritual, officialdom and cultural reinforcement.

Because individual self-preservation is so violent, in order to better service the permanence of the group through time, the predicament of individual bodily survival is physiologically transferred to the moral plane of appropriateness and the social congruence that appropriateness is based on. Biological opprobrium is the means through which such a physiological reality becomes a simulacrum for the exclusion of physical conflict, at least within the group and against the group’s otherwise inevitable dispersion.

The physio-moral simulacrum of human groups thus requires 1) a social congruence of whatever nature, off of which 2) a specific human-group paradigm of individuality is possible and in regards to which singularly physiological-physical members of the group will create their own personal identity as their respective cultural self the others can effectively understand and relate to.

The separation, in this sense between a deeper physio-corporal entity and the socially congruent, cultural self, is in fact the possibility of support and permanence, through time, of the culturally rational—that is, from outside is the simulacrum of cultural morality supported always by the violence of individual, physical self-preservation and imposition; and this becomes an indirect and remote centering of really the physical itself—albeit cryptically—at the very structural heart of moral, human-group and physio-sensorial simulacrum.

Logically, the greatest form of congruence with reality is through physical entity, but human groups can only afford adherence to this circumstance through a cryptic mechanism of deferring singularly physical experience: from this standpoint, the physiological substance of our experiential being in sensorial impression, becomes a resource through which the simulacrum of individual, cultural identity is possible.

And the simulacrum of culturally rational identity is, of course, the metabolically simulated—but not plainly rational—archetypical predicament of the solitary human being before a dark and hostile plain of primitive vulnerability and hardship, and whose only option of survival is to desperately seek to maintain, in all circumstances, the favor of the group she belongs to and her physiologically immediate fellows.

But today, of course and after the historical consolidation of agriculture (that is, as of at least some 10,000 years ago), such an experiential reality can only continue to exist for all a but the tiniest fraction of human beings effectively only as a metabolic and physiologically sensorial simulation at the universal, socio-genetic core of sedentary human groups—and this as long as working cultural rationality loses not its force of imposition over the sedentary group.

The deferring of physical experience that human groups have no choice but to impose on themselves comes about through a physiological creation of social congruence—over time and in the repetition, within socially complex contexts, of individual, physiologically sensorial experience. Because of the socio-genetic nature of anthropological individuality, the deeper opprobrium-configured strata of human, physiological being can only be defined through taboo, which could very well be conceptualized as the underlying physiologically corporal brick and motor of human group permanence and integrity as of direct, physiologically corporal experience; but more sustained, sedentary experience for greater periods of time (and certainly as of agriculture) would require more intricate forms of physiological homogenization, through physio-anthropological atrezzo and the positing, finally, of logical assertions human groups end up requiring as further resource towards the individual’s ability to effectively remain in the group;

And such a state, at that point, of human groups in the context of greater forms of stability and increasing physiological complacency, effectively imposes the need on all singularly physical and physiological members to assume something of a paradigm of a specific human group’s individuality in regards to those incipient logical assertions so necessary to maintain group integrity—assertions as in fact a social congruence individuality in effect defines itself in regards to.

Taboo and the deeper physiological and physio-sensorial self, remain however, specifically in the rationally cryptic function of defining the socially congruent itself, from outside and as a shadow from that point on and forever more, of the culturally rational self:

For the culturally rational self and the complacency of especially sedentary anthropological contexts it produces, cannot continue to be rational unless it needs to be—that is, unless human groups are forever spurred on by the deeper physio-corporal, bodily self who, in her will to self-preservation and life as physiological imposition, alone in the fury of her own forlornness of sensory impression, is also permanently forced, once again, back to the fold and its social embrace.