And after the definitive fall of myth, they had no choice but to return through the desert whence they had come, back to their original group and the conflict that was, once again, awaiting them as itself a form of embrace…

In the desert of the real, outside the embrace of physio-sensory representation and the contexts of physiologically conceptual expanse it affords, human groups still have each another and, crucially, the enemies or rivals through and against whom they are in fact able to define themselves. For there is succor in the physiological itself on strictly the physical and spatial plane of physical conflict, if physiologically sensory and representational invigoration is not culturally available.

In the absence of more developed semiotic spaces for physiologically rational-conceptual expanse, a certain degree of communion with our deeper physiological entity lies in conflict itself, for in the physiological invigoration of our sensory, corporeal selves there is the anesthesia of an adrenaline-charged mode of being and of knowing one’s self that is, of course, intensely physical and all-enveloping—to the point that higher forms of culturally representational being are not necessary. Adversarial contexts of physiological meaning based inevitably on some degree of physical conflict (or at least the threat of it) come to supplement, or even substitute all together, higher modes of physiologically semiotic projection the individuals in agrarian-based, sedentary contexts are inexorably compelled to live in.

________________________

-But physiological substance of sensory experience is a form of communion with the deeper, corporeal and socio-genetic self; the succor of physiological-sensory invigoration then, because it is opprobrium-based, can only take place in the company of other human beings, for construed entities of the mind projected on to the contours of the spatial world are never physically perceived, leaving the anthropological individual ultimately cleaved and separated from, the physical component of our own rational possibility.

-Because human sensory entity is opprobrium-configured, it exists in some sense prior to actual physical community. That is to say (as Jose Luis Pardo affirms), the city in regards to human history is an anterior posterity (una posterioridad anterior) in that what is already motivating human experience in its socio-genetic foundations, in itself a form of purpose pre-existent to specific historical, technological cause.

-Physio-sensory representation in the form of spectacle has always existed (it could be argued that all human perception is a form of representation in the mind); and so has spectacle always ended up serving as mode of deferring physical reality for human groups, or at least the violence of that reality. For through spectacle, physiological and physiologically sensory invigoration is achieved, albeit without jeopardizing the integrity of the group. And crucially, human-group sanctioned spectacle, mirrors the underlying mechanism of anthropological individuality that is the channeling of individual physiological response into a group-imposed congruence (that is, the group’s very rationality, if only initially of a physiological and sensory nature).

But of course, all human groups eventually do impose some sort of conceptual logic (myths, narratives, group-understood ideas) in regards to the physiologically sensory substance of their own experience, through time. And it is no surprise then, that elder members of the group, in their condition of steadily waning physical prowess as compared to the younger generation, become the natural guardians and real executers of that corpus of conceptual understanding, as the knowers of what needs effectively to be known if one is indeed a member of the group, and as the very semiotic structure the younger group members must subject their own physiologically sensory selves to.

Physiologically sensory spectacle, thus, is key to the diachronic permanence of the group because it is sensory-intense, but not, however, necessarily physically demanding for the onlooker. And the communion of physio-sensory entity that spectacle is, becomes a force of really physical unity and reinforcement of the group, through time and in regards to the different ages and physiological states of varying, individual ontologies.

And finally, the physiological reality of specifically narrative for human groups constitutes itself a form of purely physiologically sensorial representation, and so could be understood as mechanism of removing physical spectacle—the exercising of anthropological, human group individuality it affords—to the realm of sensory simulacrum that is, nevertheless, physiologically real and, above all, morally relevant for opprobrium-configured, anthropological individuality; and originally such a capacity of human groups as of the development and progressive evolution of language, could only be considered a serious force of group permanence, and ultimately power.