A Culturally Contrived Standardization of Rationality

The numerical sequence 563 could be alternatively represented by, among others, also one of the following forms:

77

59

86

89

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 creation 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.

(Previously published as part of Systemic Interdependencies)

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.