Deconstructing the Body

Aesthetically highly projective Shakira. (Image by Marcello Casal Jr/Agência Brasil)

All experiental phenomena of religion/ideology need be carefully and rigorously understood by natural science and hence not even attempting to do so is simply dereliction of scientific responsibility. Biologically deconstructing the carno-phallogocentric subject importantly requires dismantling the Para-Christian masculinst body/soul binary.

Virtually all traditional religions believe in transmigration of souls and as well as in the existence of divinities (“gods”, “angels” etc.) sometimes known as avatars. Rather than merely unthinkingly believe in things that we cannot prove or instead reject things that we have not even attempted to study by tools of natural science ought we be agnostic about the claims of religion in taking their claims seriously in endeavoring to understand these evolved long-standing discourses from perspectives of natural science.

If virtually all traditional religions believe in something in common does that obviously not mean that we should simplistically take that for granted but rather that we should take those claims seriously in understanding that all claims of religions need be carefully, rigorously and critically studied by natural science. There is also the structural problem of Para-Christian academic literalism which projects Christian/Para-Christian literalism onto non-Christian traditions as religions generally for the most part ought not be understood literally.

Religions traditionally believe in the concept of the so called “soul”, something which is actually empirically observable even in many photographic images. Compare the difference of a charismatic person (say Marilyn Monroe) while vibrantly and happily alive with the soul-less condition of the residual corpse of that former person after demise and you will most clearly be able to tell the difference.

It is no coincidence that certain famous personas are known as so called “stars” due to the observable “radiation” from their faces and sometimes bodies, i.e. as primarily yet not exclusively emerging from skeletal openings of the brain as used for sensory impression. This can also be observed in many autistic persons whose respective “bubble” is clearly very observable indeed as is known to every professional with extensive experience in working with autistic persons. Furthermore, the very observable “bubble” in autistic persons is not questioned at all by psychologists but is rather accepted as an empirical fact. You may compare the radiant complexion of a fresh tomato with a decaying tomato or a radiant fresh flower with a decaying flower as this phenomenon is empirically speaking not limited to animals but is clearly present and indeed clearly observable in plants as well.

What is this then? It is simply a magnetic field as electrically projected by the nervous system and in particularly the brain and primarily, yet not exclusively through skeletal cavities of the face. The brain itself internally communicates by electro-chemical reactions and so some of those electrical reactions obviously extend beyond the brain itself and primarily yet not exclusively so through facial skeletal cavities. When the brain dies does this electrical projection cease and hence the obvious and clearly observable disappearance of what traditional religions would describe as “the soul”.

The anthropological fact that all traditional religions believe not only in the soul (which is simply a curiously visible and observable magnetic field) but also in the transmigration of souls need we wherefore take the cross-anthropological claim of transmigration of souls serious indeed. This is not to uncritically accept claims by variously anthropologically parallel discourses but rather that we should endeavor to understand what these particular discourses actually endeavor to signify, i.e. describe.

This leads us to the question of beauty which is another important question that needs to be understood by natural science. Beauty can be briefly described as aesthetic self-projection and love in turn can similarly be described as aesthetic introjection. Projection/introjection takes place directly between organisms as even plants community this way, with each other and with animals such as humans. Projection/introjection thus is neurological communication.

What takes place in introjection/projection between two or more persons is what could be described as “meetings of bubbles” whether constructively, destructively or both; yet what happens is that there is neurological contact even in the absence of physical contact and this neurological contact is performed by means of “interaction of bubbles”, namely interacting magnetic fields and that in turn enables subconscious communications between two or more organisms whether plants or animals.

This is not so say that everything is therefore perfectly and absolutely most clearly understood but is rather intended to indicate basis for rigorous research in natural science in transforming the field of psychology into an exact natural science.

Most of the DNA is so called “non-coding DNA” (a.k.a “junk DNA”) but is it really “non-coding” and how reasonable is it truly to assume that it is non-coding merely due to the fact that academia simply is currently unaware of any present purpose of purportedly “non-coding” DNA?

Similarly is it scientifically irresponsible to not seek to understand the functions of purportedly “non-coding” DNA. The fact that academia simply does not understand purportedly “non-coding” DNA is simply not a valid excuse for continuing to not understand. The process of procreation whereby two genomes merge and fuse may thus conceivably be regulated by purportedly “non-coding” DNA. Many other highly effective workings of genomes may similarly be guided by the purportedly “non-coding” DNA, including conceivably what is represented as transmigration of souls in virtually all pre-modern anthropological systems of traditional signification.

Obviously, this requires significant research and in biologists deconstructing the carno-phallogocentric subject should we consider that the body of the organism actually consists of many  sub-organisms, including both constituent ones such as cells but obviously also “external” ones such as bacteria and virus. Deconstructing the carno-phallogocentric subject is thus a very essential task for scientists of the body.

The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project

Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 23.30.32