Aestheticized Culture

Aestheticized Culture

The social environments influences what aesthetics are publicly presented and which become the memes and icons of imitations for one’s behavior. That behavior becomes preconditioned by the mind-influencing environment on what is relatively-due to fetal influencing factor-a blank slate, aka a tabula rasa at the time of birth. After birth the signals and their symbolic meanings exposed to the malleable, plastic mind become the suggestions for neural associations that set the predisposition for one’s potential preconceptions of one’s self and the environment about one.

We are all, genetically capable of homosexuality. Certain subtle factors contribute to the greater tendency and probability of homosexuality. In the same way one’s social gender identity is as much the environmental associative suggestions, as any genetic ‘anomaly’ to the anatomical gender’s character. In both cases our anatomical sex organs are not determinative to the preferred cultural social posture they’d prefer, despite their gender equipment.

Let me not stop with the provocatively contended phenomena of human character. Allow me the indulgence to assert that our mass and homogeneous identities develop in the same way, but for the strong coherence of the individual or the strong adherence systems within the group structure. Even then, the organic interaction with the physiological hormonal effects precipitated from the marginal levels of psychological stress boundaries on an individual are still capable of initiating a heterodoxical response in and by the individual, despite an otherwise consistent signal pattern of guidance.

One could say that aesthetics is the universal template for the mental patterns that are chosen. As well, it can be said that there reaches an objective point where aesthetics are an extrapolated derivative of the organic response to signal stimuli. Those extrapolated derivatives become branches or, more profoundly, new root patterns that have a unique nurturing system arrangement for their sustenance and maintenance. The aesthetics control the organic development, with the the organic process being the subject than the tool of the process.

In this case, a diversity to the point of ambiguity of purpose for both the mission of either the aesthetic or the organic exists; neither having a base template of form, but a variable and ever-changing-by addition or reduction-of the component parts. To the extent of the variety of fetishes to which we casually to compulsively are drawn. That extent, as the aesthetics, becomes our justification and rationalization for our interpretive perception and resulting character we exhibit. Aesthetics, our affected states, become the driving guide for our actions until the imperative needs for our physiologic survival do an interventionist course-correction to our perceptional arrangement to reorient our attention to our organic survival means than the more stylistic means of predisposing aesthetics we have accepted as the presumptive determiner for our being.