To designate the singular hominid living, the anthropogeny avoids the word individual, which only appeared in the seventeenth century, in the very specific circumstances of bourgeois rationalism, and that neither classical Latin nor medieval Latin knew with that sense of "living indivis". Individuality (dividere, in- negative) supposes an ultimate or principial indivision that, announced through the personal redemption of the Latin-Christian "conscientia" <8A>, was thematically postulated by the "thought" in the Cartesian sense. A Japanese person, always very contextual, cannot be "an individual" in this sense. The anthropogeny will also avoid the word subject, which, after its psychiatric sense (the "subject" of presentations of ill persons), did not really take on its current general sense until 1950.

Although it is heavy to handle, the term hominid specimen has the advantage of not posing a problem of indivision or division, and, on the other hand, it usefully recalls that the "everyone" (every one), the "someone" (some one), the "such a one", the "quidam" or still the "we" (hom<inem>) and the "particular" (partem, incul- diminutive) in question belongs to a species, and that it is not intelligible without the other specimens of this species and without the constant evolution of its species, the specificities of which are only a local and transitory manifestation, as state-moment of Universe. "Species" is then understood in the usual sense of a population of organisms capable of reproducing among themselves during an appreciable period of time, to the exclusion of others, of which we say that they do not belong to the same species. The fact that in botanic the notion of species is sometimes more subtle should not concern us here, where it relates to an animal species.

The present chapter will approach the system that a hominid specimen is. It will attempt at perceiving its great articulations, with their disparities, and thus also the means at their disposal to ensure enough systemic unity between them.

11A. The hominid specimen as downstream and upstream

For the anthropogeny, what is most striking in the hominid specimen as a system is the distinction that can be perceived and practiced between an upstream and a downstream.

In former chapters, we have seen that the each one-someone has a stature, that he completes manipulations, angularizations, transversalizations, that he collaborates with his peers in an intense intercerebrality in the encounter, that he undergoes and provokes field effects, produces images, music and languages. These are as many ostensible interfaces between his interior milieu and exterior milieu, the latter comprising his peers and a common environment.

But at the same time, we noticed that each hominid specimen was also (a) a possibilizing specimen, (b) much more endotropic than other animals, (c) presential to the point of often being presentive, i.e. thematizing presence-absence as such. The semiotic distanciation often seemed to double the technical distance. In such a way that, all put together, hominid operations often seem to be productions from a certain below of their acting-suffering body. We shall metaphorically designate these productions as a downstream and designate their below as an upstream. The advantage of the downstream/upstream couple is that a downstream always signals a certain upstream from which it proceeds, as the upstream signals a certain downstream which is its outcome.

The downstream of the hominid specimen has already been well illustrated in the ten preceding chapters, on the occasion of manipulation, walk, technical production, semiotic production of images, music and languages. However, its upstream has not yet been envisaged otherwise than by allusion. We must thence start by going over its three main aspects: (a) the corporal schemes, (b) the own body, (c) the endotropic representations of the body. The second part of the chapter will then try to see how the hominid specimens strive to ensure sufficiently the unity of the disparate system that they are.

11B. Corporal schemes

The French language allows distinguishing schemas from schemes. Schemas designate the simplified elements, more or less stereotyped, of a physical performance, and in particular its image. Schemes rather designate, below specific performances, an open potentiality, a virtuality, a faculty, a play area from which possibilizing Homo's performance proceeds, more or less ostensibly. In the scheme, there is at least as much imagination, and sometimes imaginary <7J>, as there is perception and effective motivity. And there is more upstream than downstream. Aristotle would have said: more power than act.

Strictly speaking, animals also activate-passivate schemes, - the leap in such a leap, the catch in such a catch, - but in animals, the virtualities of execution are so constrained by execution schemas that schemas and schemes are hardly distinct from one another. This is, moreover, what makes the leap of the panther so infallible, and even more so the almost instantaneous coupling of the arm and the eye of the praying mantis. On the other hand, in Homo, we are struck, during any movement, by the degrees of liberty that surround it, tend it, decompress it, by the play that inhabits it, and from which it seems to stem. This is a consequence of the technical distance and semiotic distanciation <4A> that surge from hominid stature, transversalization and manipulation. It is also a result of the cognitive neutralization and emotional smoothing of Homo's brain <2B>.

Thus, in every hominid specimen there is, apart from each operation, an upstream of this operation, both for him and for others. Upstream of an upright position, the rising. Upstream of a leap, the leap. Upstream of a grasp, the possession. Upstream of a rest, the gift or the abandon. All these added upstreams grant Homo's actions and passions an aura thematized by the dancers, but also by the speaker, whose gesture and tone are eloquent (loqui, ex). This aura, which is sometimes perceived as a sum, sometimes as a source, has led, according to the cultures, to speak of will <6H>, desire <6A>, etc., and when it is question of a chief, to speak of authority, understood as a certain surplus of acts (auctoritas, augere, augment).

We can then ask ourselves if corporal schemes are stable, like the Platonist ideas, which were historically their hypostasis. On the scale of the Universe perhaps, if it is true that the Universe is only capable of a certain number of basic formations, like the seven elementary catastrophes theory would lead to think (the fold, the cusp, etc.) <24B5>. But not at the scale of the hominid specimens, which, like all living things, are local and transitory compatibilizations of heterogeneous biological series <21G3>. There is thus a becoming of the hominid corporal schemes according to Homo's continuous constitution, i.e. throughout the anthropogeny.

This becoming of schemes realized itself through the anatomical-physiological evolution: bipedalism after quadrupedalism, for example. But also through the suite of technical, and assuredly artistic, objects and processes, which are all reified schemes, - visible, audible, tangible, palpable. This was the case in the changeover from the chipped stone to the carved stone, then from simple machines to energy machines, then to information machines. To the extent that one of the senses of Homo's technical and artistic development lies probably in his impulse to realize, to incarnate some of his corporal schemes, both somatic and nervous. Sometimes to objectify them, in technique and in everyday art. Sometimes to revive them, or even extend them, for example in extreme art <11I3, 27D1>.

Schemes must also be considered to understand indexations. In addition to its physical (anatomical, physiological) and semiotic charge, any index (an indexating movement) is charged with the virtualities of schemes that are below it, and that allow to understand its power, for instance in the authority, in the imperative language, in the sacralization of the scapegoat, in the consecration of the virgin, in the presentation (awakening of presence) of the presents (awakeners of presence), as well as daily in the inter-gesture of collaboration, companionship, community, society <5G6>. Similarly, the theory of pure indexations (discharged), that mathematics is <19>, and the theory of usual corporal schemes (charged) overlap each other for a large part.

Finally, taking corporal schemes into account also enlightens the indiciality of indicia. The anthropogeny has sufficiently seen in indicia the role of causality, similitude, contiguity <4B1-2>, where the underlying anatomic and muscular schemes, but also the underlying nervous and cerebral schemes, of the indiciating specimen is patent. In sum, it is the neuronic schemes in their generality, with their limited coding, <2A2a> that enable the specific edifications of indicia and index which, in the endotropic cerebral circulations, are what we call the concepts, diversely charged (with affects or imaginary) or discharged (purified).

11C. The own body

Given an organism, the term own body was invented to designate what French existentialism called the body-for-oneself, by opposition to the body-for-others, which is encountered by the operating surgeon, or by the medication and the poison that modify chemically, or even by the means of transport that convey.

The anthropogeny will recognize two essential aspects in an own body. (a) It is a living organism that is accompanied by presence-absence. (b) It is a living organism that is a point of view of Universe, and not only a point of view on the Universe; i.e. it is a state-moment in which the Universe enters in functional and presential resonance with itself; resonance that is more or less vast and more or less intense depending on the cases. Under these two aspects, the own body is not representable, not determinable, nor situable in a spatiotemporal manner, and finally is indescribable. Indeed, presence-absence from which it is indissociable does not belong to the order of functionings, the only ones to be describable <8A>. And on the other hand, a point of view of Universe escapes the situability, the situs, that a point of view on the Universe enjoy.

The own body with its two aspects belongs to all upper animals, but once again it is only thematized in Homo, whose endotropizing, possibilizing, distancing brain can reveal, underline, prolong what, in other living beings, is only a fleeting component between the object of the performance and the performance itself, or its virtuality. Hence, Homo's own body, thematizable as such, introduced in the Universe an event both singular, primary, ultimate, original. So much so that it is not possible to say any more than what has been said. Unless we linger on two experiences where it awakes intensely. That is the caress, already widely sketched in upper animals. And the reserve, which seems unique to Homo.

11C1. The own body thematized by the caress

Firstly, the caress is the strongest experience of the own body of the other. Or of the other as own body. In opposition with grasp and rubbing, it uses the fusional resources of the superficial and deep tactile endings of hominid tact <1C3> to dissolve the particularities of the caressed body and keep in it, by awakening it to itself, effectively or hypothetically, only the choice of universe and the presence-absence that it is to itself. In other words, the caress exploits the resources of the tender (soft), which expresses a stretching and a thinning that is both ductile and intrusive (at least according to the etymology that makes it derive from tendere, teïneïn). The caress is all the more profound that it seems to move on the surface, and that it is accompanied by presence-absence through the functioning profoundness. It is under the caress that "the profundiest is the flesh".

Doing so, the caress addresses the textures and even the growths more than the structures. It moves in enjoyment more than in pleasure or pleasures <6D1>. It brings to the extreme the eight properties of the rhythm: alternation, interstability, (fleeting) accentuation, tempo, self-engendering, convection, strophism, the distribution by nodes, envelopes, resonances, interfaces <1A5>. By all that, the caressed is simultaneously posed and solubilized, thematized as Other and Self, or other-self, self-other, delimited and infinitized, extended and balled up (put in a ball) in a location and a duration, or rather as a location and a duration that are not referable to coordinates. However the caress cannot be constructed analytically. It is learned convectively, not by rules. It finds its maximal accomplishments around sexual stimuli-signs <7H> that in turn it confirms in their status.

In the proximity and the self-sufficiency that caress creates (itself) of the own body of the caressed, the caress ordinarily awakens the proximity and self-sufficiency of the own body of the caresser. Then a reduplicative return of two presence(s)-absence(s) <8A> installs, as well as a conclusive circularity of two point of views of Universe (vs on the Universe) abolishing the rest. In such a way that two own bodies make up one single inter-systemic reality where, like folk wisdom says "lovers are alone in the world". The caress induces the humanity of the infant, since the embrace of the nursemaid. As one day it will induce the second birth of the lover, which is the coupling, where the exchange with the own body of the loved one takes place. These two aspects are foreshadowed in the animal.

Given the scope and flexibilities of possibilization <6A> in Homo, a singular behavior furthermore happens: the hominid caress is gladly trans-specific (taking place between several species) and often concerns pets, pet dog and pet cat, where pet seems to signify pet<y>, little, capable of being wrapped into a ball. The pet animal is then perceived in its precisely animal sensitivity, with the interest of entering in an original exchange of presence-absence and of point of view of Universe going beyond the frontier of species, and also with the comfort of not having to confront the surprises that happen when the caressed is itself a possibilizing hominid specimen.

Besides, by the distanciation abilities of Homo, hominid caress knows other metamorphosis, such as for instance addressing inanimate caressed, such as plants, gems, wooden and amber rosaries, imaginarily more or less endowed with sensation, or limited to the function of stimuli-signs. It can even, like a caressing sound or a caressing breeze, move around a diffuse own body, creating an almost pure presence-absence, devoid of determined support.

11C2. The own body thematized by the reserve

The hominid own body is also thematized in the reserve (servare, re), a certain manner of keeping oneself in withdrawal, reduplicatively or intensively, in the presence of the other or of oneself, which is found in all known cultures, and that we can therefore suppose to be rather archaic. Reserve can accompany the effusion of tenderness, but also respect (spicere, re) and reverence (vereri, re), up to reverential fear, produced in particular by the power and authority of indexes <5G2>.

Reserve does not generally target the body-for-others, which has almost everywhere been explored and revealed impartially in its parts and functions in cases of accidents, illnesses or specific initiations, for example in circumcisions, excisions, infibulations, trepanations (Amerindian). Reserve precisely thematizes the body-for-oneself, given that its status of presence-absence and point of view of Universe dissuades treating it as a simple beam of functionings, downstream, and instead invites treating it as an unanalyzable mix of functionings and presence-absence, upstream.

In the hominid body, reserve found an innumerable variety of cultural realizations. According to the more or less folded positions of the very angular hominid organism. According to the dissimulations allowed by the hands. According to the technical distances and semiotic distanciation of approaches and making of contacts. According to the biases of the image, music and language produced. According to the transparencies of smoke, the sieves of light, the nasal or aspired voices, the cat-like sounds in the throat, the lisping, the transparencies and opacities of the veils of clothing. According to the blushing, which Darwin wanted to be proper to Homo. So many means of semi-transparency.

11D. Fantasmatic endotropic representations of the body ("images of the body")

Finally, in addition to the corporal schemes and the own body, the upstream of hominid specimens, who are animals with a brain with highly endotropizing <2B> and fantasmatizing <7I> circulation, comprises fantasmatic endotropic representations of the body.

On this subject, the usual term body image is easier to handle but has disadvantages. It gives to think that representations of the body are mostly visual images, whereas the similitudes in question are just as much auditory, olfactory, tactile, kinesthetic, cenesthetic, and discoursing. It does not sufficiently oppose imaginary to imagination <7J>. On the other hand, it does not sufficiently mark that these upstream images are not simply the exotropic images of the hominid body proposed by the sculpted and painted images (massive or detailed), by the musics (massive or detailed), by the languages (massive or detailed) but before all else they are endotropic and fantasmatic representations that are somewhat to exotropic representations what schemes are to exterior motor performances through their virtualities. Finally, the term "body image" is silent on the fact that the representations in question are in privileged circular causality with the corporal schemes, and with the own body as caress and as reserve.

We shall therefore speak of fantasmatic endotropic representations of the body, combining the body-for-others and the own-body. These representations fall into three main categories, physiological, anatomic, copulatory, that were diversely encouraged by cultures. (a) Physiologically, some cultures have valorized for instance the digesting, menstruating, pregnant, excreting body (Japan), the farting body (China), the body making an effort to walk or breathe (Andes), whereas elsewhere were retained only the plentiful breathing, the imperative or active hand, or the gaze (Greece). (b) Anatomically, some have deployed the imaginary of a body that is parcelary, global, or total, or atomized or in archipelago, etc. (c) Copulatorily, some have fantasized partitions-conjunctions that are more anatomic and/or more orgastic, hierarchic or complementary, adversarial or dialoguing, etc. This copulatory panoply will be somewhat deployed in the last chapter of Anthropogeny, on the galaxy of X-same <30>.

11E. A heterogeneous system in search of unity

We can see, the hominid specimen is surprisingly diverse. Its downstream comprises an organism that adjoins, in veritable prostheses, panoplies and protocols that are both technical and semiotic and constantly rattled by possibilization, field effects and fantasies. Its upstream encompasses at least corporal schemes, an own body, fantasmatic endotropic representations of the body. Thus, the hominid specimen crosses realities belonging to heterogeneous genus (Heteron, genos, various genus) and even heteroclite genus (Heteron, klineïn, leaning on various sides), attracted as it is by contrary or contradictory attractors, determining highly-unstable basins of attraction, and thus innumerable field effects <7A-E>.

Yet a living being requires a minimum of unity to prove efficient and feel enough enjoyment or pleasure to act and reproduce. Hominid specimens as global systems then exploited various resources, which we will approach successively: first under 11F, the rhythmic demultiplication by nodes, envelopes, resonances, interfaces; then under 11G, the hierarchy of fantasies; and under 11 H-I-J, the stances of the gesture and inter-gesture, of the work, of the style-manner. By which these specimens are X-same <11K>, with their means of communion <11L> and vagation <11M>, with their birth and their death <11N>.

11F. Rhythmic demultiplication: nodes, envelopes, resonances and interfaces

As soon as it considered the step of the walk, the anthropogeny signalled that one of the eight aspects of the rhythm is the demultiplication by nodes [cores], envelopes, resonances, interfaces. And it is probably what Homo did, always and everywhere, by using the means of cleavages of its nervous system in general, especially cerebral, to establish some order in his heterogeneous and heteroclite aspects.

Let us explain concretely. (1) Homo can put in protrusion such organs, such organic systems (digestive, respiratory, reproductive, motor, etc.), such verbs or names, such concepts, such emotions, such cenesthesia, etc. These are nodes [cores], points with their close entourage, which work by density and attraction, as organizing attractors. (2) Correlatively, Homo can practice or at least imagine edges (internal or external contours) between such organs, systems, activities, emotions, universe of the discourse, etc., and some others. These are more or less closed or open envelopes (in the topological sense), impermeable or porous. (3) Conversely, Homo can establish regulated phasing and dephasing between such organs or such actions of the system that it is. These are resonances, which comprise all forms of relation other than attraction and exclusion, such as homeomorphism, isotopies, synchronies, etc. (4) Finally, it could happen that a portion of Homo should be or appear as a relay of conversion between two or several portions. These are interfaces, whose transduction between the locations within a system are rapid or slow, agile or difficult, wrenching or amusing, etc.

Assuredly, these nodes, cleavages, envelopments, phase alignements, and transductions only succeed in creating a certain systemic unity of the hominid specimen only by means of the seven other properties of the rhythm that are: the periodic and metronomic alternation, the inter stability, the moving accentuation, the tempo, the self-engendering, the convection, and the strophism. We can already guess, from here, how the hominid communities and societies will always estimate, under different forms, that the conservation of the rhythm and its loss are the ultimate criterion of health and illness, and of their degrees <26B2>.

11G. The hierarchization of fantasies

But the rhythm so defined could not sufficiently realize itself if a hominid specimen in quest of a certain operative and pleasurable unity did not dispose of perceptive-motor and logico-semiotic field effects that make that fantasies surround him and cross him. In this regard, the compulsive fantasy, where field effects transform the "grasped" into a spiraling, vertiginous hole that provokes stereotyped and recurrent actions, is of very little help. But we have seen on several occasions that Homo has these other resources, that are fantasies of things-performances, of *woruld, of sexual and generalized partition-conjunction, of presence-absence, of sacrifice, and of belief. All of these more or less re-grasped in a fundamental fantasy, a hyper field that is both resulting and generating.

Let us recall that the fundamental fantasy <7I5> is the generative core of a destiny-choice of existence, that is to say, it diffuses through the chosen-imposed topology, cybernetic, logico-semiotic, presentivity of each hominid specimen <8H>. The fundamental fantasy puts the Universe not in front of the specimen, but as coming back onto itself through it, so that, among all the components of Homo, the fundamental fantasy is the one that is more directly linked to the refusal or acceptance of birth and death. Almost all the extreme experiences that Homo has conceived - tch'an, satori, nirvana, beatific vision, - have attempted to be a certain collectivization at the same time as the passage to the limit of the fundamental fantasy.

There are countless hierarchies of fantasies. For instance, they may privilege compulsive fantasies, or fantasies of things-performance, or fantasies of *woruld, or fantasies of partition-conjunction, or fantasies of presence-absence, or the fundamental fantasy. The chosen type of hierarchy is an essential aspect of a singular specimen's destiny-choice of existence. We shall not lose sight of the fact that here pleasure, or pleasures, are powerful mobilisers, and that they even take on the insistent form of enjoyment <6D1>.

11H. Stances: (1) The gesture

Hominid specimens have such a fleeing unity that, in order to ensure this unity, in addition to the rhythm and the hierarchy of fantasies, which are floating unifying principles, they have developed principles that are both consistent and mobile, while being available to possibilization: the gesture, the work, the style-manner, which we will call stances, from the Indo-European *st (stare, istèmi, stehen, staan, station, stance). The Italian word stanza simultaneously marks resting, or the place where one sojourns, or also a range of actions, exemplarily a stanza of verse or a suite of paintings, that broaden this stay in the *woruld. Raphael's stances at the Vatican are exemplary. We will start with the gesture.

11H1. Gesticulation and slow motion

To handle is to carry, but by taking charge of what is carried, i.e. by making it enter into a field of possibles, by possibilizing it. Therefore, the gesture, verbal substantive of gérer in French (gestus, us), does not only hold in the movements that Homo shares with prior animality, or even in the movements and other operations linked to the upright station. It supposes that an action-passion comes back onto itself, consists, insists, persists, quivers with possibles, declares not only downstream functionings but corporal schemes, an own body, fantasized endotropic images of the body upstream. The gesture is the summary both perceived and motor of the unit of a hominid specimen, for him and for others.

Singular, the gesture also comprises a part of plural gestures, still uncoordinated, confuse and almost insignificant; they are these "little gestures" (gesti-culi) etymologically implied by "gesticulation". "Gesticules" are gawky but at the same time full of a thousand possibles, even everything. The animal does not gesticulate, except for a little the chimpanzee, the most uncoordinated of apes and the closest to Homo. Whence the emotion linked to the spectacle of an infant agitating its limbs, showing both how it is ill-adapted, and also how much it has virtualities, potentialities, availabilities, latencies. The neonatal effervescence of the gestural stance often perpetuates in maturity, in Homo creator of theatre roles (Racine gesticulating Britannicus in the Jardin des Tuileries), creator of complex political or economic decisions, creator of only glimpsed mathematical or logical concepts.

In a body having hundreds of degrees of freedom (dimensions), the gesture has the property of activating-passivating the opposites and even the contradictory ones, succeeding simultaneously to say yes and no, to go out and come in, to go up and down, to go back and fro. Whence probably this French habit of speaking of the geste (gesture) in the singular, sometimes with a capital G in Geste. In English, the word gesture embraces the same profusion. Its gestures are perceived by Homo as signs per se, and languages by gestures are often called "sign languages", such as the American Sign Language (ASL). By all this the eight properties of the rhythm <1A5> are so characteristic to the gesture that we could almost say that the gesture is rhythm and the rhythm is gesture. And it is because they are not rhythmic that we usually exclude from the gesture the compulsive repetition (autistic) , the divagation and immobilization of withdrawal (psychotic), the mental breakdown (neurotic), the prostration (melancholic), and the agitation (manic) <26B2>.

11H2. The gestural rhetoric of the worn clothing

Clothes enrich the stance that the gesture is. They spread the gesture outwardly and gather it inwardly. In particular they comfort the hominid upstream by their rhetoric of the reserve, sometimes of the caress. They suggest and tangentially maintain thereby the own body and the fantasized endotropic representations of the body. In this function they have two resorts. (a) To dissimulate and discover, underline or blur some parts instead of others; thus, the bourgeois rationalist clothes of the seventeenth century uncovered the face and hands, both active and technician parts, and dissimulated the sections deemed too passive or too natural, including the feet. (b) To play around various densities of covering: full or transparent fabrics, simple or multiple veils (the seven veils of Salome or the seven skirts of the Nazarene women) to reinforce the rates of stability and instability, of evidence and fleeing, of here and elsewhere.

If clothing is so capable at complexifying the stance of the gesture, it is because in its structure (its cut, its sewing, its motifs, its draping) and in its texture (its thread, its weaving, its grain) it fatally triggers all the singularities of the seven elementary catastrophes: the fold, the cusp, the swallowtail, the butterfly, the hyperbolic umbilic, the elliptic umbilic, the parabolic umbilic. Clothing is a kind of interform between forms, crossing donation and refusal.

11H3. The inter-gesture. The daily theatre

But gestures and their clothes, while being stances, are themselves labile like the hominid specimens that they have the function to unify. And groups of Homo have cultivated homeostatic and allostatic adjustments of the gestures of each one by the gestures of the others, around regulated averages, with narrow ranges. In every community and society, an inter-gesture thus institutes itself, in the same way as there is an interlocution, with the same function of reciprocal verification and stabilization of the socius by the socii. For instance, the etymology of the French word mode (fashion), which comes from Latin modus, made feminine with the final "e" (la mode), indicates that mode is a combination of measure and manner, of rhythmic arrangements.

Constantly practicing the inter-gesture, hominid groups had to establish very soon a permanent social theatre, i.e. a spontaneous everyday theatre, which later became the source of formal theatres, and which has its own locations according to its own stages: stages of single-family or multi-family houses of filiation and instances, stages of houses of the association and clientèle, either artisanal or political. The fact that Polynesia had "men houses" and not "women houses" shows that both sexes often exert, in their permanent staging, variously localizable responsibilities.

11H4. The thematization of the gesture: dance

Homo not only practiced the gesture and the inter-gesture, but he thematized them in an activity so necessary and so anthropological that it bears everywhere a name that declares it. In French, it is dance, from Middle English dauncen, to move or seem to move up and down or about in a quick or lively manner (Merriam-Webster). This thematization was made easier by the fact that the gesture and the inter-gesture were stances, thus comprising a first reduplication, reflection, reflexivity.

We can then almost cover the panoply and protocols of dance by deploying those of the gestures and inter-gestures

Yet in its thematization, dance does more than going through and intersecting every type of gestures. It exalts their capacity to simultaneously practice contraries, and even contradictories. By which dance endlessly moves from the (regulated) inter-gesture to gesticulation (inchoative), and particularly insists on the manner in which the downstream of Homo proceeds from an upstream of corporal schemes, of own body, of fantasying endotropic representations of the body. Dance is comptabilizing, tensing, distending the perceptive-motor and logico-semiotic field effects of the fantasy. This means that the eight aspects of the rhythm become a sort of theme in itself where, reciprocally and ostensibly, fertilize each other alternation, interstability, accentuations, tempos, self-engendering, strophism, convection, gravitation by node, envelope, resonance, interface. Without counting that, through the intercerebrality and the calculations of movement (motion) so intense in Homo <2B1>, dance insures at the same time the cohesion of the group and the distinction of each specimen inside the group.

All these functions are basal for specimens that are both homeostatic and allostatic, and dance has been omnipresent in the anthropogeny, at the same time as music, which for a great part is its vocal or instrumental modality. During the Upper Paleolithic, at the Cave des Trois Frères (Ariège), it is the ostensibly dancing body that is imaged, in the form of a rite of exchange with the prior animality, since its face is covered with an animal mask. Often, dance will remain the ultimate reason for living, defying starvation and all cruelties of illness (today's contemporary Africa sometimes dances AIDS), because dance is the most native and almost sufficient accomplishment of the fundamental fantasy and enjoyment. Throughout the primary empires, in Egypt and China, dance was, with the armies, the supreme realization of the social discipline, reflecting that of the cosmos. It took the corporal discomfort of the manufacturing bourgeois rationalism from the seventeenth century, then that of the stoic industry of the nineteenth century, then finally the stereotyping of the body of contemporary generalized engineering so that, without disappearing or becoming frankly discredited, dance becomes a specialty reserved to some times and places.

11I. Stances: (2) The work (oeuvre)

Alongside gesture, inter-gesture, and dance, which are transitory, hominid specimens - because they are techno-semiotic and because tools and, above all, signs postulate duration - tend to assist their fragile unity by truly stable stances, in the form of persistent things-performances. The Greeks named these productions (painting, sculpture, poetry, music, monument), whose lifespan often exceeds that of their producer, ergon, by opposition to ponos, the daily maintenance work, the result of which must be endlessly recommenced. On the same theme, the Latin spoke of opus, and the French speaks of oeuvre (work). The anthropogeny will keep the term work, but will take care to identify the varieties of this immense nebula.

11I1. Techno-semiotic works

Homo's most current works are habitats, furniture, tools, seats and beds, or relic clothing in which hominid specimens have, in a way, laid and reified their corporal schemes, their own bodies, their fantasized endotropic representations of the body, and the destiny-choice of existence of their group and of themselves, as singularities within this group. Works are technical, but sometimes also widely semiotic. Very often, they were subject to ritual consecrations. Moreover, even without having undergone a proper consecration, works are, as the French say, consecrated by their use, their traces, their wears, the stains that their producers and their users have imprinted on them, inserting them into their *woruld, which in turn has enriched them of its systemic nature.

This is what renders so moving and paradoxical the objects, particularly the clothes, that pertained (partem tenere ad) to a defunct, even though, etymologically speaking, the defunct is a relieved-of-function (defunctus, fungi, fulfilling one's duties + de-, marking the ending). The usage that the defunct made of his clothes and utensils inhabits them, and they continue to be him after his disappearance; they are the narrowest incarnation of the usage, which is the strongest "manner of being", both according to the Latin habitus (from which come habit and habitude, in French) and according to the Greek's ekHeïn (having) + adverb. And of all of this, Etruscan cities, which included a city of the dead as important as the city of living, were the daily declaration. As well as today their romantic ruins are their metaphysical thematization. The conception of the tomb (tumere, swelling) as the continued habitation is one of the red threads of the anthropogeny.

11I2. Purely semiotic works. The monument

In the same way, distancing and possibilizing Homo was even led to conceive purely semiotic objects, such as sculptures, sacred places, shamanistic pictorial representations, etc.; this probably took place at the same time as it developed massive music and language, during the Middle Paleolithic. This time, the work produced had the mission to comfort the unity of the producing and using specimens, inscribing them in systems of signs that communicated to them their systemic unity.

The monument is the culmination of this process. As the double sense of monere says, the monumentum has a double sense of warning and injunction (monitio), for the future, and of memory and reminiscence (memoria, mind, mental), for the past. The monument concerns the inter-gesture of the group and its social theatre. It is famous and makes famous (celeber, frequented). Often purely semiotic, like an arch of triumph, it can also be techno-semiotic, like a columbarium, or the favorite seat of a writer or an elder. To this we can add these houses that, built by a family, have built that familly and are its memory. Monumentality assuredly intervened in the Neolithic temples of Çatalhöyük, and perhaps already in the sculpted caves and riverbanks of the Paleolithic.

11I3. Works stated as works. The subject of work: pictorial subject, architectural subject, musical subject, etc. Compliant and extreme works.

Finally, still acting as possibilizing, distancing and reflexive, Homo was induced to write in his works not only particular technical and semiotic destinations but destinies-choices of existence <8H>, and that no more in an adventitious manner but as an essential theme of the work, even as its major theme.

In this case we shall speak of subject of work to mark both the essential role that this particular subject has in the work, and the fact that only a work can accomplish it. And we shall more narrowly speak of pictorial subject (of work), sculptural subject, architectural subject, musical subject, choreography subject, photographic subject, cinematographic subject, video subject, cartoon subject, idiolect or textual subject, whether the work in question is a painting, sculpture, architecture, photograph, cartoon, a text in prose or verses, etc. Thus, the pictorial subject (of work) of a painting is the destiny-choice of existence that it activates-passivates from the fact that it is a painting (traits, spots), and independently of the scenic subject it offers (such character, event, landscape, such object in a still life). The photographic subject (of work) of a photograph is the destiny-choice of existence that it activates-passivates as photograph (photonic indicia indexed by a frame, a choice of film, a depth of field, etc.), independently from its scenic subject. Etc.

We must note that a particular subject of work, that of a singular work, is usually or always an actualization of a constant subject of work that we find in all the works of a same producer, and specific to its idiosyncrasy <26E>. If a particular subject of work consists mainly of perceptive-motor and logico-semiotic field effects, we could say that the constant subject of work of a producer is a hyper field, according to a term that we have already used to define the fundamental fantasy of the hominid specimen <7I5>. Indeed, constant subject of work and fundamental fantasy overlap.

The anthropogeny then encounters several classifications of subjects of work. (1) A first distinction where subjects of work are differentiated depending whether they express (a) particularly a group, (b) particularly someone, (c) particularly a group + someone; we can call them group subjects, singular subjects, group-singular subjects. (2) A second distinction where subjects of work differ according to whether or not they combine with scenic subjects; abstract subjects in the second case, figurative subjects in the first. (3) A third distinction, the most fundamental, opposes (a) subjects of works that comfort the established codes and content with animating them, thus making Real enter Reality <8E1>, they are compliant subjects of work that give way to compliant works; (b) the subjects of works that rattle codes, opening gaps of Real in Reality, using great field effects that are generally excited; they are the extreme subjects of work, resulting in extreme works.

Extreme works have the property of practicing an intense and sometimes violent relation with the presence-absence and its ideations: eternity, simultaneity, ubiquity, in(de)finity, universality, spontaneity, freedom, nothingness <8D>, while compliant works are in the order of functionings, whether they are sufficient or virtuoso. So, and we must insist, compliant works and extreme works are not two degrees of a same intention, but two intentions with an opposite aim. They have in common that they are both rhythmical, the former comfortably, the latter violently.

11I4. The work as sedimentation, articulation and hotbed of initiative

It is true that works are the result, the product of these presentive bio-techno-semiotic systems, that hominid specimens are. But once released, issued, works accumulate layers of qualities coming from their producer and other producers, from their users, from the environment, from neighboring works, from all that is engendered by degradations, regradations, bifurcations of duration and weathering (Wetterung). And these qualities are not only added, but are disposed, they compose the works, stabilize, mobilize and constrain them to "sit together" in sedimentation (the English word "settling" gives a good rendition of sedimentum). From anything and everything works make "sections" of *woruld. They make passive and active articulations of social group. They define, fill, gather, compose the hominid specimen that haunts them, and in turn they inhabit it, to make it a singular someone and a singular each one.

So that when we see hominid specimens on the one hand, and their habitats, tools, machines, and products under elaboration on the other, we must grasp the extent to which it is mainly the latter that give consistency and existence to the hominid specimens, making them stick together, spooling and wrapping them endlessly <17F12>. It is mainly the author (auctor, increaser) who is thus constructed by the work, insofar as the work wants to be, and it feeds on the author, sometimes to the point of destroying him. Works consume hominid specimens at the same time as they keep them alive.

11J. Stances: (3) Characters, styles, manners

Assuredly, there are myriads of different gestures and works, according to the coincidences of social or physical environments with organisms. However, like in all other phenomenon of the Universe, gestures and works also obey to conditions of quanta <21F6>, meaning that all intermediaries are not possible, and that we find everywhere some large sets, probably depending of the physical, technical and semiotic conditions of things-performances-in-situation-in-the-circumstance-over-a-horizon <1B3>, but also depending of available cleavages and commutations of hominid brains, or of the brain in general, with its codes and codings <2A2a>. And this creates a new sort of stances for hominid specimens that both embarrass, limit them, but also confer on them some inertia, homeostasis, and therefore definition and continuity.

These general stances are so important and ostensible that languages ordinarily have one word to designate them. The Greek language spoke of characters to insist on their fixation and decision, by seeing there an engraving (kHarakter). The Latin language conceived styles, evoking the engraving or writing instrument in a similar metaphor. Many Romance languages have retained variations around manners, from manus, probably because it is in the gesture of plane hands in bilateral symmetry <1A1> that the cleavages of the interface between an exterior and interior milieus, i.e. characters and style, are best manifested. These words seemed so fortunate and expressive that they were kept in Germanic languages in Charakter, Stil, Manier.

This is the occasion to come back on the opposition between intelligence and genius <2B2,4>, intelligence consisting in exploiting the virtualities of some characters, styles, manners, while genius signals itself by its aptitude to transcend and redistribute them. There was assuredly a "romantic" and "realistic" character, style, and manner, but labeling Victor Hugo as romantic and Gustave Flaubert as realist does not enlighten them, and even distracts from their specificity. Moreover, without particular genius or intelligence, every hominid specimen is sufficiently singular to produce every time an original combination of cleavages and commutations that give it a complexion or idiosyncrasy <26E>.

11K. The X-same

In this way, we have just signaled the disparities, even the heterogeneities, of the hominid specimen, while at the same time signalling the few fundamental manners that allow this specimen to realize a sufficient operative unity to its survival, and finally for the survival of its species, what we could call its physical, but also technical and semiotic immunity system. When we considered the brain, we were already led to signal that in Homo the animal self <2A2C> takes on a singular salience and pregnance <2B10> due to the (stabilizing) segmentarization of the technical and semiotic environment (both gestural and language-based), as well as due to the thematized present of the presence (presentiality) <2B10>.

The resulting unit, or identity, of a hominid specimen is then such that, in all the dialects known to us, we find the means of expressing a certain instance of "I", ”my”, "mine" as opposed to other instances of "you-your-yours" and "he-his-his own" with variants in the singular and plural forms: "us-our-ours", etc. It is without doubt because the hominid specimen notes that some actions-passions-states are "from him", i.e. that they are ultimately referable to his own body as point of view of universe <11C> versus its surroundings, whether those surroundings are things-performances or other "I-my-mine".

This I/other cleavage results most of the time of the contrast between the synodies related to what depends of "our" motor and perceptive graspings and the synodies related to what resists to these graspings. But it seems that singular specimens often consider as also belonging to their "I-me-mine", the following synodies: (a) Those that are simply the most solid or persevering; (b) those whose actions have the furthest range; (c) those that best compatibilize (the least badly) the whole of the organism; (d) those that have the widest past, forming habits; (e) those that promise the widest future to this past through a present; (f) those that are best identifiable by the milieu (such as first names and family names); (g) those that have the most impact on this milieu; (i) those that are better suited to the self-winding function of language <17F10>.

However, conflicts of belonging arise, which are signaled by such formulations and gesticulations as: "I need to collect my thought", "I think I'm overreacting", Phaedra's "What did I say?", where it is betrayed that some synodies have, for a time, taken (too) much independence, either relating to others synodies more essential, or relating to the economy of the brain envisaged as a whole (which is almost the same thing). In general, after some hesitation, the "I-my-mine" is there again , or “finds itself there again,” from the fact that, between subordinate synodies and capital synodies (caput, chief), the demarcation is all the more stable that the cerebral system is cleaving, interconnected and commuting. We shall specify, however, that the "I-my-mine" of things-performances deeply varies according to cultures, for example whether they are non-scriptural, scriptural, intense scriptural, transparent scriptural, etc. <30>.

We still need to find a vocable that allows to render this tension of hominid specimens between identity and variety. Words such as "I", "me", "wo" or "yi" (Chinese "I") refer to specific cultures; thence, the French word “Je” (“I”) makes with the "Moi" (“Me”) a couple that we do not find anywhere else. The Latin word "ipseitas" would do it if it did not strongly point to the interiority of the Latin "ipse" <30D>. Closer to us, the words "individual" or "subject" are blended, the former with the seventeenth century <30H>, the second with recent western psychiatry, and besides, etymologically understood, they are false. We might think of the (English) "self" and (Sanskrit) "sva", but they also have cultural connotations, and we have already used "self" to cover what is common to Homo and the animal.

To avoid these biases, the present anthropogeny opted for X-same. Indeed, same marks rather well the unity with a prevalence of endotropy; the variable x marks the infinite variety of oneself which is then united; the dash between the x and the same signals the bipolar character of the theme targeted. So understood, an X-same is transitory and heterogeneous, but nevertheless poses itself as permanent, from the fact that its memories activate-passivate synodies considered as more essential and more accessory, more continuous or more episodic. An X-same is very plural, but is given as singular, seeing the familiarity between the interactive synodies that encounter there. It is always in labile constructions and reconstructions but tends to give itself as more or less preliminary to all its specific elaborations.

This kind of source, and sometimes of aim, which sends to nothing exterior or former, and which is moreover eminently presential-absential since it accompanies "consciences" <8A> of particular situations and objects, sometimes tends to place itself, according to the ideations of presence-absence <8D>, as absolute origin (solvere, ab) and strong freedom, independently from any particular link. This was the case in the West, especially from the sixteenth century. So, in a X-same, when the deliberation (livra, balance, from), in which several synodies are under balance, finally produces a triggering, the synody that takes action seems to proceed not from the interactions of all synodies but from an instance that would fly over them, a sort of transcending X-same. This is because the trigger from which this synody proceeds widely results from quantum conditions <21F6>, either physiological or semiotic, and that these conditions are sufficiently elusive to give the sentiment that the ultimate determination proceeds from an elusive principle.

11L. The communion of X-same(s)

The fact that in hominid specimens there are not only functionings but also more or less thematized presence(s)/absence(s) did already constrain us to foresee, apart from communications <8G1> where functionings embrace, other experiences known as communions <8G2> and participations <8G3>, where presence-absence also or mainly circulates. The articulation of the hominid specimen into a downstream and an upstream confirms this distinction, communications being particularly present in the downstream, and communions applying mainly to the upstream, i.e. to the corporal schemes, to the own bodies, to the fantasmatic endotropic representations of the body, and to the X-same(s) in their singularity. Thus understood communions suppose two original behaviors. One is transitory, the interpellation-provocation. Two others are relatively stabilizing, love and hatred.

11L1. Provocation, interpellation, apostrophe, altercation

The simplest forms of communional relations are called in French (a) provocation, a call that makes come, mandates, defies (vocare, pro); (b) interpellation, an accusatory formal demand creating a between-two (pellere, inter); (c) apostrophe, a position by diversion (strephein, apo); (d) altercation, where the other-in-general (alius) is the-other-of-two (alter). The contents of these relations, particularly because these relations are communional and aim at the upstream, are usually vague, massive, fleeing, and are particularly consisting in perceptive-motor and logico-semiotic field effects that are static, kinetic, dynamic and excited. We could think that these contents played a powerful initiatory role at the origin of massive dialects <10D>, and one day detailed dialects <16-17>.

11L2. Love

In contrast with these transient and relatively violent communions, we find everywhere a hominid communion that Romance languages call amour, amore, amor and Germanic languages call Love, Liebe. It is an excited inter systemic state <7D, 7E> that is relatively strong between two hominid specimens mainly grasped in their upstream. This is why structures take up less place there than textures and growths, and why the caress and reserve <11C1-2>, that we have already encountered on the occasion of the own body, excel. Language that intervenes in this case is mostly presentive ("phatic") <17F3>.

Between two hominid systems, the amorous effect is the creation of a veritable inter-system, whose marvels of intercerebrality <2A8,2B9> have often been noted and sung by a surprised Homo. This inter-system tends to abolish more or less what is around it, as the caress, the reserve, and the presential language already do. Its exaltations are absolutizing (solvere, ab), spatially and temporally, and we therefore frequently find in amorous effects the ideations of presence-absence, through experiences of eternity, ubiquity, spontaneity, and "strong" freedom <8D>. The simultaneously excited and durable phasing from which amorous effect results is so complex that love enriches itself cumulatively, but also declares itself in immediate evidence and accord, which that can take, particularly for subjects affected by fixed-fixation <26E2>, the appearance of a brisk shine or love at first sight. The energy and information provoked are usually very superior to the sum of energies and information of the two separate systems (the work of the English poet Shelley is one of the most complete descriptions of this exaltation).

The causes of such inter-systemic coaptations and resonances illustrate hominid possibilization <6> and are extremely varied: similarities, dissimilarities, complementarities, reorganizing disparities, allostatic and homoeostatic disparities, quantum effects <21F6>. Their points of fixation and permeability are mainly the gaze, the breathing, the gait, the complexion (texture, growth) and more generally the correspondence of rhythms and inflexions. Such a crossover between the Same and the Other, where each one intervenes as an upstream even more than as a downstream, is eminently realizing the universalized partition-conjunction <7H3>. This latter often concentrates and intensifies - in this crossing of the Same and the Other - in the sexual partition-conjunction <7H2>, but not always. The love that, in their full maturity, has conjugated the English German Jewish Lady Mountbatten and the Indian Pandit Nehru, beyond oceans and governmental responsibilities, was as unlimited as it was platonic.

This powerful intersystemicity derives from the orchestrating performances allowed to the hominid brain <2B> by its globalizing anatomy, its neutralizing and generalizing centers, its affective and motor smoothing, its long-term memorations, and its integrating neuromediators (neurotransmitters, hormones). Such intersystemicity had to be selected by the species because of its reproductive and educative accomplishments, as well as its technical and semiotic ones. This is why, throughout historical times, we find love almost everywhere, from the freshness of Egyptian lyric poetry to the retortions of Sappho and Apollinaire. Amers by Saint-John Perse proclaimed its archaism (in the sense of Confucius): "A great wave from Troy <...> In the highest seas far from us this breath was imprinted in yesteryear." But even before that, some amorous conditions were probably already in place since the time of detailed images, music and languages of the Upper Paleolithic. And further back still, Homo Erectus had perhaps enough cerebral orchestration and intercerebrality, and enough massive images and languages, to feel and also select the accomplishments and the enjoyment of such inter-systems.

Like the caress, the reserve and the tender discourse, love, in substitutive possibilizing Homo, may be addressed, not only to another singular hominid, but addressed also to hominid groups, to animals, to objects, to abstract ideas; the Romans even spoke of an amor fati (love of destiny), of which we will note that it penetrates perhaps any love. However, love has ordinarily reached its peak in the Two of the hominid couple. And even ordinarily in the Two of the heterosexual couple where the partition-conjunction finds its maximal distensions, and thus its maximal internal resonances.

Love, along with political and religious beliefs, is the experience that sheds the brightest light on the notion of horizon <1B3>. Because what decides love, at the beginning and at the end, is neither things-performances, nor situations, nor circumstances, but the opening of the horizon, which is confirmed here as constituted (constitutive) of sense, even of the sense, independently from particular significations. However, love is in no way the belief, although the latter also concerns the horizon <7I8>. Belief, whether political or religious, comprises an affirmation of knowledge that love - which is an intersystemic realization and not an intersystemic knowledge - neither postulates nor comprises. The only common point between love and belief is rhythm. In belief rhythm is supposed to guarantee the validity of the content of knowledge, and in love to guarantee the intersystemic success.

11L3. Hatred

For a French reader familiar with Racine's tragedies, love and hatred form almost a circle with two poles, in endless reversals of strength. There was indeed a moment of western conception of the "I" as a "person", which begins at the latest in Rome with Catullus ("Odi et amo") and whose theory was declared by Hegel at the end of the western world, showing the Same as Other and the Other as Same. But the love/hate flip seems to be rooted in a structure of Homo as such, and we think we can already read it an Egyptian poem of lost love, and even in the jolts of feelings of Ishatar in Gilgamesh's Sumer epic. Is this because the Same and the Other form the narrowest intersystem, thus the most fragile? Or because the experience of the absolute integration is close to the vertigo of absolute disintegration? Or because love and hatred play with presence-absence, which is worked here by two contrary spirallings? Or finally because love is the opening of a horizon and hatred shrinks the horizon into a fixed point, the odious object?

In any case, hatred is constructed, argumentative, detailing, thence more progressive than love. It can easily be shared by many. It defines as much as love in(de)finitizes. Hatred finds a convenience, and perhaps its primary roots, in the manner in which animality constitutes its in-groups (we-groups) thanks to unconditional oppositions to out-groups. The absolute otherness that hatred attributes to the Other makes it the easiest, thus most widespread, strategy of the affirmation of the Same. It is more elementary to hate than to love. The most palpable distinction between love and hatred is that the latter comprises a knowledge, then knowledges, that love ignores. Hatred initiates itself at the moment when the horizon, which is unknowable, begins, for paranoid Homo <4F>, to monetize itself, to contract itself, into things-performances, situations, circumstances, indicia, indexes, which are supposed to be knowable.

11M. The vagations of the X-same

We have just gone through enough articulations, rhythmic arrangements, distanciations of the hominid X-same to understand that the Same and the Other give place in Homo - by means of a very endotropizing and generalizing, cleaving and commutating brain - to substitutions and overlaps. Into veritable vagations.

11M1. Shamanism and voodoo. Yoga, rapt and manners

Here are a few facets of these overlaps, illustrated by highly simplified historical examples. (a) For instance, the Other has the attenuated form of an elsewhere, where portions of the Same emigrated or were taken away. In this case the task of the shaman - specialist of passages (passes) between the here and the elsewhere, particularly the terrestrial, the celestial and the underground supposed to cross each other in certain points - is to reintegrate towards here the lacking element that has emigrated to elsewhere. (b) Voodoo is not far from shamanism, insofar as it calls from elsewhere toward here a force (a God), of which the Same becomes the mount, thus comforted by the otherness of this (divine) rider. (c) The eastern Same has sufficiently the form of a self (sva) for that this Self, once detached from the remainders of what could be an “I”, should rise itself by a yoga (Indian, Chinese, Japanese) to a state where the duality of the Same and the Other is transcended in a nirvana, a tch'an or a satori. (d) As for the Same in Christianity, it is so much a Roman-Christian-Stoic-Neo-Platonic “I” that it conceives the Other-Same as a certain My-Same. When this Other-Same is good, the Same in Christianity waits for the My-Same to rapture it into itself using a mystical rapt. Or, if it is evil, such as Satan or its henchmen, the Same in Christianity is threatened with being inhabited by a (demonic) possession, from which it will only be delivered by an exorcism. (e) The Manichean Same, to which the archaic Hebraic Same participates, is usually intensely good and evil, or rather Same and Other, between talk and hubbub; Faust's Same remembers this.

Besides these clearly sliced encounters of the X-same and the Other, Homo has always and everywhere practiced more economically innumerable vagations as simple ways (French guises, Germanic wîsa), or manners of being and modes (Arab maquamat), lending themselves to no less innumerable imagos, idealized images of others and of oneself.

11M2. Hallucinations

Usual definitions oppose (1) perception, as exotropic nervous circulation, that has the property of continuously exploring its object from the outside and the inside, of browsing it, of penetrating it; (2) imagination, as endotropic nervous circulation, that can rearrange its constructions differently, but does not explore them; (3) hallucination, as imagination that grasps its endotropic constructions exotropically, as if they came from external reality, while being incapable of exploring them, since it is precisely this imagination that constructs them.

These brief definitions suffice to make us understand that, in Homo, the perceived, the imagined, the hallucinated give rise to endless overlaps and substitutions - in a significant percentage of a population, and sometimes in entire populations - under the form of hallucinations of objects and voices, but also hallucinations of ideas. The Neoplatonist has hallucinated the "One" proceeding and receding in each blade of grass. Spinoza hallucinated the "Acquiescence". Sartre hallucinated the "Freedom", like the Kanak hallucinated the initial older brother. Akhenaton hallucinated the solar uniqueness and the Indian its myriad of Gods raining during the monsoon. These slippages or superimpositions result from the ambiguities of the Same and the Other; of the proliferation of technical and semiotic indicialities and indexations; of the work of the hominid brain, which is cleaving and commutative, neutralizing and abstractive, with its fusions between imagination and imaginary, between rememorizations and memorations, etc. And they also result from that particular world of knowledge that belief is (political, religious), where an object is verified by the integrating force of the field effects that it arises and maintains in the believer.

11M3. Dementias

Indicialities and indexations operated by the hominid transversalization comprise enough metaphorical and metonymical flexibility, enough disconnections and play, to make that inferences (abduction, induction, deduction) <4C> should produce, between the Same and the Other, not only a thousand of objects and ideas, but also a thousand of attitudes. This ranges from the ordinarily flexibility of mind to dementia (mens, de-), where the discontinuities become so considerable, so constant, so rapid that they prevent any relationship with facts (Sachverhalt, atomic fact), with others, or with oneself. Distinguishing between the flexibility of the mind and the ever-hovering dementia, and maintaining their distinction, is a primary function of the inter-gesture and the interlocution.

11M4. Initiations and conversions

Finally, all cultures show initiations and conversions. Initiations are, in an X-same, the passage from a state A to a state B, where that X-same truly becomes another for itself or for others, in a true recommencing (initium). We find the same four stages everywhere: isolation-retreat, unbinding-purification, evanescence-death, resurrection-awakening. The most widespread initiations are those of adolescence, various consecrations, catechumenate, social grades, marriage, sometimes death, even birth when it is a gradual insertion into increasingly larger spaces (as in the case of certain Berbers).

We shall draw a similarity between initiations and conversions, which are both reversals (vertere, cum) and rebirths. When Luther, after having "hated" for thirty years the words of the epistle to the Romans: "Justitia Dei revelatur in illo", finally believed he understood that it is a "passive justice by which merciful God justifies us by faith", he continues: "I felt as though reborn." The translation "reborn" ("rené, in French") is by Michelet, a historian who had a very keen sense of conversion in individuals and people. His Histoire de France is a suite of collective conversions.

In the X-same, vagations and divagations are close. Instances and roles of the Devil and the good God, of the propitious and the redoubtable, are interchanging vertiginously by crossing rapt and possession, exorcism and adorcism. Just as health and madness interchange. To the extent of having conceived a "Holy Fool", Russian and English, and a "great Health", for Nietzsche and Deleuze. The convergences of the healthy and the foolish reclose the circular prism of the distinctions and confusions between the X-same and X-other that we call "humanity", between terror and tenderness <26>.

11N. The temporal limitations of hominid specimens

A living only takes place once in the Universe and determines there an event, i.e. a clear-cut salience and a vast pregnance, in virtue of the negentropies and states faraway from equilibrium that it introduces into its environment. Already animals are more salient and more pregnant than plants in this respect, as they are born and die in more striking catastrophes.

In hominid specimens, the commencement and the end are even frankly problematic, or mysterious, insofar as they are not true ends or true commencements. This is because, in these two occasions, each one goes beyond its vital limits, would it be only because of its possessions (estate) that continue it and sometime precede it. Then because of the language, which ties its actions and names it, makes it an autonomous and durable semiotic constellation. Very early, probably, Homo had to conceive modalities of survival going hand in hand with modalities of pre-life - first for others, then for oneself - gradually as its *woruld conferred him a more consistent X-same. Not because of a desire of immortality or permanence, which will suppose the western "I-my-mine", but because of the techno-semiotic consistency of its components.

11N1. Death

Given the upright position, the lying cadaver of Homo, shrouded by its indicia and indexes, bearing images and language designations, had to be a theme of perplexity for the group very early on. And paleoanthropology finds, at least since the end of Homo erectus, manipulations imposed to the hominid cadaver, then, since the Neolithic, ritual incinerations and burials, with not only primary sepulchers on site, but also secondary sepulchers, by a return to the native motherland of the remains of those who died far from their homeland. The cadaver is then frequently accompanied by its everyday utensils, and arranged in symbolic attitudes, for instance that of a curled-up fetus, or that pointing to a privileged cardinal point. In Homo, the death of others was particularly significant when it concluded a more or less long illness, thematized by the technical and semiotic caring by which it was accompanied.

In opposition with this death of others, the own death is firstly in Homo what it is in the animal kingdom. It is the result of a suite of non-presential states <8B1>, or of presential states that follow each other one by one without any orchestrating link, right up to a definitive state of non-presentiality. In other words, the own dead is insignificant, i.e. without particular mental resonance (techno-semiotic-presentive). It will require the stabilizing designations of the X-same by means of languages or of durable pictorial and sculptural languages, or still, the astonishment of the presence-absence irreducible to the order of functionings, so that its disappearance, its own death, becomes in a hominid specimen a theme (tHèma), a problem (balleïn, pro), a mystery (mustèrion, secret, closed, silent). Resulting one day in metempsychosis doctrines, or even in doctrines of singular, temporary or definitive immortality.

11N2. Birth

The beginning of an X-same, like its death, has a social reach. First, the gestation and the birthing of a upright primate are problematic. They have resulted in complicated obstetrics in various regulated positions: standing, seated, lying, requesting an assistance, as reminded by the etymology of "to midwife" (wife, mid <with>, assistant) and the etymology of "accoucher" (ad-col-locare, locare, cum, ad, assist from close by), [which means to give birth in French]. Then, and foremost, in a techno-semiotic group, the appearance of a new specimen shakes up the distribution of instances and roles <3E>. Finally, a hominid birth initiates a complicated education over a long period of time <3C>. Whence the coming into the world, i.e. the entrance into the *woruld modifying the *woruld, will progressively be celebrated (celeber, frequented).

However, the newborn never seems to have held as much importance for Homo as the dead do. This is because, while birth is a verifiable and datable phenomenon, it is the culminating point of a ten lunar months gestation that is very ostensible in a standing position, and foremost the result of a fecundation that is unobservable, to the point that it was not everywhere linked to coupling, but rather to the fantasies of a diffuse animism, before being understood as the implementation of a masculine semen, only active in a feminine incubating body (Hebrews, Greek). On the other hand, childbirth was often perceived as a birth among a suite of births: intervening after the prior births of a foetus that was already “born” in a vegetable form, then in an animal form, then a human form for Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and before the ulterior births of adolescence, marriage, death, initiatory, thus marking a beginning (initium). If, in the Lascaux cave, we encounter a stiff lying dead we see there no newborn, human or animal.

Therefore, while the death of the X-same will trigger everywhere in Homo innumerable post-mortem protocols (books of the dead in Egypt and Tibet) and ante mortem protocols (the chronicle of feudal agony of a Constable collected by Duby), its birth has always remained confuse and available to divagations, up to astrology <5H2>.

11O. The hominid specimen as complicated and complex system

To conclude on the articulation of the hominid specimen, can we specify what type of system it belongs to within the framework of the General System Theory, which is a general theory of the system or theory of the general system, that has taken shape since 1950? Assuredly, the hominid system is not a theoretical system, but a physical and living system, even a techno-semiotic system, which has the property of producing technical objects and signs, for example indicia, indexes, tectures, images, songs, dialects, writings, mathematics, logics, physics, ontologies, epistemologies, anthropologies. Much more, this hominid system does not only produces technical objects and signs, but it “is” them. Its technique-signs constitute it at least as much as it institutes them.

We shall then point out that the system that a hominid system is, in addition to being endowed with structures (textures, growths) is gifted with restructuring, i.e. a capacity of structural transformations. In machines, restructurings come from "restructuring spots", while the hominid specimen "is" a permanent restructuring, in two different aspects: (a) in its central nervous system, the software gives rise to a hardware and inversely <2A1>, (b) the techno-semiotic systems that the hominid specimen produces, and that it literally "is", are themselves in constant restructuring. Either because they balance their unbalances (homoeostatically), or because they open their balances (allostatically), or mainly because the ever-changing designated and performances of their techno-semiotic systems make the concepts and designating move.

In French, the adjectives compliqué (complicated) and complexe (complex) are ethymological doublets of complecti, to embrace (plectere, tresser, cum). By its phonosemy and its allure of a frequentative, the word complication targets cases where a system contains elements that are not very likely to be embraced, because they are too numerous, or because they belong to frankly heterogeneous series. In comparison, the word complexity aims the cases where, despite their multiplicity or disparity, the elements of a system can be embraced in one grasp, so that they are perceived as proceeding from one same source or as being creating themselves one sole source or aim. Homo economicus is particularly complicated. Homo musicus is particularly complex. Homo is, in the close Universe, the most complicated and most complex system we know.

It is its characterization as a system among all systems that indicates Homo's situation in the Universe. We will find it derisory to try to know if he is the only one of his genus and species, since his genus and species are in constant anthropogeny. But there is some sense in wondering if all the systems of the Universe, as they become more complicated and complex, have a tendency to become, in areas of games resembling those of Homo, technical and semiotic, indicializing and indexating, imaging and linguistic, inter-gestural and presentive, producing compliant and extreme works, thematizing static, kinetic, dynamic, excited field effects, or even have a tendency to be transversalizing systems and to produce X-same(s).

SITUATION 11

Inscribed in the first part of Anthropogeny, which has not yet considered detailed images or detailed music or detailed linguistic, this chapter could only envisage the hominid specimen in an abstract and general manner, by distinguishing a downstream and an upstream, corporal schemes, an own body, fantasized endotropic corporal representations, a hierarchy of fantasies, the stances of the gesture and the work, etc. All this will have to become concrete through the accomplishments of Homo in the second and third parts, and through its social articulations in the fourth part. As for the deployment of the galaxy of the X-same, it supposes the vision of the rest so much that it makes up the last chapter of an anthropogeny <30>.

Henri Van Lier

Translated by Paula Cook, 2017

(Last update, August 23, 2025)