Latest Posts

EGO operor ignoro (I don't know).cheesh!!..
Here is an example of what happens when academics create inane, excessively hubristic explanations on a topic designed to confuse rather than enlighten, misconstrue rather than clarify, plus it is also a funny way of stating that "Humans behave funny"..

But in typical academe fashion, why wastes the opportunity when you can use bigger words to explain and prove that in reality, you have absolutely no idea of what hell you are talking about and tried to demonstrate profundity, when in reality, it really don't..

Thanks to reader Ron Brunton, who adds:  “Although I have been an anthropologist for over 40 years, I have no idea what this means.” Can any readers help? An extract from Feldman’s book leaves me little wiser. 
 a comprehensible explanation, see after article..
The violence that is poised between humanitas and inhumanitas speaks to the metaphysical ordering and phantasms of everyday political terror. Are practices of political aggression separable from the Western metaphysical divide between human and animal, and what are the ideological utilities of this divide? Does political animality point to an anthropological sovereignty that only acquires positivity, tangibility, and figuration through its displacement onto, and passage into, the extimacy that is animality? And why does subjugated or expelled animality perennially threaten anthropological plenitude as an uncontainable negativity? These questions imply that the many thresholds of language, labour and finitude that have repeatedly delimited, governed and consigned the animal and human in metaphysical thought and practice can be remapped as a properly political dominion: a wildlife reserve in which philosophical, ethological, and anthropological declaratives and descriptions encrypt zoopolitical relations of power and force, and where the animal predicate circumscribes a concentrated time and space of subjugation, exposure, disappearance and abandonment.

Reader DD Ball simplifies it somewhat, yet manages only to make it sound even sillier:
The conflict between human spirit and inhumane spirit is related to the manifestations of ghosts due to politics of terrorism. Can aggressive US Republican rhetoric be separated from between human and animal behaviour? What separates Republicans from Democrats? Can the aggressive rhetoric in politics be explored using anthropology to look at how animals have behaved as they have been displaced from the land? And why do the politically naive Republicans blame label science research as unconfined negativity? These questions suggest that language can be used to identify similarity between animal behaviour and Republicans. Which is why scientists hate Republicans.
Once again, we reach to Orwell for a true explanation:

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink… If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind