Psychonomic species and meaning frameworks

The idea of ​​a solipsistic self, devoid of body, culture and we, which goes back to Catholic dogmas, also largely prevented the perception of “psychonomic species”, as opposed to “bionomic species”.
It was EH Erikson who, in 1966, in “ Ontogeny of Ritualization in Man ,“ coined the term “ pseudo -species ,“ and described their origin. In ethology (e.g., K. Lorenz, I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, B. Hassenstein, N. Tinbergen…), both the term and explanations of how these pseudo-species arise can be found. What seems sensible from a biological point of view, namely to describe this form of species as pseudo-species, is not tenable from a psychonomic point of view. Therefore, I distinguish between – bionomic species , which arise through biological processes and are determined on the basis of morphology and, nowadays, also genetic analyses, and – psychonomic species , which are culturally produced and socially transmitted through psychic processes, whether these are conscious and/or unconscious. Psychonomic species form (and are simultaneously defined by) various, very stable frameworks of meaning and action (see, for example, Thurnwald , even though this He still attributed the differences to “ races ,“ since the concept of „psychonomic species“ did not yet exist in his time. The stability of these frameworks of meaning can be seen, among other things, in the longevity of myths and dogmas , even within psychology. This explains the resulting blindness , as in autism , institutionalized abuse , and cynology .