File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0306, message 140


Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:06:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: Martha Gimenez <gimenez-AT-csf.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: Re: BHA: Embodiment


Hi Mark!  I would appreciate a copy of your bibliography.
Thanks,

Martha

Martha E. Gimenez
Department of Sociology
Campus Box 327
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado 80309
Voice:  303-492-7080
Fax:  303-492-8878




On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Mark Methven wrote:

> Listers, John, and Shiv;
>
> I just found out that sending attachments through the
> List is verboten.  However, to contribute to the
> sources that John recommended I have a 9 page Word
> bibliography on the sociology/philosophy of the body.
> If anyone would like a copy please notify me off-list.
>  This area has been blossoming since the 1980s.  My
> bibiliography was compiled for a doctoral exam in the
> early 1990s.  Most of these are the principle works
> needed to explore more current writings.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Mark Methven
> --- shiv kumar <iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > You have raised interesting points and, appreciably
> > so with an open mind. Quite often, discussions on
> > embodied mind end in foreclosure. In some cases,
> > they begin with foreclosure! It is easy to encounter
> > philosophers who would state that they reject
> > Cartesian dualism, but when they speak on this
> > issue, the dualism creeps in. The issue of existence
> > of units of embodied mind is reduced to how do we
> > know about them. The ontological question becomes
> > secondary to the epistemological one.
> >
> > Husserl was correct to the extent that he stated
> > that the world had been taken for granted, whereas
> > it was precisely the world that claimed being.
> > However, in his phenomenological reduction, he
> > became preoccupied with a transcendental subject.
> > The aim was to grasp the pure or essential features
> > of phenomena, or as he called it eidetic
> > abstraction. He believed that knowledge of phenomena
> > was apodictic, or absolutely certain as one could
> > intuit it. Yet the real process of cognition was not
> > elaborated upon. Heidegger barely mentioned anything
> > concrete about the human body. Merleau-Ponty did go
> > further. In fact, his The Structure of Behavior
> > begins with reflex behavior, physical order et al.
> > He did reject Cartesian dualism and also suggested a
> > viable alternative. He wrote the original book in
> > 1942 and science has come a long way since then to
> > comment on lived body. All the same, the
> > non-development of science in any era cannot
> > preclude a basic level of extraction of
> >  meaning, though it depends upon the subject.
> > Nietzsche had rightly remarked that human being is
> > the not yet determined animal.
> >
> > I have found Maturana and Varelas work on cognition
> > quite interesting. The duo could not decide whether
> > to apply their findings to the social systems and,
> > hence, their main work, viz. Cognition and Living
> > developed the concept of autopoietic systems only
> > for biological beings. I have also read your book,
> > viz. Self Producing Systems. You have mentioned some
> > writers who have tried to apply autopoiesis to
> > social systems. Niklaas Luhman had made some good
> > attempts.
> >
> > As for embodied mind, I hope that molecular biology
> > will shed more light on human behaviour/traits and
> > also remove some long held illusions. It would also
> > hopefully solve some philosophical conundrums. Yet
> > do you think they would be able to get to the ABC of
> > the human apparatus? This is in view of the fact
> > that according to Bells theorem, physical reality is
> > non-local. It has been interpreted by some to state
> > that biological structures at a certain (deeper)
> > level are non-material, even non-local. On a
> > different tangent, Michael Behe has expounded his
> > irreducible complexity thesis at the molecular which
> > would seem to be closer to CR.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Shiv
> >
> > John Mingers <John.Mingers-AT-mail.wbs.warwick.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> > Iconoclast
> >
> > I think there is a lot of interest and work at the
> > moment around the
> > notion of embodied cognition - ie in opposition to
> > the Cartesian split
> > between mind and body.
> >
> > Philosophically, Merleau-Ponty is the main person.
> > We can trace a
> > fairly clear line of phenomenological development
> > from Husserl with pure
> > thought through Heidegger with Being as rooted in
> > day to day activity to
> > Merleau-Ponty who refused any such splits between
> > thought and action or
> > objectivism and subjectivism. Cognition, language
> > and even mathematical
> > concepts are firmly rooted in the "Flesh" (see
> > especially "The Visible
> > and the Invisible"). Some feminists have picked up
> > on this, eg Elizabeth
> > Grosz "Volatile Bodies".
> > Also interesrting is the work of Lakoff and Johnson
> > on language and the
> > extent to which it is inescapably suffused with
> > physical and especially
> > bodily metaphors - see "Women, Fire and Dangerous
> > Things" and
> > "Philosophy in the Flesh"
> >
> > Biologically there is important work by Maturana and
> > Varela on
> > "Autopoiesis (self-producing systems) and
> > Cognition". They argue that
> > all activity by living organisms that enables them
> > to exist successfully
> > within an environment should be seen as cognitive
> > whether or not
> > language or even a nervous system is involved
> > "Cognition is effective
> > action". See also Varela et al "The Embodied Mind".
> >
> > Even Sociology has been getting in on the act which
> > is interesting
> > since you would conventionally see the social world
> > as at least a couple
> > of levels up from the body. Anyway they are
> > interested both in how the
> > social world inscribes itself and shapes the body
> > and how our bodies
> > shape and structure our social activity. Main people
> > here are Foucault,
> > Turner, Shilling and a host of others.
> >
> > In terms of CR it is one connection that seems to be
> > quite underplayed.
> > In fact the whole area of the individual subject
> > seems to be quite taken
> > for granted and there is little attention to the
> > social structuring of
> > subjectivity.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > Dr. John Mingers
> > Professor of OR and Systems
> > Warwick Business School
> > Warwick University
> > Coventry CV4 7AL UK
> > phone: +2476 522475
> > fax: +2476 524539
> > email: j.mingers-AT-warwick.ac.uk
> >
> > >>> iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com 11 June 2003 19:28:29
> > >>>
> > Jamie,
> >
> > My questions are not directly related to what you
> > had stated. It is
> > just that after reading your comments, and thinking
> > over them, the idea
> > of inscribing social practices on human bodies came
> > to my mind. Hence, I
> > asked for your opinion on indoctrination. Just a
> > case of raising another
> > set of questions.
> >
> > The crux of the issue is the structuring of the
> > structures of
> > cognition. Let me add a couple of more points here,
> > if the topic
> > interests you. These points have direct relevance to
> > the cognitive tools
> > of humans. One, there is no privileged access to the
> > mind (Nisbett and
> > Wilson). This stands in counterposition to what much
> > of philosophy has
> > believed in or would like to believe in. Two, 90% of
> > thought is
> > unconscious. How do these points challenge the
> > conventional views of
> > cognition? I think there are still more frontiers to
> > be explored to
> > comprehend the 'subject'. Don't you think the
> > subject has been taken for
> > granted, and it is precisely this that 'claims
> > being'?
> >
> > Shiv
> >
> > Jamie Morgan wrote:
> > Shiv, I don't understand the basis of your questions
> > - please elaborate
> > - do they derive form what I said or what you would
> > like to raise?
> >
> > jamie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: shiv kumar
> > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Positivism, Realism,
> > Materialism
> >
> >
> > Bodies are vehicles that not only seek
> > indoctrination, but can easily
> >
> === message truncated ==>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005