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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005