RE: [xmca] bodies and artifacts

[Mabel Encinas <liliamabel@hotmail.com>]

Ok. You have a point. Then, lets start thinking from an embodied approach :)
 
Let's accept that the body is an artifact. What is then the difference between a chair and the body. Both are yes, "products of human art", as you express it. However, only in the process (practice) there seem to be a difference. Both are material and ideal (the body is not separated from the mind; the chair, this one here that I feel is made of cloth and a cushioned material, plastic, metal, and involves the ideal that a designer and workers in a factory transformed so people could seat on). What is the difference?
 
Mabel
 



 

 


 

> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:40 +1100
> From: ablunden@mira.net
> To: liliamabel@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
> 
> Well, the body is the body is the body. The reason the 
> question arises for me is when we make generalisations in 
> which things like person, artefact, consciousness, concept, 
> action, and so on, figure, where does the body fit in? My 
> response was that even though it is obviously unique in many 
> ways, it falls into the same category as artefacts.
> 
> My questions to you are: what harm is done? why is anything 
> ignored? And, what is the body if it is not a material 
> product of human art, used by human beings?
> 
> Andy
> 
> Mabel Encinas wrote:
> > 
> > Is this way being fruitful? That is why I do not like to consider the 
> > body as an artifact. Did not cognitive pscyhology do that? (Bruner, Acts 
> > of Meaning). Then intentions and all the teleological aspects are so 
> > much ignored...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mabel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:21:09 +1100
> > > From: ablunden@mira.net
> > > To: liliamabel@hotmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
> > >
> > > Sure. But the body has been constructed like a living
> > > machine - the various artefacts that you use (especially but
> > > not only language and images) are "internalized" in some
> > > way. So one (external) artefact is replaced by another
> > > (internal) artefact. Yes?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > Mabel Encinas wrote:
> > > > However, sometimes practices do not involve other artefact
> > > > than the body (some practices are directed to the body), and that was
> > > > why I was talking about the limit of thinking about the body as
> > > > artefact... is that a limit? That is why I mentioned the body as "the
> > > > raw material". I was thinking for example practices linked to 
> > meditation
> > > > and the like, for example, among many others.
> > > > Mabel
> > >
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in. 
> > <http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010>
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, 
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca