9/21/12 Another game
Embodied knowledge
Sept 25th
Co-existence
Embodiment raises certain questions:
In which sense all animals are, human animal not
excluded, embodied
And
What are features thus understood as embodiment?
Are they, in animals, skills and attributes, in humans
knowledge?
Beast Like the bird we saw last week, like a dog who
saved a child’s life in a fire, like dolphins, like
ants, termites, butterflies
They may communicate with the help of alien
tools (chemicals, electricity, “dance”, “song”)
but are we sure that really makes the
difference?
Today we take another tour, in order to see how
strange may be the paths already taken
And how much they, perhaps, add to our
understanding
not only of embodied knowledge (though
mainly that), but of being human
Beast
That, naturally, indicates a difference that we
have not, ever, based on any research but that
we seem to have as a solid belief: human
animal does not belong to the group of other
animals since other animals don’t know
They don’t know because they don’t show any
sign of Beasts The problem is evident: if we talk of “embodied
knowledge” and exclude animals because we
don’t understand them, do we still have any
access to human embodiment other than the
cultured one?
The cultured access is a vicious circle that
attempts to define itself with what is given as
an essence of being human: human-culturethus human-ok culture
1 9/21/12 Worse beasts
Human is mostly a hypocritical idea: no real
features but ideals based on various
abstractions (religious, philosophical,
ideological) and then taken as guidelines to
understand it when met in reality
Embodiment is understood as a bonus in human
being that makes it even more human and
skilful
The essence does not include embodiment
Worse beasts
Therefore we have an agitated discussion on
whether human being is aggressive by
“nature” (=essence of human-ness), or any
other attribute
As well as those biological ideas of a-gene, bgene, t-neurone, v-neurone
As if there were a blank paper that becomes
inked by these and knowledge
Worse beasts
Odd class
Human being looks like a chance collection of
possible attributes, both biological and culturebased ones
All of them are taken as cultured since even the
biological seems to become true only if
culturally encouraged
Thus nurture is the sole base of human being , at
least by recent belief We are used to talk of man (=human being) and
beast (or animal)
Though we know that man belongs to primates
as many apes do
And we know that animals are not just “animals”
but quite many species of animals; often
species have less attributes in common than
man has with a mouse
Odd beasts
Odd beasts
Therefore, it seems we don’t know much of how
we classify ourselves and the rest of animal
kingdom
But still, understanding human embodiment and
knowledge (and thus embodied knowledge)
needs some starting point that is outside man,
plus concepts that may bridge the gaps we
have created in our ignorance
e.g. we are used to describe animal behaviour
(and possibly embodiment) with concepts like
instinct, drive, (conditioned) reflex, etc that we
link with anything “animal”
But we are quite reluctant to use these when
description of human being is the topic since
they seem too low to humans
2 9/21/12 Odd beasts
An excursus
We have drawn a line between man and beast,
and thus between the embodied nature of them
As a result, man has characteristics and beast is
driven by instincts
man will become embodied with time by
experience and beast is already a beast with
attributes
And the fishing bird?
Let us try an other path
Humans have created beasts that are not to be
found in nature
These are created mostly in order to pinpoint
certain human beliefs where the difference can
be seen in one single beast
These are both “lower” and “higher” than human
beings
Angels
Monsters
The higher ones are angels (or heavenly bodies
with various names)
They are men but sexless, they are winged but
not birds, they are quite fierce but just, they
have the truth but they don’t reveal it, they
need interprets who turn burning clarity to
unintelligible babble (like “Holy Scriptures” of
any ethnic group)
The low ones are monsters who have various
attributes of known beasts and men
We are their prey, they are after our lives – but
that is not all: they as well morally disintegrate
men, tarnish the best we have (women,
children, youth), turn good life to nothing
All of them
All of them
They all show features of both man and beast but
not as two (or more) different species but as
one, like an assemble of familiar attributes but
focused on either “good” or “evil”
The moral epithets of monsters show us how
men have understood the monstrosity of men
and the angelic nature of men
Quite often, in more complicated cultural forms,
these coincide: monstrosity is benign and
angelic nature is satanic
Here the reason for these man-made beasts enters
in a better light: they are like blueprints for a
more pronounced idea of human nature, in the
sense “nothing but” (“we are nothing but
angels and monsters in one flesh”)
3 9/21/12 Monsters The best known monsters are vampires and
werewolves They are people but turn to monsters every now
and then
They are after blood and they tarnish anything
they touch
They have powers beyond human ones
Humans never beat them, they beat men
Monsters
Monsters embody knowledge that many of us
wish to embody: great powers, powerful
senses, speed, animal freedom (= no moral
questions included)
At the same, we abhor the violence, the lack of
moral, the exaggeration of drive, the unbridled
surrender to instinct
Monsters If we judge them: Do we find a monster embodied in a human being,
taken over, become the leader, like an alien being
Or, do we take them as beasts who have their true
nature, already from the beginning, though the
appearance varies during the month?
Or, are these only scapegoats (or –wolves) that
define the borders of humanity?
Monsters But one of them may be your father, sister,
spouse, loved one = a human like yourself
The anguish that is raised by the knowledge of
their nature is overwhelming, it is not to get
settled
You will always live with it, think of it, try to
solve it, to get over it
This is like an image of human life as such
Monsters
What to do with people who are good and just
most of the time but then turn to monsters?
If we judge them, do we judge men or beasts?
In previous times people have judged animals
and e.g. hanged them because of unlawful
behaviour
In that tradition, we may judge them
Monsters
Angels and monsters certainly are human made
and their educative value is in demarcating the
humanity
With them, we describe the possible dimensions
of humanity in a concrete manner
But such a modern(ist) explanation is not enough
There is something else in this …
4 9/21/12 Bear Necessities
Dynamics of becoming Human being’s basic make-up is here at stake:
monsters and angels show moments when human
being leaves his/her known confinement in order
to become Other
The moment may reveal some basic features in
embodiment: you turn to something else, you
become loaded with attributes previously
unknown to you, you leave the context of
knowledge familiar to you, etc.
Dynamics of becoming If you don’t turn to a monster or angel:
You see your recent embodiment as natural and
normal (not like theirs)
You take knowledge as an acquirable attribute in
clear contrast to something you may turn to if
metamorphoses takes you in
You find yourself capable of choice
You see knowledge as a choice, metamorphoses as a
destiny Dynamics of becoming Our forefathers and –mothers started a program that
took attributes, skills, talent and other descriptive
items of change and put them under the title
“knowledge”: human attributes, skills, talents are
knowledge-led and thus controllable
They must become understood as knowledge in
order to be human features
Dynamics of becoming The highly unbecoming chance to turn to something
else keeps you open to a relatively limited
possibility really to become something else
This becoming must be well controlled
If something turn you to something else, you want
to know why & how
Therefore, from the angels and monsters on we have
tried to control the metamorphoses
Dynamics of becoming Thus there is no danger of them turning to
something uncontrollable
This had 2 consequences:
Flesh became unfamiliar to us
Knowledge was confined only to the conceptual
part of understanding
Thus, they humanized world 5 9/21/12 Dynamics of becoming Dynamics of becoming We inherited no legacy of any balance between
remaining what one already is and how one
becomes something else
Therefore we have needed a long history of
discourse: individual’s controlled development,
how to acquire skills so that they remain under
control (sorcerer’s apprentice syndrome), which
“part” of human being is skilled or changed when
new attributes are to be identified in him/her Michel Henry started about here and we shall
carry on next time from here
Henry sees the frustrating history, superstition,
lack of trust, an attempt to reify human
attributes (=list the right ones and the wrong
ones), prevent spontaneous change and
appreciate some direction that everyone should
aim at
Dynamics of becoming Henry wants to resume human freedom (as it was in
Ancient Times = myths) and get us free from the
man-meets-beast –syndrome
Human embodied knowledge is always human (in
good and evil), not entirely cultured but never
beastly, angelic, monstrous, and therefore we
don’t really need demarcations done with those
end
6