I HATE finding a system that makes too much sense because there’s got to be something wrong with it.

Agreed. We’re not separate from our environments. After going through and rejecting an untold number of “almosts”, coming across Embodied Cognition and its variants…

…I found something I couldn’t poke holes into. I tried to. I wanted to. I HATE finding a system that makes too much sense because there’s got to be something wrong with it.

But I couldn’t. And the holes that it has have been closing up thanks to CogSci, which scientifically verified Heidegger’s Hammer-as-extension-of-self by SHOWING that, cognitively, our map-of-body-space GROWS to include the tools we use.

It’s why we can drive a car and know where the back bumper is. It’s part of our body at the time we’re driving it, cognitively speaking.

So, it became the very FIRST, after years of late night studying on the topic (whatever that topic is? I don’t know), where I could validly say:

“I am a fan of embodied cognition”.
“Embodied cognition is my bias”.
“I tend towards embodied cognition over other formulations of explaining cognitive processes”.

and

“My logic works through analogies”. and other things like that.

It suits me. First time I had a sense of solid grounding in a while and I rather enjoy it. I’ve always envied logicians and fans of Ayn Rand. They found something that they can use. I couldn’t use her. She’s ALMOST right, but where she’s wrong is… *ugh*.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 − = two

Leave a Reply