RE: Mind/Body dualism What's the deal?

Lee, and others if you want to join in....

>Perhaps I should mention that I'm writing a masters paper on attitudes to the

>modification of the body - grounded in the sociology of the body - hence why I'm trying >to understand the various strains of thought regarding the body by those on this list. >There is a definite obsession with the body in this particular discipline - something >< > >In what particular discipline? You don't mean on the extropian list, do you?

no, in sociology.....there's a relatively new discpline called the Sociology of the Body and while it laments that the body hasn't been  particularly noted in sociology, it's now gone a bit OTT. 

> > >that I'm hoping to challenge in this paper - it seem to be based on modern to postmodern >values of subjectivity versus objectivity, knowledge versus expression...and the like. >It stems from Satre and even a Romantic notion that the body and self are a whole, and >that happiness can be found by disciplining and shaping the body to an ideal of >perfection - here the media comes in and does its stuff! >< > >Well, it would be totally amazing IMHO if you establish such >connections. I always thought that obsession with one's physique >(that began not coincidentally about the time that Arnold >Schwartzenegger started to make it really big in the movies) >really stemmed from the same luxuries that we all enjoy in >modern day society. Namely, that we all have the time and >wherewithall to engage in odd things, whether it is body- >building, or following email discussion lists, or watching >Star Wars 200 times. >

Not true, real obsession with the body started in the 20's and thirties with the onset of Hollywood stars and the beginings of consumerism. With consumerism came advertsing which really took off in the 50's in America. Adverts, as you know, often use the picture of the ideal male and female bodies to sell their products - that having a beautiful and healthy body = pleasure and happiness... and more importantly perhaps success. However, the body became prominent in thought back when the bourgeoise in Europe started to get a bit worried about the lower classes becoming too much like them, read some Norbett Elias Manners and Civilization...he argues of Britain particulrly I think, that the bourgiousie decided to set themslves apart from the lower classes through the creations of manners and etiqueete - all of which give a great deal of significance to body and it's functions. Hence, in many ways the interest in the body as a site for discipline and furtherment/enhancement began back in the 1800s and thereabouts. Obviously we now have more lesuire time in which to 'work' on our bodies, but that's only through changes in economics.

back to Sartre and the Romantic notion of the body and self.. up to then, Cartesian Dualism had been the prominent philsophy, but then came along Sartre and Nietzche to an extent and said that 'I am my body', my self is my body and vice versa. This complemented what was going on in society regarding manners, status, clothing, makeup and so on. A person's status could be seen in the way they dressed...and this is still pretty important today - although the web has had an impact on it. We can then turn to Fouccault and his work on the place the body has taken through histoy as the subject of a state discipling force through norms and self regulation based on others perception of your appearance and behaviour..... 

Regards the subjectivity vs Objectivity - basically that consists of the Post mod arguement about subjective realities. In a phenomonoligical reading of attitudes to the body say in this group vs a devoutly christian group, the reality view of the body is different in each group. To one group the body is seen perhaps mechanistically, in the other it is seen spiritually (I do not mean to generalise here, these are just some of the prominent points that have come out from the list) This is wht I mean by sub vs obj. That how we see reality and that which is in it, depends on certain philisophical and ideological paradigms. However I do think that this can get very boglike and I still have to decide what side of the fence I sit on regards Postmodernism.

>Now the problem that I'm getting though is that extropians want to modify and enhance >themselves through science and technology - their goal is immortality or at least >longivity. Now this goal is based on being able to create/design a better body, one that >does not have the fraility and limitations of the present biological one >< > >This remark might be better addressed to those who are attempting >to cheat death by getting very healthy, or like Spike Jones, by >caloric restriction. (I'd still bet that they don't quite see it >as the same thing, but I don't know.) > >I'm a convinced cryonicist, and still think that it's my own best >chance at living forever. (I simply doubt that anti-aging drugs >will be found soon enough for me.) Yes, in the cryonics literature >one does often encounter the statement that one will probably re-animate >with the body of a 20 year old; but honestly, this seems like small >change to most cryonicists, who simply wish to continue living >regardless of what kind of body they get. So there simply is *not* >such a "goal to create/design a better body" for cryonicists.

>

O.k. anyone want to take me up on this?

> > - so aren't you just as obsessed with the body as those people who go >down the gym everyday and bust a gut also trying to create the ideal body? >So you're question below about strange ideas about the body doesn't make >sense to me. >< > >That hasn't been my experience. I've noticed some cryonicists and >extropians get really devoted to becoming maximally physically >healthy, and they showed absolutely no signs of lacking self- >confidence. Sure, people who *are* very insecure---typical teenagers, >for example---can be overly concerned by their appearance (the pants >must drag on the ground *just so*), but we can exclude those cases >when we are talking about extropians. So no, it's not self-confidence >either. >

No I wasn't talkiing about extropians here anyway, the point I was making is that people who are not concerned with the effects modifications to the body may have on the self,  probably have a good idea of who they are and who they want to be. I'm arguing that it is the people who have low self-esteem who may be effected more when modifications become mainstream.

Perhaps take the example of plastic surgery, It used to be about restoring looks/skin tissue after damage, birth defects - now it is about people with low self esteem trying to be happier by thinking that if they change their body they will automatically feel better.