OFFLINE

OFFLINE

The term "concretion" functions as a metaphor. It tells us that "body-en" are alike.

The word 'concretion' is derived from the Latin con meaning 'together' and crescere meaning 'to grow'.

The body and the environment are interpenetrated into each other and they grow together. They cannot be handled separately.

The term "nonrepresentational" is further used on page 2 : "Body and environment look different, even when we say that they are part of one event. They are not look-alikes. The mutual implying between body and environment is "non-ikonic," that is to say nonrepresentational".

So body-environment does not look like a concretion but has other aspects in common with it (interpenetration, interworking, growing together).  

OFFLINE

What you're pointing at makes sense to me too Parade.


Our body has never been separated from its environment indeed.

Whether it is in the womb or in what's happening here and now there is continuous exchange between us and the environement. The food we eat becomes us. The air we breathe is in "us" to the extent that there isn't even an inside that could be found.

When can we talk of an inside "us"? There is no physical "us" we are not a separate thermodynamically "closed system". We are an open system indeed.

And as far as the non-representation is concerned yes ultimately the body does not look like the environment however in details as pointed by Ernst Poeppel the living system may very well reproduce some form of external regularity of the environment inside itself. For instance the 24 hour cycle or the circadian cycle, or the seasons. The arising of life itself is not completely clear but there may be some adaptation of the internal structure to the en. For instance our respiratory system for oxygen or digestive system for carbon-based food. Like the orchid implies the wasp or the virus implies the cell of its host. So this is where the resemblance could be found to me in the implying or complementarity of the body with its en.