From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (September 2007)

In psychology^{[attribution needed]}, and the cognitive sciences more generally, enactivism is a theoretical approach to understanding the mind. It incorporates an historical perspective -- in the sense that each individual's developmental trajectory shapes their understanding of reality -- with the result that it can be seen to subsume and synthesize arguments from embodied and situated cognition to present an alternative to cognitivism.^{[citation needed]}

A book reviewer, Jeremy Trevalyan Burman, in reviewing Consciousness & Emotion, vol 1., by Ralph D. Ellis & Natika Newton, eds concluded:^[1]

However, in a review of the book Consciousness & Emotion Book Series 2 edited by Richard Menary, Evan Thompson, the book reviewer, stated the view:

-Evan Thompson, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Toronto.[1]

At a fundamental level, enactivism is anti-dualist. There is no "core" self, but there is rather an enchained set of context-dependent associations that collectively provide a point-of-view in approaching the momentary problems of being.^{[attribution needed]} In this sense, individuals can be seen to "grow into" said Burman in his book review mentioned above.^[1] The world is not, a priori, represented stated the authors of The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience."^[2]

In the book The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding Revised Edition, Francisco Valera claims to have "proposed using the term enactive to designate this view of knowledge, to evoke the view that what is known is brought forth, in contraposition to the more classical views of either cognitivism or connectionism." [Tree of Knowledge pg. 255] Within the book, the analogies of the Razor's Edge and the Scylla and Charybdis are used to describe the "epistemologic Odyssey" between the notions of solipsism and representationalism. Enactivism, therefore is the middle ground between the two extremes [Tree of Knowledge, pgs. 133,134,253]. Maturana and Valera use this term to "confront the problem of understanding how our existence-the praxis of our living- is coupled to a surrounding world which appears filled with regularities that are at every instant the result of our biological and social histories.... to find a via media: to understand the regularity of the world we are experiencing at every moment, but without any point of reference independent of ourselves that would give certainty to our descriptions and cognitive assertions. Indeed the whole mechanism of generating ourselves, as describers and observers tells us that our world, as the world which we bring forth in our coexistence with others, will always have precisely that mixture of regularity and mutability, that combination of solidity and shifting sand, so typical of human experience when we look at it up close."[Tree of Knowledge, pg. 241]

• McGann, M. & Torrance, S. (2005). Doing it and meaning it (and the relationship between the two). In R. D. Ellis & N. Newton, Consciousness & Emotion, vol. 1: Agency, conscious choice, and selective perception. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 1-58811-596-8
• Hutto, D. D. (Ed.) (in press). Radical Enactivism: Intentionality, phenomenology, and narrative. In R. D. Ellis & N. Newton (Series Eds.), Consciousness & Emotion, vol. 2. ISBN 90-272-4151-1

1. ^ ^{a b} Burman, J. T. (2006). [Review of the book Consciousness & Emotion, vol. 1: Agency, conscious choice, and selective perception.], Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(12), pp. 115-119. Full-text
2. ^ Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.