Fascinating deep dive into enactive approach with Ezequiel Di Paolo—such a rich exploration of autonomy, autopoiesis, and human becoming. The discussion around how bodies are not just static objects but dynamic, entangled processes of organic, sensorimotor, and social embodiment definitely resonates with my experience. This got me thinking about Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of Umwelt—the idea that each organism co-constructs its own perceptual world based on its unique biological and sensorimotor capacities. This aligns so well with the enactive view of participatory sense-making you mates touched on, where bodies and environments mutually shape each other through active engagement. It’s like every organism, human or otherwise, is constantly weaving its Umwelt through interactions, not just perceiving a pre-given world but co-creating it. The way Ezequiel connects this to love, authenticity, and staying true to one’s questions is truly profound—it’s as if our Umwelt expands through participatory sense-making in communities, especially when we embrace the unfinishedness of our linguistic bodies.
I must ponder further on how these ideas challenge our view of individuality and embodiment!
I would, Andrea, but I only have a few followers and don't know if they even check Substack much—I'm not attempting to reach a greater audience right now. I find that commenting on your work is my way of sharing these ideas, as it allows me to engage directly with the rich discussions you facilitate, like this profound dive into enactive cognition with Ezequiel Di Paolo.
Your point in your upload today (RD12: The brain is not a computer and mind is not only in the head) about making these ideas accessible resonates for me, as you so well know. Uexkull's models, with regard to ideas about individuality and embodiment are also often inaccessible philosophical constructs to the average person. So before I wax and wane through a denser web or constructs, in the spirit of simplicity, I feel obligated to reflect your oft-repeated sentiment, Adrea: we’re not separate individuals but part of a dynamic web, caring and creating meaning together, which challenges the isolation of modern life and offers hope for a more connected future. If even a few of us embrace this, imagine the difference it could make!
That being said, thank you for asking and for reminding me to get back to my desire to ponder these ideas in terms of individuality and embodiment. Now, let me try my best to explore our sense of self and embodiment intertwine across philosophy, biology, and spirituality as expounded by Uexhull, Simon Weil, Heidegger, and even Marx.
The enactive perspective explored highlights how our sense of self isn't a fixed, isolated entity but a dynamic process emerging from interactions with our bodies, environments, and others—challenging traditional notions of individuality as innate and separate, and framing embodiment as a participatory act where our "linguistic bodies" are unfinished and shaped through social and sensorimotor entanglements. Imagine what the human world would look and sound like if even 10% of folks lived through this framework.
This ties beautifully into Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt, where each organism co-creates its perceptual world. Delving deeper, Uexküll's biosemiotic view sees nature as a semantic web of signs: organisms as meaning-makers in a "functional circle" of perception (Merkwelt) and action (Wirkwelt). The tick's Umwelt, for instance, is limited to survival cues like butyric acid, warmth, and hair. Humans build similar bubbles, but modernity's fictions narrow ours, blinding us to richer semiotics and fostering "rootlessness" akin to Simone Weil's diagnosis in "The Need for Roots" (figuratively and literally)—a spiritual malaise where industrialization UPROOTS us from nature, relationships, and obligations, prioritizing "tech hubris" over even a single gnat.
Mirko's conversation with Di Paolo resonates with this alienation, evoking critiques like Heidegger's "thrownness" into an inauthentic tech-world, or Marx's capitalist fragmentation of labor and connections (though Simon Weil diverged, emphasizing spiritual grace and non-violent attention over material revolution, to nurture the soul's transcendent needs). Sartre's absurd freedom and bad faith urge rebellion against isolation, while paths like Jung's archetypes, Assagioli's Psychosynthesis, or Buddhist non-attachment offer RECONNECTION AND RESILIENCE amid fragmentation.
To heal this fragmentation, I posit that we need RE-ENCHANTMENT—reviving secular wonder through holistic, participatory consciousness (a revival you so beautifully illuminate on your channel, Andrea, weaving together the threads of embodied care and relational meaning), where disenchantment and enchantment coexist via art, literature, and philosophy, challenging the mechanistic worldview by fostering a dynamic interplay of meaning-making, as seen in Parallel Polis’ decentralized cultural resistance, which reweaves individual and collective narratives into a tapestry of lived experience and mutual care. With the exception of the American Revolution, no revolution that attempted to overthrow the system—particularly totalitarian regimes—has ever succeeded, as such direct confrontations often lead to new forms of oppression; thus the need to create parallel systems, like Parallel Polis, which offer a sustainable alternative by building resilient, decentralized structures that erode authoritarian control from within, reflecting a hopeful re-enchantment of our shared existence.
In enactive terms, this re-enchantment expands our Umwelt through participatory sense-making, weaving MAGICAL layers where signs reveal interconnections, much like Di Paolo's focus on love, authenticity, and un-finishedness to co-create worlds in communities. (I love this concept of un-finishedness), I posit (and I assume you do as well, Andrea) that this is the only way our species will survive—by fostering relational, embodied practices that transcend isolated individuality, heal modernity's rootlessness, and nurture shared worlds of wonder, mutual care, and dynamic co-creation.
Humans are wired for adaptive teams and mutual super-function, and in modernity pushes some of us to transcend individuality as a cultural artifact via distributed embodiment, where reality’s truest essence—complementarity, neither pure unity nor separation—emerges as enactive selfhood weaves through relational entanglements, fostering resilient, co-created worlds. Phew, what a mouthful! In essence, this reflects how our interconnectedness and shared actions shape a dynamic reality that thrives on mutual support and collective resilience.
In a fragmented world, Di Paolo's "staying true to questions" mirrors Weil's "attention" to the transcendent Good, PRIORITIZING RELATIONSHIP OVER ANALYSIS. Rather than seeking guidance from the rigid structures of corpocracy, academic or political institutions, we must turn to children, poets, or experiencers who forge bonds in ambiguity—cultivating roots through detachment, nature, and mystery. "Why analyze when we can relate?" This shifts us from static individuality to relational becoming, expanding Umwelten. And we can't say this enough: seek relationships where love fosters authenticity and communities embrace the soul's unfinished weave. Your episodes, Andrea, always inspire such reflections!
*Max Weber's thesis of the "disenchantment of the world" (Entzauberung der Welt), from his 1917 lecture "Science as a Vocation," argues modernity's rationalization strips away magic and mystery, making everything calculable and leading to alienation. Landy and Saler's The Re-Enchantment of the World: Secular Magic in a Rational Age (2009) challenges this by showing secular strategies—like art, literature, and philosophy—deliberately reintroduce wonder, coexisting with rationality to fill the void without naïveté or regression. This reframes modernity as a dynamic interplay, not inevitable loss, though critics note these forms may feel "thin" compared to original enchantment.
That's wonderful Michael. I'm glad you feel you can post here about these ideas to be honest, it means a lot to us and it is also a way to post yourself, as you point out here, because you can just add it to the Notes. There's so much association and association to be shared with others. Also: don't worry if you 'don't have an audience' because you never know what one person might need it or find it and that's all that matters. That, and the process of trying to write it out on your own as your own, because another whole layer of connection can often arise there. Respect and gratitude! Andrea
I am working on a longer piece, Andrea relative to my "I must ponder..." I'll post it here as well as on my own page, although I don't really have an audience.
Fascinating deep dive into enactive approach with Ezequiel Di Paolo—such a rich exploration of autonomy, autopoiesis, and human becoming. The discussion around how bodies are not just static objects but dynamic, entangled processes of organic, sensorimotor, and social embodiment definitely resonates with my experience. This got me thinking about Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of Umwelt—the idea that each organism co-constructs its own perceptual world based on its unique biological and sensorimotor capacities. This aligns so well with the enactive view of participatory sense-making you mates touched on, where bodies and environments mutually shape each other through active engagement. It’s like every organism, human or otherwise, is constantly weaving its Umwelt through interactions, not just perceiving a pre-given world but co-creating it. The way Ezequiel connects this to love, authenticity, and staying true to one’s questions is truly profound—it’s as if our Umwelt expands through participatory sense-making in communities, especially when we embrace the unfinishedness of our linguistic bodies.
I must ponder further on how these ideas challenge our view of individuality and embodiment!
Stellar convo!
Thank you so much! Have you thought about posting on Uexküll?
I would, Andrea, but I only have a few followers and don't know if they even check Substack much—I'm not attempting to reach a greater audience right now. I find that commenting on your work is my way of sharing these ideas, as it allows me to engage directly with the rich discussions you facilitate, like this profound dive into enactive cognition with Ezequiel Di Paolo.
Your point in your upload today (RD12: The brain is not a computer and mind is not only in the head) about making these ideas accessible resonates for me, as you so well know. Uexkull's models, with regard to ideas about individuality and embodiment are also often inaccessible philosophical constructs to the average person. So before I wax and wane through a denser web or constructs, in the spirit of simplicity, I feel obligated to reflect your oft-repeated sentiment, Adrea: we’re not separate individuals but part of a dynamic web, caring and creating meaning together, which challenges the isolation of modern life and offers hope for a more connected future. If even a few of us embrace this, imagine the difference it could make!
That being said, thank you for asking and for reminding me to get back to my desire to ponder these ideas in terms of individuality and embodiment. Now, let me try my best to explore our sense of self and embodiment intertwine across philosophy, biology, and spirituality as expounded by Uexhull, Simon Weil, Heidegger, and even Marx.
The enactive perspective explored highlights how our sense of self isn't a fixed, isolated entity but a dynamic process emerging from interactions with our bodies, environments, and others—challenging traditional notions of individuality as innate and separate, and framing embodiment as a participatory act where our "linguistic bodies" are unfinished and shaped through social and sensorimotor entanglements. Imagine what the human world would look and sound like if even 10% of folks lived through this framework.
This ties beautifully into Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt, where each organism co-creates its perceptual world. Delving deeper, Uexküll's biosemiotic view sees nature as a semantic web of signs: organisms as meaning-makers in a "functional circle" of perception (Merkwelt) and action (Wirkwelt). The tick's Umwelt, for instance, is limited to survival cues like butyric acid, warmth, and hair. Humans build similar bubbles, but modernity's fictions narrow ours, blinding us to richer semiotics and fostering "rootlessness" akin to Simone Weil's diagnosis in "The Need for Roots" (figuratively and literally)—a spiritual malaise where industrialization UPROOTS us from nature, relationships, and obligations, prioritizing "tech hubris" over even a single gnat.
Mirko's conversation with Di Paolo resonates with this alienation, evoking critiques like Heidegger's "thrownness" into an inauthentic tech-world, or Marx's capitalist fragmentation of labor and connections (though Simon Weil diverged, emphasizing spiritual grace and non-violent attention over material revolution, to nurture the soul's transcendent needs). Sartre's absurd freedom and bad faith urge rebellion against isolation, while paths like Jung's archetypes, Assagioli's Psychosynthesis, or Buddhist non-attachment offer RECONNECTION AND RESILIENCE amid fragmentation.
To heal this fragmentation, I posit that we need RE-ENCHANTMENT—reviving secular wonder through holistic, participatory consciousness (a revival you so beautifully illuminate on your channel, Andrea, weaving together the threads of embodied care and relational meaning), where disenchantment and enchantment coexist via art, literature, and philosophy, challenging the mechanistic worldview by fostering a dynamic interplay of meaning-making, as seen in Parallel Polis’ decentralized cultural resistance, which reweaves individual and collective narratives into a tapestry of lived experience and mutual care. With the exception of the American Revolution, no revolution that attempted to overthrow the system—particularly totalitarian regimes—has ever succeeded, as such direct confrontations often lead to new forms of oppression; thus the need to create parallel systems, like Parallel Polis, which offer a sustainable alternative by building resilient, decentralized structures that erode authoritarian control from within, reflecting a hopeful re-enchantment of our shared existence.
In enactive terms, this re-enchantment expands our Umwelt through participatory sense-making, weaving MAGICAL layers where signs reveal interconnections, much like Di Paolo's focus on love, authenticity, and un-finishedness to co-create worlds in communities. (I love this concept of un-finishedness), I posit (and I assume you do as well, Andrea) that this is the only way our species will survive—by fostering relational, embodied practices that transcend isolated individuality, heal modernity's rootlessness, and nurture shared worlds of wonder, mutual care, and dynamic co-creation.
Humans are wired for adaptive teams and mutual super-function, and in modernity pushes some of us to transcend individuality as a cultural artifact via distributed embodiment, where reality’s truest essence—complementarity, neither pure unity nor separation—emerges as enactive selfhood weaves through relational entanglements, fostering resilient, co-created worlds. Phew, what a mouthful! In essence, this reflects how our interconnectedness and shared actions shape a dynamic reality that thrives on mutual support and collective resilience.
In a fragmented world, Di Paolo's "staying true to questions" mirrors Weil's "attention" to the transcendent Good, PRIORITIZING RELATIONSHIP OVER ANALYSIS. Rather than seeking guidance from the rigid structures of corpocracy, academic or political institutions, we must turn to children, poets, or experiencers who forge bonds in ambiguity—cultivating roots through detachment, nature, and mystery. "Why analyze when we can relate?" This shifts us from static individuality to relational becoming, expanding Umwelten. And we can't say this enough: seek relationships where love fosters authenticity and communities embrace the soul's unfinished weave. Your episodes, Andrea, always inspire such reflections!
*Max Weber's thesis of the "disenchantment of the world" (Entzauberung der Welt), from his 1917 lecture "Science as a Vocation," argues modernity's rationalization strips away magic and mystery, making everything calculable and leading to alienation. Landy and Saler's The Re-Enchantment of the World: Secular Magic in a Rational Age (2009) challenges this by showing secular strategies—like art, literature, and philosophy—deliberately reintroduce wonder, coexisting with rationality to fill the void without naïveté or regression. This reframes modernity as a dynamic interplay, not inevitable loss, though critics note these forms may feel "thin" compared to original enchantment.
That's wonderful Michael. I'm glad you feel you can post here about these ideas to be honest, it means a lot to us and it is also a way to post yourself, as you point out here, because you can just add it to the Notes. There's so much association and association to be shared with others. Also: don't worry if you 'don't have an audience' because you never know what one person might need it or find it and that's all that matters. That, and the process of trying to write it out on your own as your own, because another whole layer of connection can often arise there. Respect and gratitude! Andrea
I am working on a longer piece, Andrea relative to my "I must ponder..." I'll post it here as well as on my own page, although I don't really have an audience.
Commented on this one above. Will look for your post!