Categories and Embodied Objects: The Subjective Self and the Psychologist within Natural Psychology

Theory & Psychology

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 239-262

  Fisher, Harwood ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

agency; bounded consciousness; identity; natural categories; self

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038407753     PISSN: 09593543     EISSN: 14617447     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0959354303013002004     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Allport, F. (1955). Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New York: Wiley.
2. Bach-y-Rita, P. (1996). Sensory substitution and qualia. In J. Proust (Ed.), Perception et intermadalité (pp. 81-100). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
3. Bach-y-Rita, P., Kaczmarek, K.A., & Tyler, M.E. (in press). A tongue-based tactile display for portrayal of environmental characteristics. In L. Hettlinger & M. Haas (Eds.), Psychological issues in the design and use of virtual adaptive environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bach-y-Rita, P., Tyler, M.E., & Kaczmarek, K.A. (in press). Seeing with the brain. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Barclay, M.W. (2000). The inadvertent emergence of a phenomenological perspective in the philosophy of cognitive psychology and psychoanalytic developmental psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 20, 140-166.
7. Bermudez, J.L. (1998). The paradox of self-consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford.
8. Botero, J.-J. (1999). The immediately given as ground and background. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology (pp. 440-463). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9. de Mey, M. (1992). The cognitive paradigm. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10. Escher, M.C. (1935). Hand with reflecting globe. Lithograph. 50. In The graphic work of M.C. Escher (J.E. Brigham, Trans.). New York: Meredith/Hawthorn.
11. Fisher, H. (1976). The language and logic of forming an idea. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 6, 177-210.
12. Fisher, H. (1985 a). The logical structure of Freud's idea of the unconscious: Toward a psychology of ideas. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 6(1), 20-35.
13. Fisher, H. (1985 b). Negation and logic in psychological defenses: A biopsychological perspective. New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 39-45.
14. Fisher, H. (1995 a). Whose right is it to define the self? Theory & Psychology, 5, 323-352.
15. Fisher, H. (1995 b). Empty sets or empty self. Theory & Psychology, 5, 391-400.
16. Fisher, H. (1998). Metonymy, metaphor, and category: Logic versus semantics. Semiotica, 121(1/12), 41-87.
17. Fisher, H. (1999) Post-modern agency: You and I can show it; not own it. Theory & Psychology, 9, 103-112.
18. Fisher, H. (2000). Consciousness is an island [Commentary 16]. Karl Jaspers Forum, 18 January. Available: http://www.mcgill.ca/douglas/fdg/kjf
19. Fisher, H. (2001 a). The subjective self: A portrait inside logical space. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
20. Fisher, H. (2001 b). The subjective self as natural category [Target article 36]. Karl Jaspers Forum. In J. Caulfield, T. Jarvilehto, & H. Fisher, Self and free will: Embodied or inter-related? Available: http://www.mcgill.ca/douglas/fdg/kjf
21. Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.
22. Harnad, S. (1990). The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D, 42, 335-346. Available: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/˜harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.sgproblem.html
23. Hayles, N.K. (1995). The embodiment of meaning. In S. Franchi & G. Güzeldere (Eds.), Bridging the gap where cognitive science meets literary criticism, Stanford Humanities Review, 4(1) [Special issue]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-1/text/hayles.commentary.html
24. Hayles, N.K. (1999). How we became posthuman. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Hoffmeyer, J. (1998). Biosemiotics. In P. Bouissac (Ed.), Encyclopedia of semiotics (pp. 82-85). New York: Oxford University Press. On-line version cited: http://www.zbi.ee/˜uexkull/biosemiotics/jespintr.htm
26. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
27. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism's conception of truth. Lecture VI. In Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking (pp. 197-238). New York: Longmans Green and Co.
28. Jopling, D.A. (1997). A ‘Self of selves’? In U. Neisser & D.A. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context (pp. 249-267). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Kull, K. (1999). On the history of joining bio with semio: F.S. Rothschild and the biosemiotic rules. Sign Systems Studies, 27, 128-138. Available: http://www.zbi.ee/˜kalevi/kull27.htm
30. Lakoff, G. (1996). Sorry, I'm not myself today. In G. Falconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 91-123). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31. Lakoff, G. (1997). The internal structure of the self. In U. Neisser & D.A. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context (pp. 114-127). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Matte Blanco, I. (1975). The unconscious as infinite sets. London: Duckworth.
34. Matte Blanco, I. (1988). Thinking, feeling & being: Clinical reflections on the fundamental antinomy of human beings and world (New Library of Psychoanalysis, 5). New York: Routledge.
35. Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 42. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
36. Moshman, D. (1994). Reason, reasons, and reasoning: A constructivist account of human rationality. Theory & Psychology, 4, 245-260.
37. Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self-knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 35-59.
38. Neisser, U. (1992, May 1). The self-concept and its origins. Paper read at Emory Conference on the Conceptual Self in Context, Atlanta.
39. Neisser, U. (1995). Criteria for an ecological self. In P. Rochat (Ed.), The self in infancy: Theory and research (pp. 17-30). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
40. Neisser, U. (1999). The ecological self and its metaphors. Philosophical Topics, 26, 201-215.
41. Petitot, J. (1999). Morphological eidetics for a phenomenology of perception. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology (pp. 330-371). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42. Piaget, J. (1972). The principle of genetic epistemology. New York: Basic Books.
43. Prem, E. (1997). Epistemological aspects of embodied artificial intelligence. The Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria. Available: http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/˜erich/cs-pref/cs-pref.html
44. Rosch, E. (1997). Mindfulness, meditation, and the private(?) self. In U. Neisser & D.A. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context (pp. 185-202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Rothschild, F.S. (1962). Laws of symbolic mediation in the dynamics of self and personality. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 96, 774-784.
46. Roy, J.-M., Petitot, J., Pachoud, B., & Varela, F.J. (1999). Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology (pp. 1-80). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
47. Sebeok, T.A. (1999). The sign science and the life science. Applied Semiotics, 6/7, 386-393. Available: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-6-7/TAS1.html
48. Sharkey, N., & Ziemke, T. (1998). A consideration of the biological and psychological foundations of autonomous robotics. Connection Science, 10(3-4), 361-391.
49. Sharov, A.A. (1991/2). Biosemiotics: Functional-Evolutionary approach to the analysis of sense of information. Available: http://www.ento.vt.edu/˜sharov/biosem/txt/biosem.html. (Final version can be found in: T.A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991 (pp. 345-373). New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.)
50. Shoemaker, S. (1976). Embodiment and behavior. In A.O. Rorty (Ed.), The identity of persons (pp. 109-137). Berkeley: University of California Press.
51. Simon, H. (1995). Literary criticism: A cognitive approach. In S. Franchi & G. Güzeldere (Eds.), Bridging the gap where cognitive science meets literary criticism, Stanford Humanities Review, 4(1) [Special issue]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-1/text/hayles.commentary.html
52. Tschacher, W., & Dauwalder, J.-P. (1999). Situated cognition, ecological perception, and synergetics: A novel perspective for cognitive psychology? In W. Tschacher & J.-P. Dauwalder (Eds.), Dynamics, synergetics, autonomous agents (pp. 83-104). Singapore: World Scientific.
53. Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Varela, F.J. (1999). The specious present: A neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology (pp. 266-314). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
55. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Viney, W. (2001). The radical empiricism of William James and philosophy of history. History of Psychology, 4, 211-227.
57. Wilson, E.O. (2000, June 23). Keynote address: Relation between science and the humanities. Unity of Knowledge, New York Academy of Science Conference Rockefeller University, New York City.
58. Ziemke, T., & Sharkey, N E. (2001). A stroll through the worlds of robots and animals. Semiotica, 134(1/4), 701-746.