On the World of This Ordinary Body

1

One of the most influential responses to modern representationalism has been to return to the body. Against the image of a mind separated from the world, locked inside the head and devoted to representing an external reality, much of contemporary philosophy of cognition has insisted that knowing means acting, perceiving, moving, speaking, feeling, and participating from within a situated embodiment. The mind would not first be inside and then go out toward the world; it would already be engaged with a world through the body.

This shift has been important. It made it possible to question the modern figure of the abstract, disembodied subject, transparent to itself, separated from history, affectivity, and the concrete conditions of existence. It is no accident that some of the central works of enactivism have emphasized precisely this dimension: The Embodied Mind, Mind in Life, Sensorimotor Life, Linguistic Bodies. In all of them, the same intuition appears: there is no mind without body, no cognition without action, no meaning without a lived world.

But this response contains a difficulty that has not always been thought through with sufficient radicality. The return to the body can become a new form of naivete if it assumes that the lived body, by itself, liberates us from abstraction, ideology, prejudice, or totality. Against the representational mind, the body then appears as a circle of authenticity. One is tempted to think that, in the face of the algorithm, the virtuous response is direct experience; in the face of calculation, what we must emphasize is the sensitivity that promises to preserve our humanity; in the face of abstraction, the demand to cling to an immediate presence; and in the face of artificial intelligence, that resistance means reclaiming embodied life. It is no accident that this drift is aligned with the emotivist turn, with the culture of mindfulness, and with the contemporary cult of fitness.

This is where the problem begins. This appeal to the body holds only if the body is thought of as a reserve of authenticity. And that is precisely the assumption that must be questioned. The ordinary body is not a pure instance. It is not a place prior to the world. It is not an immediate exteriority over against conceptuality. The ordinary body does not merely live in a world; it opens a world. And that world does not appear from an original neutrality, but from a history of conditionings, habits, desires, fears, identifications, reactions, expectations, and sedimented forms of perception.

That is why it is useful to speak of the world of this ordinary body. Not of the body in general, nor of life in the abstract, nor of direct experience as if it were an uncontaminated evidence. This ordinary body is the body that I am and that I believe myself to be; the body that desires, fears, rejects, recognizes, classifies, defends itself, clings, and identifies. It is the body that spontaneously distinguishes the familiar from the strange, the desirable from the threatening, the proper from the foreign, the visible from the irrelevant. It is the body that does not merely “receive” a world, but “inhabits” it; that is, it configures it.

The decisive point is that we usually understand conceptuality too narrowly. We think that conceptuality belongs to explicit thought: ideas, judgments, doctrines, theories, ideologies, concepts formulated in words. We believe there is conceptuality when we say “this is so,” when we argue, when we classify discursively, when we defend a philosophical or political position. But that is only the most visible form of conceptuality.

There is also a subtle conceptuality. It does not necessarily operate as formulated thought. It does not always present itself as explicit judgment. It acts in emotion, gesture, affective orientation, and the body’s almost spontaneous reaction. A body can feel threatened before it knows what it thinks. It can feel rejection before it justifies it. It can become indifferent before elaborating a doctrine of indifference. It can fail to see the other before discursively denying their dignity. It can have learned bodily which bodies matter and which do not, which voices deserve to be heard and which are interference, which sufferings interpellate and which remain outside the field of sensitivity.

This means that the body is not outside conceptuality. The body incorporates conceptuality. More than that: the body embodies conceptuality. The body turns conceptuality into reactivity. It turns it into inclination, sensitivity, habit. And precisely for that reason, it can naturalize our prejudices more effectively than our explicit ideas. An idea can be discussed. An argument can be refuted. A doctrine can be examined. But when a historical configuration has become body, when it appears as immediate evidence, as spontaneous reaction, as discomfort, as fear, as desire, or as repulsion, it becomes much more difficult to recognize it as a construction.

Here the importance of the tantric distinction appears. This is not a matter of introducing a religious solution to a philosophical problem. Nor is it a matter of turning a spiritual tradition into a political program. It is a matter of noticing that certain traditions have thought with extreme radicality something that contemporary philosophy of cognition only barely touches: the ordinary body is not an ultimate datum, but a form of appearance. The ordinary world is not simply the world, but the world as it appears from a conditioned configuration of body, desire, ignorance, habit, and identification.

The tantric distinction does not oppose body and mind, as if the problem consisted in abandoning the abstract mind in order to return to a pure body. The distinction is more radical: it opposes ordinary appearance to the possibility of a transformation of appearance. The ordinary body is not denied, but neither is it absolutized. It is recognized as a form of world. It is the body under the mode of appropriation, the body of an “I” that defends itself, desires, feels aversion, and is so familiar with its conditioning that it turns that conditioning into nature. It is the body that takes itself as center and organizes a world of its own around itself.

That is why the problem is not to return to the body, but to liberate the world of this ordinary body. This formula names the necessary displacement. It is not a matter of abandoning the body or denying experience. It is a matter of recognizing that immediate experience is not necessarily free. The ordinary body inhabits a world of its own and tends to confuse that world with reality itself. It takes the way things appear to it as if it were the way things are. It turns its conditioned horizon into the measure of the real.

This confusion has both a cognitive and an ethical dimension. First, it encloses us in egocentrism. Not necessarily in an explicit moral egoism, but in something more basic: the tendency to take the world as it appears from this body, this history, this sensitivity, and this position as if it were the world itself. One’s own world becomes the world as such. The conditioned horizon of appearance is confused with reality.

Second, this same structure conceals the alterity of the other. The other appears within my world, but is not exhausted by the place they occupy in my world. They may appear as neighbor, migrant, student, patient, user, worker, poor person, enemy, stranger, threat, burden, or datum. But the other is not reducible to those figures. Their alterity consists precisely in the fact that they exceed the meaning my world assigns to them. They are in my field of experience, but they do not belong to my world as property, function, or extension of my interests.

The liberating transformation of the field of meaning therefore has two inseparable movements. The first is a movement of disidentification. It consists in ceasing to take one’s own world as the measure of the real. It consists in recognizing that this ordinary body is conditioned, that its sensitivity has been formed, that its spontaneity is not pure, that its direct experience may be traversed by ignorance, fear, desire, ideology, and habit. Liberation begins when the world that appears to me ceases to present itself as the absolute world.

The second movement is ethical. It consists in ceasing to take the other as a function of my world. It is not enough to correct false ideas about the other. We must transform the sensitivity that renders the other invisible, secondary, administrable, or irrelevant. The other is not reducible to the way they appear within my conditioned field of meaning. Their suffering, their word, their body, their demand interrupt my world. Not because the other exists as an independent, self-sufficient substance separated from all relation, but because the other is not exhausted by my way of relating to them. Their exteriority is not metaphysical independence; it is ethical irreducibility.

2

This distinction allows us to return in a different way to the problem of artificial intelligence. It would be too easy to say that artificial intelligence is abstract and that, in order to resist it, we must return to the body. That opposition is problematic. Artificial intelligence operates through abstractions: data, profiles, probabilities, patterns, correlations, models, predictions. But those abstractions modify bodily worlds. They reorganize practices, expectations, institutions, forms of attention, modes of recognition, and forms of administering life. Its abstraction does not make it unreal. On the contrary, it makes it operative.

Artificial intelligence shows that abstraction can transform worlds. But this should not surprise us. Human history has always been traversed by abstractions capable of configuring bodies and worlds: law, money, nation, race, gender, property, debt, the file, diagnosis, the border, citizenship, merit, performance. All these abstractions have produced bodily effects. They have organized sensitivities, hierarchies, movements, possibilities, exclusions, and forms of life.

AI does not introduce from outside an operation entirely foreign to the human. Rather, it accelerates, formalizes, and automates something that was already present: the capacity of abstractions to configure fields of meaning and to produce worlds that are habitable for some and uninhabitable for others. What is new is not that abstraction acts upon life. What is new is the scale, speed, opacity, and feedback capacity with which that abstraction operates.

That is why artificial intelligence should not be thought of simply as the opposite of the body. It should be thought of as a new abstract mediation that intervenes upon bodies already conditioned and worlds already configured. In this sense, it reveals something disturbing: totality does not begin with the machine. The machine intensifies totality, but it does not invent it. The ordinary body already totalizes. One’s own world already classifies. Sensitivity already distributes visibility and invisibility. Spontaneous reaction may already have decided, before any reflection, who counts and who does not.

This forces us to refine the critique of enactivism. Its merit was to question the disembodied mind. Its limit is that it trusted the body too much. The lived, situated, affective, sensorimotor body does not, by itself, liberate us from representationalism or from totality. It can even become the most effective way of naturalizing the world we want to criticize. For when totality becomes body, it ceases to appear as system and begins to appear as immediate experience.

The tantric distinction allows us to formulate a more radical demand. It is not enough to say that the mind is embodied. We must ask how it is embodied, what world that embodiment opens, what forms of ignorance it reproduces, which others it renders invisible, which desires it naturalizes, which fears it turns into evidence. The problem is not only to overcome the disembodied mind, but to transform the field of meaning in which this ordinary body experiences itself as the center of a world.

The response to artificial intelligence cannot consist simply in reclaiming presence, sensitivity, direct experience, or bodily life. All of this is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Presence too can be possessive. Sensitivity too can be educated by exclusion. Direct experience too can be contaminated by prejudice. The body too can be the place where totality reproduces itself without needing to justify itself.

The task is more difficult: to liberate the world of this ordinary body. This means undoing the identification between the world that appears to us and reality itself. It means recognizing that the body does not merely suffer conditioning, but incorporates and reproduces it. It means seeing that the alterity of the other does not begin when we integrate them into our world, but when their presence interrupts the claim of our world to be the totality of meaning.

The question is not to choose between body and concept, between life and abstraction, between experience and artificial intelligence. The question is to recognize that totality can operate at all these levels. It operates in explicit concepts, but also in emotion. It operates in ideology, but also in bodily reaction. It operates in the machine, but also in the world of one’s own that this ordinary body opens and defends. That is why liberation cannot be only conceptual critique or a simple return to experience. It must be a transformation of the field of meaning: disidentification from one’s own world and ethical openness to the exteriority of the other.

Bibliography

Cincunegui, J. M. (forthcoming, 2026). La vida en la historia: Más allá de la biología, la fenomenología y las ciencias cognitivas. Dado Ediciones.

Dreyfus, H., & Taylor, C. (2015). Retrieving realism. Harvard University Press.

Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic Bodies: The Continuity Between Life and Language. The MIT Press.

Dussel, E. (1998). Ética de la liberación en la edad de la globalización y de la exclusión. Trotta.

Hopkins, J. (1999). The Tantric Distinction: A Buddhist’s Reflections on Compassion and Emptiness (Rev. ed.). Wisdom Publications.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.

Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press.

Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. The MIT Press.