1+1 != 2.
Intersubjectivity, the relationship between two people, appears soft. It arises from a fundamentally feminist social philosophy. And yet, like the archetypal feminine quality, it is the source of the “objectivity” of objects, the “hardness” of facts. Without the layer of intersubjectivity, there is no way of establishing objective truth. It is in the space of the intersubjective that the objective can be born/e. (There is something, at least at the Jungian level, to the idea of two polar ends being drawn inexorably together, defining one another, and supporting each other. Our minds are not meant to consider two things that give birth to one another, it defies the intuitions of the temporal lobe, it breaks the cerebellum’s regular beat and rhythm. And yet, if two things gave birth to one another, are they not one?)
When applying the somatic layer to corporal dialogue, intersubjectivity cannot be ignored. In this intersection (or perhaps “specialized application”), defined fundamentally by touch and depending on a certain lightness (per Weber’s law regarding sensitivity), the agent/patient dichotomy becomes less practical. Both are searching for something through haptic feedback – neurological activation patterns, musculoskeletofascial connections, biomechanical vectors of forces.
Touch doesn’t always mediate corporal dialogue. But when it does, the I-Thou, the intersubjective, become defining characteristics. Given the importance of intersubjectivity to philosophy, psychology, social theory, how odd that it is neglected in our physicality. Or that… physicality is neglected in considerations of the intersubjective.
#dyad #intersubjectivity #ithou #corporaldialogue #philosophy #socialtheory #touch #somatic