DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-206-215

THE WORLD AND BODY:
INVERSION OF THE METAPHOR / MYTH FRAME

Vereshchagina Natalia Viktorovna
Ph.D. Student of the Department of Philosophy and Law

Perm National Research Polytechnic University,
29, Komsomolskiy av., Perm, 614990, Russia;
e-mail: natalia-vereschagina@yandex.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-3592-2833

Komarov Sergey Vladimirovich
Doctor of Philosophy, Docent,
Professor of the Department
of Management and Marketing

Perm National Research Polytechnic University,
29, Komsomolskiy av., Perm, 614990, Russia;
e-mail: : komarov@rmc.edu.ru
ORCID: 0000-0001-7358-6151

The article deals with the role of the body in mythological models of development of reality. A human body is one of the tools of understanding the world. Generation of ideas in the process of the world cognition is reliant on the interaction of the body and space, and it can also act as a model for explanation of the world and its objects. However, givenness of the body is not obvious for a human, because its discovery comes, as a rule, when the body has some defects (illness, weakness, fatigue, hyperalertness etc). In the process of ontogeny and phylogenesis, discovery of the body as a specific object of reality has analogous mechanisms, but during phylogenesis the body becomes a constructive element of the metaphor-mythological mechanism, which is a distinction of this process. A hypothesis is put forward in the article that in the course of mythological development of reality the inversion of the role of corporality takes place: at first, the body is a basis of the world mythologization and then the world is a basis of the body mythologization. Images of corporality serve as central metaphors of the mythological understanding of the world although the body itself is not subject to mythologization. During the Renaissance and early modern period, this metaphor / myth frame changes, and images of ordinary objects of the world (buildings, mechanisms and technical devices) lead to creation of contemporary mythological ideas about the body.

Keywords: body, corporality, world, development of the world, metaphor, myth, transfer, metalepsis, frame.

References

  1. Merleau-Ponty M. Fenomenologiya vospriyatiya [Phenomenology of Perception]. Saint Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1999, 606
  2. Tkhostov A.Sh. Psikhologiya telesnosti [Psychology of Corporality]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2002, 287
  3. Rebeko T.A. Subektnost’ i reprezentatsiya tela [Subjectivity and Body Representation]. Razvitie psikhologii v sisteme kompleksnogo chelovekoznaniya. Ch. 1 [The Development of Psychology in the Comprehensive Knowledge of the Person. Pt. 1]. Moscow, IP RAS Publ., 2012. pp. 256–261. Available at: http://www.ipras.ru/engine/documents/full_vol1_upd7.pdf (accessed 24.03.2017). (In Russian).
  4. Descartes R. Razmyshleniya o pervoy filosofii, v koikh dokazyvaetsya suschestvovanie boga i razlichie mezhdu chelovecheskoy dushoy i telom [Meditations on First Philosophy, in Which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul are Demonstrated]. Sochineniya: v 2 t. [Collected works: in 2 vol.]. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1994, vol. 2, 633 p. (In Russian).
  5. Meletinskiy E.M. Poetika mifa [Poetics of Myth]. Moscow, Akadem. Proekt Publ., 2012, 331 p.(In Russian).
  6. Grinko I.A. Modifikatsii tela. Estetika i simvolika. Somaticheskie modifikatsii v traditsionnykh obschestvakh [Body Modifications. Aesthetics and Symbolism. Somatic Modifications in Traditional Societies]. Moscow, LAMBERT Academic Publ., 2010, 161 p. (In Russian).
  7. Mify narodov mira. Entsiklopediya: v 2 t. T. 2 / pod red. S.A. Tokareva [Myths of the World Nations. Encyclopedia: in 2 vol. Vol. 2. Ed. by S.A. Tokarev]. Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya Publ, 1988, 719 p. (In Russian).
  8. Douglas M. Chistota i opasnost’ [Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo]. Moscow, Kanon-press Publ., 2000, 288 p. (In Russian).
  9. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem [Metaphors We Live by]. Moscow, Editorial URSS Publ., 2004, 256 p. (In Russian).
  10. Lakoff G. Perenoschik znacheniy: intervyu [Carrier of Meanings: an Interview]. Available at http://primerussia.ru/interview_posts/540 (accessed 24.03.2017). (In Russian).
  11. Sontag S. Bolezn’ kak metafora [Illness as Metaphor]. Moscow, Ad Marginem Press Publ., 2016, 176 p. (In Russian).
  12. Meletinskiy E.M. Mif i dvadtsatyy vek [Myth and the Twentieth Century]. Izbrannye stat’i. Vospominaniya [Selected Articles. Memories]. Moscow, RSU Publ., 1998, pp. 412–425. (In Russian).
  13. Cassirer E. Sila metafory [The Power of Metaphor]. Teoriya metafory [Theory of Metaphor]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1990, pp.33–44. (In Russian).
  14. Istoriya tela: Ot Renessansa do epokhi Prosvescheniya, T. 1 / pod red. A. Korben, Zh.-Zh. Kurtin, Zh. Vigarello [A History of Beauty: The Body and the Art of Embellishment from the Renaissance to Nowadays, Vol. 1. Ed. by A. Corbin, J.-J. Courtine, G. Vigarello]. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2012, 480 p. (In Russian).
  15. Le Goff J., Truong N. Istoriya tela v srednie veka [A History of the Body in the Middle Ages]. Moscow, Tekst Publ., 2008, 189 p. (In Russian).
  16. Bures F. On the Body as Machine. Available at: http://undark.org/article/mind-machine-medicine-militaristic-healthcare/ (accessed 24.03.2017). (In English).
  17. Feldenkrais M. Soznavanie cherez dvizhenie: dvenadtsat’ prakticheskikh urokov [Awareness Through Movement: Health Exercises for Personal Growth]. Moscow, Inst. obschegumanit. issledovaniy Publ., 2001, 160 p. (In Russian).
  18. Epshteyn M.H., Tulchinskiy G.L. Filosofiya tela. Telo svobody [Philosophy of the Body. The Body of Freedom]. Saint Petersburg, Aleteyya Publ., 2006, 432 p. (In Russian).
  19. Baudrillard J. Obschestvo potrebleniya. Ego mify i struktury [The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures]. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 2006, 269

The date of the manuscript receipt 29.03.2017

Please cite this article in English as:

Vereshchagina N.V., Komarov S.V. The world and body: inversion of the metaphor / myth frame // Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2017. Iss. 2. P. 206–215. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-206-215