Abstract
The aim of the paper is to discuss the possible application of the theory of embodied cognition and the category of image schemata to the study of religious concepts within the Cognitive Science of Religion. Departing from the notion of counterintuitiveness and Boyer’s description of religious representations as minimally counterintuitive, the author briefly discusses the critique of this approach. Subsequently, different models of mind and cognition within the Cognitive Science are summarised, with special attention given to the enactive approach, as proposed by Varela, Thompson and Rosch. The notion of embodied meaning, situated within enactivism, is then discussed, together with Johnson’s concept of image schemata as basic semantic units. To discuss the applicability of image schemata in the study of religious concepts, the author summarises a case study, related to the interpretation of the categories of sāṃkhya-yoga darśana in Iyengar Yoga.
References
Atran, Scott. In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Search in Google Scholar
Barrett, Justin L. “Theological Correctness”. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 11 (1994), 325-339. 10.1163/157006899X00078Search in Google Scholar
Barrett, Justin L. “Coding and Quantifying Counterintuitiveness in Religious Concepts: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections”. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 20 (2008), 308-338. Search in Google Scholar
Barrett, Justin L., Burdett, Emily R., and Porter, Tenelle J. “Counterintuitiveness in Folktales: Finding the Cognitive Optimum”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9 (2009), 271–287. Search in Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice. “Are Religious Beliefs Counterintuitive?” In Radical Interpretation in Religion, edited by Nancy K. Frankenberry, 129-146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 10.1017/CBO9780511613906.010Search in Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. 10.1525/9780520911628Search in Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained. The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thoughts. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Search in Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. Why would (otherwise intelligent) scholars believe in “Religion”? http://www.cognitionandculture.net/home/blog/35-pascals-blog/764-why-would-otherwise-intelligent-scholars-believe-in-qreligionq, 2011 [09.03.2015]. Search in Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. “Explaining Religious Concepts: Lévi-Strauss, The Brilliant and Problematic Ancestor”. In Mental Culture. Classical Social theory and the Cognitive Science of Religion, edited by Dimitris Xygalatas, William W. McCorkle, 164-175. Durham: Acumen, 2013. Search in Google Scholar
Brown, W.Norman. “The Sources and Nature of Puruṣa in the Puruṣasūkta”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 51 (1931), 108-118. Search in Google Scholar
Chapple, Christopher K. “Living Liberation in Sāṃkhya and Yoga”. In Living Liberation in Hindu Thought, edited by A.O. Fort, P.Y. Mumme, 115-134. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. Search in Google Scholar
Ciołkosz, Matylda. “Ahankara, buddhi, manas, purusza - mechanizm poznawczy w traktacie Sankhjakarika w świetle teorii kognitywnych. Ex Nihilo 10:2 (2013), 13-31. Search in Google Scholar
Ciołkosz, Matylda. “The Quasi-Linguistic Structure of Iyengar Yoga Āsana Practice. An Analysis from the Perspective of Cognitive Grammar”. Studia Religiologica 47:4 (2014), 263-273. Search in Google Scholar
Ciołkosz, Matylda. “Ego małego palca, inteligencja pośladka. Koncepcja umysłu w praktyce hathajogi B.K.S. Iyengara”. Ex Nihilo 12:2 (2014). Search in Google Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Search in Google Scholar
De Michelis, Elizabeth. Modern Yoga and the Western Esoteric Tradition. London: Continuum, 2004. Search in Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Ezequiel A., Rohde, Marieke, and De Jaegher, Hanne. “Horizons for the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play”. In Enaction. Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, edited by J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, and E. A. Di Paolo. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2010. Search in Google Scholar
Falk, Maryla. Mit psychologiczny w starożytnych Indiach, translated by I. Kania. Kraków: Universitas, 2011. Search in Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1983. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gallese Vittorio, Lakoff George. “The Brain’s Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System In Conceptual Knowledge”. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22: 3-4 (2005), 455-479. 10.1080/02643290442000310Search in Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 10.1093/0195138929.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hebb, Daniel O. The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949. Search in Google Scholar
Hutto, Daniel D., and Myin, Erik. Radicalizing Enactivism. Basic Minds without Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Iyengar, B.K.S. Yoga Vṛkṣa. The Tree of Yoga. Oxford: Fine Line Books, 1988. Search in Google Scholar
Iyengar, B.K.S. Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patañjali. Pātañjala Yoga Pradipika. New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers India, 2005. Search in Google Scholar
Iyengar, B.K.S. Light on Life. The Yoga Journey to Wholeness, Inner Peace and Ultimate Freedom. Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2005. Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kudelska, Marta. “Purusza jako zasada podmiotowości w myśli Upaniszad”. In Purusza, atman, tao, sin… Wokół problematyki podmiotu w tradycjach filozoficznych Wschodu, edited by O. Łucyszyna, M.St. Zięba. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Akademii Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi, 2011. Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Larson, Gerald J. Classical Sāṃkhya. An Interpretation of its History and Meaning. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979. Search in Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. Search in Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. Primitive Mentality, translated by L.A. Clare. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1923. Search in Google Scholar
McCauley, Robert N. Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Search in Google Scholar
McCauley, Robert N., Lawson, E. Thomas. Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Search in Google Scholar
McCauley, Robert N., Lawson, E. Thomas. Bringing Ritual to Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Search in Google Scholar
McEvilley, Thomas. “The Spinal Serpent”. In The Roots of Tantra, edited by Katherine A. Harper and Robert L. Brown, Albany: SUNY Press, 2002. Search in Google Scholar
Norenzayan, Ara, Atran, Scott, Faulkner, Jason, and Schaller, Mark. “Memory and Mystery: The Cultural Selection of Minimally Counterintuitive Narratives”. Cognitive Science 30 (2006), 531–553. Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Search in Google Scholar
Purzycki, Benjamin G. “Cognitive Architecture, Humor and Counterintuitiveness: Retention and Recall of MCIs”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 10 (2010), 189–204. Search in Google Scholar
Purzycki, Benjamin G., and Willard, Aiyana K. “MCI theory: a critical discussion”. Religion, Brain & Behavior (2015). 10.1080/2153599X.2015.1024915Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. “Principles of Categorization”. In Concepts. Core Readings. Cambridge, edited by Eric Margolis, Stephen Laurence, MA: The MIT Press, 1999. Search in Google Scholar
Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. “Thinking in Movement: Further Analyses and Validations”. In Enaction. Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, edited by J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, and E. A. Di Paolo. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2010. Search in Google Scholar
Singleton, Mark. Yoga Body. The Origin of Modern Posture Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. Rethinking Symbolism, translated by A.L. Morton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996. Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Terrence. “‘We Are Parrots’, ‘Twins Are Birds’: Play of Tropes as Operational Structure”. In Beyond Metaphor. The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology, edited by James W. Fernandez, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. Search in Google Scholar
Upal, M. Afzal. “An alternative account of the minimal counterintuitiveness effect”. Cognitive Systems Research 11 (2010), 194–203. Search in Google Scholar
Varela, Francisco J., Thompson, Evan T., and Rosch, Eleanor. The Embodied Mind. Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1993. Search in Google Scholar
Whitehouse, Harvey. Arguments and Icons. Divergent modes of religiosity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Search in Google Scholar
Whitehouse, Harvey, and Lanman, Jonathan A. “The Ties That Bind Us: Ritual, Fusion, and Identification”. Current Anthropology 55:6 (2014), 674-695. 10.1086/678698Search in Google Scholar
Wujastyk, Dominik. “Interpreting the Image of the Human Body”. International Journal of Hindu Studies 31:2 (2009), 189-228. 10.1007/s11407-009-9077-0Search in Google Scholar
©2016 Matylda Ciołkosz
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.