Finally, we empathize Husserl’s potential contribution to the field of sports philosophy illustrated through sporting examples with a focus on climbing. We argue that we can achieve a more consistent theory by reconceptualizing the different ‘layers of intentionality’ as different ‘levels of embodiment’ within a Husserlian frame of hermeneutic phenomenology. In this article we present a critical evaluation of the exact meaning and exploratory scope of these perspectives by entering into a dialogue with Breivik’s main sources, Rizzolatti, Merleau-Ponty and Searle. Though different perspectives of intentionality certainly illuminate different aspects of actions, we believe the ontological implications such an eclectic model entails exceeds the potential benefits.
While most scholars tend to reduce one aspect to the other, Breivik has suggested that we can gain a more integrated picture combining the different forms of intentionality as different layers of understanding in action. The operations of ‘representation intentionality’, ‘motor intentionality’ and ‘muscular intentionality’ play an increasing role in the attempt to nuance the relation between mind, body and world involved in physical activities.
#Derelict void mission failed after failing parkour how to#
This article contributes to an ongoing discussion within sports philosophy concerning how to understand intentional movement in sporting activities. From this rather short illustration, we hope to have shown how Husserl's terminology offers an alternative analytical frame that can broaden our understanding of actions on different levels of embodiment. Climbing as well as parkour has for example been viewed as an activity of emancipation from stereotyped and restricted forms of movement in the bourgeois and capitalist societies (Chrisholm 2008 Heywood 2002 Kiewa 2002 Lewis 2000 Ness 2011 Abramson and Fletcher 2007 Daskalaki et al. This aspect has especially been unfolded in a race, class, and gender perspective (De Beauvoir 2019 Butler 1988Butler, 1997Fanon 2008) but can also illustrate how the rules, body vocabulary and techniques reveal a historical materialization of the body in a sporting context The fact that the body is objectified, materialized and reproduced through historical discursive practice makes physical activity an obvious starting point to redefine social categories from the standpoint of the body. However, as the experience of Le parkour demonstrates, extreme artforms of ‘urban activism’ but also, more importantly, human agency and the performativity of the everyday, are capable of transforming the otherwise alienating non-places, to grounds of possibility, creativity and civic identity. Richness of experience, strengthening of community, variety of activity, openness and possibility are irrelevant (actually, inimical) to the corporate forces that shape our cities today. The activities of a group of traceurs practicing parkour are described and their philosophy is explained as a resistance to corporate structures. We will suggest that the corporate city is homogenised, lacking richness of civic space, not just in terms of form but in terms of structures (both, spatial structures and the kind of social structures/interactions they invite/encourage).
Corporate design and architecture embody specific kinds of relationships, experiences and perceptions of space and place. The corporate city is seen here as the embodiment of power relationships of a distinctly postmodern nature, a means to preserve and promote hegemonic and homogenising discourses like globalisation and consumerism. This paper discusses the corporate city and the way it structures the experience of its inhabitants.
0 kommentar(er)
