Bodily basis of the diverse modes of the self

Tanaka, S. (2018). Human Arenas, 1(3), pp. 223-30. The abstract:

"Bodily experiences encompass and underpin all types of experiences of the mind, ranging from pre-reflective to self-reflective, from subjective to intersubjective, and from collectivistic to individualistic. Moreover, the self is shaped into diverse modes of being as a result of different focuses on bodily experiences. This paper describes the experiences of one’s body-as-subject, one’s body-as-object for oneself, and one’s body-as-object for others, as they relate with the self."

This quote supports something I noted in my Integral Review paper:*

"As "Vygotsky (1934/1987) showed, in its developmental origin, thinking is realized through internalized conversation with the self. […] From a genetic perspective, the experience of self-reflection between “I” and “me” is possible only after having experiences of “me” being mediated by others. […] The relation between “I” and “me” is not given through self-reflection, but is mediated by the presence of others of the same social group. […] In addition, what Mead calls 'the generalized standpoint of the social group' has its basis in its cultural and historical background."

*
I know, the AQAList might argue it's not one creating the other, it's all of them tetra-arising at the same time. But as another example, Habermas (1994) using Mead determined that it was the cultural system that creates and inculcates the individual ego in the first place. Without it, despite the hardware, one remains an egoless wolf boy. Vygotsky's (Edwards, 2004) work supports this notion as well. They directly contradict the Piagetian notion of inherent inner structures that shape external stimuli to fit that structure. It's a very metaphysical system that I examined in depth in the IPS “real/false reason” thread. And again, it's not that the inner/outer, individual/social all tetra-arise simultaneously. That certainly provides for a nice apparent 'balance,' but that is an imposed systematic assumption that presupposes such a balance that does not match the empirical facts on the ground, instead trying to match the facts to the created metaphysical system (p. 83).