Problem with "consciousness"
At our last potluck we each discussed our answers to Maggi's homework question, "What is it like to explore your own embodiment?" The answers fell into two sorts.
Jerry and Maggi related their movement workshop experiences to an analytical discussion of abstract concepts about consciousness. Jane, who was silent, and I, did not. My homework answer to the question was: "It's fun." That's not an academic analysis.
Moving and experiencing my body are ends in themselves, even though, as an adult, I am aware that there are "benefits" that "motivate" me. I probably didn't think in terms of "benefits" when I was an active moving around kid running, rollerskating, and roving around my city and non-city world. And I didn't need to motivate myself to move, because movement was living. Not moving was harder and I did less of that.
Perhaps it's because I don't have the conceptual framework in Phenomenology that I don't reach for *that* framework to translate from physical, emotional engagement to verbal, abstract conceptual analysis of that engagement. Although I can speak about the experience of moving around in other reflective ways, but they are not explicitly grounded in an abstract framework of Phenomenology.
This leads me to the conclusion that, for me, the word "consciousness" is problematic.
I am not inclined to use it in talking about movement explorations.
My preference is to stay anchored in the physicality of experience and the feelings that stay with me after our workshops.
So, to answer the question now, "What is it like to explore your own embodiment?", I'll add that talking about embodiment in the abstract terms of Phenomenology (in the way that Jerry and Maggi were at the pot luck) didn't resonate with me.
Perhaps this means that we have more to talk about about what terms like "consciousness" mean in the phenomenological framework, and what it means in the folk-language framework.