Significance of Kinaesthesis for Mobility Humanities: A Phenomenological Contribution to the New Mobilities Paradigm

論動覺感知對移動性人文學的意義：現象學對新移動性範式的貢獻

金泰熹(Tae-Hee KIM)

Kinaesthesis ； Phenomenology ； Edmund Husserl ； Mobility Humanities ； New Mobilities Paradigm ； 動覺感知 ； 現象學 ； 埃德蒙德．胡塞爾 ； 移動性人文學 ； 新移動性範式

哲學與文化

47卷5期（2020 / 05 / 01）

25 - 44

英文

Mobility humanities pursue complementing and deepening of the new mobilities paradigm. Kinaesthesis in the phenomenological perspective might serve as a ＂thread＂ through these mobility humanities. By means of phenomenological methodologies, we can identify the essences of various experiences and phenomena related to mobilities in the life-world and establish subtler ontologies of mobilities. Moreover, Husserl's phenomenological descriptions of kinaesthesis refer to the correlation between the sensation of voluntary movement of the agent's body and spatial perception. Drawing on these descriptions, we can establish a more dynamic epistemology of mobilities, which focuses on the epistemic relations between the moving subject and the moving objects. Furthermore, this concept of kinaesthesis can expand toward the practical kinaesthesis or motility, which might lead to axiology of mobilities that thematizes uneven motility to recover justice in mobility. Based on these considerations, this article proposes that mobility humanities deal with the essence, meaning, and value of the mobile and fluid form of life in modern society and pay attention to this concept of kinaesthesis.

移動性人文學試圖對新移動範式進行補充及深化。從現象學的角度來看，動覺感知成為了我們探討移動性人文學的「線索」；而我們通過現象學的方法論，可以證實生活世界里各種運動的經驗和現象的本質，並構建出更為嚴密的移動存在論。此外，胡塞爾對於動覺感知的現象學的描述，說明了主體自身的主動運動感知與空間事物感知之間的關係。這些描述能夠幫助我們動態地認知運動主體與運動對象之間的知識論關係。除此之外，動覺感知也可以擴展到實際的運動感覺或運動能力的範疇中，而這就要求我們將失衡的運動主體化，繼而建立起移動價值論，以恢復運動之全貌。因此，根據以上論述，本論文認為在現代社會中，對動覺感知概念的探討是研究移動和流動的生活形式的本質、意義和價值等人文學的前提。

1. Adey, Peter(2006).If Mobility is Everything then It is Nothing: Towards a Relational Politics of (Im)mobilities.Mobilities,1(1),75-94.
2. Allen, R. D.(1981).Motility.The Journal of Cell Biology,91(3),148-166.
3. Claesges, U.(1964).Edmund Husserls Theorie der Raumkonstitution.Den Haag:Martinus Nijhoff.
4. Declerck, G.(2018).Absent Aspects, Possible Perceptions and Open Intersubjectivity: A Critical Analysis of Dan Zahavi’s Account of Horizontal Intentionality.Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology,49(4),321-341.
5. Dreyfus, H. L.,Wrathall, Mark(ed.)(2014).Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action.Oxford University Press.
6. Drummond, J. J.(1979).On Seeing a Material Thing in Space: The Role of Kinaesthesis in Visual Perception.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,40(1),19-32.
7. Ferencz-Flatz, C.(2014).Husserls Begriff der Kinästhese und seine Entwicklung.Husserl Studies,30(1),21-45.
8. Fink. E., “Die phänomenologische Philosophie Edmund Husserls in der gegenwärtigen Kritik,” Kant-Studien 38.1-2(1933): 319-383.
9. Fink. E. “Vergegenwärtigung und Bild,” Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung XI(1930): 239-309.
10. Gallagher, S.,Zahavi, D.(2013).The Phenomenological Mind.London:Routledge.
11. Hannam, K.,Sheller, M.,Urry, J.(2006).Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.Mobilities,1(1),1-22.
12. Held, R.,Hein, A.(1963).Movement-produced Stimulation in the Development of Visually Guided Behavior.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,56(5),872-876.
13. Husserl, E.(1973).Experience and Judgement: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic.Evanston:Northwestern University Press.
14. Husserl, E.(1973).Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil: 1921-1928.Den Haag:Martinus Nijhoff.
15. Husserl, E.(1997).Thing and Space: Lectures of 1907.Dordrecht:Kluwer.
16. Husserl, E.(1973).Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Dritter Teil: 1929-1935.Den Haag:Martinus Nijhoff.
17. Husserl, E.(2013).Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology.Berlin:Springer Science & Business Media.
18. Husserl, E.(2006).Späte Texte über Zeitkonstitution (1929-1934): Die C-Manuskripte.Berlin:Springer.
19. Husserl, E.(1970).The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy.Evanston:Northwestern University Press.
20. Husserl, E.(1989).Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution.Berlin:Springer Science & Business Media.
21. Husserl, E.(2008).Die Lebenswelt Auslegungen der vorgegebenen Welt und ihrer Konstitution. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1916-1937).Berlin:Springer.
22. Kaufmann, V.,Bergman, M. M.,Joye, D.(2004).Motility: Mobility as Capital.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,28(4),745-756.
23. Kellerman, A.(2012).Potential Mobilities.Mobilities,7(3),171-183.
24. Leivestad, H. H.(2016).Motility.Keywords of Mobility: Critical Engagements
25. Merleau-Ponty, M.(2013).Phenomenology of Perception.London:Routledge.
26. Merriman, P.(ed.),Pearce, L.(ed.)(2018).Mobility and the Humanities.London:Routledge.
27. Michael, L.,Staehler, T.(2010).Phenomenology: An Introduction.A&C Black.
28. O’Regan, K.,Noë, A.(2001).What is It Like to See: A Sensorimotor Theory of Perceptual Experience.Synthese,129(1),79-103.
29. Piaget, J.,Cook, M.(Trans.)(1971).The Construction of Reality in the Child.New York:Ballantine Books.
30. Proske, U.,Gandevia, S. C.(2009).The Kinaesthetic Senses.The Journal of Physiology,587(17),4139-4146.
31. Sheller, M.(2017).From Spatial Turn to Mobilities Turn.Current Sociology,65(4),623-639.
32. Sheller, M.(2018).Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes.Verso Books.
33. Sheller, M.,Urry, J.(2006).The New Mobilities Paradigm.Environment and Planning A,38(2),207-226.
34. Söderström, O.,Laurence, C.(2010).,Switzerland:Université de Neuchâtel.
35. Urry, J.(2016).Mobilities: new perspectives on transport and society.London:Routledge.
36. Zahavi, D.(2001).Husserl and Transcendental Intersubjectivity: A Response to the linguistic-pragmatic Critique.Ohio University Press.