embodiment vs. experience

A colleague last week argued that languages, rules, systems of government, social norms -- all these things are part of his embodied experience. It was convincing argument in that I realized that the term "embodied" is probably not the word I should use. This week I keep running across the term "situated experience" and have to wonder that, here too, *all experience* is situated. Likewise "lived experience" is pretty general. I have multiple lived experiences of the Revolutionary War. It took place once, rather memorably, in 3rd grade History, and every July 4th since. It's not the *same* lived experience as George Washington's, of course, but then neither is Martha Washington's, so who's "right"? This is the beautiful thing about academics. We can argue over seemingly preposterous arguments, and have wildly different concepts of the same term (and my colleague was as adamant that I had "embodiment" all wrong as I was that I had it right). Who is right? What is right? It's all a big messy mess, and (I strongly contend), that is exactly the point (or one of them).

I had a chance to see (and even "feel") embodiment from his view, and he had a chance to see it from mine. And we didn't kill each other, and we're even still talking. And I think we recognize that a difference in perspectives over something as important as embodiment isn't, in the scheme of things, all that important.

To laugh, to love, to learn -- how cool is life?