less dourish, more embodiment

Instead of reading more of Dourish this week, I'll scour the net to come up with an answer to

"What does embodiment theory bring to the table that is unique? How does it vary from the symbolic Information Processing theories?"

But let me spout my own thoughts first. I recognize that there is an "embodiment theory" out there, and although there are arguments about it, and applications of it to different disciplines, there's a general agreement on the core tenet of Descartes' dispute against mind/body dualism. That's not much to bring to the table, in my opinion. For me, the development of meaning is key in embodiment. Embodiment is knowledge that has been mushed (altered, customized) to fit within, and mean something to the individual in the situational context of that individual (mind/body/being). It goes beyond the context of the body, and includes understanding within the context of the physical and social environments that the body operates within. Embodiment exists both within, and external to, the individual -- and this is where the concept of abstraction comes into play. For example, embodiment is partly in the feel of the steering wheel of a particular car. In a different car, one needs to relearn (or at least adjust), although our ability to abstract makes it relatively easy to do so.