Deep Breathing

How do you understand meaningful social actions? Based on our discussions so far (from Social Reality to Institutional Knowledge to Reflexivity to Self is not Substantial ), it seems to me that there must be the more meaningful social actions than the so-called conventional social actions that can be seen everywhere in the world and mostly ideologically, ethno-religiously or materialistically involved. As we have seen, usually people tend to see the society as what is given and placed in front of them. Social actions always contain the certain intentions to change the society based on what the people believe to be better. Such intention is meaningful and must be one of the important steps to prepare the basis of civil society. In civil society everyone has a sort of public awareness that he or she has to be the member of the society; and that the conditions of the society are depending on the participation and the commitment of each member. But in this process what we have to notice

If the self does not have substance, is it possible to assert autonomy and responsibility, free will and intentionality? To discuss this question, just as Searle pointed out in his book, Mind, Language, and Society , we have to re-think of the so-called mind/body problem. The problem is the ever-discussed issues throughout the history of Western philosophy such as whether or not mind is substantial; whether or not mind can be reduced into the physiological substances, etc. and if these binary questions – which side we should rely on so as to understand the core of our existence and the world where we live. And in such dichotomy between mind and body, we have to face a kind of dilemma: If mind is the core of our existence and its reality is internally rested and cannot be tangible, then our true existence is a kind of spiritual or epiphenomenal and our bodily dimension is just what should be ignored. Or on the other side, if body is the basis of our core existence, then it is inevitable

Probably animals may also have their own internal domains to some extent. Animals can imagine what they see and perceive. Otherwise, we cannot say that they also communicate each other by using some kind of primitive sign language. Even bees can communicate one another. One bee that can find the location of the flowers can tell the other bees in their nest by using a certain communicative tool called "dancing." This dancing has been highly systematized, so that the other bees can locate the subtle difference on how the particular flowers can be approached. While it is quite systematized, however, this tool is too mechanical to use some other purpose such as, for example, expressing the feeling of bees, etc. Some particular behaviors in any insects and animals can be considered as the moves of their courtship. But, such moves are too mechanical to allow the variations of their own interpretations. These communicative tools can be used as signs, but never be used as symbols. Wh

Are the concepts of agentive function, constitutive and regulative rules, and collective intentionality able to explain all institutional facts? To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the definition of each term. In this case the term we have to focus on is "institutional facts." Just like "social reality," these facts cannot exist without any human interactions. As the term itself indicates, these are the facts that can be recognized in a particular institutional set up. This means that the facts that only the members of this particular institution or institutional community can understand and shared together within their community. These are the facts that are based on the "human agreement." And those "humans" are the members of the community. One of the typical examples is the fact showed as monetary reality. For, the function and the value of money heavily rely on the "institutional fact" supported mainly by the "c

How are we able to constitute social reality? To answer this question, first we have to clarify the definition of social reality. What is "social reality"? While we can list up a number of explanations to define this term, starting from a general definition, the answer would be that "social reality" means that each member of the society share their experiences together. It is a kind of collective experiences among the members of the society. "Reality" is that which we experience and if such "reality" can be shared among each member of the society, this is called "social reality." To make it more precise, when we can say that "reality" is that which we experience, another question is inevitable, that is to say, what is "experience"? When I have my own experience and my experience can be also considered as "our experience," what is the factor that such single experience makes the collective experience? If we