On Body

What is a Body? From what is commonly accepted idea of body, a body is something that
acquires dimension, symmetry, color, substance, quantity, quality etc. However, there are
plenty of bodies but the one that I have to elaborate further for explanation—is my own
body. Ever since, my understanding of a body is my body. The body that I am talking about
is this ‘body’ that is sitting in front of this computer encoding. In visayan term “Lawas”.
It has hands, feet, hair, eyes, nose, color, penis, heart, brain, blood, everything that is in this
body that is sitting in front of this computer—is what I called a body or my body. This body
surely had grown because it is a fact that when I was born I am still a baby and so my body
though I am not yet aware of it is still small. But as I grow up this body also changed
because it grow up also but it is the same body for sure. My body as I look at it has a brown
complexion. It moves different action such as: walking, jumping, lying down, standing,
leaning, can roll in the ground etc. It can be cut also and when some parts of it are cut a
blood would come out. My body inside has a heart, a blood, intestine, veins etc. Inside my
head or in my skull there is the brain that does the thinking. But despite of the complexity
inside my body I am only a one body. Everything inside thisbody that is sitting and
encoding in front of this computer is surely inside this body that is sitting and encoding. For
I cannot say that, the heart is outside of this body that is sitting. The only thing that can be
seen outside thisbody is the color, the eyes, hair, penis, the hair, of my body, the
symmetry the hands, the feet, nails etc. But these parts, which are located inside my body
cannot be seen by me. But of course, when I die and when my body is taken by any student
to study the parts inside my body they can see. Nevertheless, though I cannot see what is
really is inside my body right now, I can infer that the heart, brain, intestine is really inside
my body. For if I have no heart and no brain, or intestine or everything that is inside my
body right now then I am not here anymore. Therefore, there is no need for me to open the
skin of my body (besides it would kill me) simply to know whether I have a heart, intestine
or brain. So right now, inside this body the blood is circulating, the heart is beating, the brain
is thinking everything inside my body is functioning. Although some parts inside my body
are already damage but still the major system inside my body is still functioning. But there is
one thing that struck me. For as I describe my body, the only way that I can do is to use
language. I used words and rules of grammars in building parts of sentences. Such as this
one that I am writing about my body. Thus, I can say that my body is only a word. What is
this? Yes! I am only a word. For example, when I say that my body is sitting in front of this
computer, this means that this body is only a word. Is there any means that I can describe
my body by not using words? How can this be possible? However, if I do not encode but
simply to look at my body, I can say that there is really a body—my body. But what does it
mean, when I say that I have seen my body? That my eyes, had seen my body? When I vow
my head a little, I can see my stomach, the feet, my hands. Ah! Here lies the dilemma. When
I start to write or define my body using words, all these words composed of letters is not
really my body. There is no idea, for it is also a word. There is only text and nothing else.
There is still a problem. Even if I do not think, or encode, I still have to use words. But what
about this body that is sitting in front of this computer? This has been already accepted, that
there is really a body that is sitting in front of this computer—my body, but the problem is
that I have to use words, grammar. Is there really a problem here? There is a problem
because I said that my body that is sitting in front of this computer is only a word. Now, can
I simply accept that my body is only a word or only a text?
Do I have really a body? Because if I have a body then how come that I was able to say that
I have a body? For this body that I am talking about is this body, this letter b, o, d, y
therefore this body that I am talking about is a concept. But is this acceptable to say that this
body that is sitting in front of this computer having hands, feet is simply an idea, a concept?
This word body is what I have learned from education. That this body that is sitting in front
of this computer is what they have called a body, therefore I called it also a body. If
someone would ask where is my body, my reply would be—this body that is sitting in front
of this computer is my body or lawas.

My body is sitting and is wearing a brown t-shirt. This is my body. However, how is it
possible that I was able to say that I have a body? The fact that every time I try to define it, I
use words and the rules of grammar. For example, when I say, “I have a body and it is
sitting in front of this computer and it is wearing black pants and brown t-shirt”; does this
mean that I am talking to my body?

When I say “my body” it means that there is a non-body who claim that it has a body.

The only problem that I encounter every time I try to define my body is that the definition is
a concept and because it is a concept then it is an idea. Furthermore, if my body is an idea
then it is not composed of matter because ideas are incorporeal. But is there really a
‘something’ that is not an idea? If there is ‘something’ that is not an idea or a concept, then
it cannot be known because to know or to infer or to have knowledge is to have a concept.
Besides, knowing is ideas. But I know my body because I can feel my body, I can touch my
own body, I can see my own body, I can taste my own body etc. Thus, what is it more that I
want in knowing my body?

Having a body is not a problem because I am sure that this something that I called body that
is sitting in front of this computer is a body and it is my body. Now there is a problem here
because even if I do not write or think or if I just simply be aware of my body I always use
words and the rules of grammar. This means that language is indispensable and inseparable
when someone would try to know something. For example, I do not write or encode and I
just have to be aware of my body, even with this I still have to use words. Is this one that is
sitting in front of this computer on which I called my body, is the same with this word
‘body’ that appears into this screen?

But am I just fooling myself here? The fact that this body that is sitting in front of this
computer is indubitably as my body, then there is no need for me to ask whether I have a
body or none. There is really my body, and this is infallible, but the question is what kind or
what is that body that I am talking about. My body if you are asking me on what kind is it, is
that my body is composed of hands, feet, the skin, the head, the hair, and all the organs that
is inside of it—the heart, brain, intestine, everything that is inside of this body of mine. This
is what I call my body. Now is there still a problem here?

Of course I have to use words and the rules of grammar because if I will not speak nor use
words, I cannot be understood. I cannot even understand myself if language has not been
discovered and used. But if I really wanted to know that body that is apart from language or
the words body then that is nonsense. There is no body that is apart or absolutely
‘independent’ from language. So do I mean that my body is composed of words such as
these letters b,o,d,y? The pronunciation, the way I utter such words is my body? It is my
mind that cannot just accept that there is really no thing apart from language. If there is
really a body that is independent of this word body, then that body cannot be known because
to be known means to be understood. And how can a something independent from language
be known?

So do I mean to say that everything cannot be separated from words of language? That when
I say this book that I am holding, there is really no book that is independent of this word
book? But because book is a general term. For example I would be concrete and say that this
book that I am holding has 100 pages, and has a color blue. The author of it is Hospers, and
it is entitled “Philosophical Analysis” does it mean that there is really no book apart from
this definition?

If I just look at this something that I called a book, there is just an ‘is’ but the moment I try
to define it then the succeeding definition does not prove that there is really a book that is
independent from its definition.

However, there is ‘something’ that is happening as I encode and is sitting in front of this
computer. As far as my knowledge is concerned, I know that this something that is sitting in
front of this computer encoding about ‘body’, is no other than my own body. And so, this
means that I am not alone a body and some would say that aside with my body there is a
non-body and it is called a soul, ego, consciousness, the ‘I”. But what is really that I wanted
to know? I know that I have a body, in fact I called one of my co-employee and ask her if
she had seen my body (she laugh thinking that I am crazy) and she said that I had a body and
she had seen it. The problem only arises on the moment I define and wants to know because
I have to use words, language, in order for me to say or judge that I have really a body. And
as far as I know, words are concepts, symbols, therefore the ‘body’ that I am talking about is
only a concept, a symbol a words! But it’s as if there is ‘something’ that lurks behind
this word ‘body’. And, no matter what I try to do, this ‘something’ in itself cannot be
known because I used words to describe it. The only thing, answers, that I can have is the
words, the definition that concepts about this ‘something’. But what if there is really no
‘something’? Why would I still try to think that there is still ‘something’ that is totally
independent of its words and definitions? For instance, about my body which I described as
having feet, hands, head, internal organs, color, hair, eyes, nose if based on the above
contention would it mean that there is really nothing that is the whole of all this parts which
is my ‘body’? If there is no ‘body’ in itself, then how come that there are ‘definitions’? I
mean where does this ‘definitions’ about my body come from? I am talking about ‘my body’
of which if someone would ask me what I am talking about ‘my body’ the only answer that I
can offer is that ‘my body’ is ‘this body that is sitting in front of this computer encoding’.
And, if you want some details, then I would answer that ‘my body’ that is sitting in front of
this computer is composed of hands, feet, head, internal organs, skin, penis, hair, eyes, nose,
teeth, nails, tongue, anus, etc. All these ‘definitions’ that I am offering is now known as ‘my
body’. Well, if you are asking about ‘my body’ there is really a ‘my body’. And you ask,
where? ‘This’ ‘body’ that is sitting in front of this computer would be my answer. But you
would still insist but you are too abstract, I want some definitions. Then here comes now my
‘definitions’, details, of ‘this’ ‘body’ that is sitting in front of this computer. It really
depends on you on what perspective of question that you want to raise. The ‘definitions’ and
the ‘body’ are not supposed to be think of as two separate entities. The ‘definitions’ and the
‘body’ is only one. It is like the ‘parts’ if not a separate from its ‘whole’. For if there is a
‘part’ that is totally separate and distinct from the ‘whole’, then it would mean to say that
my hands, feet, internal organs, head, hair, anus, eyes, teeth, tongue and all its parts of my
body is not anymore ‘my body’ which is absurd.