















Abstract

This paper does not reject logical atomism. It repositions its scope. Logical atomism clarifies the logical form of propositions by analyzing complex propositions into elementary propositions and by treating compound propositions as truth-functions of their elementary components. This remains a powerful method for auditing conceptual confusion, metaphysical overextension, and unclear philosophical language. However, logical atomism becomes insufficient when it is treated as a general theory of meaning, symbolic output, and human-world relation.

The central thesis of this paper is that a proposition is not a logical atom but a late-stage symbolic output of an ecological-generative process. Before a proposition becomes available for truth-functional analysis, it has already passed through environmental difference, bodily regulation, affective orientation, affordance-formation, tool-mediated cognition, social responsiveness, ecological division of labor, institutional constraints, and cultural vocabularies. After a proposition is output, it does not remain a neutral bearer of truth-value. It may be received, institutionalized, repeated, mythologized, and returned to bodies, environments, and divisions of labor as a new condition of action.

To analyze this wider process, this paper introduces the concept of ecological generative rate. Ecological generative rate refers to the degree to which symbolic output is generated through the coupled operation of brain, body, environment, action, tools, others, ecological division of labor, and institutional conditions. Bodily generative rate is a subcomponent of this wider concept, not its total structure.

The paper further defines dialectical efficacy as the recursive efficacy through which difference-input transforms the internal state and relational configuration of a system, produces external output, alters the possibility-conditions of other agents or environments, and reorganizes the next field of generation. Dialectical efficacy is not mere feedback. It becomes philosophically significant when this recursive reorganization biases a possibility-space toward either freedom-generation or justificatory closure.

The originality of this paper lies in extending the pre-propositional insights of 5E cognition and enactivism into the post-propositional domains of institution, cultural repetition, historical sedimentation, and normative audit. Logical atomism asks how propositions are logically structured. Ecological-generative-rate audit asks how propositions are generated, how they act, how they become institutional force, and how they return to reshape the conditions under which future propositions become possible.




N.Fujie
2026.06.16






1. Introduction

Logical atomism begins from a powerful philosophical impulse: the desire to clarify propositions by reducing them to their logical structure. A proposition, on this view, is not primarily a psychological impression, cultural mood, or mystical intuition. It is something whose sense can be clarified through its relation to possible facts and whose compound structure can be analyzed through truth-functional relations.

This project remains valuable. Philosophical confusion often arises when words detach from their conditions of use and are treated as if they named hidden metaphysical entities. Logical atomism attempts to discipline language by returning propositions to their logical articulation. In this respect, it functions not only as a doctrine of logic but also as a philosophical audit of excessive speech.

Yet the central limitation of logical atomism appears when the proposition is treated as the first unit of philosophical analysis. The proposition is not first. It is late.

Before a proposition is formed, there is already environmental difference, bodily sensitivity, sensorimotor orientation, affective regulation, tool-mediated attention, social expectation, institutional risk, and cultural vocabulary. After a proposition is formed, it may enter social circulation, become coded into institutions, acquire cultural authority, and return as a condition that shapes bodies, environments, and future symbolic outputs.

The question, therefore, is not only:

What is the logical form of this proposition?

It is also:

How was this proposition generated?
Through which ecological conditions did it become sayable?
Through which institutions did it acquire force?
Whose possibility-space does it open or close?
Does it contribute to freedom-generation or justificatory closure?

This paper proposes an ecological-generative-rate re-audit of logical atomism. It preserves the value of logical analysis while refusing to reduce symbolic output to logical form alone.

2. The Validity of Logical Atomism

Logical atomism is strongest when it clarifies propositional structure. Complex propositions can be analyzed into simpler components. The truth-value of a compound proposition can be determined through the truth-values of its components and the logical operations connecting them. Negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, and equivalence make propositional structure explicit.

This function is indispensable. Without logical clarification, philosophical discourse easily collapses into affective association, rhetorical authority, moral performance, or metaphysical inflation.

Consider the proposition:

“AI scoring is neutral.”

Before this proposition can be evaluated, one must ask what counts as “AI scoring,” what “neutral” means, what kind of neutrality is being claimed, and under what conditions the proposition would be true or false. Is neutrality statistical, procedural, political, ethical, epistemic, or institutional? Is the claim that the algorithm has no intention, that the data are unbiased, that outcomes are fair, or that institutional use is justified?

Logical analysis exposes ambiguity. It prevents a single sentence from smuggling multiple claims under one surface form.

The same applies to the proposition:

“The market is natural.”

This may mean that markets emerge spontaneously, that market outcomes should be treated as morally legitimate, that state intervention is artificial, or that economic order resembles natural selection. Logical analysis forces these different claims apart.

Thus logical atomism retains a necessary role. It audits propositions by clarifying what they claim, how they are structured, and what would count as their truth or falsity.

The problem arises only when this analysis is mistaken for a complete theory of meaning, symbolic generation, and social efficacy.

3. Four Limits of Logical Atomism

Logical atomism faces four major limits.

First, the status of elementary propositions remains unstable. The claim that every meaningful proposition has a final and unique analysis into elementary propositions is extremely strong. Natural-language propositions do not terminate neatly in pure logical atoms. Their terms are entangled with bodily experience, social practice, institutional history, cultural usage, and forms of life. The closer one analyzes words such as “risk,” “freedom,” “responsibility,” “ability,” “health,” or “normality,” the less they appear as final logical units and the more they appear as historically loaded nodes of use.

Second, logical atomism tends to exclude the pre-propositional conditions of symbolic output. Even when a proposition is logically well-formed, logical form does not explain why this proposition was produced by this body, in this situation, with this vocabulary, under this institutional pressure. A proposition has logical structure, but it also has generative conditions.

Third, logical atomism tends to exclude the post-propositional efficacy of symbolic output. A proposition does not merely bear truth-value. It may function as an accusation, diagnosis, command, permission, classification, score, institutional rule, or cultural myth. Once a proposition enters a school, court, platform, market, hospital, or credit system, it may determine treatment, access, trust, punishment, visibility, and future opportunity.

Fourth, logical atomism risks narrowing the meaning of silence. The famous demand to remain silent about what cannot be spoken is powerful when directed against metaphysical overstatement. Yet not all silence is logical silence. There is also institutional silence, bodily silence, affective silence, and lexical silence. A person may not speak because the matter is logically unsayable. But a person may also not speak because of fear, exhaustion, shame, punishment, exclusion, lack of vocabulary, or lack of recognized authority.

Logical atomism primarily addresses logical silence. Audit philosophy must also address imposed silence.

4. Definition of Ecological Generative Rate

Ecological generative rate is the degree to which symbolic output is generated through the coupled operation of brain, body, environment, action, tools, others, ecological division of labor, and institutional conditions.

This concept does not reduce meaning to the body, the brain, culture, or institution. It is not a biological reductionism, a cultural relativism, or a sociological determinism. It is an audit concept for analyzing the layered conditions through which symbolic output becomes possible.

Ecological generative rate includes at least eight layers.

First, environmental difference. Symbolic output begins with difference-input: light, sound, temperature, contact, distance, danger, another person’s expression, informational pressure, institutional demand, or social expectation.

Second, biological sensitivity. Difference is received through visual, auditory, tactile, interoceptive, proprioceptive, vestibular, painful, thermal, and affective channels. Before a proposition is formed, relevance has already begun to be selected.

Third, bodily regulation. Difference modifies breathing, posture, muscular tone, autonomic activation, fatigue, arousal, and orientation. The same sentence may be output differently under fear, exhaustion, calm, excitement, isolation, or evaluative pressure.

Fourth, affordance-formation. The world appears not merely as a set of objects but as a field of possible actions: approach, avoid, speak, remain silent, resist, comply, question, apologize, record, publish, withdraw.

Fifth, tool and environmental scaffolding. Symbolic output is not produced by an isolated mind. Paper, screens, keyboards, smartphones, search engines, diagrams, architecture, notification systems, interfaces, and algorithms reorganize attention, memory, expression, and judgment.

Sixth, responsiveness to others. Speech is conditioned by the face, voice, expectation, recognition, rejection, authority, indifference, or threat of others. A proposition often emerges not from solitary cognition but from response.

Seventh, ecological division of labor. Symbolic output depends on distributed roles: teachers, translators, researchers, workers, editors, engineers, platforms, algorithms, institutions, and evaluators. A proposition becomes possible within a division of symbolic labor.

Eighth, institutional condition. Speech is constrained, rewarded, punished, amplified, archived, or suppressed by law, school, market, workplace, media, platform governance, research systems, scoring systems, and administrative procedures.

A proposition is generated through these layers. It is therefore not a pure logical atom. It is a late-stage symbolic output of an ecological-generative process.

5. Bodily Generative Rate as a Subcomponent

Bodily generative rate remains important, but it must not be mistaken for the whole structure.

Bodily generative rate refers to the degree to which symbolic output is generated through bodily regulation, affective orientation, interoception, posture, breath, tension, fatigue, pain, and affordance-formation.

For example, the sentence:

“I am fine”

may be logically simple. Yet its generative conditions may differ radically. It may be spoken from calm stability. It may be spoken to avoid punishment. It may be spoken under shame, exhaustion, social pressure, fear of burdening others, or lack of vocabulary for one’s condition. The logical surface is identical, but the generative structure is not.

Truth-functional analysis cannot capture this difference by itself. It can analyze the proposition’s form, but not the bodily and social conditions through which it was output.

However, a purely bodily account is also insufficient. Symbolic output is not generated by body alone. It is generated through body-environment coupling, tools, other agents, divisions of labor, institutions, and cultural vocabularies.

The hierarchy should therefore be stated as follows:

Bodily generative rate is a subcomponent of 5E generative rate.
5E generative rate is a subcomponent of ecological generative rate.
Ecological generative rate becomes auditable through dialectical efficacy.
Dialectical efficacy becomes normatively significant when audited by its direction toward freedom-generation or justificatory closure.

6. 5E Cognition and the Pre-Propositional Field

5E cognition refers here to embodied, embedded, enactive, extended, and ecological cognition.

Cognition is embodied because it depends on bodily structure, posture, movement, sensation, and regulation.

Cognition is embedded because it occurs within concrete environmental arrangements, not in abstract mental space.

Cognition is enactive because meaning is enacted through action rather than passively copied from an external world.

Cognition is extended because tools, inscriptions, devices, diagrams, platforms, and external media can become functional parts of cognitive activity.

Cognition is ecological because organisms operate within wider relations of other organisms, resources, spaces, climates, technologies, and institutions.

This framework strongly supports the claim that propositions are not the first units of meaning. Before a proposition appears, there is already a field of embodied, embedded, enactive, extended, and ecological orientation.

However, this paper does not simply repeat 5E cognition. Its task is different.

5E cognition explains the pre-propositional conditions of cognition and meaning. Ecological-generative-rate audit extends this analysis into the post-propositional field: social reception, institutional coding, cultural repetition, historical sedimentation, and the return of symbolic structures to bodies and environments.

The central addition is this:

A proposition is not only generated by ecological conditions.
A proposition can also become a condition that reorganizes the ecology from which future propositions are generated.

7. Enactivism and Symbolic Output

Enactivism rejects the idea that cognition is merely the internal representation of an independent external world. Meaning emerges through the active relation between organism and environment. The organism does not simply mirror the world. It enacts a meaningful world through sensorimotor engagement.

This is crucial for re-auditing logical atomism.

Logical atomism analyzes the proposition once it has already become available as a bearer of sense and truth-value. Enactivism directs attention to the pre-propositional field in which meaning is enacted before it is stated.

These two approaches need not be treated as simple opposites. Once a proposition has been formed, logical analysis remains necessary. But before a proposition is formed, enactive generation must be analyzed.

The mistake occurs when propositional analysis presents itself as a complete account of meaning. A proposition has logical form, but it is produced through embodied action, environmental engagement, tool-use, social response, and institutional constraint.

Enactivism is therefore necessary but not sufficient. It explains the action-based emergence of meaning. It does not by itself explain how symbolic outputs become institutional classifications, scoring systems, cultural myths, or historical structures that reorganize future bodies and environments.

That extension requires ecological generative rate and dialectical efficacy.

8. Ecological Division of Labor and Symbolic Generation

Ecological division of labor refers to the distributed functional arrangement through which multiple agents, organisms, tools, institutions, and environments generate conditions none of them produces alone.

In natural ecologies, plants, fungi, microbes, insects, predators, prey, decomposers, soil, water, climate, and terrain participate in distributed generative processes. Each modifies the conditions of others. Decomposition alters soil. Soil alters plant growth. Plant distribution alters animal movement. Animal movement alters seed dispersal. The system is not a collection of isolated entities but a field of distributed conditioning.

Human symbolic systems also operate through division of labor. Researchers, teachers, translators, engineers, editors, moderators, platform designers, bureaucrats, legal institutions, ranking systems, and algorithms all participate in the generation and circulation of propositions.

A proposition rarely belongs only to the individual who utters it. It is made possible by educational histories, technical infrastructures, institutional vocabularies, media channels, disciplinary norms, and evaluative mechanisms.

Therefore, to analyze a proposition, one must ask:

Which division of symbolic labor made this proposition possible?
Which institution supplied its vocabulary?
Which platform amplified it?
Which profession authorized it?
Which algorithm ranked it?
Which audience made it receivable?
Which excluded group lacked the conditions to contest it?

This is the point at which symbolic analysis becomes ecological.

9. Minimal Dialectical Efficacy in Nature

One must be careful when speaking of dialectics in nature. If one claims that nature develops concepts in the human sense, one merely projects human conceptuality onto non-human processes. This paper avoids that claim.

The claim is more limited.

There is a minimal structure in natural processes that may be called dialectical efficacy without implying conceptual self-consciousness.

Minimal dialectical efficacy in nature is the process in which a difference enters a system, alters its internal state or relational configuration, produces a response, modifies the possibility-conditions of other beings or environments, and thereby biases the next field of generation.

In compressed form:

difference
→ response
→ condition-change
→ possibility-space bias

This is not yet Hegelian conceptual dialectic. It is a minimal ecological structure of recursive generation.

The decisive term is possibility-space bias. A process becomes dialectically significant not merely because there is feedback, but because the feedback modifies what can happen next.

For example, when an organism modifies its environment, that modification may alter the survival conditions of other organisms. Those altered conditions may then affect future adaptation, relation, reproduction, or extinction. The system has not merely reacted. It has reorganized the field of possible futures.

This minimal structure allows a careful bridge between natural processes and cultural institutions without collapsing them into the same thing.

Nature does not speak in propositions.
But natural systems can reorganize possibility-spaces.
Human symbolic systems do the same through language, tools, institutions, and cultural repetition.

10. Definition of Dialectical Efficacy

Dialectical efficacy is the recursive efficacy through which difference-input transforms the internal state and relational configuration of a system, produces external output, alters the possibility-conditions of other agents or environments, and reorganizes the next field of generation.

This definition includes five conditions.

First, difference-input. Something external, resistant, discrepant, problematic, or other enters the system.

Second, internal transformation. The difference is not merely received. It is transformed through bodily regulation, affective orientation, cognition, institution, language, tool-use, or division of labor.

Third, external output. The transformed response appears as action, speech, symbolic output, institutional design, technical arrangement, cultural expression, or environmental modification.

Fourth, reaction upon the field. The output modifies other agents, environments, institutions, or relations.

Fifth, reorganization of possibility-space. The field of what can be done, said, felt, perceived, rewarded, punished, or imagined is altered.

This fifth condition distinguishes dialectical efficacy from ordinary feedback. Feedback describes regulatory adjustment. Dialectical efficacy concerns the reorganization of possibility-space.

Dialectical efficacy has at least two directions.

The first direction is freedom-generation. In this case, difference-input leads to the reorganization of subjects, institutions, relations, and divisions of labor in a way that expands action-capacity, responsibility, responsiveness to others, and creative re-entry into the world.

The second direction is justificatory closure. In this case, difference-input is absorbed in order to preserve existing power, ranking, exclusion, scoring, institutional authority, or cultural myth. The system changes only in order to justify itself.

This directional distinction is essential. Without it, dialectical efficacy becomes a vague word for change. With it, dialectical efficacy becomes an audit concept.

11. The Proposition as Late-Stage Symbolic Output

The proposition is not the beginning of meaning. It is a late-stage symbolic output.

Before a proposition is formed, there are environmental differences, biological sensitivities, bodily regulations, affordances, tools, others, institutional risks, divisions of labor, and competing conceptual candidates.

Consider the proposition:

“This is injustice.”

Its logical form may be simple. But the conditions that make this sentence possible are not simple. The speaker must have some bodily registration of disturbance, some social vocabulary of injustice, some memory of violation, some relation to others, some institutional or moral frame, and some condition under which speaking is possible.

The same situation may be described differently:

“This is injustice.”
“This is incompetence.”
“This is market selection.”
“This is self-responsibility.”
“This is natural hierarchy.”
“This is statistical risk.”

These are not merely alternative word choices. They arise from different ecological-generative conditions.

The same applies to technologically mediated propositions:

“AI scoring is neutral.”
“Data reflect reality.”
“Optimization is progress.”
“Risk prediction is responsibility.”

Such propositions are not merely logical claims. They are generated by technical infrastructures, institutional incentives, statistical vocabularies, platform governance, market interests, and cultural trust in quantification. Once accepted, they may authorize scoring systems that reorganize access, reputation, mobility, labor, and self-understanding.

A proposition is therefore both output and input.

It is output because it emerges from ecological-generative conditions.
It is input because once circulated, it becomes a new condition for future bodies, environments, institutions, and symbolic outputs.

This double status is central.

12. Institutional Coding and Cultural Repetition

A symbolic output does not end at the moment of utterance. It may be socially received, attached to a form of life, coded into institutions, repeated as culture, and sedimented as history.

A form of life includes shared practices, habits, bodily techniques, education, labor, family structures, rituals, law, money, science, religion, media, and evaluation systems. Words do not function only by dictionary definition. They function within forms of life.

Terms such as “freedom,” “responsibility,” “trust,” “ability,” “health,” “risk,” “normality,” and “success” do not have only abstract meanings. Their force depends on the institutions that use them, the treatments they justify, the bodies they affect, and the histories they repeat.

Institutional coding occurs when symbolic outputs become operational categories in law, education, employment, credit scoring, medicine, insurance, platform moderation, research assessment, state statistics, market pricing, or administrative classification.

At that point, propositions cease to be merely descriptive. They become practical operators.

“You are high-risk.”
“You are low-performing.”
“You are not qualified.”
“You are not normal.”
“You are not credible.”

These classifications may alter access to housing, employment, education, healthcare, visibility, mobility, and social trust.

Repeated institutional propositions become cultural myths.

Numbers are objective.
AI is neutral.
Markets are natural.
Growth is good.
High scores indicate merit.
Low scores indicate responsibility.
Optimization is progress.
Prediction is care.

A cultural myth is not merely a false belief. It is a proposition that has become a background condition of perception. People no longer treat it as a claim requiring justification. They use it as a frame through which the world is interpreted.

At this stage, symbolic output becomes transparent. People believe they are using language, while language is already organizing the world they perceive.

13. Historical Sedimentation and Return

Culturally repeated symbols become historically sedimented. They are taught, cited, translated, institutionalized, mediated, algorithmized, normalized, and inherited.

Sedimented symbolic structures return to bodies.

“You are not valued.”
“You are risky.”
“You are unqualified.”
“Your body is abnormal.”
“Your life is a failure.”

These sentences are not merely understood. They may alter breathing, posture, time-experience, self-relation, willingness to act, capacity to re-enter social life, and trust in future possibility.

They also return to environments.

Surveillance cameras, dashboards, ranking screens, score displays, recommendation systems, authentication gates, productivity trackers, and notification architectures reorganize the space in which bodies move. A person does not merely receive evaluation. A person begins to inhabit an evaluative environment.

They also return to divisions of labor.

Scoring systems create evaluators and evaluated subjects, data managers and data sources, algorithm designers and algorithmic objects, auditors and appealers, platform authorities and classified users. A symbolic system reorganizes social roles.

Thus the full cycle is:

ecological division of labor
→ symbolic output
→ social reception
→ institutional coding
→ cultural repetition
→ historical sedimentation
→ return to body, environment, and division of labor
→ new symbolic conditions

This cycle is the basic structure of dialectical efficacy across symbolic output and cultural institution.

14. Re-Auditing Logical Atomism

Logical atomism can now be re-audited in four points.

First, propositions are analyzable, but they are not first units. They are late-stage symbolic outputs.

Second, elementary analysis may clarify logical structure, but it does not exhaust the ecological-generative conditions of symbolic output.

Third, truth-functions clarify compound propositions, but they do not explain the bodily, environmental, tool-mediated, social, institutional, and cultural conditions through which a proposition becomes sayable.

Fourth, silence must be differentiated.

There is logical silence: what cannot be stated as a meaningful proposition should not be forced into propositional form.

There is institutional silence: what could be said is suppressed by power, punishment, exclusion, or lack of recognized authority.

There is bodily silence: what could be said is blocked by fear, exhaustion, pain, shame, dissociation, or affective overload.

There is lexical silence: what is experienced cannot yet be said because the available vocabulary does not provide a stable form for it.

Logical atomism primarily addresses logical silence. Ecological audit must also address institutional, bodily, and lexical silence.

This does not refute logical atomism. It prevents logical atomism from becoming an overgeneralized theory of all meaning.

The proper conclusion is not:

Logical analysis is false.

The proper conclusion is:

Logical analysis is necessary but incomplete. It must be situated within an ecological-generative and institutional-dialectical account of symbolic output.

15. Audit Philosophy

The object of audit philosophy is not the moral scoring of individuals. It is not a system for judging persons as ethically superior or inferior. Its object is the condition under which symbolic output is generated, received, institutionalized, repeated, and returned as a new condition of possibility.

Audit philosophy therefore asks:

From which environmental difference did this proposition arise?
Through which bodily regulation was it output?
Which tools and media made it possible?
Which others shaped its form?
Which conceptual candidates were excluded?
Which vocabulary made it sayable?
Which division of labor supported it?
Which institutional risks constrained it?
Which form of life received it?
Which reward system amplified it?
Which cultural myth did it repeat?
Which historical silence did it reactivate?
Whose possibility-space did it open?
Whose possibility-space did it close?
Did it generate freedom?
Or did it stabilize justificatory closure?

This is the transition from truth-functional audit to ecological-generative-rate audit.

Truth-functional audit asks:

What is the logical form of this proposition?

Ecological-generative-rate audit asks:

How was this proposition generated, how did it act, how was it institutionalized, and how did it return to shape future possibility?

The two forms of audit should not be opposed. Truth-functional audit without ecological audit becomes formally clear but institutionally blind. Ecological audit without truth-functional audit becomes socially expansive but logically unstable.

A mature audit philosophy requires both.

16. Conclusion

Logical atomism clarified propositions by analyzing their logical form. This remains valuable. Yet a proposition is not the first unit of meaning. It is a late-stage symbolic output generated through ecological conditions.

This paper has redefined the proposition as an output of environmental difference, biological sensitivity, bodily regulation, affordance-formation, tool-use, social responsiveness, ecological division of labor, institutional constraint, conceptual selection, and cultural vocabulary. Once output, the proposition may be received, institutionalized, repeated, sedimented, and returned to bodies, environments, and divisions of labor.

To analyze this process, the paper introduced ecological generative rate and dialectical efficacy. Ecological generative rate names the degree to which symbolic output is generated through brain, body, environment, action, tools, others, ecological division of labor, and institutional conditions. Dialectical efficacy names the recursive process through which difference-input transforms a system, produces output, modifies the field, and reorganizes the next possibility-space.

This framework allows natural processes, cognition, symbolic output, institutions, culture, and history to be connected without being collapsed into one another. Nature does not speak in propositions. But natural processes can modify possibility-spaces. Human symbolic systems do the same through language, tools, institutions, and cultural repetition.

Therefore, the ecological-generative-rate re-audit of logical atomism does not abolish logical analysis. It relocates logical analysis within a broader structure of symbolic generation and institutional return.

A proposition does not merely picture the world.
It is generated by an ecology.
It is received by a form of life.
It is coded by institutions.
It is repeated as culture.
It is sedimented as history.
It returns to bodies, environments, and divisions of labor.
It helps determine what can be said next.

For this reason, philosophy must audit not only the truth or falsity of propositions but also the conditions under which propositions become speakable, authoritative, institutional, and world-forming.

To speak clearly is not enough.
One must also ask what made speech possible.
One must ask what was rendered unspeakable.
One must ask whether silence was logical, institutional, bodily, or lexical.
One must ask whether a symbolic output expands freedom-generation or stabilizes justificatory closure.

At this point, logical atomism becomes not an enemy of audit philosophy but one layer within it. Its task is to clarify propositional form. The task of ecological-generative-rate audit is to examine the wider life of propositions: their generation, circulation, institutionalization, repetition, return, and directional effect upon possibility.

References

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, 1962.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis, 1998.

Di Paolo, Ezequiel A., Thomas Buhrmann, and Xabier E. Barandiaran. Sensorimotor Life: An Enactive Proposal. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. 1969.

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. 1807.

Hutchins, Edwin. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, 1995.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781/1787.

Laland, Kevin N., John Odling-Smee, and Marcus W. Feldman. “Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2000.

Noë, Alva. Action in Perception. MIT Press, 2004.

Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland, and Marcus W. Feldman. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press, 2003.

Russell, Bertrand. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” 1918.

Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Thompson, Evan. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press, 2007.

Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, 1991.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 1921.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 1953.


