I would go further. This is not, for me, a mere matter of archaicizing
body image, but whether or not IBEs (in-the-body experiences) were
commonplace. Surveying history, not only was there little experience
of passing time even in pre-Renaissance Western Europe (much evidence of
this in medieval art, architecture, and early polyphony), the vast
majority of human beings who existed on this planet never experienced a
habitated physical body sensed as distinct from the non-body, distinct,
that is, from the other or the object. In the right circumstance, there
was no perceptual distinction makeable between my foot and your foot,
between something happening to your foot as distinct from something
happening to my foot. Your foot is my foot in immediate proprioceptive
awareness. There were right circumstances for every other imputed part of
the imputed anatomy. When translators of treatises on Chinese medicine
assume human physical body distinct from trees, streams, and winds, they
undoubtedly error greatly, for in states of identity-transparency no such
is actually registered (gardening, geomancy, chronomancy, and medicine
were actually just one thing). The notions of functional correspondences
of correspondence between a macrocosm and a microcosm MISREPRESENT the
case: the distinguished structures to which functional correspondences are
mapped are distinct identities only after the Western or modernizing
cultural fact of enculturated IBE habituation, and CORRESPOND to NOTHING
in the actual case. The not-experienced distinction has later in history
been imputed to be a correspondence.

-
... .:.:~:. :.:~ .. .:  ~: