At first, I believed I had learn to control the impact of my emotions on my actions and decisions, like a wall of rationality, but it turn out into apathy. I was also convince that everything is relative, like a wall of indifference, but I found out that it's only relative to me. So it's no more a question of controling my feeling or not but a question of showing it or not.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb06/naz-dow.html

1937 = 2008  ?

Ponty stress something interresting about the unifying EGO : I see is work as an attempt to unify the 3 levels of consciousness/language, I was talking about (science,creativity and phenomenology) in a framework of culture and the historic and dialectic evolution of this culture. What it mean, for me, is that the EGO, is the evolved nervous system, in interraction whit the environnement, but precisely, in interraction with our evolving culture. So we may have an account of an embodied/situated/extended/evolved cognition but we still do not have a precise account of an emb/sit/ex/ev cultural evolution. And that what I think we should head on. Think about it, the virtuous hermeneutical circle of a 1st person account of science and a 3rd person account of conscience only make sense on a framework of cultural evolution, at least on the basis of a progression of ideas/beliefs/knowledge. Conscious experience = evolved cognition + learning mecanisms + culture ?

En réponse à Matt et Charles Taylor :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttVwRLjA1Y
I agree that naturalism can be motivate by ethical motive. But this ethical sense of dignity and control that drive my naturalist tendancy, can probably also be induce by an electric stimulation on my neurons, so why not try to understand how this meaningfull ethical drive I experience is cause by my neuro-physiology ? Limiting ourselve to a "thick" or hermeneutic description of human experience means missing what are the causes underlying this meaningful experience. And that's sad (yes, science is also driven by emotion) since natural explanations can co-exist with "thick" descriptions in the framework of evolutionnary psychology. In fact, my meaningfull experience is cause by uncouscious causal mecanism that have evolve over time and none of these two are more fundamental then the other. In the other hand, mecanical models are predicting more efficiently the future, even the behavior of human or collectivity. The simple exemple of sleeping is sufficient to support the claim of the incompleteness of folk-psychology or "thick" description. So it’s probable that naturalism is driven by ethical or emotive consideration, but these considerations are cause by the mecanism of my neural system.