Common use of Defining body Clause in Contracts

Defining body. As a preliminary step, it is necessary to establish how the key term, body, is used by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The Theology of the Body does not give a simple definition. In the most reliable, academically-annotated edition of the work, editor ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ lists in the index four headings for body; each with multiple sub-headings. The first entry deals with ‘fundamental concepts.’ These are: that the person is embodied, meaning that the body is not something persons have but what they are; that generically, a human is a body, and is one among other bodies; that the body ‘determines man’s ontological subjectivity and participates in the dignity of the person’; that the body expresses the person, and in that sense, the person is the body. This understanding of the body was found by 2 From”Church,” (l.5-6), in ▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, The Biplane Houses : Poems (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 2006), 67. 3 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇, Man and Woman He Created Them : A Theology of the Body, trans. and ed. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Boston, MA: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Books & Media, 2006). See index: Body 1. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ to be revealed in scripture. The content of that scriptural revelation is that the body has a ‘spousal meaning.’ In ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ words, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ sees his task in writing a theology of the body to ‘unfold and explain’ the scriptural revelation of the body, ‘helped by reflecting upon human experience.’ In carrying out this task, the ▇▇▇▇ has two broad foci: the meaning of the body (listed as the second of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ index entries for body), and the experience of the body (the third of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ entries). This latter ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ refers to as ‘(re-) reading the meaning of the body.’ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s interest is the body in its natural state which functions as a sign. This natural body has objective meanings, against which any cultural construal can be measured. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’s theology of the body does not subscribe to a notion of the body as being a socially-constructed entity with variable meanings. He does recognise how prevailing cultural norms can claim to change – he would say, falsify - the body’s meanings. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ recognises how social paradigms, within which bodies are situated, shape attitudes to the body, which in turn shape ethical codes pertaining to how persons are treated. The motivation for his work was to repudiate just such social attitudes that he saw as damaging to persons through their misrepresentation of the body’s meaning.