This book wants to make the case for the creation of a systematic philosophical framework called "somaesthetics", which Shusterman defines as "the critical meliorative study of one's experience and use of one's body as a locus of sensory aesthetic appreciation (aesthesis) and creative self-fashioning." His main concern seems to be about philosophers as such. Persons who pursue that activity traditionally disregard the body as a subject for reflection, and S wants to correct that bias.Therefore he has made a commentary on the "somatic theorizing" of six major western philosophers of the twentieth century (extending back into the late nineteenth century for William James): Michel Foucault, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Simone de Beauvoir, Ludwig Wittgenstein, James, and John Dewey. He has chosen his subjects for their general eminence and the fact that they represent six different "schools" of twentieth century philosophy.So he finds that all six subject do engage in somatic theorizing, some much more than others (e.g., James much more than Wittgenstein), and that none of this eminent theorizing is sufficient to ground a viable "somaesthetics".So, he has made two points: (1) eminent philosophers do engage in somatic theorizing, and (2) there is at this time no philosopher who has provided a systematic framework for this critical meliorative study of the body.So he concludes that philosophy still has work to do on this project. There are indeed efforts towards that end, but no dominant model, and so "our toolbox of somatic disciplines must be pluralistic." He makes a kind of excuse for the failure of philosophers to construct a somaesthetics by observing, "We can't reflect on everything..." and that raises an important issue.None of the six philosophers Shusterman studies had access to a particular area of information about the body that we now know to be absolutely critical for understanding how we human beings form thoughts and behavior. That area we might call "deep biochemistry".Deep biochemistry includes somatic elements such as neuroprocessors and hormones, the effects of stress (especially early childhood stress), triggering trauma imprints, medical pharmaceuticals. (the most used antidepressants are selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, i.e., they regulate bodily chemicals), cross-cultural pharmaceuticals (e.g., peyote and mushrooms). It also includes the varieties of "mindfulness", since mindfulness itself is simply the entry into the ante-chamber of non-conscious psychosomatic processes, and leaves significant choices to be made. For example, scientology and psychoanalysis are radically different in their methods of introspection; yoga's ultimate conclusion is that the body is illusory; there are a least three radically different forms of religions meditation: Hindu concentration, Buddhist vipassana, and Christian use of texts and images; and there is a form of somatic introspection recently developed as psychotherapy by Hakomi ("inner body sensing") and The Focusing Institute (Gendlin--"the felt sense").Deep biochemistry probably starts with Abram Kardiner's study of "combat neurosis" during World War I, and developes slowly throughout the course of the twentieth century. PTSD is only medically recognized in 1981, and the work on the actual biochemical functioning of trauma is still in progress.The study of deep biochemistry has revealed to us the phenomenon of "dissociation", a disorganization of thought and behavior due to long-lasting alterations in the regulation of endogenous opioids (endorphins) by the overwhelm of the body's natural survival mechanisms.How important is the discovery of dissociation? Well, just consider the fact that the Taliban on the one hand and suicide bombers on the other are classic cases of it. One absolutely has to be "out of one's body" to adopt the practices they use.So it seems that a somaesthetic agenda that includes the study of deep biochemistry would indeed be a valuable addition to contemporary philosophy.