Mind, Body and Spirit: Factions Or A Unified Whole?

[OnlyAnEgg]

My personal belief is that the three are mostly disparate from each other. Logic, emotion and biology bicker for control. My spirituality has led me to not disbelieve this; but, rather, come to understand that the three can be unified and work together as a whole.

Truthfully, right now, my spirit is leagues beyond the other two...well, mind is really a closer second than I let on; however, a unified group is forthcoming.

How do you see these parts of your existance? Do they take turns in your life or are you trying to combine them? How are you doing either?

 

[stickarts]

My goal is to try and reach my full potential as a human being and i think that acheiving a balance between mind body and spirit is key in acheiving this and being happy. I have noticed that whenever I have let one area in my life slip that I am out of balance and not as happy as i could be.
I try and achieve balance by taking some time every day exercising, learning something new or becoming better at something, spending time with family or friends, and doing something to help others.
I think they work as a unified whole although the spirit can help take over when the others begin to fail.
Interesting thread! I think just defining the spirit can be discussion in and of itself!

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Interesting thread! I think just defining the spirit can be discussion in and of itself!

I would support that thread, were we only spirit. I don't think one aspect can be discussed without the other two being present, though.

 

[stickarts]

I would support that thread, were we only spirit. I don't think one aspect can be discussed without the other two being present, though.

Sorry if I miscommunicated! I was not suggesting to start another thread. I am just interested in also seeing how others define spirit along with their description of how they view all three's relationship to one another. Spririt can mean different things to different people for example, is it feeling part of a greater whole? Or to some it may mean a connectedness. Many times in our classes people refer to spirit simply as perseverence to succeed or overcome.
I think the thread is great as is and look forward to viewing further responses!

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Ok...enough of the apologies! I didn't mean it like that

Spririt can mean different things to different people for example, is it feeling part of a greater whole? Or to some it may mean a connectedness. Many times in our classes people refer to spirit simply as perseverence to succeed or overcome.

It's all that and more, I believe. It will be interesting, indeed, to see some reponses.

 

[heretic888]

I don't say this to come across as dismissive, but....

It really does depend on your personal definition for "mind", "body", and "spirit" to begin with. The same words can mean different things to different people, and these meanings are not intrinsically self-evident.

As a generalization, however, I would point to philosopher Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology for a cogent argument on the mind/body "problem". In his view, the situation can be viewed in essentially two different ways:

1) "Mind" refers to our interiority or subjective experiences, made up fundamentally of qualia. "Body" refers to our exteriority or objective experiences, made up fundamentally of quantifiables. In this context, "mind" and "body" are two different (but interdependent) domains.

2) "Mind" refers to the rational-perspectival level of our subjective being, associated with rational thought and Piaget's formal-operational stage of cognition. "Body" refers to pre-formal stages of cognitive operation (such as Piaget's sensorimotor stage) and, as such, is also a subjective level. In this context, "mind" and "body" are two different levels or stages of a single domain.

When most people experience their "mind" fighting their "body", they have the second sense in mind. They don't actually mean that their emotions are fighting their limbic system, or that their logic is fighting their frontal lobe. What they generally mean is that a higher, more rational level of thinking is fighting a lower, more narcissistic level of thinking. To use psychoanalytic terminology, we might say the ego is fighting the id.

In Wilber's system, "mind" and "body" (in the second sense) are finally "unified" or "integrated" at the stage of development he calls "centauric", or mature vision-logic or network-logic. This is correlated with Abraham Maslow's self-actualization needs and with Jane Loevinger's autonomous and integrated stages of personality development.

However, I should point out that what most people think mind-body "unification" or "integration" is is most often some form of pre-differentiated narcissistic regression. Regression seems to be far more commonplace than genuine transcendence, especially here in the United States. Furthermore, this regression/transcendence polarity doesn't just happen once, but can occur multiple times across several domains of development (cognitive, affective, moral, interpersonal, kinesthetic, etc).

In summation, it's a pretty complicated picture.

Laterz.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I done been smote.

Always enlightening to read your perspectives, heretic. I am in no position to gainsay your points and so I won't.

Yes...it is fairly complicated and, at many levels, already integrated. Biological urges modify our logical processes causing us to chase the opposite gender with abandon and emotions can cause us to wet ourselves.

However, in a simpler view, I define mind as our logical tendancies: the personalities, agents and sub-routines that move us through the sequence of daily events in a rational fashion; eg, feeding the dog, driving the car, wiping the bottom. Spirit, I choose to define as the emotional context of existance: desire, loneliness and worship (or the desire not to) and body is the sloppy chemistry set of the physicality: sex drive, nourishment and elimination.

How these integrate or not is the thrust of the topic. The various and sundry definitions of the three is a pleasant diversion; but, not really topical.

egg

 

[heretic888]

I done been smote.

Always enlightening to read your perspectives, heretic. I am in no position to gainsay your points and so I won't.

Much thanks for the kind words.

Yes...it is fairly complicated and, at many levels, already integrated. Biological urges modify our logical processes causing us to chase the opposite gender with abandon and emotions can cause us to wet ourselves.

However, in a simpler view, I define mind as our logical tendancies: the personalities, agents and sub-routines that move us through the sequence of daily events in a rational fashion; eg, feeding the dog, driving the car, wiping the bottom.

In this context, I would say your explanation is more or less synonymous with the second definition I offered in my original post: "mind" and "body" are different levels of subjectivity or thinking. To put it simply, "instincts" versus "formal logic".

Spirit, I choose to define as the emotional context of existance: desire, loneliness and worship (or the desire not to) and body is the sloppy chemistry set of the physicality: sex drive, nourishment and elimination.

In this context, it sounds like you are defining "spirit" and "body" more along the lines of the first definition I described in my original post: as entirely different domains.

How these integrate or not is the thrust of the topic. The various and sundry definitions of the three is a pleasant diversion; but, not really topical.

The single, best, most effective, and most scientifically-documented way of encouraging "transcendence" and "integration" (as measured on Jane Loevinger's personality development scale) is, to put it simply, meditation.

This doesn't necessarily have to be Buddhist meditation, mind you. Christian contemplative prayer, Sufi mystical practice, or Jewish Kabbalah would all probably work just as well. But, whatever its form, meditation seems to be the single best technology we have for "integration".

If you'd like, I could cite some of the studies that have documented this.

A secondary practice would be something along the lines of jnana yoga --- actively using the mind to transcend the mind. This means constantly reading, studying, and attempting to think about materials that are "beyond your level", so to speak, so that you are gradually encouraged to adapt yourself to that level. In other words, if you want to start thinking in an "integrated" way, then start reading "integrated" works (this is usually philosophy texts, of which I would recommend Wilber, Habermas, Hegel, Whitehead, and James).

A third practice would be the Integral Transformative Practice (ITP) that Wilber has outlined in some of his books. The basic idea here is to "exercise" several levels of being at the same time so as to promote a sort of overall "synergy" among all the levels. On the physical level, this could mean things like healthy dieting, weightlifting, or cardiovascular workouts. On the pranic level, this could mean various types of bodywork, bioenergy feedback, qi gong, and so on. On the rational level, this could mean studying "integral" texts, participating in postconventional moral practice (i.e., getting involved in community work or local politics), furthering your education, and so on. On the transrational level, this could mean meditative or contemplative practices of various kinds.

If you were to just stick with one of the above, my best bet would be meditation. But, if preferable, I think the ITP is the healthiest way of approaching transcendence.

Mind you, that's all just my opinion.

Laterz.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Personally, as an attempt at growth-oriented, rather than regressive, integration, I employ contemplative prayer and the more demonstrative Pentacostal worship. For my life, after all the reading and searching I have completed, it is most suited for my temprament and beliefs. I have no doubt that there are other paths; mine is just one that I feel is right. And that's a spiritual perception that resonates through the other two aspects.

In this context, I would say your explanation is more or less synonymous with the second definition...To put it simply, "instincts" versus "formal logic".

I don't see where I necessarily defined 'body' in this context, which is where I would place the concept of 'instincts'.

In this context, it sounds like you are defining "spirit" and "body" more along the lines of the first definition I described in my original post: as entirely different domains.

Which I feel they are. For the purposes of the topic, I'm suggesting that the three are distinct with, if you allow, their own agendas.