Talk:Bodymind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I removed the following text, which needs to be cleaned up and made neutral before being re-added to the article:

The seperation of the mind from the body is of relatively recent origin.
From earliest times, certainly from the time of Hippocrates (460 BC.-380 BC.) the body and the mind were regarded as a unity, the mind was as healthy as the body, the body as healthy as the mind.
Right through medieval times and as illustrated in the teachings of Hildegard of Bingen in the 11th. centuary, the unity appeared inseperable.
Not until René Descartres (1596-1650) did this change who preached the dualism of mind and body do we have this legacy of the split between both, which fundamentally influenced the course of traditional school medicine and psychology each working parallel and seperate from one another.
Only since the middle of the last 20th. centuary do the many new fields around alternative and complimentary medicine, Humanistic psychology and Body Psychotherapy recognise and work with the inseperable unity of the "Body-Mind".

--goethean ॐ 19:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I almost deleted this article.

This article needs a ton of work. It is very unclear what this article is about.

The term seems to be of relatively no use, including by those cited in the article. I never came across this word in any of my 4 years of college philosophy, including reading works by a few of the authors listed here. Moreover, the word was not found on the articles for: Spencer-Hughes, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Frankl, Gunther, or Namarupa. The word was found on the Benson article, but the entry only parroted the benson mention on this article and was also NOT found in the article for his biomedical model. I am not suggesting that inserting this word into said articles would rememedy the problem, but that if these authors contributed to a concept of "bodymind," their contributions would have been mentioned in their respective articles.

The word was also not found in any of the cited articles.

The only cited author that could be related to the word "bodymind" was Money. Rounding down, That's 1 out of 8 reviewable citations that even mentions the word that is the topic of the article.

Googling "bodymind" turns up only 207,000 hits. Browsing these hits reveals the term to be used primarily as a new agey buzz word. This is further supported by the text of the original stub of the article, which deviates significantly from the current text:

"In Eastern philosophy or Transcendentalism philosophy, the body-mind is the (usually illusory or superficial) individual (as opposed to the universal, eternal awareness)."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodymind

It appears to me that this article is currently a coagulation of original research on the topic of the Mind body problem, framed in the context of an invented new agey buzzword that suits the purpose of the authors.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that I'm not. I feel that the energies being used to write this article would be better spent expanding the mind-bod problem article.

Consider a merge, or a significant rewrite to get this article to reflect the ACTUAL meaning/usage of the word. At the least, don't put "bodymind" in the mouths of people who never said it.--Shaggorama (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From a search of google books and scholar, it seems that the concept is a real one, although it seems to be more commonly discussed in psychology, nursing, business, "new-agey" circles than by philosophers. The call for a rewrite to ensure that the information in the article relates to bodymind seems justified. Anarchia (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Philosophical Conceptions of "The Bodymind"

This idea does have precedent in philosophy. It was very popular in the phenomenology movement, but was never specifically referred to as a "Bodymind." Edith Stein, Emmanuel Levinas, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty echoed Edmund Husserl's idea of the "Living Body." They were very influential in Germany and especially France, where they were seen as engaging with Descartes. Many of their ideas have been ignored in other countries, however, which explains why many people here are unfamiliar with this idea.

"A living body [Leib] only percieved outwardly would always be only a particularly disposed, actually unique, physical body, but never 'my living body.'

Now let us observe how this new category of givenness occurs. As an instance of the supreme category of 'experience,' sensations are among the real constituents of consciousness, of this domain impossible to cancel. The sensation of pressure or pain or cold is just as absolutely given as the experience of judging, willing, perceiving, etc. Yet, in contrast with these acts, sensation is peculiarly characterized. It does not issue from the pure "I" as they do, and it never takes on the form of the "cogito" in which the 'I' turns toward an object. Since sensation is always spatially localized 'somewhere' at a distance from the 'I' (perhaps very near to it but never in it), I can never find the 'I' in it by reflection. And this somewhere is not an empty point in space but something filling up space. All these entities from which my sensations arise are amalgamated into a unity, the unity of my living body, and they are themselves places in the living body." Stein, Edith, On The Problem of Empathy, P. 39 -40.

Personally, I think the word "mindbody" is a crappy descriptor someone came up with while foggily trying to recall the idea of "living body" Perhaps someone got the idea from German and put it into French, then tried to translate that word into English. Either way, a lot has been lost due to memory and translation.

Maybe we should put all of this in a new article for "Living Body" or "Leib," or simply rename this article.

75.68.162.162 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, about this term's use in science: the Phenomenologists, especially Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl were THE originators of Psychiatry, psychology, and the study of the mind. Many early Psychologists and psychiatrists such as Freud, Carl Stumpf, Karl Jung, and Jacques Lacan were influenced by their ideas. You guys need to go back to the ORIGINATORS of the idea, then the article will be informative and not sound like it was just invented.

75.68.162.162 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)



[edit] If you are not engaged in bodywork you will never understand if you spend your entire life researching

Delete the article or improve it: I am wedded to neither determination. Scholarship conceals as much as it reveals. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My time would not be well spent editing the Mind body problem as there is no problem in either the body nor the mind. Moreover, mind and body, bodymind is a continuüm, a field of consciousness. The very Cartesian construction of "mind" and "body" is what requires justification by citation.
What makes a wall: bricks or mortar? (NB: or the patterning of their construction, or the energy of the tradespeople, or the vision from which they spring, etc...be sure of the foundations of your understanding before you wield terminology around as solid, meaningful entities. Just because it has been done for aeons of scholarship is no justification to continue misinformation!)
Blessings in blood
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The vision and tenure of this article isn't just the English rendering of the term "bodymind", it is a rubric for a discussion of the entire history and developmental nature of the implied semantic field and the cross-cultural cognates that are congruent with this sentiment and the semiotic correspondences throughought the non-human and Human Condition.
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: proposed deletion

Bodymind is a key concept in Dharmic Traditions and is employed throughout Bodywork and Martial Art disciplines. Orthographies differ but the concept is key. Bodymind (Sanskrit: Namarupa) is most definitely encyclopaedic according to Wikipedia criteria. The Cartesian Dualism is what should be justified in the light of modern Medicine & Science.
Ā
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nāmarūpa

[edit] nāmarūpa

The term nāmarūpa is also used in Hindu thought, nāma describing the spiritual or essential properties of an object or being, and rūpa the physical presence that it manifests. These terms are used similarly to the way that 'essence' and 'accidence' are used in Catholic theology to describe transubstantiation. The distinction between nāma and rūpa in Hindu thought explains the ability of spiritual powers to manifest through inadequate or inanimate vessels - as observed in possession and oracular phenomena, as well as in the presence of the divine in images that are worshiped through pūja. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Macey, Joanna (1991). World as Lover World as Self, Parallax Press, Berkeley. ISBN 0-938077-27-9
Refer [1]
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] aphilo

In science, the bodymind is a fact (cf. John Money, Herbert Benson, etc.). Each of these researchers does medical research on some aspect of 'bodymind.' Nancy Scheper Hughes touches on aspects of this, as well. I suggest we rewrite the Scheper-Hughes entry to emphasize its signficance for science.

'Bodymind' is also a central textual fact in meditation traditions, but where science plays less of a significant role.

To avoid the synthesis criterion of wikipedia entries, I suggest separating these two facts, and editing the text to meet these criteria.

It might make sense to create a bodymind entry in the philosophy wiki as well, but retain 'bodymind' in wikipedia. I've certainly come back to this entry for more information over time, and found it relevant and useful.

These wikipedia entries are important beginnings, and are useful starting points to build on. Let's edit it, not delete it. I'll start the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphilo (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04

Then do it. I'd like to see some improvement to the article before the prod tag is removed. =Axlq (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)