I wonder whether there is nothing at all derived from the body that has any meaning. Take suffering. Is it perhaps through my own corporeal experience of suffering that I can identify its wrongness - and then feel sympathy for others in pain? If so, the body might provide a better perspective on good and evil than the mind. The mind, you write, is "uncaring and insensitive." In that case, perhaps the correct moral insights require the body as much as they require the mind - or even more.
Or is this what the author means by the final peace that can be achieved between mind and body?
What you say is correct, but only because our bodies often have more effect on us than our minds.
If the mind were fully developed, it would reason that whatever deficiency the suffering is a signal of - is wrong, even without the subjective feeling of suffering, which makes the suffering ultimately useful as only a signal, no more.
It is worth noting that we are in fact bodies, and we can't escape that. This essay is a thought experiment in perspective, designed to allow us moments, hopefully frequent and powerful, of true mindfulness.
"Weaken the mind-body connection, even sever it! When you experience a sensation, remind yourself that it means nothing."
It is important to distinguish sensation within the modality of self-centered homeostasis (self-other, with the self being the intellect and other being the body) and sensation within the modality of interpersonal dialogue (with the self being the individual, and the other being the counterparty in dialogue). There are several routes to achieve connection with the "infinite other" and thereby transcend physicality, living on an endless plain of intellect. The most common one we experience is the self-other connection of interpersonal communication. Much like the mitzvah of tzitzis, with the kavana of the t'cheiles-kisei hakava meditation, through connection with others, we can engage in a relational experience with the infinite other itself through recognition of the chelek hashem expressed through others. It is this communion (in our caste of "m'daber") that sets us apart from the universe and allows us to experience the divine connection. Recognition of the other is an unnatural and highly intellectual pursuit, but it also sets us apart through Dibbur. Through the empowerment of the self (b'shvili nivra), we gain a clearer sense of our self and our ability to make conscious choices of how we want to engage in the dialogue with the other. Once we attain clarity, we enter into a state of empathy by becoming more open to others in recognition of their unique self. Recognition of others must be based on empowerment in that communicants must be confident in their freedom to make decisions regarding the course of the dialogue. Communication between the self and the self creates agency and empowerment, and communication between the self and the other- creating empathy and recognition, requires a strong mind-body connection. In interpersonal dialogue (Dibbur), the body and the mind think and communicate together. This goes beyond physical gestures and using the mouth to articulate sounds. Neuroscience points to "mirror neurons" in the prefrontal area of the brain as the foundation for our capacity to achieve empathy by feeling what the other feels. Although the extent of their importance within the context of language processing and empathy is debated in scientific research, it is a fact that dialogue and empathic capacity is limited in the absence of these neurons. More importantly, while engaging in dialogue, one must integrate his and the "other"s emotion and physicological response within the interpersonal dialogue itself. Dibbur is as much a physiological dialogue as it is a verbal dialogue. Dvarim shebileiv are not dvarim until they exist in expression. To properly recognize self, achieve empowerment, and recognize other, one must incorporate the body's cues and physiological response into its empathic vocabulary. If one were to live an isolated existence, comprised only of self and an infinite other, then one can benefit from severing sensation from meaning. But when one lives in a continuous dialogue with others, the sensation can be communication from the infinite other itself. Some feelings are too valuable to be lost in pursuit of the relationship we think we are achieving by ignoring it.
If I may, I believe you may have misunderstood the point of the passage. What was being proposed was a radical experiment in introspection. I don't believe that ignoring or marginalizing either aspect was advocated. Instead, an exercise in isolation for the purpose of distinguishing enmeshed components, was suggested. To do this is not to diminish either one, but to realize that the meaning of the messages conveyed by the body do not extend into the realm of reason. To use the same example; the meaning of hunger is hunger, no more no less, but that doesn't make the sensation itself any less substantive, it simply ensures that my body sense doesn't bleed into reason and vice versa. Indeed, to recognize the essential limits of the content being communicated is to be more aware, not less. "Meaningless" as quoted above, was not meant as an absolute, rather as meaningless in the context of an intellectual imperative.
Moreover, to address your point about interpersonal communication; similar benefits may be had by implementing the advice. If I am cognizant of the elements within the body of a message without being lost in a conglomeration, chances are higher that I will properly grasp its content. To use an example, if I can pare down Yiddish into its constituent segments by separating the German from the Hebrew, I shouldn't be any less able to converse in it, but it might just heighten my ability to engage with the medium by highlighting its idiosyncrasies and unique facets. The fact that most people are stuck in this quagmire makes it more necessary, not less. To continue with the Yiddish analogy; if Mr. A speaks a heavily German based Yiddish to Mr. B, who speaks primarily a Hebrew based Yiddish, will some small inflections and meanings fall through the cracks? most likely yes. Conversely, understanding the distinct bases of the modality should leave one equipped to properly participate in it, both within ones own internal dialogues as well as without. As R' Shnayor so succinctly put it:
"A stark duality will develop within yourself, but a manageable and even fascinating duality, where the parties communicate and interact, each in their own unique nature."
Nice to see a thoughtful and well developed comment!
Y, I appreciate your interpretation of Shnayor's imperative but I do not know if the author meant he was only suggesting an exercise. . Dibra adam k'lashon bnei adam... With hunger and every other physical sensation - you're right; when your stomach growling it is just a intrapersonal data stream to analyze in support for a choice or intellectual process on the high road. But I am stressing that the non-verbal component of interpersonal communication is the outlier: There are feelings and physical responses including tone, oral/maxillofacial movement, eye and eye muscle movement, skin blood flow, (blushing/whitening), heart rate, etc. that are part and parcel of the empowerment-> agency-> recognition-> empathy-> dynamic--that together with high road thinking and verbalization--weave the fabric of communion with the other. (Involuntary) Physical response within dialogue is a set of essential non-verbal communications that allow us to physically "ingest" another person's intellect through the sympathetic nervous system and empathic response in the prefrontal cortex. Even though you can choose to take the "high road" in any given interpersonal dialogue and present dialogue rooted in reason and sound intellect alone, the physical response within dialogue is not simply an intrapersonal data stream to analyze in support for a choice or intellectual process on the high road. I am suggesting that it is an essential part of the relational experience itself. Feeling hungry is not part of an intellectual process. Blushing is. Some feelings have meaning.
You make a powerful point about communication and its non-verbal elements, germane to my argument about the independence of reason - if we allow for a collective consciousness, or "thinking together." I don't think that there is really such a thing.
To translate it more concretely into your scenario; blushing would be a physiological response indicating, let’s say, embarrassment.
It might depend on how I received the communication. If I noted it with my capacity for reason, a reasonable formulation (and possibly a response), would be appropriate. If however it triggered a physiological reaction within my own framework, say a mutual embarrassment, the author would caution against allowing it to ‘mean’ that I must, for example, pacify them, or indeed do anything other than noting my own embarrassment. To reiterate, it doesn’t mean I should ignore his message or my own response, merely that it should be taken wholly on its own terms. Just like with hunger a reasonable response may even entail the assuaging of the body’s message, but that would be the prerogative of reason, rather than saying that the hunger or embarrassment itself contains an impetus beyond its borders.
That is what I have gathered from the essay, but I may be wrong.
This discussion is fascinating. Thank you, S and Y, for posting your insights.
I agree with Y (for whatever it's worth!). I intended this as an exercise that could unlock the essence of reason and of body separately and independently, but I meant in no way to minimize the power and importance of bodily functions and responses.
Blushing indicates something, but *means* nothing, as Y noted. Communication is also not meaning. Only reason is. Communications could lie.
Glad to have the privilege of participating in such a valuable discussion. Insight begets insight. Thank you for facilitating it through your wonderful work, awaiting the next installment!!
It is interesting that you used the example of eating, as doctors and researchers are currently studying and discovering strong links between the gut and the mind.
I chose eating because it's so basic to life. We engage in it constantly without much thought to how the way we engage in it shapes us. There's a reason the Torah is very concerned with eating - and the root sin was eating from the wrong tree.
Very interesting reflections, as usual.
I wonder whether there is nothing at all derived from the body that has any meaning. Take suffering. Is it perhaps through my own corporeal experience of suffering that I can identify its wrongness - and then feel sympathy for others in pain? If so, the body might provide a better perspective on good and evil than the mind. The mind, you write, is "uncaring and insensitive." In that case, perhaps the correct moral insights require the body as much as they require the mind - or even more.
Or is this what the author means by the final peace that can be achieved between mind and body?
What you say is correct, but only because our bodies often have more effect on us than our minds.
If the mind were fully developed, it would reason that whatever deficiency the suffering is a signal of - is wrong, even without the subjective feeling of suffering, which makes the suffering ultimately useful as only a signal, no more.
It is worth noting that we are in fact bodies, and we can't escape that. This essay is a thought experiment in perspective, designed to allow us moments, hopefully frequent and powerful, of true mindfulness.
"Weaken the mind-body connection, even sever it! When you experience a sensation, remind yourself that it means nothing."
It is important to distinguish sensation within the modality of self-centered homeostasis (self-other, with the self being the intellect and other being the body) and sensation within the modality of interpersonal dialogue (with the self being the individual, and the other being the counterparty in dialogue). There are several routes to achieve connection with the "infinite other" and thereby transcend physicality, living on an endless plain of intellect. The most common one we experience is the self-other connection of interpersonal communication. Much like the mitzvah of tzitzis, with the kavana of the t'cheiles-kisei hakava meditation, through connection with others, we can engage in a relational experience with the infinite other itself through recognition of the chelek hashem expressed through others. It is this communion (in our caste of "m'daber") that sets us apart from the universe and allows us to experience the divine connection. Recognition of the other is an unnatural and highly intellectual pursuit, but it also sets us apart through Dibbur. Through the empowerment of the self (b'shvili nivra), we gain a clearer sense of our self and our ability to make conscious choices of how we want to engage in the dialogue with the other. Once we attain clarity, we enter into a state of empathy by becoming more open to others in recognition of their unique self. Recognition of others must be based on empowerment in that communicants must be confident in their freedom to make decisions regarding the course of the dialogue. Communication between the self and the self creates agency and empowerment, and communication between the self and the other- creating empathy and recognition, requires a strong mind-body connection. In interpersonal dialogue (Dibbur), the body and the mind think and communicate together. This goes beyond physical gestures and using the mouth to articulate sounds. Neuroscience points to "mirror neurons" in the prefrontal area of the brain as the foundation for our capacity to achieve empathy by feeling what the other feels. Although the extent of their importance within the context of language processing and empathy is debated in scientific research, it is a fact that dialogue and empathic capacity is limited in the absence of these neurons. More importantly, while engaging in dialogue, one must integrate his and the "other"s emotion and physicological response within the interpersonal dialogue itself. Dibbur is as much a physiological dialogue as it is a verbal dialogue. Dvarim shebileiv are not dvarim until they exist in expression. To properly recognize self, achieve empowerment, and recognize other, one must incorporate the body's cues and physiological response into its empathic vocabulary. If one were to live an isolated existence, comprised only of self and an infinite other, then one can benefit from severing sensation from meaning. But when one lives in a continuous dialogue with others, the sensation can be communication from the infinite other itself. Some feelings are too valuable to be lost in pursuit of the relationship we think we are achieving by ignoring it.
If I may, I believe you may have misunderstood the point of the passage. What was being proposed was a radical experiment in introspection. I don't believe that ignoring or marginalizing either aspect was advocated. Instead, an exercise in isolation for the purpose of distinguishing enmeshed components, was suggested. To do this is not to diminish either one, but to realize that the meaning of the messages conveyed by the body do not extend into the realm of reason. To use the same example; the meaning of hunger is hunger, no more no less, but that doesn't make the sensation itself any less substantive, it simply ensures that my body sense doesn't bleed into reason and vice versa. Indeed, to recognize the essential limits of the content being communicated is to be more aware, not less. "Meaningless" as quoted above, was not meant as an absolute, rather as meaningless in the context of an intellectual imperative.
Moreover, to address your point about interpersonal communication; similar benefits may be had by implementing the advice. If I am cognizant of the elements within the body of a message without being lost in a conglomeration, chances are higher that I will properly grasp its content. To use an example, if I can pare down Yiddish into its constituent segments by separating the German from the Hebrew, I shouldn't be any less able to converse in it, but it might just heighten my ability to engage with the medium by highlighting its idiosyncrasies and unique facets. The fact that most people are stuck in this quagmire makes it more necessary, not less. To continue with the Yiddish analogy; if Mr. A speaks a heavily German based Yiddish to Mr. B, who speaks primarily a Hebrew based Yiddish, will some small inflections and meanings fall through the cracks? most likely yes. Conversely, understanding the distinct bases of the modality should leave one equipped to properly participate in it, both within ones own internal dialogues as well as without. As R' Shnayor so succinctly put it:
"A stark duality will develop within yourself, but a manageable and even fascinating duality, where the parties communicate and interact, each in their own unique nature."
Nice to see a thoughtful and well developed comment!
Y, I appreciate your interpretation of Shnayor's imperative but I do not know if the author meant he was only suggesting an exercise. . Dibra adam k'lashon bnei adam... With hunger and every other physical sensation - you're right; when your stomach growling it is just a intrapersonal data stream to analyze in support for a choice or intellectual process on the high road. But I am stressing that the non-verbal component of interpersonal communication is the outlier: There are feelings and physical responses including tone, oral/maxillofacial movement, eye and eye muscle movement, skin blood flow, (blushing/whitening), heart rate, etc. that are part and parcel of the empowerment-> agency-> recognition-> empathy-> dynamic--that together with high road thinking and verbalization--weave the fabric of communion with the other. (Involuntary) Physical response within dialogue is a set of essential non-verbal communications that allow us to physically "ingest" another person's intellect through the sympathetic nervous system and empathic response in the prefrontal cortex. Even though you can choose to take the "high road" in any given interpersonal dialogue and present dialogue rooted in reason and sound intellect alone, the physical response within dialogue is not simply an intrapersonal data stream to analyze in support for a choice or intellectual process on the high road. I am suggesting that it is an essential part of the relational experience itself. Feeling hungry is not part of an intellectual process. Blushing is. Some feelings have meaning.
You make a powerful point about communication and its non-verbal elements, germane to my argument about the independence of reason - if we allow for a collective consciousness, or "thinking together." I don't think that there is really such a thing.
To translate it more concretely into your scenario; blushing would be a physiological response indicating, let’s say, embarrassment.
It might depend on how I received the communication. If I noted it with my capacity for reason, a reasonable formulation (and possibly a response), would be appropriate. If however it triggered a physiological reaction within my own framework, say a mutual embarrassment, the author would caution against allowing it to ‘mean’ that I must, for example, pacify them, or indeed do anything other than noting my own embarrassment. To reiterate, it doesn’t mean I should ignore his message or my own response, merely that it should be taken wholly on its own terms. Just like with hunger a reasonable response may even entail the assuaging of the body’s message, but that would be the prerogative of reason, rather than saying that the hunger or embarrassment itself contains an impetus beyond its borders.
That is what I have gathered from the essay, but I may be wrong.
This discussion is fascinating. Thank you, S and Y, for posting your insights.
I agree with Y (for whatever it's worth!). I intended this as an exercise that could unlock the essence of reason and of body separately and independently, but I meant in no way to minimize the power and importance of bodily functions and responses.
Blushing indicates something, but *means* nothing, as Y noted. Communication is also not meaning. Only reason is. Communications could lie.
Glad to have the privilege of participating in such a valuable discussion. Insight begets insight. Thank you for facilitating it through your wonderful work, awaiting the next installment!!
It is interesting that you used the example of eating, as doctors and researchers are currently studying and discovering strong links between the gut and the mind.
Fascinating. Gut thinking is very powerful.
I chose eating because it's so basic to life. We engage in it constantly without much thought to how the way we engage in it shapes us. There's a reason the Torah is very concerned with eating - and the root sin was eating from the wrong tree.
Surgically incisive, grounded in advice towards implementation! Wonderful!
תורה על מנת לעשות!