>A question: what is the value of maintaining a dualism between mind and
>body such that the compassion in the gut is not also in the mind, and vice
>versa? It seems to me, although I could be inaccurate or incomplete, that
>the mind is an emergent phenomenon of the living body. In that specific
>sense, it can be said to be "in" the body. (It's certainly not confined
>to the brain!) Thinking is a bodily function and is regulated, to a
>significant extent, by the same hormonal systems that regulate the other
>bodily functions.
We approach the situation somewhat the same way, however whether the
hormones affect the mental experience or vice versa may confuse the issue
a bit. In fact, both occur. The problem is trying to wrench the body and
mind apart and look at the results. It is the same problem as studying
dead things to see what makes them live.
Mind/body are not different pieces; it is functionally the same. In
attempting to identify what makes "me" different from "you" we have gotten
sidetracked again into dualism. Kant, Decartes and others of their time
(and some since) stumbled along this path and eventually were barely able
to prove that anything exists (can be proven to exist) at all. "I think,
therefore I am" was the only reasonable way out of the dilemma of proving
existence, but it begs the question "Who or what am *I*?"
It may well be that there is *no causal relationship* in the experience of
compassion or feeling of any kind as far as the mind/body communication
goes. It is experienced at once, not mind before body or body before mind.
Like ears have different perceptions of the event we call lightning than
do eyes. Together, as one, they create the event. One without the other is
not the same.
and...
>How exactly is this kind of distortion produced?
How about: The distortion is produced by stopping the communication. At
some point a leap is made to expectation / anticipation, and the
communication link is lost. I "know" how the person feels (what they must
be thinking, etc.) and stop listening. I become sidetracked into another
whole reality, based on my own understanding, rather than on the reality
of the other. For a while, we may track along together, but as realities
diverge, the distortion becomes more apparent.
>Can we learn not to produce it? If so, how can we learn that?
Do we *want* to? The divergence of view can be a rich source of learning
for everyone. As a valued teacher once told me "anything is OK as long as
it's processed," meaning that the divergent realities are OK as long as we
are aware that such things can and do happen -- and may be happening now
-- and as long as we can discuss them.
Back to compassion: perhaps I am wrong about the person's actual
situation. Knowing that and knowing my own experience/response to what I
thought the reality was, and being able to share with the other to bring
the realities back together, both of us can learn about ourselves and the
other.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to think through these things. Thanks
for your response!
gerry starnes
austin, tx
Internet: gstarnes@bga.com
CompuServe: 76233,2266
BellNet: 512/465-1515