Replying to LO28748 --
Don Dwiggins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>This message is a bit of "free associating" 8^)...
Greetings dear Dwig,
An i enjoyed it very much.
>I was struck by "mind.body.spirit" in the above. If I
>were to write these three words offhand, I'd probably
>write them "body, mind, spirit" (from the concrete to
There are a lot of other words being used pertaining to the topic above.
Think for body of brain and neurological system and for mind.spirit of
intelligence, psyche, consciousness, spirit and soul. I find that they are
often used indiscriminately.
The "neurological system" is a technical term for the concrete brain and
all the nerves in the entire body connected to it. It is when we get to
the abstract dimension when things get interesting.
The word mind refers to memory, understanding and intelligence. Its
etymology comes from the Aglo-Saxon "munan"=to_learn (in a personal sense)
just like the word meaning. In my mother tongue Afrikaans we still have
the word "meen"(=mean) which we use to express personal learning.
The word spirit refers to living like humans not enslaved to instincts. In
animals the word spirit is often replaced by instinct. Its etymology comes
form the Latin "spirare"=to_breath and "spiritus"=breath, air. It is
interesting that not only did the Romans used "spiritus" for both air and
that "living principle" making animals and humans behave differently to
plants and rocks, but also the Greeks with their word "pneumatikos"! But
the Greeks also used the word "psychee" to refer to the special
"pneumatikos" which makes "upright" animals behave as humans.
The word soul refers to mind plus the rest of the the abstract dimension
of the human, in toehr words, the incorporeal nature of a huamn. Its
etymology comes from the Saxon "sawul"=soul. But when we go even further
back to the protogermanic "saiwala", its resemblens to "saiws"=sea is
strinking. In other words, where the Romanic peoples associated the living
principle with air, the Germanic compared it with sea. In other words,
both saw the "living priciple" as something not static and solid, but
always in the motion like the air and sea.
>One way to interpret what Andrew has written, is that
>"body" is taken as the umlomo (associator) between
>mind and spirit in the pattern of wholeness. What kinds
>of thoughts does this lead to? How might our minds and
>spirits be connected/mediated/coordinate by our bodies?
Dwig, i now think of it differently. But it took me to discover that
LEP works in both the physical/concrete/material and spiritual/...
abstract/mental dimensions of reality. Thereafter i discovered the 7Es
(seven essentialities of creativity) by seeking corresponding patterns
between the physical/concrete/material and spiritual/abstract/mental
dimensions of reality. Eventually i began to understand that there is
not an abyss between these two dimensions, but that they overlap
each other to some extend. LEP and the 7Es are in this overlapping
region. So for myself I will rather propose the associative pattern
body * creativity * soul/spirit/psyche
In other words, the "umlomo"=interpreter (commuter) here is my
>Another way to look at it is to consider the dot that
>Andrew uses, as a binary mathematical operator (that is,
>one that connects two entities). The Law of Associativity
>for this operator can be written
mind.(body.spirit) = (mind.body).spirit
Do the same for "body * creativity * soul" to get
body * (creativity * soul) = (body * creativity) * soul
On the left side the "world-inside-me"=(creativity * soul) is revealed
by the body to the "world-outside-me". But on the right the opposite
happens. Here the "world-outside-me"=(body * creativity) is revealed
by the to the "world-inside-me"=soul. In other words, on the left the
flow is "from-in-to-out" while on the right the flow is "from-out-to-in".
>Here we have two associations, one between the mind
>and the body.spirit, and one between the mind.body
>and the spirit. The "=" says that the results of the two
>"acts of associating" are the same. Do you think this is
>true? Personally, I like the question better than any
>answer that I've come up with.
I think that preferring the question rather than the answers points to
fact that you have not yet articulated your tacit knowing on this
associative pattern of wholess with respect to body an the one side and
spirit on the other side.
Unless i have hypnotised myself beyond any hope of recovering, i am
vividly aware for myself of these two dual flows in opposite directions.
They do not oppose one another but rather complements one another. The
flow "from-out-to-in" makes me a learner&observer while the flow
"from-in-to-out" makes me an artist&scientist&teacher&philospher. In the
flow "from-out-to-in" i take while in the flow "from-in-to-out" i give
Dwig, i want to stress that the creativity which i have in mind as the
"umlomo" is not the usual "run-of-the-mill" stuff sold as treasure maps. I
also want to stress that it is how it is now with me. It need not to be
like that forever because i am still living within these two flows ;-) It
also may may be different to you and for any other fellow learner. Thus I
eagerly want to study the articulations of your tacit knowing and that of
fellow learners to learn how it is with you.
Andrew, I wonder how much you have become aware of the flows
of "learning" and "making art" complements each other.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <email@example.com> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.