How the Mind Meets the Body

[Lou Gold]

I'm just getting into this very interesting podcast:

"This Conversation Will Change How You Think About Trauma"

"“The Body Keeps the Score,” it is a searing read about the way trauma disconnects our minds and our bodies. And it’s pretty clearly written with a professional audience in mind. This is a book very largely aimed at other psychiatrists. That so many of us are turning to it, it says something profound about where the national psyche is in this moment of, yeah, trauma.

I’ll be honest of my own history of it here. “The Body Keeps the Score” is one of those books people have told me to read for a long time. But I thought I knew what it was about. I’d heard it discussed so many times, and I’d read it written about. So even though I hadn’t read it, I thought I knew it: trauma lodges in the body, we carry a physical imprint of our psychic wounds, it’s all very hard to heal. Got it.

But I was really wrong about that. The core argument is — I want to use the word “subversive” here. Certainly subversive in how it will leave you thinking about yourself and those around you. It is about traumatic experiences: sexual assault, incest, emotional physical abuse, war and much, much more. They can disconnect our body and our mind. That is when an experience becomes a trauma — when it disconnects us.

And this is a part I didn’t understand from the way the book is talked about. The devastating argument it makes is not that the body keeps the score, it’s that the mind hides the score from us. The mind — it hides and warps these traumatic events and our narratives about them in an effort to protect us. Human beings are social animals. And our minds evolve to manage our social relationships.

So when we face an event that could rupture our relationship with the community or the family, particularly for children of the family that we depend on, the mind often talks us out of it. It obscures the memories or convinces us our victimization was our fault or it covers the event in a shame so thick, we refuse to discuss it. But our body — and that’s an imprecise term here. But the parts of us that are more automatic that manage and respond to threat — our body doesn’t forget that. Our mind can’t talk that part of us into feeling safe again. And it’s this disconnection of mind and body where trauma lives."

[JustinG]

Looks interesting. On the topic of the body, I think there can be a tendency of idealist philosophies to drift towards disembodiment and 'headiness'. The books of David Abram, who draws a lot from the phenomenological tradition and people like Merleau Ponty, as well as indigenous traditions, are a good counterweight to this tendency, in my view. His main works are:

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-P ... 0679776397
Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology https://www.amazon.com/-/es/David-Abram ... 3697&psc=1

[AshvinP]

I'm just getting into this very interesting podcast:

"This Conversation Will Change How You Think About Trauma"

"“The Body Keeps the Score,” it is a searing read about the way trauma disconnects our minds and our bodies. And it’s pretty clearly written with a professional audience in mind. This is a book very largely aimed at other psychiatrists. That so many of us are turning to it, it says something profound about where the national psyche is in this moment of, yeah, trauma.

I’ll be honest of my own history of it here. “The Body Keeps the Score” is one of those books people have told me to read for a long time. But I thought I knew what it was about. I’d heard it discussed so many times, and I’d read it written about. So even though I hadn’t read it, I thought I knew it: trauma lodges in the body, we carry a physical imprint of our psychic wounds, it’s all very hard to heal. Got it.

But I was really wrong about that. The core argument is — I want to use the word “subversive” here. Certainly subversive in how it will leave you thinking about yourself and those around you. It is about traumatic experiences: sexual assault, incest, emotional physical abuse, war and much, much more. They can disconnect our body and our mind. That is when an experience becomes a trauma — when it disconnects us.

And this is a part I didn’t understand from the way the book is talked about. The devastating argument it makes is not that the body keeps the score, it’s that the mind hides the score from us. The mind — it hides and warps these traumatic events and our narratives about them in an effort to protect us. Human beings are social animals. And our minds evolve to manage our social relationships.

So when we face an event that could rupture our relationship with the community or the family, particularly for children of the family that we depend on, the mind often talks us out of it. It obscures the memories or convinces us our victimization was our fault or it covers the event in a shame so thick, we refuse to discuss it. But our body — and that’s an imprecise term here. But the parts of us that are more automatic that manage and respond to threat — our body doesn’t forget that. Our mind can’t talk that part of us into feeling safe again. And it’s this disconnection of mind and body where trauma lives."

I don't want to make any pronouncement on the book or even this review since I have only read the quote you provided, but from that quote I see the line of reasoning is very egoistic. I know that will sound like wild accusation, so let me explain - there is really nothing more egoistic (and dangerous) than the abstract intellect taking possession of the world for itself. It then denies importance and, eventually, reality to all forms of cognition-knowledge other than its own. Once that is done, it feels like it can make assertions like the one in bold above and remains confident in them. Of course there is always partial truth in the great fictions of the abstract totalizing intellect, which makes them much easier to believe and maintain. It also divides up the world into isolated, static fragments, so now the "body" is other than the "mind", rather than that aspect of the mind which needs to be discerned and imbued with higher meaning. That, of course, is done via Thinking. It is that higher Spirit which brings those "automatic parts that manage and respond to threat" into the light of Consciousness so that we can truly deal with the traumatic events.

So the abstract intellect manages to invert the Truth in an effort to maintain its own totalizing power over the world and our souls. It makes our own Mind its enemy and sets us against it - then we begin to conclude that taking responsibility for our own suffering is somehow a bad "narrative" rather than the archetypal Source of the highest possible meaning in life. Does that mean there is no place for abstract intellect in these discussions? Of course not... I am using it right now. But, as BK illustrates very well in More than Allegory, a symbol is only useful when we realize it is pointing to something other than itself. The abstract intellect is a symbol and therefore the same logic applies. When this intellect only refers us back to itself, then we have turned the symbol into an idol. That is what I see happening above. Fragment the body-mind, check. Isolate it in space and time, check. Convince the soul no aspect of mind exists apart from itself, check. Turn the human soul against its own higher Spirit, check. Invert the Truth, check.

Lou, I am seriously not posting this as a critique or attack of you or anyone else referred to, so please don't take it that way. These are my genuine thoughts which occurred immediately while reading the above quote. I feel like, given all the "confusion" over my comments on this forum lately, I need to preemptively make that disclaimer.

[Lou Gold]

Lou, I am seriously not posting this as a critique or attack of you or anyone else referred to, so please don't take it that way. These are my genuine thoughts which occurred immediately while reading the above quote. I feel like, given all the "confusion" over my comments on this forum lately, I need to preemptively make that disclaimer.

No worries Ashvin. I posted the quoted section from the intro onl as a 'teaser'. There's much more in the podcast to contemplate. I found it rich.

[Lou Gold]

Looks interesting. On the topic of the body, I think there can be a tendency of idealist philosophies to drift towards disembodiment and 'headiness'. The books of David Abram, who draws a lot from the phenomenological tradition and people like Merleau Ponty, as well as indigenous traditions, are a good counterweight to this tendency, in my view. His main works are:

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-P ... 0679776397
Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology https://www.amazon.com/-/es/David-Abram ... 3697&psc=1

I love the David Abram books!

[JustinG]

Looks interesting. On the topic of the body, I think there can be a tendency of idealist philosophies to drift towards disembodiment and 'headiness'. The books of David Abram, who draws a lot from the phenomenological tradition and people like Merleau Ponty, as well as indigenous traditions, are a good counterweight to this tendency, in my view. His main works are:

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-P ... 0679776397
Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology https://www.amazon.com/-/es/David-Abram ... 3697&psc=1

I love the David Abram books!

Yeah, he's good. For the Barfield fans out there, Abram draws on the work on participation of Levy-Bruhl (as does Barfield).

[AshvinP]

Looks interesting. On the topic of the body, I think there can be a tendency of idealist philosophies to drift towards disembodiment and 'headiness'. The books of David Abram, who draws a lot from the phenomenological tradition and people like Merleau Ponty, as well as indigenous traditions, are a good counterweight to this tendency, in my view. His main works are:

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-P ... 0679776397
Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology https://www.amazon.com/-/es/David-Abram ... 3697&psc=1

I love the David Abram books!

Yeah, he's good. For the Barfield fans out there, Abram draws on the work on participation of Levy-Bruhl (as does Barfield).

Barfield drew on the work of Rudolf Steiner and that is what his "original participation" refers to - Steiner's esoteric understanding of how the Spirit-Soul has metamorphosed throughout the cycles, ages and epochs, leading from ancient clairvoyance of the noumenal spiritual realms to the dawn of self-consciousness and the immersion of the essential Ego in the sense-world (via Christ incarnate) which makes possible ascent back to the realms of the higher Spirit-Soul. I don't know how much Levy-Bruhl term "participation mystique" influenced Barfield to use the phrase "original participation", if at all, but what he is really pointing to goes far beyond anything L-B wrote. We don't have to agree with Barfield, but let's at least represent his concepts accurately.

I also don't know much about David Abram, but the title "Becoming Animal" and the images i.e. inner meanings which come to mind are about as diametrically opposed to Steiner-Barfield as you can get. Yes, it is necessary to become attuned with the rhythms of the Earth and our inner instincts, desires, sympathies, antipathies, etc. But that is not sufficient, according to Barfield - as the human soul incorporates an essential Ego-"I" which neither minerals, nor plants, nor non-human animals have - and if we stop our journey there because we erroneously hold that "becoming animal" is sufficient, major negative spiritual consequences will result. Actually, Barfield would say we cannot possibly become so attuned with the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms within us until we first elevate and transfigure our Thinking by way of that essential Ego-"I".

What I just wrote above is basically another reformulation of what I wrote to Lou before on this same thread. I suppose it won't be long before this comment is also forgotten and Barfield's name is bandied about again to support a philosophical-spiritual understanding that he would never have endorsed. I don't know if it's my own sensitivity to this phenomena which has increased or these sorts of complete dismissals of explanations and misrepresentations are actually accelerating in the broader culture. Probably both. You (Justin) also did this on another thread recently, misrepresenting Barfield's position quite badly. It would help if we stop thinking of philosophy and spirituality as a sporting event in which the players have "fans", and we can mix and match our favorite players to create our own teams whenever doing so supports our own prejudiced assumptions of the world.

[JustinG]

Barfield refers to Levy-Bruhl extensively in chapter 4 (Participation). But I certainly did not mean to imply that Barfield and Abram were saying the same thing (which does not mean there are no resonances at all). Abram is quite sympathetic to contemporary indigenous thinking and original participation, unlike Barfield, who applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism. As Barfield puts it in his concluding paragraphs:

"What will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation .... The other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all — paganism.”

The distaste for original participation for Barfield seems to stem from the "vagaries of confusion and savagery" in contemporary tribes which "remind us of the sins of commission in thought, feeling and action of which original participation is capable" (p. 57). For all his brilliance, this dislike for paganism and indigenous worldviews seem to be more a reflection of the sensibilities of a well-to-do mid 20th century English gentleman rather than being based on rigorous argument and anthropological/historical research. Of course, my impression could be countered by reading further on Barfield or Steiner, but books can also be judged as they stand on their own.

[AshvinP]

Barfield refers to Levy-Bruhl extensively in chapter 4 (Participation). But I certainly did not mean to imply that Barfield and Abram were saying the same thing (which does not mean there are no resonances at all). Abram is quite sympathetic to contemporary indigenous thinking and original participation, unlike Barfield, who applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism. As Barfield puts it in his concluding paragraphs:

"What will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation .... The other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all — paganism.”

The distaste for original participation for Barfield seems to stem from the "vagaries of confusion and savagery" in contemporary tribes which "remind us of the sins of commission in thought, feeling and action of which original participation is capable" (p. 57). For all his brilliance, this dislike for paganism and indigenous worldviews seem to be more a reflection of the sensibilities of a well-to-do mid 20th century English gentleman rather than being based on rigorous argument and anthropological/historical research. Of course, my impression could be countered by reading further on Barfield or Steiner, but books can also be judged as they stand on their own.

This is what I am trying to tell you. That last sentence only makes sense if there is no one around to inform you precisely what Barfield's background is and his overall approach to philosophy-spirituality. Unless you think I am making stuff up about Barfield's position, in which case I think it would still be prudent for you to confirm your suspicions before characterizing Barfield one way or another, since admittedly you just started reading him and have not considered his work more deeply. The implication of previous post was that "fans of Barfield" would also appreciate Abram position, and that is not at all accurate.

And you are once again misrepresenting Barfield completely, precisely because you fail to consider his approach and understanding as a Whole. You are fragmenting and isolating, which is the hallmark of left brain abstract intellect. Although this particular point should be evident from the concept of "the evolution of consciousness" itself. He is in no way "applauding scientism", but recognizing the natural unfolding of these new conscious modes from earlier ones. Original participation was not destined to last forever and it is indeed counter-productive for modern society to long for a return back to the mother's womb, so to speak (I discuss this a lot in last mythology essay in connection with Prometheus-Epimetheus and Genesis accounts in the Old Testament).

If you take the view that socioeconomic events determine or even take equal share in determining modes of consciousness, which I have seen you argue for previously, then you will continue to completely misunderstand Barfield's sentiments. It's not as if he fails to express similar if not even more critical sentiment with the rationalism and logical positivism of the modern age, because he does that at length too. All of these intellectual or over-mystical worldviews, if clinged onto by the abstract intellect, inhibit spiritual growth and therefore the realization of "final participation" (which is not used by him to indicate the absolute end of spiritual evolution or anything similar).

[JustinG]

Barfield refers to Levy-Bruhl extensively in chapter 4 (Participation). But I certainly did not mean to imply that Barfield and Abram were saying the same thing (which does not mean there are no resonances at all). Abram is quite sympathetic to contemporary indigenous thinking and original participation, unlike Barfield, who applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism. As Barfield puts it in his concluding paragraphs:

"What will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation .... The other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all — paganism.”

The distaste for original participation for Barfield seems to stem from the "vagaries of confusion and savagery" in contemporary tribes which "remind us of the sins of commission in thought, feeling and action of which original participation is capable" (p. 57). For all his brilliance, this dislike for paganism and indigenous worldviews seem to be more a reflection of the sensibilities of a well-to-do mid 20th century English gentleman rather than being based on rigorous argument and anthropological/historical research. Of course, my impression could be countered by reading further on Barfield or Steiner, but books can also be judged as they stand on their own.

This is what I am trying to tell you. That last sentence only makes sense if there is no one around to inform you precisely what Barfield's background is and his overall approach to philosophy-spirituality. Unless you think I am making stuff up about Barfield's position, in which case I think it would still be prudent for you to confirm your suspicions before characterizing Barfield one way or another, since admittedly you just started reading him and have not considered his work more deeply. The implication of previous post was that "fans of Barfield" would also appreciate Abram position, and that is not at all accurate.

And you are once again misrepresenting Barfield completely, precisely because you fail to consider his approach and understanding as a Whole. You are fragmenting and isolating, which is the hallmark of left brain abstract intellect. Although this particular point should be evident from the concept of "the evolution of consciousness" itself. He is in no way "applauding scientism", but recognizing the natural unfolding of these new conscious modes from earlier ones. Original participation was not destined to last forever and it is indeed counter-productive for modern society to long for a return back to the mother's womb, so to speak (I discuss this a lot in last mythology essay in connection with Prometheus-Epimetheus and Genesis accounts in the Old Testament).

If you take the view that socioeconomic events determine or even take equal share in determining modes of consciousness, which I have seen you argue for previously, then you will continue to completely misunderstand Barfield's sentiments. It's not as if he fails to express similar if not even more critical sentiment with the rationalism and logical positivism of the modern age, because he does that at length too. All of these intellectual or over-mystical worldviews, if clinged onto by the abstract intellect, inhibit spiritual growth and therefore the realization of "final participation" (which is not used by him to indicate the absolute end of spiritual evolution or anything similar).

Speaking of misrepresentation, "applauding scientism" is not the same as "applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism". The latter is a reasonable gloss of "I do not believe it will be these things for which men will remember the scientific revolution with thankfulness...what will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation", wouldn't you agree?

In relation to the realization of final participation, in my view, changes in contemporary collective representations are more likely to occur as a result of change in the collective practices which constitute such representations, rather than through a retreat inwards into the imagination (as Barfield contends). Whilst the retreat inwards may give rise to pleasurable and ecstatic individual states of mind, I doubt that it has much effect on the evolution of consciousness except insofar as it motivates actions in the world.