Comments | idealists: The dichotomy of body and spirit

marybagain in idealists

The dichotomy of body and spirit

Apr 23, 2006 06:41

Following on from the recent thread about idealists attitudes to religion and spirituality, do you think idealists are more accepting of the dichotomy between body and spirit whereas rationals are more likely to consider this a false dichotomy ( Read more... )

Comments 22

humandays April 23 2006, 07:48:23 UTC

there is no dichotomy :) the body is spiritual too. the spirit is embodied. this is idealism!

marybagain April 23 2006, 19:23:19 UTC

An ideal embodiment - no?

humandays April 28 2006, 06:59:46 UTC

no, just natural, i think. :)

as a rational... tricstmr April 23 2006, 16:37:55 UTC

I don't believe in the existence of spirits or any such dichotomy... there is consciousness, but that is a function--not a separate entity--of the material body...

eviebabydaddyo April 23 2006, 17:29:14 UTC

As an idealist, I can certainly say that I have a strong awareness of the "spiritual" dimension of life, and yes it can strike me as more real than the physical realm. From what I've read, this seems true of idealists in general, although of course not all by any means. I'm sure there are many idealists who view life stoically, or at least try to, but I wonder if they still can't help themselves and let the spiritual aspect underlie their perception? All the while denying? Just my own personal prejudice there, I'm sure! Unable to believe that a fellow idealist could be willing to live in a world without at least a little magic in it ( ... )

jeroentiggelman April 24 2006, 08:13:07 UTC

I have a strong awareness of the "spiritual" dimension of life, and yes it can strike me as more real than the physical realm.

I have a strong awareness of the "spiritual" dimension of life. I think it may be more important than the conventional ways of describing things, on a subjective level. However, I do not believe that there is a separation such as "the physical realm". To me it is more connected to intuition, in that it seems to be connected into a greater pattern, not just direct experience--even though it is typically directly experienced. (Paradoxes 'R us. ;))

a rationalist would be drawn to that which can be proved or argued?

I am not sure what you mean by "rationalist" exactly, but an introverted intuitive like an INTJ mostly uses reason to explain to the outside world what has usally been perceived in a wholly different manner beforehand, IMO.

I do not think that the fact that something is hard to put into words would make it any less real to one such, though.

the spiritual aspect is a purely personal, subjective ( ... )

marybagain April 24 2006, 12:43:16 UTC

I would suspect that was an intuitive trait.

What do you mean by intuition here?

I tend to associate intuition with feelings in the sense of emotions - sort of "gut feel".

an introverted intuitive like an INTJ mostly uses reason to explain to the outside world what has usally been perceived in a wholly different manner beforehand, IMO.

But can you explain the different manner of perception? and if you accept that some things cannot be rationally explained are you not vainly attempting to use reasoned argument to explain the inexplicable?

jeroentiggelman April 24 2006, 18:08:18 UTC

What do you mean by intuition here?

N-as-opposed-to-S, as should be standard for this MBTI-oriented group.

I tend to associate intuition with feelings in the sense of emotions - sort of "gut feel".

That is definitely not Jung's usage. We are talking about functions here, not eruptions.

But can you explain the different manner of perception?

Characteristic of N is "whole board perception", isn't it?

if you accept that some things cannot be rationally explained are you not vainly attempting to use reasoned argument to explain the inexplicable?

You are erroneously talking in absolutes here. Since there can be no a priori basis to start reasoning from, what you say must apply to all reasoning whatsoever. Therefore, it cannot be much of an argument.

In actuality communication is used to achieve transferring symbol complexes (to make a rough attempt of stating it "my way"--your perception may vary, wildly).

Thread 8

marybagain April 23 2006, 19:36:41 UTC

Thank you for your comments and insights.

I have been speaking today to a friend who has had what is termed a "near death experience", when she almost drowned in a boating accident. This particular friend is definitely more of a "realist" in her personality type - but since this experience she is now convinced that consciousness can exist outside of the body. Even though this cannot be proved, she now feels completely convinced about it.

Maybe what we believe is more aligned with feeling than with logical proof or arguement than we think it is... A rational "feels" more happy with a logical proof and an idealist "feels" more happy with a direct experience?

don't think it is a logical vs empirical thing... tricstmr April 23 2006, 23:00:55 UTC

I'm specifically an intj--which means that while I'm a "rational"--I am also concrete in wanting empirical evidence for things and in being interested in accomplishments that take place in the "real" material world, rather than being interested in underlying principles and logical laws and such things.. (which is more INTP...)

personally, when I get into arguments, I will use analogies a lot, but I use them to relate to my direct experiences in life and my reflections upon the patterns that I have observed in such experiences...

In terms of spiritual stuff--I'm just not a believer in such things... I don't relate to the idea at all.. but I may not be a good example of all rationals, because I've seen dedicated conservative catholics on the INTJ list on LJ... so obviously, there are rationals that also feel a connection to the spiritual...

paysdoc April 24 2006, 11:14:21 UTC

Even near-death experiences can be "rationalised" away by the claim that what you're experiencing are the last spastic convulsions of your dying brain, trying to create a fictional reality to ease the dying. It's all psychological...
I don't know whether those claiming that are right or not (I prefer thinking NOT), but I've certainly found that my spiritual awareness (or at least willingness/need to believe in a spiritual realm) cannot possibly be communicated to someone who essentially believes that no such thing exists. I've stopped trying.

marybagain April 24 2006, 12:23:49 UTC

From the point of view of the friend who had the "near death experience", I would have classed her as ultra-rational and prior to this experience she would have agreed that it was most likely caused by the dying brain malfunctioning. Based upon her experience she now thinks this is irrational. So is it _all_ psychological? She hasn't changed personality - she is not an idealist, but her rationality has been turned around by the experience.

But I take your point about belief and communication difficulties - but I don't believe in the "hair of the tortoise", but I can still communicate about it and can accept other peoples different viewpoints.

nexrad April 24 2006, 04:08:33 UTC

Hmmm, I don't know... to me, the body is a temporary form of the greater Flow (what most call "spirit" or define via religion).

Am I showing my rational side? marybagain April 24 2006, 12:26:43 UTC

Isn't everything temporary? How do you know that the Greater Flow is a permanent flowing? Anything that flows must be capable of ceasing to flow.

Re: Am I showing my rational side? nexrad April 25 2006, 01:24:57 UTC

Rene Descartes provides the answer here: "I think, therefore I am." Hence, if Flow ceased to "flow", it would not exist, and therefore nothing would exist with it. ;-)

Re: Am I showing my rational side? marybagain April 26 2006, 11:54:18 UTC

But - did not Descartes have to refer to God to escape the pitfall of Solipsism? ;) Maybe that's another thread - I'll think about it.