This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Mind Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Yoga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EvyRue512.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clee88, Mjn74, Ahs86. Peer reviewers: Adefr16, NyanaMorgan, Morrisal7116.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following text, which needs to be cleaned up and made neutral before being re-added to the article:

The seperation of the mind from the body is of relatively recent origin.

From earliest times, certainly from the time of Hippocrates (460 BC.-380 BC.) the body and the mind were regarded as a unity, the mind was as healthy as the body, the body as healthy as the mind.

Right through medieval times and as illustrated in the teachings of Hildegard of Bingen in the 11th. centuary, the unity appeared inseperable.

Not until René Descartres (1596-1650) did this change who preached the dualism of mind and body do we have this legacy of the split between both, which fundamentally influenced the course of traditional school medicine and psychology each working parallel and seperate from one another.

Only since the middle of the last 20th. centuary do the many new fields around alternative and complimentary medicine, Humanistic psychology and Body Psychotherapy recognise and work with the inseperable unity of the "Body-Mind".

--goethean ॐ 19:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a ton of work. It is very unclear what this article is about.

The term seems to be of relatively no use, including by those cited in the article. I never came across this word in any of my 4 years of college philosophy, including reading works by a few of the authors listed here. Moreover, the word was not found on the articles for: Spencer-Hughes, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Frankl, Gunther, or Namarupa. The word was found on the Benson article, but the entry only parroted the benson mention on this article and was also NOT found in the article for his biomedical model. I am not suggesting that inserting this word into said articles would rememedy the problem, but that if these authors contributed to a concept of "bodymind," their contributions would have been mentioned in their respective articles.

The word was also not found in any of the cited articles.

The only cited author that could be related to the word "bodymind" was Money. Rounding down, That's 1 out of 8 reviewable citations that even mentions the word that is the topic of the article.

Googling "bodymind" turns up only 207,000 hits. Browsing these hits reveals the term to be used primarily as a new agey buzz word. This is further supported by the text of the original stub of the article, which deviates significantly from the current text:

"In Eastern philosophy or Transcendentalism philosophy, the body-mind is the (usually illusory or superficial) individual (as opposed to the universal, eternal awareness)."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodymind

It appears to me that this article is currently a coagulation of original research on the topic of the Mind body problem, framed in the context of an invented new agey buzzword that suits the purpose of the authors.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that I'm not. I feel that the energies being used to write this article would be better spent expanding the mind-bod problem article.

Consider a merge, or a significant rewrite to get this article to reflect the ACTUAL meaning/usage of the word. At the least, don't put "bodymind" in the mouths of people who never said it.--Shaggorama (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a search of google books and scholar, it seems that the concept is a real one, although it seems to be more commonly discussed in psychology, nursing, business, "new-agey" circles than by philosophers. The call for a rewrite to ensure that the information in the article relates to bodymind seems justified. Anarchia (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a bold rewrite of this article. Please discuss anything on this page. --Cornellier (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This idea does have precedent in philosophy. It was very popular in the phenomenology movement, but was never specifically referred to as a "Bodymind." Edith Stein, Emmanuel Levinas, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty echoed Edmund Husserl's idea of the "Living Body." They were very influential in Germany and especially France, where they were seen as engaging with Descartes. Many of their ideas have been ignored in other countries, however, which explains why many people here are unfamiliar with this idea.

"A living body [Leib] only percieved outwardly would always be only a particularly disposed, actually unique, physical body, but never 'my living body.'

Now let us observe how this new category of givenness occurs. As an instance of the supreme category of 'experience,' sensations are among the real constituents of consciousness, of this domain impossible to cancel. The sensation of pressure or pain or cold is just as absolutely given as the experience of judging, willing, perceiving, etc. Yet, in contrast with these acts, sensation is peculiarly characterized. It does not issue from the pure "I" as they do, and it never takes on the form of the "cogito" in which the 'I' turns toward an object. Since sensation is always spatially localized 'somewhere' at a distance from the 'I' (perhaps very near to it but never in it), I can never find the 'I' in it by reflection. And this somewhere is not an empty point in space but something filling up space. All these entities from which my sensations arise are amalgamated into a unity, the unity of my living body, and they are themselves places in the living body." Stein, Edith, On The Problem of Empathy, P. 39 -40.

Personally, I think the word "mindbody" is a crappy descriptor someone came up with while foggily trying to recall the idea of "living body" Perhaps someone got the idea from German and put it into French, then tried to translate that word into English. Either way, a lot has been lost due to memory and translation.

Maybe we should put all of this in a new article for "Living Body" or "Leib," or simply rename this article.

75.68.162.162 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about this term's use in science: the Phenomenologists, especially Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl were THE originators of Psychiatry, psychology, and the study of the mind. Many early Psychologists and psychiatrists such as Freud, Carl Stumpf, Karl Jung, and Jacques Lacan were influenced by their ideas. You guys need to go back to the ORIGINATORS of the idea, then the article will be informative and not sound like it was just invented.

75.68.162.162 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article or improve it: I am wedded to neither determination. Scholarship conceals as much as it reveals. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My time would not be well spent editing the Mind body problem as there is no problem in either the body nor the mind. Moreover, mind and body, bodymind is a continuüm, a field of consciousness. The very Cartesian construction of "mind" and "body" is what requires justification by citation.

What makes a wall: bricks or mortar? (NB: or the patterning of their construction, or the energy of the tradespeople, or the vision from which they spring, etc...be sure of the foundations of your understanding before you wield terminology around as solid, meaningful entities. Just because it has been done for aeons of scholarship is no justification to continue misinformation!)

Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vision and tenure of this article isn't just the English rendering of the term "bodymind", it is a rubric for a discussion of the entire history and developmental nature of the implied semantic field and the cross-cultural cognates that are congruent with this sentiment and the semiotic correspondences throughought the non-human and Human Condition.

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodymind is a key concept in Dharmic Traditions and is employed throughout Bodywork and Martial Art disciplines. Orthographies differ but the concept is key. Bodymind (Sanskrit: Namarupa) is most definitely encyclopaedic according to Wikipedia criteria. The Cartesian Dualism is what should be justified in the light of modern Medicine & Science.
Ā
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term nāmarūpa is also used in Hindu thought, nāma describing the spiritual or essential properties of an object or being, and rūpa the physical presence that it manifests. These terms are used similarly to the way that 'essence' and 'accidence' are used in Catholic theology to describe transubstantiation. The distinction between nāma and rūpa in Hindu thought explains the ability of spiritual powers to manifest through inadequate or inanimate vessels - as observed in possession and oracular phenomena, as well as in the presence of the divine in images that are worshiped through pūja. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macey, Joanna (1991). World as Lover World as Self, Parallax Press, Berkeley. ISBN 0-938077-27-9

Refer [1]

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In science, the bodymind is a fact (cf. John Money, Herbert Benson, etc.). Each of these researchers does medical research on some aspect of 'bodymind.' Nancy Scheper Hughes touches on aspects of this, as well. I suggest we rewrite the Scheper-Hughes entry to emphasize its signficance for science.

'Bodymind' is also a central textual fact in meditation traditions, but where science plays less of a significant role.

To avoid the synthesis criterion of wikipedia entries, I suggest separating these two facts, and editing the text to meet these criteria.

It might make sense to create a bodymind entry in the philosophy wiki as well, but retain 'bodymind' in wikipedia. I've certainly come back to this entry for more information over time, and found it relevant and useful.

These wikipedia entries are important beginnings, and are useful starting points to build on. Let's edit it, not delete it. I'll start the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphilo (talk • contribs) 2008-01-04

Then do it. I'd like to see some improvement to the article before the prod tag is removed. =Axlq (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodymind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403123225/http://www.aboutibs.org:80/Publications/MindBody.html to http://www.aboutibs.org/Publications/MindBody.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I noticed about this page (from reviewing the assigned google doc) was the extensive planning that was written up on the article. This group seemed to have strategized beforehand on what kind of edits they were going to make based on the article’s current state. They even listed out important dates for themselves, resources for references, and lists of potential sources. When looking at the state of the live article’s “lead”, it didn’t seem to have one that was much more than a sentence. They addressed this as one of the tasks listed in this group’s google doc was to add a lead section. The lead section that was written up in the google doc seemed to focus specifically on disability, I wonder if it would be useful to have a more general lead section, introducing the concept of body mind, and then go into how it is implicated in disability in a section later on in the page.

Another thing I noticed on the actual article page was a lack of different sections, and a lack of any real cohesive structure, everything is put into one main page. There were a number of terms and definitions listed, but they were not grouped into any cohesive order, or sectioned off into different categories. The google doc seemed to focus on adding these different sections and headers which I think will be a really necessary and beneficial addition to this page in terms of structure. It was also noted by Wikipedia itself that this article is in need of different/additional citations for verification. Based on the extensive list of resources, articles, and references in this group’s google doc, it seems like they will be able to add to the existing list of references and contribute to helping make this page closer to obtaining verification. All of their sources look to be scholarly, published, and/or reliable in some way.

It seems like this group is very focused upon the disability aspect of body mind. To me, this seems very relevant and important to this subject as disability deals directly with links between the body and mind that are different than the “norm.” I wonder however if it would be helpful to include some other viewpoints in the article. For example maybe a viewpoint looking at gender identity and the body mind, or the body mind connection between different cultures. It looks like the group has already done a lot of work, however, on the disability aspect, so I am not sure if for their contribution, more would need to be added in addition to this. Some of the sources listed do have views that are not totally impartial, so I think the group will just have to word additions from these sources in a way that it impartial (which they seem to be doing from the writings so far in the google doc). Overall, it looks like this group has a nice plan to improve this article and specifically add relevant information on the disabilities aspect of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisal7116 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not take anything from this article as truth. It is a rewriting of the ancient (Egypt) notion of Bodymind. This is purely cultural appropriation, westernizing a practice born from an ancient Egyptian religion. See Kemetic Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:BB04:D600:D4D2:CE9C:4A09:FC72 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article titled New Age, that talks about Mind,_Body,_Spirit? In my opinion, these can be merged. — BhaskarNS (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Minnieandpambeh, Carmen1331, Mgoyena (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tenarg, Ninaflinn, Ekf22, Adrianngzz, Evc32, Lindsmach.

— Assignment last updated by Liliput000 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Carmen1331 & Mgoyena & Minnieandpambeh

We are planning edits focusing on the 'Relevance to Disability Studies'. Our goal of our edits is to first restructure the section to increase clarity. Within this, we will first: introduce the concept of bodymind and its use within disabilities studies, second: expand on how bodymind is used for disability, social, and racial activism (with clear distinctions between these unique groups), and third: its connection to psychiatric diagnosis. Carmen1331 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Carmen1331 & Mgoyena & Minnieandpambeh

@AlbinoFlea @Dodger67 @Significa liberdade @Therealcaro @Ahs86

Proposed Wikipedia Article Title: Bodymind (Disability Studies)

Upon reviewing this article for revisions, it seems there is a clear distinction between the content of the majority of the article and bodymind's relevance to disability studies. We propose that a new article is created (Possible title: Bodymind (Disability Studies)) that would include the 'Relevance to Disability Studies' section in this article. We are planning on adding more information based on research into this section regarding bodymind's use in disability and racial activism. We believe creating this clear distinction between the use of bodymind as a concept within religious appearances (the majority of this article) and it as a concept within disability studies will provide increased access, understanding, and clarity. Carmen1331 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]