Transcendence through body
Autor: Belle Biajoni | Publicado: 2014-11-21T19:49:00-05:00






 The
question of self and body have been largely discussed in philosophy.
This question addresses what makes up an individual and which
characteristics are essential for a subject to be and act like a
person. Some follow the Cartesian dualism view, in which the mind is
argued to be better known than the body, since the mind is our
essence and the body is simply our property (1). While others such as
Evans and Sartre argue that the body is the factual part of
ourselves, and therefore constitute a persons identity and
self-awareness, the way individuals act on their body in
intrinsically connected to how the body acts on the world, this unity
expresses a view of living and experiencing reality from inside and
therefore intimately relating body with mind (2). Body is the
existing part of ourselves, the physical condition for someone to be
in this reality, while the mind is the intrinsic and non factual part
of the self. Both ways of analyzing and experiencing the body are
valuable, but only the phenomenological theory, the incorporation of
mind and body as one, gives room to a transcendence of body through
mind, which can be achieved in many ways in this reality through a
disconnection and overcoming of the given factual aspect of an
individual.




 For
Sartre, a person can see themselves in two distinct ways. A person
that is a “being for itself”(3) is a self consciousness being
that see their self and body as dependent parts of the same whole. It
is a type of consciousness that acts self-reflectively and have
self-consciousness, therefore is free and able to transcend the body,
due to awareness of both duality and of the material world. Another
scholar, Shoemaker, characterizes this type of self, as beings that
find no need for introspection (4), the perceiver is aware of
themselves by being aware of the objects, a per-reflectively
awareness of world is what carries an awareness of self and
consequently of mind. This type of subject is intentionally aware of
objects and therefore more capable of controlling their actions and
desires. The self in this case isn't a reflection of the mind, but
instead the mind in its material form, and therefore is a
self-governing type of being, that is conscious of their material
state. On the other hand, a person that is a “being in itself” is
a person filled with self (5), it considers itself as something given
to them rather then a part of their being, and therefore don't have
much control or power to govern their material state, its objective
is simply to be what it is, or to fit in without self-consciousness.
In this later case, the body is simply used by the mind, or the
property of mind, therefore it is a debodified type of consciousness,
or in a Hegelian term a 'alienated' (6) type of being, in which their
actions aren't seen as themselves but instead as part of themselves.




 A
being in itself can also be seen from the Cartesian dualism
perspective, which is largely argued by Descartes, in which the mind
is said to be something that owns experiences, something that is a
non-material essence of self also known as Ego (7). In this view the
ego is better known than the body, since the body is seen as
belonging to the self but not essentially the self, that is because
the body and the mind in this sense are intimately related but
fundamentally separate and the body is simply seen as the owner of
material properties while the mind is the real ruler. In this sense
the body is a instrument or a objectified self since it is dependent
on the mind for everything. This disregard of the body as essential
self can be called, as metaphysical philosopher Strawson suggests, “a
no ownership view” (8) in which the body undergo experiences,
instead of also possessing states of mind. This view would be one in
which the body holds only instrumental value, and not intrinsic
value, only the Ego have intrinsic value but it is alienated from the
body and the body is simply a part of self that goes through the
world without being part of it. The objectification of the body in
the case of the Cartesian Dualism is to be avoided if one wants to
transcend the body, the features of the body are as important as the
mind to the achievement of transcendence, since they are both part of
self-consciousness and therefore must be integrated in order to
achieve mindfulness or harmony in this existence.

 A
“being for itself” is a type of existence that gives room to a
more fulfilled and self-controlled life, since a self-reflection, or
a consideration of one's desires, actions and taught makes a
self-conscious and mindful reality, in which you are your
body, and you choose how to be and you can always transcend the
factual aspect of the body by nihilating (9) or negating your body
and its desires, as well as negating what is socially acceptable and
consequently having a self identity or a word in your experiences and
life. In other words, a being for itself is a subject that have the
possibility of choosing what to do instead of just fitting into a
given type of self, which is the dualist, or the being in itself type
of experience, in which the body is simply to be acknowledged not
nihilated or changed, since it is given and independent of mind. The
monks, the Lama's, or any type of individual that goes against, or
beyond, what society dictates, and that choose what type of life is a
life that gives room to a flourishing self, characterizes a being
that negates the ideology of its time, that knows that the body is
the mind, and therefore treats its body as itself. It sees itself as
a active determinant of its body and therefore is able to dictate it.
Precisely, by nihilating the desires, or the norms that are
ideologically in place, these type of beings, the beings for
themselves, nihilate their body, since they are aware that their body
isn't an instrument, but instead a essential part of themselves, and
therefore act consciously. On the other hand a “being in itself”
lives a instrumental life, since it acts not self-reflectively but
conspicuously, it lives as its body was someone else, and therefore
fits in very well in the twenty first century society, in which the
subjects are simply objects of a large scale economy that dictates
how one should act and think in order to fit inn. This type of being
lacks both knowledge of self-action and of self-control, it does not
nihilate itself by being aware that it is its mind, but instead it is
'sunk in life'.

A
“being for itself” is free of facticity, ready to transcend the
boundaries of the material world, and finally, a free being, due
exactly to its awareness of unified experience between body and mind.




 Many
religions argue that a disconnection of mind and body is possible in
this reality. In the majority of times the person is still aware of
themselves and of their being, but its body is used as an instrument
to transcend this reality, or even to help people that are in other
realities. In the case of Buddhism, meditation is seen as the
exercise in which a subject frees their mind by transcending the
limits of the body and appropriating a cosmic energy that is worth
more energy than many hours of sleep to the body. In this case the
subject needs a extensive training of detachment from bodily desires,
in which they nihilate not only what is socially acceptable, but also
its own desires and bodily necessities. Buddhism gives rational
explanations to why a body nihilation is necessary, and how a
connection with nature and with less abundant living gets you closer
to mind fullness and body equilibrium. These types of beings, that
practice meditation and have achieved a self control that is
unimaginable to the Western conceptualization of free will, are
clearly beings that are for themselves, and that have conquered a
body powerfulness that is unachievable to subjects that are being in
themselves, which live a given life without self consideration and
nihilation. They have overcome what is traditionally the custom in
order to rule over their body as thinking things, their body isn't
seen as solely subject of experience but also as possessors of states
of mind in which the body is a essential element and must be
controlled from the inside.




 The
transcendence of seeing the body as a given mechanism, to seeing it
as an opportunity of action, is central in order to achieve
mindfulness and self control. It can also be illustrated in some
individuals negation of basic needs such as eating, not abstaining
from junk food or industrialized food, but abstaining from food as a
whole. I personally know a person that claims that the photons
composes the atoms that satiate the body, as much as the protons,
electrons and neutrons, and that it is as simple as changing our
mental programming, or the way we see ourselves, in order to change
the alimentation mode: half hour of sunbath is worth a banquet (10).
A person that is able to do such detachment from what is known as
bodily necessities must be a 'being for themselves' in which their
will and freedom of choice dictates how their body act and responds.
This person is a well known professor of Traditional Chinese
Medicine, and she have achieved a level of control over her own body
that the majority of us might think it is impossible or a fraud, but
in reality she simply have overcome the Cartesian dualism view, and
live this life from the inside, as ruler of her body and as if her
body was for her, and solely dependent on her dictations rather than
a mechanism that is opened to error and 'mine but not me', which
gives room to a vast interference from outside dictations of what to
do and how to act on itself.  




 When
one is aware of themselves and of their mental states simply by
existing, then that person have achieved the state of 'I as Subject'
and are actively vigilant within their own mind and body. The
metaphysical philosopher Evans, have argued that features of the body
are as important as mental states when identifying parts of a
person's consciousness. According to him to be subjective is to
integrate body with mind, since no distinction of body from mind
should be truthful when trying to achieve self consciousness a
'relationship to yourself applies not only to experiences but equally
to many bodily states.' (2) That is precisely due to to the fact that
the body is our 'existential self that is embodied' and therefore
your bodily properties are you as much as the Ego is you. Since it is
through the body that others relate to you and that you relate to
space, or to the reality we are inn.

This
perspective is also very similar to the philosophy of Traditional
Chinese Medicine. Since it is believed that what you eat, or the
types of food that one consumes, is directly related to one's temper
and personality (11). In this case people that nihilate what is
socially acceptable and abstain from drinking alcohol, eating
industrialized food and have a macrobiotic type of diet tend to be
much more self-conscious and overall more happy than the ones that
see their body as their property and eat whatever is easier or
trending in the modern conceptualization of food. It is
scientifically proven that your diet influence what you think, how
you relate to yourself and your temper, this is an illustration of
how the body can influence the mind more than what is usually
discussed in metaphysical discourse that favors the ruling of the Ego
over the body.

 Another
type of transcendence of body through mind that isn't common in
metaphysical discourse that I find peculiar but nevertheless very
common in this reality, is separation of body and mind through
religious practices. The religion that I was raised in, which was
born in France but became very popular in South America, called
Spiritism, it is claimed that the mind leaves the body of the
subject, called 'medium', and gives room to other peoples mind to
communicate through that body, in this case the minds of people that
aren't in this reality, or that aren't embodied. The medium puts
their body as an object for other minds to communicate through them,
but in a very different manner then the objectification of the
Dualist, since in this case the body isn't a machine of the mind but
instead a tool of transcendence from this reality. In Brazil crimes
have already been solved using this transcendent type of
communication to the dead. The personification of other minds have
been popular for thousand of years in 'pagan cults' and traditions in
Africa and the Middle east, in which the body of a subject is used by
another entity to communicate to this world. To help others in the
case of Spiritism, or to harm others in case of pagan cults. The
medium or the subject that puts themselves into this position of
bridge are usually very simple people, that abstain from what is
conceived of a socially acceptable fulfilled life in order to help
others and flourish in this reality through other means, especially
through body nihilation and transcendence. These people, can't be
people that live a given life, or that see their body as a simple
reflection of an alienated mind, but instead are people that have
achieved a level of self-consciousness that is beyond. These subjects
are 'beings for themselves' and due to that are able to use their
body as medium to other minds, only the subjects that have overcome
the separation of mind and body are able to experience a
disconnection of body and mind.




 One
way to identify if a person is a being for itself or a being in
itself is by analyzing the way they relate to their body, to the
space, and specially to self. The transcendence through mind is only
achievable when the individual have overcame the view of body as
something self-identical, passive and inert which are characteristics
of the beings that are in themselves, the beings that simply are,
that see themselves as undetermined. When the individual have
achieved a fluid and dynamic view of their body, and is able to
transcend the 'givens' or the facticity of reality in order to act
and to be self-conscious then that person have achieved the level of
mindfulness and consequently of transcendence. Only after this self
conceptualization meditation or any action of transcendence of body
through mind is actually achievable and possible, since self-control
and self-consciousness gives room to possibilities that the mind was
unaware in the 'being in itself' type of experience. 





Bibliography:
 


(1)
Levine, Steven.
"Phil 381." Class Notes on Strawson. UMB, Boston. Mar.
2014. Lecture.

(2)
Evans, Gareth.
"Commentary upon Strawson's Individuals." Things
without the Mind.
Print

(3)
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Chapter 2 - The Body." Being
and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology.
Philosophical Library, 1956.




(4)
Shoemaker, Sydney. "Introspection and the Self." 121. Print




(5)
Levine, Steven. "Phil 381." Class Notes on Sartre. UMB,
Boston. April. 2014. Lecture.




(6)
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The
Phenomenology of Mind.
London: Routledge, 2002. Print.




(7)
Levine, Steven. "Phil 381." Class Notes on Descartes. UMB,
Boston. April. 2014. Lecture.




(8)
Strawson, P. F. "Unity and Objectivity." The
Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'
London: Methuen.




(9)
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Chapter 2 - The Body." Being
and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology.
309. Philosophical Library, 1956.




(10)
Hirsch, Sonia. Meditating
in the Kitchen.
Rio De Janeiro: Correcotia, 2011. Print.





(11)
Knowler, Karen. Eat
Right for Your Personality Type: How to Work with Your Unique
Personality to Create the Perfect Diet for You.
London: Hay House, 2012. Print.