This article was first published in "The Power of How" by Daniel McGowan.
The Fallacy of “Psycho-Physical” Unity
The term “psycho-physical” unity appears in this book for the first time on page 23. It is a phrase used often in the books of F.M Alexander to indicate that in any explanation of the constitution of the human being the mind and the body cannot be separated. He describes psycho-physical in the following way:
On page 1 of his book, THE USE OF THE SELF, F.M writes ……. “when I began my investigations, I, in common with most people, conceived ‘body’ and ‘mind’ as separate parts of the same organism, and consequently believed that human ills, difficulties and shortcomings could be classified as either ‘mental’ or ‘physical’ and dealt with on specifically ‘mental’ or specifically ‘physical’ lines. My practical experience, however, led me to abandon this point of view……my technique is based on the opposite conception, namely, that it is impossible to separate ’mental’ and ‘physical’ processes in any form of human activity.”
On page 5 of his book, CONSTRUCTIVE CONSCIOUS CONTROL, F.M lays down a definition.
“At this juncture, I wish to make clear the sense in which I use the word ‘psycho-physical’. The term psycho-physical is used here throughout my works to indicate the impossibility of separating ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ operations in our conception of the working of the human mechanism. As I wrote in MAN’S SUPREME INHERITANCE, ‘In my opinion the two must be considered to be entirely interdependent, and even more closely knit than is implied in such a phrase.’”
Alexander also says, “I am forced to use the words ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ here and throughout my argument because there are no other words at present which adequately express the manifestations of psycho-physical activity present at these various stages, not in any sense that the ‘physical’ and the ‘mental’ can be separated as such. I wish, therefore, to make it clear, that whenever I use the word ‘mental’ it is to be understood as representing all processes and manifestations which are generally recognised as not wholly ‘physical’ and vice versa the word ‘physical’ as representing all processes and manifestations which are generally recognised as not wholly ‘mental’.”
These are the words of a wise man, an original, groundbreaking, innovative, pioneering thinker, but a man, who, during his long and distinguished life did not come to realise that there is no such thing as matter and that everything – including his own body – is a form of consciousness, a thought-construct. I greatly appreciate the tremendous difficulty he had to express what he meant about the general notion that there is some kind of interface between the ‘mental’ and the ‘physical’. I acknowledge that a whole new terminology is needed to adequately express what the self is.
When one looks deeply into how the mind and body come together, one enters a little known region that is vague and confusing. How do the mental and material unite? The phrase “psycho-physical” carries its own inbuilt contradiction and the hyphen between the two words stubbornly persists in keeping them apart, even though you may have a sneaking feeling somewhere that the two are actually one. If they are one, why do they have a different name from each other? Why not one name like the beautiful simplicity of F.M’s “the self?” Is there some kind of mental-material, psycho-physical super glue that binds them together – at that mysterious mind-body interface that you cannot locate – but leaves you with the uneasy impression that you have simply stuck two separate elements together and you don’t really understand how? Is that unity? Is a unit not simply an individual thing? Or can it be two things brought together? Surely we must have two things in order to unite them? Can two separate things be united to become one?
The answer is there are not two separate elements to be brought together; there is only one – the mental. The so-called body is mind-made-manifest, a form of consciousness, and its apparent materiality is a myth, an ancient fallacy, and a false belief.
I cannot here enter into a treatise on the vast subject of mentalism, a subject that takes years of hard study to understand, but I will give a few statements about it that I hope will give the reader a hint of what mentalism is, and show why psycho-physical unity does not go far enough in attempting to explain, what, in essence, a human being is.
Like a thought, the body is a mental construct. The difference between a thought and, for example, a muscle, is one of degree, not of kind. They are both made of the same mind–stuff. To know a thought you have to think it, and equally, to know your body you have to think of it. The body is known through the medium of the senses, and to sense it you have to think of it. We live entirely in a world of sensation, and a sensation is also a mental construct. You experience your body only through sensation, can only talk about how it feels to you in terms of sensation, and sensations and thoughts are completely private to each individual. They are not accessible to anyone else. The apparent solidity, however, that you feel, the substantiality of the body, is no proof that it is made of a substance called matter. We need only look at the latest scientific discoveries to confirm this. The body’s solidity is an assumption, albeit an understandable one. Substance, however, is a supposition, substantiality is a sensation.
This explanation applies to every object in the world around us, and even in the universe. All things are thought-objects, mental constructs, mental perceptions. Many people go through a whole lifetime without realising that all they ever dealt with in interacting with people and things in this world was that which was conveyed to them by the six senses. Every object – including the body – must be a known object to the mind. Each individual’s private perception of the world is the world. Each one’s perception of one’s own body is the body. None of us can step outside the four walls of perception. None of us can burst our bubble of perception. We live in an entirely mental world constructed by the innate power and sheer magic of the individual mind from the master image imposed on all of us by the unfathomable World-Mind: an incredible co-creation.
When the meaning of mentalism becomes clear, it does not mean that everything takes on some ghostly, spectral, non-substantial form, like mist, or the heat-haze from a highway. The people around you do not become wraiths. It is simply that you realise that the substantiality you apparently feel in an object does not prove it has substance; that perception does not prove the thing-in-itself can have its own separate existence apart from a knower. When you bump your head against the wall it is, relatively speaking, solid, and will cause you pain. Mentalism is not etherealism.
In my teaching experience I am often asked by pupils what psycho-physical unity is, I reply that I cannot answer the question because the question cannot be asked. It springs from a generally accepted, ill-considered assumption that the physical – matter – exists. Because something is generally accepted, however, by most people, does not make it authentic.
Psycho-physical unity: Practical nevertheless
Having said all that about Alexander’s erroneous belief that every human being is a psycho-physical unity does not, however, diminish its effectiveness for the practical purpose of interacting with people and things in everyday living. It must not be completely dismissed, because thinking of mind and body being one is better than regarding them as two entirely separate elements.
When someone comes to me for lessons it makes no difference whether they believe in mentalism or materialism, or any other kind of “ism”. The beliefs of each and every pupil about what constitutes a human being are respected, because the wonderful process of constructive conscious control, as expounded by F.M Alexander, really works. It covers the whole gamut of human activity, and if the pupil has the capacity to learn it, he will transform himself – with the help of the teacher – into a new way of conscious being and doing that will free him from the slavery of his negative psycho-physical habits. The “is” is not an “ism”.
This article was first published in The Power of How by Daniel McGowan. You can download the PDF of this book for free here: FREE DOWNLOAD