In looking at how we use language, I notice two very different modes of using words, one exemplified by the scientist, the other by the poet. Scientists use words to describe and explain things while poets use words to evoke and induce feelings. The scientist's mode is thinking; the poet's mode is sensing. Where one deals with logic and reason, the other deals with emotion and passion. While the first communicates data and facts, the second opens the doors of perception and experience. In this term paper, we will discuss thinking and logics in detail. The scientist takes the stand of objectivity and impersonality. The poet strives to be personal and subjective.
Renι Descartes' dictum, "I think therefore I am," is a clear statement of the predominance of reason in our culture. The poet might say, "I feel therefore I am," but we do not identify with that saying like we do with Descartes. The consequence of the scientific use of language has been to get us "up in our heads" (where thinking takes place, we think) and disconnected from the rest of our bodies, which, in this view of ourselves, have very little to contribute. We end up thinking that the main function of the body is to carry the head around.
There is nothing wrong with either use of language. In fact, we want both. The problem comes when the scientist denies the existence of anything that cannot be described or explained. The scientist is talking about what "matters," literally. He is describing the material world and denying the existence of that which is not material. This partial view denies the most important aspect of our existence, the essential spiritual nature of life, because it is not material.
The medical model in health care tends to be similarly one-sided and denies the existence of anything that is not in the realm of logic and reason. This approach misses the mark. I believe that bodywork will never fit into the medical model because that model is not big enough to accommodate the concept of self-care -- leading to a balanced self in a balanced body -- that body workers represent.
In working with clients I want to use words in both ways. I want to describe and explain things to the clients about what I do and about the body. And I want to evoke their experience and induct them into a state of connection with their physical selves where they feel fully embodied with thoughts, sensations, kinesthetic perceptions, gut feelings, emotions and intuition. I see learning as a two-way street. One way is education, which is to draw knowledge out of the "body of knowledge" that we inhabit; the other is information, which is to add data to the structures of knowledge that we have already. On this two-way street of learning, I use description and explanation to convey information, and I evoke and induce for the purpose of education, to draw out their experiences. Notice that the words "educate" and "induce" both have the root word ducare (Latin for "to draw out of"). To give my clients a full experience of themselves I must not only take a stand for our material body, but also for that which is not matter, for it is spirit that animates matter and gives it life and meaning.
In communicating with our clients we want to remember that although their minds ask for explanation and description, their souls are seeking a feeling of connection and compassion. Because we want to care for them body and soul, it is good to speak both to their intellect and to their intuition. We need to do with our words what we do so well with our hands, that is, to give clients a fuller and richer experience of who they are. We want to communicate the vastness of our human experience not only by sharing principles and thoughts, but also by learning to express our feelings, our core concerns and our insights. Let us remember the moral of The Little Prince: What is essential is invisible to the eye. It is only with the heart that one can see clearly.
on Critical Thinking and Logic, is written by Mr. Ajiz Asif, who is well known writer at Custom Term Papers