[M.D. Holloway]

I read recently the Many Facets of Our Minds by Dr. Jayapaul Azariah

His concepts are very interesting:

Mind the Soul & Mind, the Soul

Another interesting aspect is that of the relationship between mind and the soul. If intellect is mind than Plato considered intellect as the extension of the soul, which has a rational and irrational aspects (vide Goodin 4.1.04). On the principles of a systems approach, these two aspects, through a systemic merge, produce the powerful third characteristic of the soul, namely a "tripartite matrix" with its powers of desire and physical growth (appetitive), the mind (intellect) and the emotional powers (incensive) of the soul. Before we harp upon other ideas, it is better that we elaborate what we mean by the word "soul"? Which doctrine is true: I have a soul or I am a soul? Manoj introduced a third position: "It is my soul", which is a variant of position "I have a soul". Meaning body contains the soul - soul is the prisoner of the body - and it can be liberated. When one says "I am a soul" then he/she accepts that physical body is an integral part of the soul. According to Manoj both the positions are 'right'. For one issue, can there be two moral positions? Can both be right? Do all such categories, where both are right, are all right? A half filled cup is half empty and half full. The statements "Fools seldom differ in their thinking" and "Great men think alike "are also right. In many instances, only one position is always right!

Sheriff, on the other hand, took a more comprehensive position. He wrote, " Soul is the core of a personality. It is a part and parcel of every human character...The soul is the essence of human personality, love, compassion, hatred, green and other human qualities add up to make a person" The picture that emerges is that soul is "I am" or "what I am".

Nesy distinguishes the mind from the soul. "In the Indian context mind is only a product or a function of the higher entity called soul or atman. Mind is significant only from the cognitive or epistemological point of view whereas soul is significant from the metaphysical point of view. The original nature of "man is that he is a soul having no difference as eastern or western. But from the mental point of view all differences are applicable to man" Is 'mind' a part and parcel of the soul or lower in its status?

If intellect is equated with mind and if mind is found all over the body, then mind should overcome the bodily basic instincts, using its rational aspects. Alas, many times it is the irrational aspect that reigns supreme! Like the ancient Indian Sadhus we should learn to bring under subjection. Have we ever tried to speak to the excited and wandering mind, which does not permit sleep to set in, by saying, Oh my mind, why are you so excited, don't you know it is time for you to sleep. Come on! Sleep? Have you ever spoken to yourself?


Global mind

Many in our discussion group have stressed the universality of the mind and the cultural and sociobiological impact resulting in a similarity of minds between the two hemispheres. In this context, Goodin proposed the development of a Global Mind, which is " a mind that is acculturated to respect other cultures and other beings, whether they are human or non human". In this sense it is a local mind with an open mind that has developed deference (respect) to global cultures and other non-human and human beings. A Global mind need not be due to a process similar to "globalization". However, is it possible to enter into the phenomenon of "globalization of mind", by removing all reservations, restrictions, fundamentalism, on the one hand and on the other encouraging tolerance,/ live and let live principle, biocentric altruism, finding common grounds and fixing common aim. If we can have a common global aim then the formation of a Global Mind is not only possible but also probable and ultimately it is the only preferable option for humankind. Manoj agrees that a global mind already exits. Others think not. Development of a global mind is in other words is the development of "thought collective". It is not a move towards 'uniformity" but it progress towards 'unity'. If you think that is 'possible but difficult' then we will not be able to reach it. But if you think that is difficult but possible, then we can reach this aim. We need a base to achieve this aim. So far the base was religion, which has been annulled due to the advancement of Science and Technology. Now there is a need to find a new base or trace back our steps to retain religion.