top of page

Co-opting the Second Mind for medical gaslighting

Updated: Jan 6

Once we appreciate that the physical world itself can be seen as a representation of something deeper, a particularly difficult question can arise: "If the body is a representation of the mind, then is all disease my fault?" It seems the Second Mind can be co-opted to gaslight and blame someone for their disease. But let's take a closer look.

 

What the Second Mind suggests is that the line between the personal body and the personal mind is not clearly drawn. But be careful here. The framework does not suggest that the body is only a representation of our personal mind (First Mind). Rather, the Second Mind is a broader mind–another level that is not unique to just one body. The Second Mind represents itself as the particularities of this world, including all personal, local, physical bodies.

 

What the body-as-mind view suggests is capacity: We have the capacity to influence the body through the mind. We all know this. If you excite yourself, your pupils will dilate and your heart rate will increase. If you put yourself in a high-stress situation for a long time, you will have increased adrenaline in your bloodstream. The bi-directional interface between a personal body and the personal mind is well-known. What is not well-known is exactly where we can draw the line between "body" and "mind," and therefore what the limits of our capacity are.

 

On our Healing is Possible podcast, we have numerous cases of people who healed from apparently incurable conditions. Their state of mind was a significant factor in what they experienced. None of them would say that somebody's disease is their fault. Instead, what they've said is that it is possible to influence the state of dis-ease and sometimes the physical disease itself.

 

One of the critical misunderstandings of the Three Minds Framework is the suggestion that the physical world, including the body, is in the First Mind. No. The body is influenced by the First Mind, but not entirely within the First Mind. The First Mind is an access point to the body, but even this personal, local, First Mind is a part of the broader Second Mind, as is our personal body. This gives us the full capacity to experiment with the boundaries of our mind and body, both at the local and non-local levels. It does not give license to fault and gaslight, as doing so would suggest the entire cosmos is subservient to an individual will–a clear misunderstanding of the Three Minds Framework.


Beyond this clarification, let's ask an important question: Does the capacity to heal suggest the necessity to heal? What would healing mean in this context? Is there a role for dis-ease? Are we already whole?


When the Three Minds are clearly understood, fault falls by the wayside. Possibility, potential, and choice remain.



41 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

How to harness the placebo effect for healing

I mean it! At first glance, the above sentence indicates that I am certain about something. But let's look at it more closely. Could it indicate that I am bringing something [it] into existence? Could

bottom of page