Help
Sign In
descartes
May 2008 
The Voices of the Mind Body Connection - Thoughts and Feelings
Posted on May 20th, 2007
by 
Steven
Steven
In the last chapter, I introduced to you the idea that the way we sense time in our bodies and minds is what connects our minds to our bodies. Not clock time, mind you. Relative time. The kind Einstein talked about. The thing is, in order to address this connection in therapy, we must first be able to sense the differences between the perceptions of the body and the perceptions of the mind. Not just the timing of what we perceive mind you. The content itself. Our literal perceptions. This then is what we are about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy. We are going to explore perception itself. Not from the cold and distant philosophical perspective. Rather from the normal everyday way in which we all perceive life. The ordinary warm and mostly fussy human perspective. Which happens to be the same perspective we explore from in talk therapy.
Thoughts and Feelings as the Two Perceptions
Let's get right down to it.
In the last chapter we spoke about how the mind and body interact and connect through their respective senses of time. Relative to each other, that is. In a very real sense then, we each have a mind clock and a body clock. And these two clocks run simultaneously and constantly, both recording, in their own way, the historical timing of everything we sense both with our bodies and our minds.
I also told you that like right and left handedness, we each have a clock which normally has the upper hand. The one in control. Either our mind clock or our body clock. And whichever clock is running faster is the one in control.
In a way then, we each have what amounts to a master clock (the faster clock) and a slave clock (the slower clock). Moreover, this master / slave relationship psychophysically mirrors the master and slave clocks present in all digital communications systems, from CD and DVD players to the equipment in the biggest television studios.
Now for those for whom digital systems remain a mystery, the quick explanation is that all things digital store or play information. Just like we do. CD players. Computer hard drives. HDTV cameras. Whatever. They all record and play back information.
Why do we call them "digital?" Because they store or play back information which has been sliced into samples. A process we call "digitizing."
What is important to see here is that this digitized information plays back in a way quite similar to how a timed sequence of snapshots would play back. Only it plays back a whole lot quicker. How quickly exactly? Well if we're talking about a CD, you can see this rate listed in the fine print on the back of the package. 44.1. Which means what exactly? Which means that a CD plays back sound at a rate of 44,100 samples per second. Pretty fast, eh? This number then, which we call the sampling rate, is shorthand for the amount of samples which a digital device will play back in a single second. In a single second! Imagine?
The point is, something must tell this CD player when to move to the next sample. The rate at which to play back these tens of thousands of samples. This something is a kind of clock.
Now if the music on this CD was recorded anytime recently, chances are it was recorded in a studio wherein there were many different digital processors all linked together. A whole bunch of different boxes each of which does something to the sound. And in order for all these boxes to work together properly, they each must have a way to know when to move to the next sample. This way is a master clock. A single clock which is in charge of telling all the other clocks when to move to the next sample.
What happens if these clocks get out of sync?
Sometimes there is a very unpleasant sound called digital hash. Sometimes there is no sound at all. And sometimes the sound starts and stops randomly, something like a person who stutters only the person is the box. Whatever the case, when one or more of these boxes fall out of sync, the whole system does not record or play back properly. And if you add recording video to the complexity of recording sound, the potential problems multiply pretty quickly. Things like no picture. Or the picture gets blurred. Or distorted. And so on.
How does all this technical stuff apply to us?
We human beings have a lot in common with these digital recording and play back systems. Including that we too suffer from these same limitations. Thus each of us has two main systems which must record and play back information. Our mind and our body. Moreover we record and play back properly only when the clocks which drive these two systems are in sync.
What happens to us if our two clocks are not in sync?
To begin with, unlike digital communications equipment wherein the system is considered to be working properly only when all the clocks run in close to perfect sync, our two clocks rarely run in close to perfect sync. Roughly in sync? On good days, perhaps. But in close to perfect sync? Mostly not. Except in those rare occasions wherein we have flashes of insight. Sudden realizations. Aha's. Or eureka's. Or spiritual experiences. Or what I call, emergences. All of which are simply different ways to refer to those times wherein our clocks suddenly lock up and for a split second, run in absolutely perfect sync.
How often do we have these sudden realizations? Obviously, not often. However, the thing to pay close attention to here is that these flashes of insight occur only when our two clocks are in perfect sync. No perfect sync. No flashes of insight. Which is why learning about these two clocks being in sync is so important. Especially considering that yet another way to refer to these perfectly in sync moments is to call them, "therapeutic breakthroughs."
What about in everyday life then. What is it like to live with our clocks not running in sync?
To begin with, as I've said before, the technology we humans make always mirrors who we are. How we work. How we break. What we like and so on. In this case then, like all digital systems, it is perfectly normal for all of us to have one of our two clocks running ahead of the other. This clock is our master clock. The other clock then, the clock which is running slower, is our slave clock.
The thing is, we are not made to the same strict tolerances as our digital recorders and play back devices. Thus, we humans suffer from many of the same problems as the digital systems I've just mentioned. Only we suffer from these problems everyday, all day.
What am I saying? I'm saying that the reason we walk around having such a hard time visualizing is that we all have with problems with our picture and or sound. More with the picture than the sound, mind you. But also with recording and playing back sound.
What does this mean? It means that at best, we hear only parts of what we think we experience. Mostly sound without picture and even then, very little of the sound.
Why does this happen? Because our two clocks, our body clock and our mind clock, fluctuate so badly with regard to being in sync with each other that we basically see and hear very little of what goes on in life. And most of what we do see and hear gets distorted. Is this beginning to make sense to you yet? Are you realizing what this means?
It means that if we didn't have a way to correct for these errors, we'd be screwed. Totally. We'd have no sense of reality. Fortunately, we do have an error correction system built into us. Logic is a part of it. Intuition, the other. The thing is, even with the best error correction system in the world, we can only work with what has been recorded. Thus, because we record so little of what goes on in life, even though we each have in us what amounts to the world's greatest error correction system, we still base what we experience in life mostly on erroneously recorded and partially missing data.
What makes this whole thing especially important is that the character and biases of our master clock then largely determine what we see as true in life. Moreover we then base our choices in life on this distorted truth. Thus, whichever clock is master, mind or body, determines how our choices are biased in everything from deciding how and what we will best learn to deciding what we will do for a living. And who we will have as friends. And what we will do in our free time. And who we think is telling the truth.
How does all this play out in real life then?
Well if you are a Body First person, you'll be naturally talented at almost everything which requires physical coordination. Batting and kicking and catching a ball. Jumping rope and climbing stairs. Most of which will come easier to you than to a Mind First person.
And if you are a Mind First person?
Mind First people are naturally talented at everything which requires mental coordination. Everything from algebra and logic to psychology and accounting. Classroom learning in general in fact. And while no Mind First person learns everything well, Mind First people have the upper hand in classrooms. Period.
Of course, they also feel pretty uncoordinated in gym classes and in wood shop. Or in home economics. Or in any technical trade. Plumbing to auto mechanics.
Are you beginning to see whom our world is biased towards? Who we value more? Our natural built-in prejudice?
Not sure what am I saying? I'm saying that the world is largely biased towards Mind First people. We see them as being more desirable than Body First people in a way similarly to how we value right handed people over left handed people. And lest you think this is not true, consider how we design most physical things to be easier for right handed people than for left handed people. Guitars to television sets. Words to laws. (As in we use the same word for "right" turns as we use for turning the "right" way. Or morally living "right'. Or legally being in the "right.")
The point is, we have the same kind of bias towards Mind First people as we do towards right handed people. We see them as quicker, smarter, and more valuable, even when we do not realize we do this. Which is why I suppose we tailor our classrooms, and our accolades, towards Mind First people and away from Body First people.
To most people then, Mind First people are smart. And Body First people are dumb. Mind First people are quick minded. And Body First people are slow minded. Except of course when it comes to sports. In which case, Mind First people really look dumb and most times just don't get it. They're just too slow to get it. Body wise, that is.
Changing a flat tire? Mind First people will feel less than competent especially in the presence of a Body First person. And this is true even if the Body First person has never changed a tire before. Intuitively, a Body First person will know more about how to do a physical task than a Mind First person ever will. Even if the Mind First person has done this task many times.
In chemistry class though? For instance, with things like understanding what the matrix of periodic elements means?
Body First people rarely take chemistry. But if they do, they usually struggle to keep up. More than the Mind First folks do anyway. Moreover this is not because Body First people are dumb. They are not. Nor is it because Body First people cannot do the work. They can. Rather, it is because they learn things differently.
What is different about how they learn? Well if you go back a few lines and notice the words I used to describe Body First peoples' experiences of chemistry classes, you'll find a clue as to what this difference is. What words did I use? I said they usually "struggle to keep up." Duh. So what does this mean? Well take a few moments to consider why I chose these particular words. I chose them as we so often say things like this about Body First people. We say, they "struggle to keep up." To keep up with what though? Most folks would assume it means, to keep up with the smarter kids. The truth? They struggle with two things. One, they struggle to keep up with the faster pace of the Mind First kids. Two. They struggle to conform to what is for them a counter intuitive learning style.
What am I saying? I'm saying that pace not a measure of intelligence, although we humans are biased towards thinking it is. In truth though, often times, people who learn at a slower pace learn more thoroughly. And isn't this a better measure for intelligence?
The point is, pace is the first difference between Mind First people and Body First people. Pace. Not intelligence. A difference. Not a problem. Unless of course the classes are biases toward the pace of the Mind First people. Which most classes are. In which case, it appears that pace is a measure of intelligence. But only because of how these classes are designed.
What is the second difference? The second difference is that Body First people learn things best in the reverse order from how Mind First people learn best. Body First people learn best when they are shown then told what they were shown. Whereas Mind First people learn best when they are told then shown what they were told.
Can you picture this difference? Do you know which you prefer?
At some point in your life then, you might have even had someone ask you to change your way of teaching for her or him. If so, this request was likely made because of this difference. Whatever the case though, Body First people learn best if they are shown then told. Why? Because Body First people are oriented toward the physical not the mental. In other words, they do best if they learn it with their bodies first and only then think about what they did.
Now consider how this biases these folks towards taking classes in which show then tell learning in the norm. What kinds of classes am I talking about? Classes like gym classes, home economics, wood shop, auto mechanics, sports, trades, and so on. Beautician. Carpenter. Practical fields. Physical learning. All classes wherein kids are shown then told.
This also biases Body First people away from classes wherein telling normally precedes showing. Classes like accounting, theoretical sciences, higher maths, and English comp. Astrophysicist to architect to zoologist and so on. All classes wherein kids are told then shown.
Finally, there are the classes which involve both mind and body learning. Notice the way these things fit together though. The order in which the mind body teaching is given. Thus the science of frog anatomy (mind first) comes before dissecting frogs in science lab (body first). Digging on archeology field trips (body first) comes only after studying the field classification systems for finds (mind first). The science of internal combustion engines (mind first) precedes the body oriented learning of auto mechanics (body first). And even the mind first strategies of football plays and designing gymnastic meet routines come before body first cheerleaders and gymnasts.
The thing to notice here is which of these classroom activities come first. Which? In almost every case, the learning is biased towards tell then show learning. Which means most of our normal classroom education is tailored towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people. Moreover, since authentic talk therapy more resembles teaching people rather than fixing people, even most talk therapy is biased towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people.
This is sad. Especially in light of the fact that because of the way the world is biased against them, Body First people often have more reasons to be in therapy. And even when we are talking about Mind First people, no Mind First person lives in a vacuum. They all have many Body First folks in their lives.
In a way then, we treat Body First people very similarly to how we once treated left handed people; as folks who needed to be forced to conform to the values of the more popular group. I've even spoken to people who as child were physically forced to use their right hands. Not a very pleasant experience to be sure.
This leads us to a question which I think looms here. Can this Mind First / Body First orientation ever change? My preliminary answer? Yes. I've seen a number of cases so far wherein this change has happened to people. More on this to come. The next question though is, so if this orientation can change, should we ever try to make this happen? My initial thoughts? No. We should not try to make people conform to a personal norm simply so that they can fit in better with the majority.
On the other hand, I think we should be developing ways in which people who choose to may have options. Both Body First people and Mind first people. But to force them to change? No. I don't think so.
Some now might ask, why not? Wouldn't they suffer less? Yes. In some ways, they world. And fitting in does have it's advantages. Even so, the degree to which people are allowed to be themselves is the degree to which they can and will live happy lives. Thus being oneself is the key.
At the same time, there is a lot to be said for helping people to be aware of these two clocks. And for developing ways in which we could help people to become more skilled at what their slower clock does. This could markedly improve peoples' lives, in ways we have yet to imagine.
Know that in coming chapters, we'll talk more about some of these possibilities. Before we do though, we first need to ground these discussions in a bit more substance. How? By delving a bit more deeply into the nature of the mind body connection. Beginning with yet another dichotomy, a split I call, the Two Perceptions.
[to read the rest of The Voices of the Mind Body Connection - Thoughts and Feelings, click here.]
Thoughts and Feelings as the Two Perceptions
Let's get right down to it.
In the last chapter we spoke about how the mind and body interact and connect through their respective senses of time. Relative to each other, that is. In a very real sense then, we each have a mind clock and a body clock. And these two clocks run simultaneously and constantly, both recording, in their own way, the historical timing of everything we sense both with our bodies and our minds.
I also told you that like right and left handedness, we each have a clock which normally has the upper hand. The one in control. Either our mind clock or our body clock. And whichever clock is running faster is the one in control.
In a way then, we each have what amounts to a master clock (the faster clock) and a slave clock (the slower clock). Moreover, this master / slave relationship psychophysically mirrors the master and slave clocks present in all digital communications systems, from CD and DVD players to the equipment in the biggest television studios.
Now for those for whom digital systems remain a mystery, the quick explanation is that all things digital store or play information. Just like we do. CD players. Computer hard drives. HDTV cameras. Whatever. They all record and play back information.
Why do we call them "digital?" Because they store or play back information which has been sliced into samples. A process we call "digitizing."
What is important to see here is that this digitized information plays back in a way quite similar to how a timed sequence of snapshots would play back. Only it plays back a whole lot quicker. How quickly exactly? Well if we're talking about a CD, you can see this rate listed in the fine print on the back of the package. 44.1. Which means what exactly? Which means that a CD plays back sound at a rate of 44,100 samples per second. Pretty fast, eh? This number then, which we call the sampling rate, is shorthand for the amount of samples which a digital device will play back in a single second. In a single second! Imagine?
The point is, something must tell this CD player when to move to the next sample. The rate at which to play back these tens of thousands of samples. This something is a kind of clock.
Now if the music on this CD was recorded anytime recently, chances are it was recorded in a studio wherein there were many different digital processors all linked together. A whole bunch of different boxes each of which does something to the sound. And in order for all these boxes to work together properly, they each must have a way to know when to move to the next sample. This way is a master clock. A single clock which is in charge of telling all the other clocks when to move to the next sample.
What happens if these clocks get out of sync?
Sometimes there is a very unpleasant sound called digital hash. Sometimes there is no sound at all. And sometimes the sound starts and stops randomly, something like a person who stutters only the person is the box. Whatever the case, when one or more of these boxes fall out of sync, the whole system does not record or play back properly. And if you add recording video to the complexity of recording sound, the potential problems multiply pretty quickly. Things like no picture. Or the picture gets blurred. Or distorted. And so on.
How does all this technical stuff apply to us?
We human beings have a lot in common with these digital recording and play back systems. Including that we too suffer from these same limitations. Thus each of us has two main systems which must record and play back information. Our mind and our body. Moreover we record and play back properly only when the clocks which drive these two systems are in sync.
What happens to us if our two clocks are not in sync?
To begin with, unlike digital communications equipment wherein the system is considered to be working properly only when all the clocks run in close to perfect sync, our two clocks rarely run in close to perfect sync. Roughly in sync? On good days, perhaps. But in close to perfect sync? Mostly not. Except in those rare occasions wherein we have flashes of insight. Sudden realizations. Aha's. Or eureka's. Or spiritual experiences. Or what I call, emergences. All of which are simply different ways to refer to those times wherein our clocks suddenly lock up and for a split second, run in absolutely perfect sync.
How often do we have these sudden realizations? Obviously, not often. However, the thing to pay close attention to here is that these flashes of insight occur only when our two clocks are in perfect sync. No perfect sync. No flashes of insight. Which is why learning about these two clocks being in sync is so important. Especially considering that yet another way to refer to these perfectly in sync moments is to call them, "therapeutic breakthroughs."
What about in everyday life then. What is it like to live with our clocks not running in sync?
To begin with, as I've said before, the technology we humans make always mirrors who we are. How we work. How we break. What we like and so on. In this case then, like all digital systems, it is perfectly normal for all of us to have one of our two clocks running ahead of the other. This clock is our master clock. The other clock then, the clock which is running slower, is our slave clock.
The thing is, we are not made to the same strict tolerances as our digital recorders and play back devices. Thus, we humans suffer from many of the same problems as the digital systems I've just mentioned. Only we suffer from these problems everyday, all day.
What am I saying? I'm saying that the reason we walk around having such a hard time visualizing is that we all have with problems with our picture and or sound. More with the picture than the sound, mind you. But also with recording and playing back sound.
What does this mean? It means that at best, we hear only parts of what we think we experience. Mostly sound without picture and even then, very little of the sound.
Why does this happen? Because our two clocks, our body clock and our mind clock, fluctuate so badly with regard to being in sync with each other that we basically see and hear very little of what goes on in life. And most of what we do see and hear gets distorted. Is this beginning to make sense to you yet? Are you realizing what this means?
It means that if we didn't have a way to correct for these errors, we'd be screwed. Totally. We'd have no sense of reality. Fortunately, we do have an error correction system built into us. Logic is a part of it. Intuition, the other. The thing is, even with the best error correction system in the world, we can only work with what has been recorded. Thus, because we record so little of what goes on in life, even though we each have in us what amounts to the world's greatest error correction system, we still base what we experience in life mostly on erroneously recorded and partially missing data.
What makes this whole thing especially important is that the character and biases of our master clock then largely determine what we see as true in life. Moreover we then base our choices in life on this distorted truth. Thus, whichever clock is master, mind or body, determines how our choices are biased in everything from deciding how and what we will best learn to deciding what we will do for a living. And who we will have as friends. And what we will do in our free time. And who we think is telling the truth.
How does all this play out in real life then?
Well if you are a Body First person, you'll be naturally talented at almost everything which requires physical coordination. Batting and kicking and catching a ball. Jumping rope and climbing stairs. Most of which will come easier to you than to a Mind First person.
And if you are a Mind First person?
Mind First people are naturally talented at everything which requires mental coordination. Everything from algebra and logic to psychology and accounting. Classroom learning in general in fact. And while no Mind First person learns everything well, Mind First people have the upper hand in classrooms. Period.
Of course, they also feel pretty uncoordinated in gym classes and in wood shop. Or in home economics. Or in any technical trade. Plumbing to auto mechanics.
Are you beginning to see whom our world is biased towards? Who we value more? Our natural built-in prejudice?
Not sure what am I saying? I'm saying that the world is largely biased towards Mind First people. We see them as being more desirable than Body First people in a way similarly to how we value right handed people over left handed people. And lest you think this is not true, consider how we design most physical things to be easier for right handed people than for left handed people. Guitars to television sets. Words to laws. (As in we use the same word for "right" turns as we use for turning the "right" way. Or morally living "right'. Or legally being in the "right.")
The point is, we have the same kind of bias towards Mind First people as we do towards right handed people. We see them as quicker, smarter, and more valuable, even when we do not realize we do this. Which is why I suppose we tailor our classrooms, and our accolades, towards Mind First people and away from Body First people.
To most people then, Mind First people are smart. And Body First people are dumb. Mind First people are quick minded. And Body First people are slow minded. Except of course when it comes to sports. In which case, Mind First people really look dumb and most times just don't get it. They're just too slow to get it. Body wise, that is.
Changing a flat tire? Mind First people will feel less than competent especially in the presence of a Body First person. And this is true even if the Body First person has never changed a tire before. Intuitively, a Body First person will know more about how to do a physical task than a Mind First person ever will. Even if the Mind First person has done this task many times.
In chemistry class though? For instance, with things like understanding what the matrix of periodic elements means?
Body First people rarely take chemistry. But if they do, they usually struggle to keep up. More than the Mind First folks do anyway. Moreover this is not because Body First people are dumb. They are not. Nor is it because Body First people cannot do the work. They can. Rather, it is because they learn things differently.
What is different about how they learn? Well if you go back a few lines and notice the words I used to describe Body First peoples' experiences of chemistry classes, you'll find a clue as to what this difference is. What words did I use? I said they usually "struggle to keep up." Duh. So what does this mean? Well take a few moments to consider why I chose these particular words. I chose them as we so often say things like this about Body First people. We say, they "struggle to keep up." To keep up with what though? Most folks would assume it means, to keep up with the smarter kids. The truth? They struggle with two things. One, they struggle to keep up with the faster pace of the Mind First kids. Two. They struggle to conform to what is for them a counter intuitive learning style.
What am I saying? I'm saying that pace not a measure of intelligence, although we humans are biased towards thinking it is. In truth though, often times, people who learn at a slower pace learn more thoroughly. And isn't this a better measure for intelligence?
The point is, pace is the first difference between Mind First people and Body First people. Pace. Not intelligence. A difference. Not a problem. Unless of course the classes are biases toward the pace of the Mind First people. Which most classes are. In which case, it appears that pace is a measure of intelligence. But only because of how these classes are designed.
What is the second difference? The second difference is that Body First people learn things best in the reverse order from how Mind First people learn best. Body First people learn best when they are shown then told what they were shown. Whereas Mind First people learn best when they are told then shown what they were told.
Can you picture this difference? Do you know which you prefer?
At some point in your life then, you might have even had someone ask you to change your way of teaching for her or him. If so, this request was likely made because of this difference. Whatever the case though, Body First people learn best if they are shown then told. Why? Because Body First people are oriented toward the physical not the mental. In other words, they do best if they learn it with their bodies first and only then think about what they did.
Now consider how this biases these folks towards taking classes in which show then tell learning in the norm. What kinds of classes am I talking about? Classes like gym classes, home economics, wood shop, auto mechanics, sports, trades, and so on. Beautician. Carpenter. Practical fields. Physical learning. All classes wherein kids are shown then told.
This also biases Body First people away from classes wherein telling normally precedes showing. Classes like accounting, theoretical sciences, higher maths, and English comp. Astrophysicist to architect to zoologist and so on. All classes wherein kids are told then shown.
Finally, there are the classes which involve both mind and body learning. Notice the way these things fit together though. The order in which the mind body teaching is given. Thus the science of frog anatomy (mind first) comes before dissecting frogs in science lab (body first). Digging on archeology field trips (body first) comes only after studying the field classification systems for finds (mind first). The science of internal combustion engines (mind first) precedes the body oriented learning of auto mechanics (body first). And even the mind first strategies of football plays and designing gymnastic meet routines come before body first cheerleaders and gymnasts.
The thing to notice here is which of these classroom activities come first. Which? In almost every case, the learning is biased towards tell then show learning. Which means most of our normal classroom education is tailored towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people. Moreover, since authentic talk therapy more resembles teaching people rather than fixing people, even most talk therapy is biased towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people.
This is sad. Especially in light of the fact that because of the way the world is biased against them, Body First people often have more reasons to be in therapy. And even when we are talking about Mind First people, no Mind First person lives in a vacuum. They all have many Body First folks in their lives.
In a way then, we treat Body First people very similarly to how we once treated left handed people; as folks who needed to be forced to conform to the values of the more popular group. I've even spoken to people who as child were physically forced to use their right hands. Not a very pleasant experience to be sure.
This leads us to a question which I think looms here. Can this Mind First / Body First orientation ever change? My preliminary answer? Yes. I've seen a number of cases so far wherein this change has happened to people. More on this to come. The next question though is, so if this orientation can change, should we ever try to make this happen? My initial thoughts? No. We should not try to make people conform to a personal norm simply so that they can fit in better with the majority.
On the other hand, I think we should be developing ways in which people who choose to may have options. Both Body First people and Mind first people. But to force them to change? No. I don't think so.
Some now might ask, why not? Wouldn't they suffer less? Yes. In some ways, they world. And fitting in does have it's advantages. Even so, the degree to which people are allowed to be themselves is the degree to which they can and will live happy lives. Thus being oneself is the key.
At the same time, there is a lot to be said for helping people to be aware of these two clocks. And for developing ways in which we could help people to become more skilled at what their slower clock does. This could markedly improve peoples' lives, in ways we have yet to imagine.
Know that in coming chapters, we'll talk more about some of these possibilities. Before we do though, we first need to ground these discussions in a bit more substance. How? By delving a bit more deeply into the nature of the mind body connection. Beginning with yet another dichotomy, a split I call, the Two Perceptions.
[to read the rest of The Voices of the Mind Body Connection - Thoughts and Feelings, click here.]
Access: Public
