Erick Mead

Hardly. The focus of what they are describing is more predominantly focussed on the body's sensation and the action premised on that sensation mediated by the mind, whereas I am looking critically at the mind's perception of the action and the objective action that is occurring. The fact that the descriptions used (even if highle effective for your training) are more figurative and mine more technical is to be expected because of what I am looking at. One is not "better than the other anymore than my right is "better" than my left for hitting people. It depends on the need and the circumstance is all.

The reason the respective views may sometimes seem fuzzy is because we are on opposite sides looking at each other through the same darn crystal ball. Which is a great metaphor, actually. We can each appear distorted and upside down to the other, whereas objectively both of us are upright. Understanding the disconnect of intense perception is better if we broaden our gaze a bit, and allow for the two modes of perception at the same time.

The body can lie to the mind, the mind can lie to the body and either one can lie to itself. If this were not true then deception would not work in war and, of course, it does, and marvelously well. Merely assuming that all perceptions are objectively true as I perceive them to be can cause serious conflicts, internally and externally. Objective reasoning from critical observation is a part of the mind that cannot be dispensed with, even if it is also not the entire truth.