Nicely said, Ron. IMO, there are not two paradigms, just two sides of the same one. One side is bringing you to your objective via a physical path and the other side via a mental path. Since your connection objective requires a coordinated mind and body, you need to have both to be successful.
Hi Greg -
I assume you refer to the body-centric approach when you speak of the physical path and the feeling-centric approach when you speak of the mental path.
In the feeling-centric approach the feeling portion of feeling-centric doesn't refer to the normal emotional based feelings like love, hate, envy and such. When I speak of feeling in the feeling-centric approach I am talking about how the execution of a particular exercise physically feels within my body. Recognition and analysis of points of tension, relaxation, force vectors, points of force application etc. are ways that I am able to feel how my performance of an exercise allows me to or keeps me from creating a connection with my partner's center.
Instead of trying to connect via a specific set of movements, I am free to work through the exercise in a variety of ways in order to determine how to most efficiently connect with my partner. So I see both approaches as inherently physically based.
I believe both approaches have a mental component in common; that is the correct focus and application of intent in order to unify body and mind. Correct application of mechanics will limit me to pure physical power without coordination of body and mind. Likewise, without the focus of intent I will not be able to recognize and analyse what I'm feeling when being confronted by my partner. Both systems require coordinated body and mind in order to successfully establish the center to center connection we are discussing.