Reply to comment

Agree there is a potential here for confusion.  But there's another possible way to look at, different from calling the brain "physiological" and the "Mind" something else.  After all,  Dickinson actually writes about "brain," not "Mind."  Maybe the "Mind" is "physiological" too?  ie a part of the brain?  Yes, something that can't be understood/emcompassed by the "rational mind" but, if the brain includes that (what we know as "our self") and there is "room besides," then maybe the rest, beyond the "rational mind" is also in the physiological brain?  As per the image  to the right?  There is (yellow and white circles) the part of the brain that does things we're aware of, including the "rational mind," but its actually a small part of a much larger brain (the light grey region) that we're not aware of, isn't "rational" in the sense we usually use that word, but is our only conduit to the bigger world of which we are a part (the darker grey "outside").  Maybe "God or Buddha" is the "rational mind's" name for what is outside but we cannot know "rationally," because of the physiology of the brain?  For more exploration of this possibility see "Reality: Construction, Deconstruction, and Reconstruction" and Evolving Inquiry: The Unconscious as Bridging the Intellectual/Spiritual and the Academic/Personal and The Taoist Story Teller: Do We Still Need Truth, Reality, and/or God?