(Note: I will be using mind/soul synonymously and heart/spirit synonymously.)

What was Carol Decker (yes I had to look that up) of T'Pau asking from us in the early 1990's when she sang the words "give a little bit of heart and soul"? After all, Carol didn't ask for onlyf "a little bit of heart." For some reason, she also needed some soul. Soul is necessary. Mentioning both heart and soul implies that they are not the same thing. They are different and have their own characteristics. Later in the song she does, after all, ask that her lover give a sign because she has a "need to know" about their situation. Heart/spirit and soul/mind are both necessary.

Let's go ahead and address these things that we speak of: heart and soul.

The Greeks had three main words for love: agape, eros, and philias. Agape is a pure sort of love or a love of the soul. Eros is, of course, closely related to our word "lust". Philias is a practical love or a love that is concerned with benefit and usually associated with "friends".

In today's terms we use "heart" to signify, depending on meaning, some sort of attachment that approaches a sort of combination between agape and phillias. A love that is a combination of love of the similar, love of the beneficial, and love of the soul. Rarely do we associate "heart" with an erotic attraction. Even the saying "Have a heart" requests the subject to give in to his feeling a bit and not to be aroused.

Soul is a bit easier. We tend to put mind and soul together. Mind seems to be the accumulation of data and experiences that has been attached to the conscious. The Greek term for soul, psyche, seems to confirm that mind and soul are similar. Certainly, the Greek psyche was a bit deeper. (However, science, that basterd child of philosophy, has destroyed any conception of soul, but has kept mind.)

Plato, at least, said that there are three parts to the soul. We'll call the lowest level the appetite, the middle layer the spirit (or what might translate as heart or inspiration), and the highest part we'll call the mind.

How might a person act if the lowest part of this three piece soul ran things? If the appetite were in charge it would enslave the two other parts, the heart and the mind, to do its bidding. The appetite would be 'inspired' to think of ways, maybe creative ways, to satiate its various hungers. Appetite in this case does not only mean food hunger. The appetites basically represent all of our animalistic urges: sex, hunger, feeling good, and so on. There is a role for this layer of the soul, to be sure, but that role is not to rule the whole of the body. Someone with this part of their soul ruling their lives would be in an eternal masturbation. That is to say, everything would be about the experience and not necessarily about the repercussions of that experience. This person might love to eat food and then regret it or love to have sex, but regret the act afterwards. They want the experience of giving the body pleasure. Once the body had been pleased it fades away into the darkness only to allow the mind to take over. Once the mind sees what it had been forced to do, guilt or anger or regret sets in. Of course, later, when the appetites grow once more the weak willed mind falls again to the appetite and the whole thing happens over and over and over.

If the spirit or heart is in charge you have an equally unstable situation. The spirit is sort of like an engine. Engines make things move. Engines, if it were up to them, would run 100 percent at all times. With the appetite or mind in charge the engine/spirit gladly gives movement to their wishes. When it is in charge, however, it just goes without thinking about where it is going. Those that have the spirit/heart in charge tend to overreact to situations or "give it their all" in all situations and never pick and choose where their energy is best spent. These people are great followers. I mean no offense by this, but I tend to think of football players or army grunts as having this layer of the soul in charge.

If the mind is in charge you have a rational human being. A person who will eat if it is appropriate or get emotionally attached to the appropriate person. These people will think before they act. When reason is the ruler of the soul all is as it should be and as nature intended. We do not act like animals nor do we act like mindless over caffeinated football players just before a game. Of course, none of us possesses only one part of this tripartate soul. We are different mixtures of each layer.

To return to the issue, some people today believe that there are things of the "heart" and then there are things of the "mind." What these people miss is that the things of the "heart" do not reside in the organ "heart", they reside in the "heart" of the mind; both heart and soul reside in the mind.

I like to think T'Pau understood that if only heart were given then rationality would fly out the window. The spirit would over take the mind and all hell would break loose. Plato might say this is the reason people sob for days or months after the break up of an important relationship. The spirit has taken over the rationality of the mind. The song "Heart and Soul" seems to be about a last ditch effort of the mind to allow the heart to beg for the return of a loved one. The well balanced mind understands that love is necessary. It allows the heart to do what it does, but it can only abdicate so much of its power before the emotional state of the heart colors the mind's thoughts.

Some, largely joking, comment that there should be a democracy of the soul where all parts have equal say. That is as ridiculous as trying to reason with a two year old. T'Pau says that there is a "politics of life...yeah". Politics is not the same as democracy. Politics is allowing the actions necessary for the good to float to the top and the worthless to fall to the bottom. Politics is the arranging of values. Arranging the values of the soul can be done through the appetite, heart, or mind. So there are three different "internal" political arrangements to match the three different parts of the soul.

Just to make the point clear, the heart can't really think on its own. It isn't necessarily subservient to the mind. The heart can inform the mind when it has gone too far or when it needs to stop being so analytical, but the heart cannot think clearly. This is not its job.

Some may protest that I look to eradicate the apetite and the spirit. I certainly don't make that claim here. The mind has its limited and spefici job as well. Needing to know is just as important as feeling. The unguided heart leads to many a problem. We've all, I'm sure, been victim to our own desired. The heart collaborates with the appetite and overwhelms the mind. The appetite then propels the heart to greater heights or greater and greater depths. Appetite in this case is a yearning for attention or a need to be loved by someone who is out of reach or at least should be.

The objects of the mind (books, for example) can help lead the heart away from calamity. The objects of the heart (friendship, for example) can make life softer and more enjoyable. The true miracle is when you get a balance within and without. To find that friend or lover that has a place in both the heart and mind is rare and to be cherished.

The mind, spirit, and appetites are all necessary for life within "the city". Having said that, each has its proper role. Unfortunately, too many of us exercise our hearts and appetites until we get into trouble. We then beg our minds to think of some way to make the situation better or we punish it for not doing its job correctly by leaning our heads down and pounding on the forehead with the palm of the hand and yelling something like "Think, damn it!"

Thanks T'Pau, I love you!!!!