It always bugged me that I spelt holistic wrong. Every single time, I had to correct it. And now I know why. It’s because it should be Wholistic. Not Holistic. And since yesterdays post I’ve been pondering this even further.
Here’s where my trail of thought is going at the moment.
The definitions of Holistic:
“Characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.”
The medical definition of Holistic:
“Characterized by the treatment of the whole person, taking into account mental and social factors, rather than just the symptoms of a disease.”
Then why, is spelt as if there is a hole in the person? We are after all whole beings.
Hole-istic wellness suggests that somewhere within us is a hole. Always. So therefore, can there really be any true wellness if there is always something missing?
Whole-istic wellness would suggest that at all times, we are whole beings and that parts of the whole are not as well as they could be. Far more likely that wholistic wellness is to be aimed for, that feeling of completion, that feeling that every part of your being is connected, is whole. There is certainly nothing missing because as a Kinesiologist, I understand that our bodies know exactly what we need in order to achieve optimal health and wellbeing.
That is, wellness beyond symptoms, beyond the physical, beyond the nutritional and chemical, beyond the mental, emotional components but deep in to the cellular level and much further out and more expansive that the body far beyond the spiritual essence of our being. We’re more wholistic than we intellectually think we are.
What are your thoughts on holistic or wholistic wellness?
DanaAtkin 
Leave a Reply