I didn't mean to downplay nature. In fact, I think nature is probably overwhelmingly dominant in this area. Even in the case of brain damage, there's a lot of room for biological risk factors/heredity that make certain types of damage 'take' in some but not others. (Raine talks about this sort of thing in Anatomy of Violence.) As for where that potential resides, that's the question. But one thing that stands out for me from my reading on these things over the last year or so is just how complex, murky, and fuzzy the current scientific understanding really is. With the exception of certain diseases that can be traced back to a single gene, the genetics of psychopathology, or even just normal human psychology, is barely in its infancy and much more complex than a lot of geneticists thought it would be in past decades.The book sounds like a must-read, so thanks for that, but at first glance your LH-OP idea seems to me like it places too much emphasis on nurture, on an individual's choices and thus the development of their neurological pathways or 'maps' in life, at the expense of nature. We may all be functionally 'OPs' to begin with in some, or even many, respects, but think of all the instances where 'souled humans' stand out as such from a very young age. Even if they 'fail' in life, never actualizing their talents and mucking up their 'life plan', and even if OPs around them 'succeed' by comparison, souled humans have a 'depth' to them that sets them apart, and it's often recognizable to others (if only momentarily) of similar 'depth'.
I see you leave open the possibility that it could be down to either nurture or nature whether someone 'grows beyond being an OP', but that issue of 'who has potential or not' is apparently 'pre-determined', thus hardwired, thus taking us back to the question of 'where in the brain' (or DNA) does that difference reside?! From the answers in sessions with the Cs, it seems that OPs can and do 'grow', but over lifetimes and not in some way that is 'genetically switched on' in any given lifetime.
The only person I'm aware of who has dealt with this problem (aside from esoteric people like Gurdjieff) has been Dabrowski and his concept of developmental potential, which he thought was hereditary. And based on all his studies, he estimated that only something like 25-30% (if I'm remembering correctly - might have been lower than that) of humans had any real developmental potential. The way I see it at the moment is that this potential might be normally distributed among humanity, like general intelligence, height, or any number of other traits. You have a minority at the bottom with zero (e.g. personality disorders like psychopathy), a minority at the top with lots (like Caesar), and then a whole lot of average in the middle, where the boundaries are probably a lot fuzzier.
The place where individual choice comes into play is that, with the exception of a tiny minority of truly exceptional people, even if you have the potential, you have to work to make it real.
Can't say much other than that I'm pretty sure he deals with this in part 3. So far on mind, he has limited himself to statements making clear that he doesn't see an identity between brain and mind (he points out that in his clinical experience, those with RH dysfunction are much more likely to refer to their mind as their brain). He quotes Nagel and Whitehead favorably, so he might veer in the direction of panpsychism, but I don't know for sure yet.I bought the kindle edition. I've only just started and after reading above one question that comes up is what place does the LH/RH model give to mind? The preview in the 'look inside' option on amazon revealed a paragraph that I wanted to highlight and so I think it will be a fascinating read even if that question is not addressed. Thanks for the recommendation.