'The master and his emissary' and 'The matter with things' by Iain McGilchrist.

[luc]

I enjoyed that one too, especially the reflection on their own renegade journeys. While specialization and technical excellence within a given paradigm are important and fruitful (the "soviet model"), perhaps Western thought can still contribute a lot if it goes back to its core strength of thinking outside the box, using freedom and leisure to produce new insights that transcend current paradigms?

It's interesting that apparently Whitehead is super popular in China and there are many institutes dedicated to his thought, whereas he's pretty fringe in the west. Perhaps they have more appreciation of Western creative thought than the West at this point...

 

[Anthony]

It's interesting that apparently Whitehead is super popular in China and there are many institutes dedicated to his thought, whereas he's pretty fringe in the west. Perhaps they have more appreciation of Western creative thought than the West at this point...

That is interesting, and in a way it makes sense that they would value process philosophy in which relations and interactions are fundamental more than the Westerners. I was reading a book by a Belgian sinologist Simon Leys recently and he notes that the Chinese culture understands the values (even though this has been degrading over the decades) which are more the domain of the right hemisphere, such as harmony, silence, openness, imprecision, working with, attuning to and imitating nature/creation and so on.

 

[Cosmos]

A short synopsis of my experience with reading "The matter with things" so far:

Initially, before reading the book, I was somewhat skeptical and thought that the "left/right brain" arguments I heard here and there, sound a bit too black and white for my taste.

So, here I am, approaching now about one third of this massive tome (!) and I have to say that, so far, the book seems to be one of those rare works that is able to soundly/convincingly call into question a lot of things, and, more importantly, seems to be able to raise a lot of questions. It seems to be one of those works that open up a whole new reality/perception that leads to reevaluating "certainties" and shines a whole new and intriguing light on MANY areas. So far I think it is a must-read that covers a lot of very interesting points/topics viewed from a quite interesting and new perspective. It also seems to me that it is in accordance with what the C's have said on quite a number of things while I also think it is very interesting that McGilchrist basically comes to very similar conclusions in regard to the (primarily) western approach on things, and that this approach seems to be heading for disaster, quickly.

Even though I'm not even a third of the way through this book, it is hard to pick out all the interesting and relevant ideas, suggestions and realizations. There is A LOT in this book. At the moment, where I'm at in the book, I find the following of particular interest: the way in which McGilchrist basically dismantles Biology, and more specifically, microbiology: Making a pretty good/startling case for Biology (as it is taught and spread today) is basically stuck in the middle-ages in contrast to others sciences like physics. I think he makes a very good case that the mechanical/computer/thing approach in Biology is likely VERY wrong, and, maybe of particular interest to us here, that the idea of intelligent design in Biology also seems to be off the mark, because it is essentially based on the same and wrong mechanical/machine foundations/ideas. In short, what he convincingly describes is that you can't compare life (at any level) with a machine or machine like functions and designs, but that life seems to be something completely different that can be better described as a flowing process.

Also, I think he makes a very interesting case about time itself and our perception of it and that, depending on the scale, time seems to flow at different "speeds".

There is a lot more, and I hope that some of you can maybe also share some of your notes in regard to this intriguing book.

 

[Cosmos]

As I'm continuing to read "The matter with things" I thought I should highlight just some of the many good points McGilchrist is making.

The first one revolves around this:

It also seems to me that it is in accordance with what the C's have said on quite a number of things

One thing I found puzzling when I first read it in the C's sessions (and practically ever since until I started to read McGilchrist) is what they said about science on a number of occasions. When I first encountered it, what the C's said was actually not just puzzling to me but quite hard to make sense of. What I'm referring to was their insistence, particularly in earlier sessions, that science isn't quite the "pinnacle of achievement" or "be and end all" of things, as we would like to think of it. It is only now, while reading McGilchrist, that what the C's said way back then starts to really make sense to me. Actually, I think McGilchrist was able for the first time to really spell out to me some of the reasonings behind what the C's said and thereby essentially illuminating/explaining at least some of it in a very convincing and justified way IMO.

Secondly, McGilchrist succeeded to spell out and illuminate what I (and I guess most other people as well) seemed to sense intuitively, about the way science is practiced nowadays. In particular what I'm referring to here is his expose of the robotic/mechanical/technical way in which papers are increasingly written across the board which seems to be increasingly removed from human experience and/or reality and becomes ever more minute, complicated, hard to follow, cold and seemingly removed from meaning or purpose. So much so that even the scientists themselves in those (increasingly specialists/narrowed) fields can find it very difficult to follow the logic, reasoning and even the procedures and conclusion in those papers. I guess we all have felt the dread of reading papers of that sort (which has become the norm).

McGilchrist explains why that is and convincingly so IMO. He also makes a good point I think, that this isn't a very good direction science is going, not only in that regard. At one point he makes the point how early scientists wrote "their papers" and/or books and how pretty much anyone was able to follow their reasoning (even if the subjects were difficult) while what they wrote possessed depth, meaning, was engaging and quite poetic and/or philosophical. I think I can somewhat attest to that since I seem to have encountered what McGilchrist is talking about (before I read his work) when I heard a number of excerpts of the works of early scientist (in geology/archeology and/or catastrophism for example) and how I marveled about their descriptions, that were so engaging, deep and at the same time open and even touching. And at the same time I was able to follow their arguments much better than I can in "papers" nowadays. It seems that writing in that way was more or less the norm in early science of lets say the 17/18 and 19th centuries. I think anyone can get a good sense of that contrast if one tries to read what the average scientist wrote in those early days and then compare it with how scientists write nowadays.

Thirdly, I think McGilchrist succeeds in explaining very well why things like neuroimaging of the brain "and what it does" have to be viewed with a big grain of salt.

Where I'm at in the book he now covers the problem of reproducibility in science.

 

[ryu]

While specialization and technical excellence within a given paradigm are important and fruitful (the "soviet model"), perhaps Western thought can still contribute a lot if it goes back to its core strength of thinking outside the box, using freedom and leisure to produce new insights that transcend current paradigms?

I had the same kind of thoughts when I finished the book. The West is rotten, but at its core there are seeds of its rebirth, so all is not lost.

I was also amazed that a book on neuroscience touches on subjects like philosophy, archeology, art and Eastern culture. I've rarely come across a scientist who has such a broad perspective.

 

[Alejo]

I had the same kind of thoughts when I finished the book. The West is rotten, but at its core there are seeds of its rebirth, so all is not lost.

Yes, deeply entrenched in this left brain paradigm, arrogantly thinking itself enough... not to distract from the topic of this thread, but I think it is reflected in this fascination with AI, reducing life, work, productivity and meaning to its components and thinking it enough.

 

[Anthony]

There is a lot more, and I hope that some of you can maybe also share some of your notes in regard to this intriguing book.

There's just too much to go over, but I guess the biggest one I would point out is the disposition that the right hemisphere has towards stuff like truth, meaning and so on, where it's more about being faithful to what is, seeing the bigger picture and taking into consideration of all possibilities, instead of reducing life into neat little boxes that sort of make sense but that leave out a lot and produce an illusion of understanding. He points out that the desire for precision can lead to imprecision if one is rigid in one's approach, and similar to Collingwood, he notes that all approaches to truth, like science and philosophy, have weak points that need to be understood and transcended. This is obviously lacking in the West, where if our approach to life leads to error and mistake we double down on the same approach instead of undertaking a course correction, like hubris instead of humility in face of something so complex and which eludes our attempt to grasp it.

A few quotes in that regard:

...right hemisphere, aims to open up to truth, and sees the truth as a never-finished seeking after, and evolving of, something that is disclosed by the very process, which the ‘game’ of life continues. Truth is not a thing to be possessed, however immaterial, but a path to follow, a process.

[...]

‘One knows nothing save what one loves, and the deeper and more complete that knowledge, the stronger and livelier must be one’s love – indeed passion’

[...]

...problem as always comes from an attempt to be rigid, a left hemisphere demand that inevitably distorts a reality that is in no respect rigid.

[...]

Knowledge of something that is by its nature not precise will itself have to be imprecise, if it is to be accurate.

[...]


...our desire for objectivity may make it harder for us to reach the truth, since, if the phenomenon itself is both rare and (when it exists) hard to study, it may be tempting to study something that looks like it, but is commoner, and easier to pin down.

[...]

...besetting danger is not so much of embracing falsehood for truth, as of mistaking part of the truth for the whole.

[...]

Rationality, the left hemisphere’s version of reason, demands we be precise, otherwise (so it believes) meaning will escape. Thus philosophy has taken to mimicking science. Yet meaning is not increased – more often diminished – by the process, and all that is achieved is a lack of flexibility.

[...]

...many important truths cannot be expressed explicitly or arrived at linearly, but must be, so to speak, taken by stealth. They must be disclosed from a number of different perspectives that converge, rather like following a spiral path around them. This is how the best philosophy, it seems to me, is done...

[...]

Certainty resides only in our concepts, not in the reality to which we apply them.

[...]

...‘the more certain our knowledge the less we know’.

[...]

Bringing an unwarranted simplicity to the matter strips away layers of depth, rather than enhancing insight.

[...]

...causal and scientific understanding so prominent in our age often had the insidious effect of concealing important questions – by giving a false sense of inevitability and turning us away from the richness and multiplicity of the world.

 

[truepositive]

Mandatory watching in this context:

 

[Adobe]

Thanks @truepositive for the video. I got a lot out of it. Here's an interesting take away point:

At the 1:30 mark they discuss a study that was done. (From Hugo Mercier's book "The Enigma of Reason")

It goes like this: from a group of smart well-educated subjects they take 1 person, give them a task to do that requires reason. Only 10% can complete the task successfully. Next, they run the test with 4 people from the same group to do the test together and they can talk to each other. Then the success rate goes up to 80%. The take home message...it takes a network!

Thanks again,

 

[Cosmos]

Part 1 of a long series of McGilchrist explaining his book aided by a pretty interesting interviewer:

 

[Jefferson]

Part 1 of a long series of McGilchrist explaining his book aided by a pretty interesting interviewer:

Highly recommended. This series is very helpful in highlighting the essential points and subject matter of McGilchrist's two volume books.

 

[Cosmos]

One of the things about the C's statement of 2nd Sept 2002 -

Very interesting connection! I took the comment as meaning we shouldn't limit our focus too much, but maybe they had the hemispheres in mind? I think it's possible!

Or maybe the C‘s had both and more in mind?! Wouldn’t surprise me at all… That mentioned C‘s quote also came to my mind repeatedly while reading McGilchrist.

 

[Debra]

@Jones wrote:

One of the things about the C's statement of 2nd Sept 2002 -

A: Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."

- that last part bugged me and kept in mind the question 'why right and left' when objective reality can be happening in any direction? A new question - did the C's give the words right and left in that order, opposite to the more popular order of left and right as a hint?”
———————————

During my studies and research involving emotional trauma and the psyche, body, brain connections, there is one discerning physical characteristic that biologically determines which organ or system of the body will react to the conflict with, or as Gabor Mate describes it, where the trauma will be stored in the body.

I’ve learned that all depends first on the biological laterality of the living being.
Right and left handedness are determined in the first few moments of conception, and the biological dominance of the psyche, brain, body connection is then established by right or left spin, of the fertilized egg.

Unfortunately, laterality isn’t taken into account, or addressed this way, by Iain McGilchrist, he dismisses it quite early, if I recall, possibly as early as in his introductory chapter.

So, what I’ve learned is:
Right and left handed observations, subjectivity and objectivity, perspectives and perceptions of conflicts, shocks and happenings...differ.
Conflicts, shocks, traumas all impact differently between the two differing lateralitys.
Right and left.
Biologically, the rough ratio is 60% right handers, to 40% left handers.

Nature, or as the C’s say “interaction with Creation” did this for a purpose.
And I maintain that Nature didn’t make a fundamental design flaw, or mistake, or create haphazardly.
Right and left laterality is a species survival design.
Here’s an extreme, a very abbreviated example, for what it’s worth.
Of course there are a lot of additional health and biological factors that as well, but for this explanation, regarding right and left brained survivors, I’ll use this one.

Right handers, left brain dominant, when confronted by a perceived, extremely shocking territorial threat, biologically respond with immediate additional heart tissue enlargement.

This is to facilitate additional oxygen and energy for “battle”, to keep the perceived territory.

BUT, when the majority of left handers, right brain dominant, experience the same territorial threat, the shocking conflict and biological preparation is registered in a completely different organ relay and biological response.

If the extreme territorial threat isn’t/can’t be resolved by the right handed (left brain controlled) being, in a short amount of time, for humans the specific amount of time maximum is 9 months, if the regeneration and biological reset of the excess heart tissue happens AFTER that, it is often fatal or disabling.

The left handed(right brain dominant) survive the territorial trauma threat, go on living, and are biologically able to ensure the procreation of the species.
For what it’s worth, that’s my take on the C’s saying objective reality “Right and left” becoming “the Future”.

As well, I must add:
What I am posting is Research for Entertainment Purposes Only.
I have no authority nor license to give any medical, psychological, or life skills advice, I just have information to share, for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Alejo]

- that last part bugged me and kept in mind the question 'why right and left' when objective reality can be happening in any direction? A new question - did the C's give the words right and left in that order, opposite to the more popular order of left and right as a hint?”

I hadn't thought about that connection with the hemispheres.. but it makes sense. I kind of had always assumed that it was simply because we can see what's in front, but to get acquainted with reality we have to turn our heads in either of those directions.

 

[Cosmos]

A wonderful discussion between 3 of the greatest minds of our time: