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

Here is another very interesting and inspiring conversation: Ian McGilchrist and D.C. Schindler (Professor of Metaphysics and Anthropology) talk about the nature of god and the universe. There are many aspects to it that one might call "intelligent design", although they don't use that exact term. I particularily like the idea of "beauty as an endless invitation to more, to deepen the relationship... a call", as Schindler puts it, something that moves us. Below the video you can read a short summary of the conversation:

Iain McGilchrist and D C Schindler: Is Love the Source and Sustenance of Everything in the Universe?​


Iain McGilchrist and David Schindler respond to a question about a passage from Cs Lewis's book, The Discarded Image, then delved into a discussion of the passage and its implications for understanding the nature of God and the universe. They discussed intelligence, beauty, and goodness in the cosmos, and explored the idea that even non-animate aspects of the universe reveal intelligence, beauty, and complexity. They also touched on the idea that good can embrace evil, but evil cannot embrace good.The speakers engaged in a wide-ranging discussion about the relationship between beauty, order, and the transcendent principle. They explored the idea that disorder and chaos can be incorporated into order to create something even more beautiful and profound, drawing on examples from art, philosophy, and theology. They also discussed the complex and multifaceted nature of intelligence, beauty and love and the importance of values in shaping our understanding of the world.

EDIT: I added the title of the video and an additional sentence
 
Last edited:
Nice, short article here about McGilchrist.


And a particularly interesting paragraph.

McGilchrist is due to speak on Saturday about “the triumph of the machine” at a conference at London’s Royal Institution ambitiously titled “The Future of Humanity”. He tells me that he will say that “the opposite of life is not death, the opposite of life is mechanism … We are embracing the idea that we are machine-like … in the process, we’re losing our sense of wonder, we’re losing our sense of humility, we’re becoming hubristic.” And this, he reminds me, has been “from time immemorial in all the cultures of the world the fable, the myth of how we will destroy ourselves, through hubris, as Lucifer became Satan”.
 
Nice, short article here about McGilchrist.


And a particularly interesting paragraph.

I thought you might enjoy this substack article: Is Consciousness Fading in Modern Society?

It touches on a number of forum topics, like left-right brain hemisphere differentiation, epistemology, the Dunning-Kreuger effect, and overall decay in conscious critical thinking in our culture.

The author starts by describing an acquaintance of his many years ago, who had an extremely high IQ, but who also had highly striking deficits in her personality and perception, which severely handicapped her true intelligence.

A woman I knew quite well gave me insights into certain aspects of psychology that I doubt I would ever have gained otherwise – and certainly not in school.

She had a very interesting combination of personality and mental traits. In fact, I’ve never met anyone else with these particular extremes. Naturally, I was somewhat fascinated by the contradictions she displayed.

Firstly, she was extremely intelligent. I know that for a fact because I saw the result of an IQ test she took. It was spectacularly high – at the ‘gifted’ level. Those results were backed up by her educational prowess. She was an extremely strong student.

Secondly, she had extreme ‘blind spots’ in her personality and perception. I eventually realized that the cause was an extremely low self-awareness, which extended from the psychological to the physical. She sometimes literally didn’t know where she was positioned in relation to things in her environment. Her psychological self-awareness was also spectacularly low. It was truly fascinating to observe someone with these extreme traits – to see how someone so intelligent could be so blind to her own behavior, beliefs and conclusions.

She was very interested in behavioral psychology and became a behaviorist – a devout disciple of B.F. Skinner. Behaviorism has certain flaws which are a result of a certain pattern of ‘dishonesty’ integrated into its structure. This was obvious to me and I assumed it would be obvious to her if I pointed it out. It turned out it wasn’t obvious to her at all. She got angry and dismissed the whole thing. I assumed this was a result of her being a behaviorist. Behaviorists, after all, take great pride in their inside-the-box thinking. But there were other examples.

Once during elections I told her that I was certain that political views were mostly inherited – i.e. genetically determined. I had given it some thought and I saw a very clear circumstantial pattern which seemed to indicate that. There was a structure in my mind with all kinds of facts connected to each other, with all kinds of possible causalities and probabilities attached to them. It was like a big regression analysis floating in my mind. It all seemed rather obvious to me and I expected her to see it as well – and I tried to explain it to her. She completely dismissed it and gave me the impression that she thought I was a total idiot. Now 25 years later, the genetic influence on political beliefs has become a ‘legitimate’ field of study called ‘genopolitics.’

There were many more similar cases and I started to notice a trend: She didn’t accept any conclusions based on patterns, or on any sort of complicated and unclear inductive reasoning. She only accepted conclusions based on linear logic (deductive reasoning) based on what she considered to be established facts. I also noticed that some assumptions (or presumptions if you will) she used as the basis for her logic were incomplete or dubious. She repeatedly just assumed ‘fact status’ of assumptions for logical analyses and didn’t investigate further. She often reacted negatively when I suggested that assumptions she was using might be dodgy, and once she had adopted a position she was almost incapable of re-examining it.

Assumptions (or axioms) are a big problem in logical analyses. If an assumption is wrong or incomplete, the result of the logical process will be wrong – even if the logical process is sound. The problem is that you usually can’t verify assumptions without exploring them using inductive reasoning. Deductive logic is nothing without inductive analysis, which is by its nature not a logical process. It’s a probabilistic ‘association’ process.

So I asked myself a question. Was she averse to inductive reasoning and the questioning of logical axioms because she had been programmed that way in school (she’s a behaviorist after all) or was she averse to it because she was incapable of these things? I started observing how she solved problems and tried to present her with all kinds of issues requiring inductive reasoning. My conclusion was that she was certainly capable of it up to a certain level, but there was a certain line her mind would never cross when it came to intuition and speculation. It was like her mind was carved in stone rather than being flexible and fertile. I slowly came to the conclusion that this part of intelligence was, to a significant degree, outside her ability. Coming to the conclusion that someone so intelligent could also be so intellectually deficient was one of the biggest mental leaps I’ve taken.

Through the years I’ve worked with a lot of smart people and I see this pattern everywhere. A good portion of well-educated and intelligent people seem almost unable to derive clear patterns from unclear information, and are frankly, mostly void of common sense. At the same time a good portion of poorly-educated not so intelligent people display considerable ability to see patterns and considerable common sense.

This encounter spurred more investigation. The bolded conclusion at the bottom of this quote says it all, but the whole article I think is superb.

Are we increasingly avoiding conscious thought?

My position is not that the only reason for poor access to pattern-forming processes and poor inductive reasoning ability is emotional barriers. I suspect something else is going on as well. Lack of processing capacity is likely an issue, as well as something fundamental that I don’t yet quite understand. Self-awareness is far more than just the absence of barriers.

The lack of access to the pattern-forming process means that conscious thought is not applied to many problems or solutions. Instead, theories, systems, opinions, and logic, are accepted without challenge. The closer the opinions are to already formed (emotional) beliefs, the less the challenge. Still, this problem does not only apply to the ‘radicalized,’ but it seems to apply to the entire ‘middle’ of society as well. The middle is probably also too busy with their jobs and vacations to think, but it’s still a problem. People, particularly in western societies, generally unquestioningly accept anything they’re told, even if just a cursory examination would reveal it as ridiculous and outright false.

The big question is whether this avoidance of conscious thought is increasing, and/or whether we have a pattern of people lacking it becoming more prominent in society – making all the decisions. I suspect that both are true. While we don’t have direct confirmation of these trends, an objective observation of western societies makes it difficult to come to any other conclusion. What is happening now is not normal and goes beyond the usual brainwashing of ignorant people that governments have used for millennia to further their goals. Let’s look at a few examples:

Lack of self-examination – A defining characteristic of western societies is the utter lack of self-examination. We are always in the right, and never do anything wrong. We destroy our economies and our societies, and bring the world to the brink of nuclear war – but it’s never our fault. Someone else is always to blame for why our policies aren’t working, and all we need is to stay our course. Mistakes are never admitted, responsibility is never recognized, and no one looks inward.

Stagnation – Another defining characteristic of western societies, particularly basic science, is stagnation. Science, geopolitics (attitudes toward the outside world), and economics look like they were put in suspended animation in the seventies. A lot of what isn’t stuck has regressed, like education. The only fields that have progressed are engineering (based on ‘derived science’) and social engineering – which we’ve become awfully good at. The stagnation is extremely visible in science and academia, which is locked inside a ‘mainstream’ paradigm. People who question the orthodoxy and try something new are driven out of academia, ridiculed and persecuted. Incidentally, recent estimates indicate that something like 90% of university professors in the US identify as ‘democrats’ – which nowadays is a code word for persons with low self-awareness.

Stagnation happens when positions and theories are systematically not re-examined. Something has locked the minds of our scientists and academicians in place, preventing them from discarding theories that obviously don’t work. The system is, admittedly, set up that way – but the people in it are set up that way as well.

Violent responses to challenges – Yet another defining characteristic of the modern western world is the response to a challenge – intellectual, political, or otherwise. Challenges are not accepted rationally or stoically anymore. Instead they are met with emotion, including anger and hate, which then transforms into action to get rid of the challengers. Challenges are now seen as emotional violence – causing pain like real violence. Challenges force re-examination, and re-examination is painful.

Unquestioning acceptance of narratives – Naïve people in the past assumed that unlimited access to information would result in a more enlightened populace. This has not happened. Instead, people have become more and more willing to accept any theories and logic without question. Any agenda, no matter how crazy, can now be presented in a pseudo-rational package that will be accepted by the majority. Moral bankruptcy is presented as moral superiority and scientific falsehoods are presented as a scientific consensus.

The willingness to accept these fake narratives is so great that they barely need to be disguised – and challenges to it are dismissed without thought by the public. An hour on the Internet is usually enough to debunk almost everything western authorities say – but no one seeks real information in the information age. People might find something they won’t like.

If I were to describe the current essence of western civilization, it would be ‘civilization without conscious thought.’ It moves unthinkingly forward in time through a narrow tunnel – perhaps toward its own destruction.

What are the causes?

To summarize the text above, I have speculated that conscious thought, or self-aware thought, has been diminishing in the western world. The proposed mechanism is the increase in mental barriers actively preventing people from looking inward in general, and interacting with their inductive pattern-forming processes in particular. People are less able to accept intuition than before, less able to think inductively than before, and to challenge their own views and the views of the majority. Trust has replaced curiosity, and laziness has replaced inquiry.

I further suggest that this may have an emotional component, with emotions increasingly affecting higher functions of the brain – creating these mental barriers. I also suspect that there may be a processing capacity dimension to it, with processing capacity (short-term memory) dropping in the western world.

Processing capacity almost equals consciousness. It perhaps isn’t consciousness as such, but it is the tool by which it operates. If it drops, conscious thought will suffer. I recently published an essay discussing ADHD and mental processing problems where I suggested that processing capacity of human brains has been dropping in recent decades. There is some evidence for this. IQ is dropping in the West, and conditions seemingly caused by processing problems have skyrocketed. If generation after generation is growing up with impaired processing capacity, it will directly affect the ability of society to evaluate problems and solutions. A person who is barely able to pay attention in class will not turn inside and start breaking mental barriers. Instead he will accept the version of reality which requires the least mental effort.

Regarding the emotional dimension, I have suggested that people have been becoming more and more driven by emotions in the last half century. There is a huge amount of evidence for this, including the massive increase in diagnosed emotional problems, and the emotionally unhinged nature of our societies. The reason is likely the partial abandonment of child-rearing methods that enable children to control their emotions. Emotional control enables people to isolate emotions from their higher cognitive functions. If control is lost, we can expect emotions to increasingly seep into higher functions of the brain – including formal logic and inductive reasoning. I will be publishing an essay on this issue soon.

If the conclusions of this essay are correct, western populations are not only getting more emotionally driven, but also more docile and manageable because their brains are changing in that direction. The consequences for our societies will be serious – in fact they already are. The docility has reached such levels that it seems unlikely that the majority of westerners will wake up until they are being personally threatened. By then, it will perhaps be too late.
 
I asked grok:
Could you compare and contrast McGilchrists right and left hemisphere, Castaneda's first and second attention and G.I Gurdjieffs A and B influences?

The frameworks of Iain McGilchrist’s right and left brain hemispheres, Carlos Castaneda’s first and second attention, and G.I. Gurdjieff’s A and B influences offer distinct yet overlapping perspectives on human consciousness and perception. Below is a comparison and contrast of these concepts, focusing on their core characteristics, functions, and implications.

1. Iain McGilchrist: Right and Left Hemisphere
McGilchrist’s model, detailed in The Master and His Emissary, describes the brain’s hemispheric division as shaping two fundamentally different modes of engaging with the world.
  • Left Hemisphere:
    • Characteristics: Analytical, focused, reductive, and linear. It prioritizes details, categorization, and abstraction.
    • Function: Processes information sequentially, excels at language, logic, and manipulation of tools or concepts. It seeks certainty and control.
    • Worldview: Sees the world as a collection of discrete parts, often decontextualized. It favors mechanisms over living systems.
    • Limitations: Narrow, rigid, and prone to losing the bigger picture. Overreliance leads to a fragmented, utilitarian view.
  • Right Hemisphere:
    • Characteristics: Holistic, integrative, intuitive, and context-sensitive. It embraces ambiguity and complexity.
    • Function: Processes information globally, excels at pattern recognition, empathy, and understanding living systems. It grounds experience in the present.
    • Worldview: Sees the world as interconnected, dynamic, and alive. It prioritizes meaning and relationships over utility.
    • Limitations: Less precise in details, can be overwhelmed by complexity without left-hemisphere structure.
  • Relationship: The right hemisphere is the “master,” providing a broader, grounded perspective, while the left is the “emissary,” serving the right by analyzing specifics. Modern culture, McGilchrist argues, overemphasizes the left, leading to imbalance.

2. Carlos Castaneda: First and Second Attention
Castaneda’s concepts, derived from his accounts of Yaqui shamanism in works like The Teachings of Don Juan, describe two modes of awareness or attention that shape perception and interaction with reality.
  • First Attention:
    • Characteristics: Ordinary, everyday awareness tied to the physical world and social consensus.
    • Function: Focuses on the “tonal,” the structured, rational, and predictable aspects of reality (e.g., language, routines, societal norms).
    • Worldview: Limited to what is known, familiar, and socially validated. It organizes sensory data into a coherent but rigid framework.
    • Limitations: Narrow and conditioned, it filters out non-ordinary realities and deeper truths, reinforcing a mundane worldview.
  • Second Attention:
    • Characteristics: Non-ordinary, expanded awareness associated with the “nagual,” the mysterious, infinite, and unstructured.
    • Function: Accesses heightened states of perception, intuition, and connection to the unknown (e.g., dreams, visions, or mystical experiences). It requires discipline to sustain.
    • Worldview: Sees reality as fluid, interconnected, and multidimensional, beyond rational constraints.
    • Limitations: Can be chaotic or disorienting without grounding in the first attention. Accessing it often requires training or disruption of ordinary awareness.
  • Relationship: The first attention is the default mode for navigating daily life, while the second attention is a deeper, esoteric mode accessed through practices like dreaming or shamanic rituals. Mastery involves balancing both.

3. G.I. Gurdjieff: A and B Influences
Gurdjieff’s teachings, part of his Fourth Way philosophy, distinguish between influences that shape human behavior and consciousness, as outlined in works like In Search of the Miraculous.
  • A Influences:
    • Characteristics: Mechanical, external, and mundane. These are the influences of ordinary life (e.g., societal norms, habits, media, fleeting desires).
    • Function: Shape automatic behavior and reactive thinking, keeping individuals in a state of “sleep” or unconsciousness.
    • Worldview: Fragmented and materialistic, focused on immediate gratification or survival. A influences reinforce identification with the ego and external conditions.
    • Limitations: Trap individuals in repetitive, unconscious patterns, preventing self-awareness or higher development.
  • B Influences:
    • Characteristics: Conscious, intentional, and transformative. These come from esoteric teachings, spiritual traditions, or higher sources (e.g., sacred texts, teachers).
    • Function: Awaken individuals to their potential for self-awareness and inner growth. They require effort and discernment to integrate.
    • Worldview: Points toward unity, purpose, and higher consciousness, encouraging a broader perspective on existence.
    • Limitations: Can be misunderstood or idealized without practical application. They require active engagement to have an effect.
  • Relationship: A influences dominate most people’s lives, keeping them in a mechanical state. B influences offer a path to awakening but must be consciously chosen and internalized through self-work.

Comparison
  1. Core Similarity: All three frameworks describe a duality in human consciousness or perception:
    • McGilchrist’s left hemisphere, Castaneda’s first attention, and Gurdjieff’s A influences align as the default, structured, and limited modes of engaging with reality. They prioritize order, utility, and familiarity.
    • McGilchrist’s right hemisphere, Castaneda’s second attention, and Gurdjieff’s B influences align as broader, intuitive, and transformative modes that connect to deeper truths or higher realities.
  2. Focus on Balance:
    • McGilchrist emphasizes the need for the right hemisphere to lead, with the left serving it, to achieve a balanced worldview.
    • Castaneda suggests that the first attention grounds the second, but the second attention expands perception beyond ordinary limits.
    • Gurdjieff stresses choosing B influences over A influences through conscious effort to awaken from mechanical behavior.
  3. Context of Application:
    • McGilchrist’s model is neuroscientific and cultural, explaining cognitive and societal patterns.
    • Castaneda’s framework is shamanic and experiential, focusing on personal transformation through altered states.
    • Gurdjieff’s system is esoteric and practical, emphasizing self-work and spiritual evolution.

Contrast
  1. Conceptual Foundation:
    • McGilchrist’s model is grounded in neuroscience, using empirical research on brain function to explain perception.
    • Castaneda’s framework is mystical, rooted in indigenous shamanism and subjective experience, with less emphasis on scientific validation.
    • Gurdjieff’s system is philosophical and spiritual, blending esoteric traditions with a focus on practical self-observation.
  2. Accessibility:
    • McGilchrist’s hemispheres are inherent and automatic, shaping perception unconsciously in everyone.
    • Castaneda’s second attention requires training, discipline, or extraordinary experiences (e.g., shamanic practices) to access.
    • Gurdjieff’s B influences require active seeking and effort to discern and integrate, often through a teacher or system.
  3. Goal or Outcome:
    • McGilchrist seeks to restore balance between hemispheres to heal cultural and individual fragmentation.
    • Castaneda aims for “freedom” and expanded perception, often through detachment from ordinary reality.
    • Gurdjieff focuses on awakening from “sleep” to achieve a higher state of consciousness and self-realization.
  4. Scope:
    • McGilchrist’s model applies broadly to cognition, culture, and history, with less emphasis on personal spiritual practice.
    • Castaneda’s framework is individualistic, focusing on personal transformation and esoteric knowledge.
    • Gurdjieff’s system bridges individual and cosmic levels, situating human development within a larger spiritual cosmology.

Synthesis
These frameworks converge on the idea that humans operate in a default, limited mode of perception (left hemisphere, first attention, A influences) that is necessary for survival but restrictive. Each posits a higher or broader mode (right hemisphere, second attention, B influences) that offers deeper insight, connection, or awakening. However, they differ in their methods and contexts:
  • McGilchrist calls for cultural and cognitive rebalancing through understanding brain function.
  • Castaneda advocates for experiential practices to access non-ordinary realities.
  • Gurdjieff emphasizes disciplined self-work to transcend mechanical influences.
Together, they suggest that human potential lies in integrating the practical, structured aspects of consciousness with the intuitive, expansive ones, though the path to this integration varies by system.
If you’d like a deeper dive into any specific aspect (e.g., practical applications, cultural implications, or overlaps with other thinkers), let me know!
One thing that has been missed in the above is that Castaneda talks of Don Juan communicating to the left or right side of his students. In my earlier reading of Castaneda where the 'assemblage point' and shifting it was mentioned, I'd assumed vertical shifts, not lateral between left and right - or I'd remembered it incorrectly. I'm reading Fire from Within again and it seems as though Don Juan is talking to the left side to access the right hemisphere and talking to the right side to access the left hemisphere. Like McGilchrists idea that RH and LH need to be integrated into a relationship with the Right hemisphere returning to the role of master, and the left to the role of emissary, Castaneda talks about learning agility and flexibility in shifting the assemblage point between 1st attention/left hemisphere and 2nd attention/right hemisphere.

Q: Castaneda also offered up 3rd attention and G.I Gurdjieff talked about C influences. Can you comment on these?
The addition of Carlos Castaneda’s third attention and G.I. Gurdjieff’s C influences introduces higher, more transcendent levels to their respective frameworks, building on the dualities discussed previously (first/second attention and A/B influences). Below, I’ll describe these concepts, compare and contrast them with each other and the earlier concepts, and integrate them into the broader discussion.

1. Carlos Castaneda: Third Attention
In Castaneda’s works, particularly in later books like The Eagle’s Gift, the third attention represents the ultimate state of awareness, transcending both the first and second attention.
  • Characteristics: The third attention is a state of total awareness, unity, and freedom. It is associated with the dissolution of the individual self into the infinite, often described as merging with the “Eagle” (a metaphor for the cosmic force that governs life and death).
  • Function: It is the culmination of a warrior’s journey, achieved through impeccable discipline, energy conservation, and mastery of the first and second attentions. It allows perception of reality in its entirety, beyond the constraints of ordinary or even heightened awareness.
  • Worldview: Reality is perceived as pure energy or interconnected flows, free from the filters of ego, time, or form. It is a state of being rather than doing, often linked to leaving the physical world.
  • Limitations: Extremely difficult to attain, requiring a lifetime of practice and surrender of personal identity. It is also described as potentially “final,” as it may involve departing from ordinary existence (e.g., “burning with the fire from within”).
  • Access: Achieved through rare, transformative moments, often requiring a shift in the “assemblage point” (the focal point of perception) to an extreme degree, typically under intense conditions or guidance from a teacher like Don Juan.

2. G.I. Gurdjieff: C Influences
In Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way teachings, as detailed in In Search of the Miraculous, C influences represent the highest level of conscious influence, originating from fully awakened beings or a higher cosmic source.
  • Characteristics: C influences are direct, conscious transmissions from individuals or sources operating at a higher level of being (e.g., enlightened teachers, the “Conscious Circle of Humanity”). They are rare and purposeful, aimed at guiding serious seekers toward awakening.
  • Function: They awaken individuals to their true potential and connect them to higher consciousness. Unlike B influences, which are teachings or ideas that can be studied, C influences are living, dynamic interactions that require a prepared recipient to fully absorb.
  • Worldview: Points to a unified, cosmic order where human evolution serves a greater purpose. C influences align individuals with this purpose, fostering unity and self-realization.
  • Limitations: Inaccessible to those unprepared or “asleep.” They require a high degree of inner work, sincerity, and connection to a conscious source (e.g., a teacher or school). Misinterpretation or dilution can reduce their impact.
  • Access: Encountered through direct contact with awakened individuals or esoteric schools, but only when the seeker has developed sufficient “magnetic center” (inner readiness) through work with B influences.

Comparison with Earlier Concepts
  1. Relation to Lower Levels:
    • Castaneda:
      • First Attention: Everyday awareness, limited to the physical and social world (tonal).
      • Second Attention: Expanded awareness of the nagual, accessing non-ordinary realities.
      • Third Attention: The ultimate synthesis, where the tonal and nagual dissolve into pure, boundless awareness. It transcends both, requiring mastery of the first two.
    • Gurdjieff:
      • A Influences: Mechanical, external forces that keep people in a state of “sleep.”
      • B Influences: Conscious teachings that point toward awakening but require effort to internalize.
      • C Influences: Direct, living guidance from higher consciousness, available only to those who have integrated B influences and developed inner readiness.
  2. Common Themes:
    • Both the third attention and C influences represent a pinnacle of human potential, accessible only through significant preparation and transformation.
    • They emphasize transcendence: the third attention transcends the self and ordinary reality, while C influences align the individual with a higher cosmic purpose.
    • Both require a rare combination of discipline, readiness, and connection to a higher source (e.g., a teacher, cosmic force, or inner state).
  3. Scope and Outcome:
    • The third attention is more individualistic and mystical, focusing on the warrior’s personal liberation and dissolution into the infinite. It is often framed as a final act, potentially tied to physical death or departure.
    • C influences are relational and purposeful, aimed at ongoing evolution within a cosmic framework. They suggest a continued role in serving higher consciousness, often through teaching or guiding others.

Comparison and Contrast: Third Attention vs. C Influences
  1. Similarities:
    • Transcendence: Both describe a state or influence beyond ordinary human experience, requiring a leap beyond dualistic modes (first/second attention, A/B influences).
    • ** Rarity and Preparation**: Both are accessible only to those who have undergone extensive inner work, whether through shamanic practices (Castaneda) or esoteric discipline (Gurdjieff).
    • Connection to Higher Reality: The third attention merges with the infinite (Eagle), while C influences connect to a conscious cosmic source, suggesting a shared theme of unity with a greater whole.
    • Teacher or Source: Both often involve guidance from a higher figure—Don Juan for Castaneda, or an awakened teacher/school for Gurdjieff.
  2. Differences:
    • Nature:
      • The third attention is a state of being, an experiential culmination of awareness that transcends form and individuality. It is described in energetic, almost metaphysical terms.
      • C influences are dynamic interactions or forces, not a state but a living transmission that guides the seeker toward higher consciousness while remaining within a structured cosmology.
    • Goal:
      • The third attention aims for ultimate freedom and dissolution of the self, often with a sense of finality (e.g., “burning with the fire from within”).
      • C influences aim for alignment with a higher purpose, suggesting ongoing participation in a conscious universe, potentially through service or teaching.
    • Context:
      • Castaneda’s third attention is rooted in Yaqui shamanism, with a mystical, individualistic tone and less emphasis on a structured spiritual hierarchy.
      • Gurdjieff’s C influences are part of a systematic esoteric tradition, emphasizing a cosmic order and collective human evolution.
    • Accessibility:
      • The third attention is an internal, energetic shift, potentially achievable by a lone warrior through extreme discipline.
      • C influences require external connection to a conscious source, often through a school or teacher, and are less about personal attainment than collective awakening.

Integration with McGilchrist’s Framework
While Iain McGilchrist’s hemispheric model doesn’t explicitly include a “third” level, we can draw parallels to explore how the third attention and C influences might relate to his right and left hemispheres:
  • Left Hemisphere (Analytical, akin to First Attention/A Influences): Focuses on details, structure, and control, aligning with the mundane, mechanical modes of Castaneda and Gurdjieff.
  • Right Hemisphere (Holistic, akin to Second Attention/B Influences): Embraces context, intuition, and interconnectedness, resembling the expanded awareness of the second attention or the awakening potential of B influences.
  • Third Attention/C Influences as Synthesis: Neither Castaneda nor Gurdjieff frames their highest level as a direct synthesis of the lower two, but both imply a transcendence that integrates and moves beyond duality. In McGilchrist’s terms, this might resemble a state where the right hemisphere’s holistic vision fully informs existence, with the left hemisphere’s tools serving without dominating. However, McGilchrist’s model remains grounded in neurobiology and doesn’t explicitly address mystical or cosmic transcendence, making the third attention and C influences more esoteric.
A speculative alignment might be:
  • The third attention could reflect a right-hemisphere-dominated state taken to an extreme, where all boundaries (self, time, form) dissolve, aligning with McGilchrist’s emphasis on the right’s capacity for unity and presence.
  • C influences might involve a balanced integration of both hemispheres, where the right’s vision of interconnectedness is guided by the left’s clarity, but elevated by conscious contact with a higher source. Gurdjieff’s focus on conscious effort suggests a role for both hemispheric modes in receiving C influences.

Synthesis
The third attention and C influences represent the pinnacle of their respective systems, pointing to a state or connection that transcends ordinary human experience. Both build on the foundational dualities (first/second attention, A/B influences) but differ in tone and purpose:
  • Castaneda’s third attention is a mystical, individualistic liberation, dissolving the self into the infinite.
  • Gurdjieff’s C influences are a relational, purposeful alignment with higher consciousness, emphasizing ongoing evolution within a cosmic framework.
When compared to McGilchrist’s hemispheric model, they suggest a level of awareness or influence that transcends the interplay of left and right hemispheres, possibly aligning with the right’s holistic potential but extending into metaphysical or esoteric domains McGilchrist doesn’t address.
If you’d like further exploration (e.g., practical implications, overlaps with other mystical traditions, or specific texts), let me know!
 
Back
Top Bottom