Thanks for this, particularly this line “One way to read his work is as a left hemispheric way of saying what feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists, and others whose intuitive, embodied, relational forms of knowledge have been sidelined, have been saying all along.”
- and particular the ‘others’ in there, especially those others who are not the people who ever use words like ‘epistemology’.
I haven’t yet found the courage to commit to reading McGilchrist’s books, so perhaps he covers this there. But what I felt very strongly when watching his conversation earlier this year with Dougald was frustration that the ideas didn’t seem to be dwelling in the domain of normal people’s lives.
I thought about my female forebears whose diffuse attention would be constantly tuned into stirrings of babies and when to take the bread out the oven and whether it felt like there’d be a frost tonight and a funny feeling of worry about a loved one.
Even if McGilchrist crosses the floor between arts and science, it feels so counterintuitive to reify the types of thinking/doing/being that exist in those niches of academia, as though that’s the most important arena in which human brains are functioning.
I find myself wanting to dwell in these ideas outside of ‘high culture’ and in the spaces where the majority of people spend their time.
I also spent time at a lovely Relationships Project gathering this year and felt the same challenges you name. There is something almost embarrassing about having to spend time exploring the value of relationships, as though tentatively looking for approval from the left hemisphere brigade. And yet here we are... :)
Thanks Elizabeth. I totally get the sense of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Reading what you say prompted two thoughts, one more positive than the other.
The positive one has to do with what's beautiful - beautiful things, moments, people that draw us, and about which we can be confused of course, but which ultimately can trust to reform us, if we follow where they lead.
The negative one is linked, which is that I suspect that deep change and realigning with that good mostly (only?) takes place via crisis, personal and social. Breakdown can lead to breakthrough - which is a frightening thought, because breakdown can also clearly lead nowhere but to breakdown, but also hopeful, in the strict sense of holding out for the hope of a deeper power at play.
So I'd be interested in Iain McG's sense of whether what he fears with left hemisphere dominance might actually be a (dark) path to a recovery of the right. And how to hold out for that.
I loved hearing about The Relationships Project. Like the health care workers you spoke with, I found my medical training profoundly dehumanizing. I honestly feel like I am a worse person (more judgmental, more cynical, harder to access growth mindset) than before my training. Your thoughts on McGilChrist being the voice for this via science has me reflecting a lot on who has decided what the "doctor script" is and how that was determined to be valid. There are certain aspects of my spirituality or personal approaches to health and healing that sometimes feel taboo to share in the health care setting, so I usually only bring them in in extraordinary circumstances where the patient has already expressed that they will be well received or I feel that it is essential that this person here this from me at this time. (E.g. I was caring for a woman who had fou d her daughter dead of an overdose several weeks earlier. She was talking about how she went to her dad's grave to talk to him. I told her that I believe that we can connect to our ancestors and her father wants to support her, but also grief is meant to be done in living community and not something she carries by herself. This feels essential to being human and sometimes feels like I'm breaking some "doctor code"). I think I lost the thread there a bit. Anyway, I appreciate this exploration a great deal.
That last phrase, "trying to resist instrumentalisation by instrumentalising" reminds me of a line McGilchrist cites from Heidegger: "The evil and thus keenest danger is thinking itself. It must think against itself, which it can only seldom do." But in the introduction to The Matter with Things I believe McGilchrist provides a more satisfying response:
“I want to permit something that I believe is already there in the reader to flourish. Philosophy may at times aspire to be, but cannot ever be, coercive: it cannot compel to a point of view. It can only allow an insight to dawn... Plato described the process as a spark that crosses the gap... The truth is not arrived at ultimately by argument alone, though discussion plays a valuable role along the way in dispelling misconceptions (if it didn’t, I would hardly have bothered writing a long book)...”
The questions we grapple with include: What is a healthy relationship between the hemispheres? And what might that look like in a healthy culture? Here's another relevant passage from McGilchrist's book:
“In a culture in which computation was not grossly over-prized, an experienced individual would function in almost every aspect of life according to embodied skills, unconscious reasoning, and intuition, with, of course, incursions of analytic thinking, but only when an obstacle was encountered. And the passing on of these skills, through shared experience, attention and imitation, would be the whole purpose of a culture and its traditions. In our culture, all mores have been abandoned; and what should remain implicit and in the realm of embodied skill is foregrounded as a ‘problem’ to be consciously solved – with the result that we grossly simplify and omit what is beyond calculation. I remind you of Whitehead’s insight: ‘civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.’ The implication is clear: when it throws the process into reverse, and impels into the spotlight processes that should be going on in the background, it produces a sort of technically clever, but in reality ignorant, barbarism. Or something that seems very like a species of mental illness.”
So the answer seems to be that, no, we don't necessarily have to make the case in left hemispheric language or engage in non-relational systems. But it may be precisely because our culture exhibits many of the harmful features described above that many people have found the extended discussions within his books particularly helpful. And it should illustrate that, insofar as his writing comes across as a left hemispheric way of saying what others have been saying all along, it is intended as an example of how the left hemisphere can fulfill its proper role as a servant to, and advocate for, the world of the right hemisphere. The hope is that this will help that spark (already present in feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists, etc.) to "cross the gap" for people who are so thoroughly captured by the world of the left hemisphere that they have thus far remained unreachable. And it has managed to do that, judging by the reaction of many readers.
Do some of those who have been preaching this all along, only to be historically sidelined and silenced, feel somewhat exasperated that it took, by all accounts, a privileged pedant of McGilchrist's pedigree to reach these people? Yes, some do. And justifiably so! Others view this apparent progress and cross-cultural appeal with skepticism, pointing out the danger that his work could be used to justify a less-than-progressive political agenda. The misappropriation of the work of one person or group to forward the ends of another is unfortunately not uncommon. All these tensions should be addressed. And to some extent they have. McGilchrist has often expressed his concern and support for marginalized indigenous cultures. And the danger of having a hubristic emissary in the political arena is a moral lesson with wide appeal, however the ambiguity of exactly how the hemisphere hypothesis might be applied still makes some people uncomfortable. But given the need for contextually sound judgement, addressing our unease with ambiguity could be exactly the point.
So what relevance does McGilchrist hold for people who already recognize values and a sense of the sacred? For people who are not overly reductive and instrumental in their thinking, and who already live in a culture that has retained (or reclaimed) its customs and traditions? More directly, should "feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists", etc. be interested in a hypothesis that tries to explain (at long length) what they already intuitively understand? To take a non-Western example, in Japan Shinto beliefs are very animistic, even panpsychic, and there are many other features that place the Japanese culture more toward the right hemisphere when compared to Western civilization. But cultures can and do change, and knowledge, beliefs, and lifestyles with them. So the primary relevance of McGilchrist's thought, for people and cultures that are not captured by the world of the left hemisphere, may be in serving as a bulwark against colonialism (particularly with regard to indigenous peoples), homogenization, and assimilation by the contemporary West. In short, in the context of a healthy culture, the hemisphere hypothesis can serve as an evidence-based defense for non-Western ways of being, an important part of any cultural "immune system".
Great question, Elizabeth. I like the idea of letting go of the demands of the left hand path through the mind. Can we write/sing/word in such a way that re-faeries the gyrus and sulci, that re-peoples all of our horizons and verticals. I love your phrase "weaken the pathways" especially applied to the flow of depersonalization and vivisection that has become thought itself. I don't know exactly what I am about with my stufff but I feel like when I let go of something akin to those forces my language starts to skip in a way that kicks up both metaphor and image that aren't as obviously "me" alone as more structured stuff. I am sure a danger exists to use this as an excuse to not think clearly at all (see Heidegger) rather than to think beneath a strange moon. If Barfield is right and this exacting, dissecting way of seeing/describing is the breaking of the older innate poetics of participation then maybe weakening those pathways might allow the older current to pour through the channels, reversing the losses and the alienations and setting loose all manner of Holy and once familiar like a dam break summoned by the reversal of the river itself. Or maybe I am just a bit over-baked by working on a roof and wishing over this well.
Elizabeth, I really enjoyed this post. I too am a follower of Ian McGilChrist's work and look forward to the interview on your podcast. In regard to "instrumentalisation", I have a particular question on my mind, and perhaps you might add it into your conversation with him. How might disabled people, those wh are severely limited in their ability to perform actions in the world and who therefore favour right hemisphere processes, help to de-instrumentalize society? They appreciate and rely on relationships more than most, and they have much to contribute—like the other marginalised groups you mention—about the intangible, unquantifiable value of connection. It can be insulting to hear, "Use your time to pray." Yet perhaps we are too quick to dismiss prayer because we are accustomed to thinking of it as empty repetition, self-centred asking, or some other kind of formulaic [and therefore left brain] operation. To summarise, what can the right hemisphere do when the body is out of action?
Thanks for sharing the RCP link. Reading the core values and practices feels a little empty without ‘know/explore/and be in profound and loving relationship with thyself.’ Those who are not known to themselves/in denial of themselves struggle with being in relationship with others. Any type. Professional, personal, intimate, communal, etc...A deeply narcissistic parent was a prime teacher in this for me.
It feels a lot like someone talking about mindfulness and it’s benefits without the deep embrace of the practice. Tout the benefits all you like, but wait until the doing breaks you open...
I’d ask McGilchrist:
Have you modeled authentically relating with yourself?
How many neighbors do you have, can you name them and do you know what their favorite food/flower is?
In the history of having colleagues, whose stories are still with you? What are their children’s names?
Are you in reciprocal relationship with the natural world around you? Have you offered yourself to its service, and if not - why? Is not the non-human world, that which provides/sustains us all elements of life, the place where we must demonstrate deepest relationship of all?
To be in relationship requires vulnerability, reciprocity, patience, authentic curiosity and to be able to track what is mine and what is yours. These are the qualities I’d model for humans, if I was inclined to do so.
I wonder what happens if we step away from the framework of dominance? If the way forward is to focus on the role of the corpus callosum—that which allows us to make sense and meaning of both “sides.”
Dare this Ecstasy, and never be made thoughtful by
birth and experience and death.
When nothing in the slightest is experienced or known or presumed, then there is only the Infinite Light of Bliss, the same state in which you now exist but without the compartments of your atrocious thought, without even a parcel of it hanging out. Now we are free. Then we are free. Then we were free. Then we will be free. This space of time is only a figment of your imagination. This body here is the lie by which you are bound. Be willing to give up your body, even now, even now, even now. and your mind, which is your body. Let it go. Let it go. Cling to nothing. Let it go.
Thanks for this, particularly this line “One way to read his work is as a left hemispheric way of saying what feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists, and others whose intuitive, embodied, relational forms of knowledge have been sidelined, have been saying all along.”
- and particular the ‘others’ in there, especially those others who are not the people who ever use words like ‘epistemology’.
I haven’t yet found the courage to commit to reading McGilchrist’s books, so perhaps he covers this there. But what I felt very strongly when watching his conversation earlier this year with Dougald was frustration that the ideas didn’t seem to be dwelling in the domain of normal people’s lives.
I thought about my female forebears whose diffuse attention would be constantly tuned into stirrings of babies and when to take the bread out the oven and whether it felt like there’d be a frost tonight and a funny feeling of worry about a loved one.
Even if McGilchrist crosses the floor between arts and science, it feels so counterintuitive to reify the types of thinking/doing/being that exist in those niches of academia, as though that’s the most important arena in which human brains are functioning.
I find myself wanting to dwell in these ideas outside of ‘high culture’ and in the spaces where the majority of people spend their time.
I also spent time at a lovely Relationships Project gathering this year and felt the same challenges you name. There is something almost embarrassing about having to spend time exploring the value of relationships, as though tentatively looking for approval from the left hemisphere brigade. And yet here we are... :)
So wise Liz
Thanks Elizabeth. I totally get the sense of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Reading what you say prompted two thoughts, one more positive than the other.
The positive one has to do with what's beautiful - beautiful things, moments, people that draw us, and about which we can be confused of course, but which ultimately can trust to reform us, if we follow where they lead.
The negative one is linked, which is that I suspect that deep change and realigning with that good mostly (only?) takes place via crisis, personal and social. Breakdown can lead to breakthrough - which is a frightening thought, because breakdown can also clearly lead nowhere but to breakdown, but also hopeful, in the strict sense of holding out for the hope of a deeper power at play.
So I'd be interested in Iain McG's sense of whether what he fears with left hemisphere dominance might actually be a (dark) path to a recovery of the right. And how to hold out for that.
I can try and ask him!
I loved hearing about The Relationships Project. Like the health care workers you spoke with, I found my medical training profoundly dehumanizing. I honestly feel like I am a worse person (more judgmental, more cynical, harder to access growth mindset) than before my training. Your thoughts on McGilChrist being the voice for this via science has me reflecting a lot on who has decided what the "doctor script" is and how that was determined to be valid. There are certain aspects of my spirituality or personal approaches to health and healing that sometimes feel taboo to share in the health care setting, so I usually only bring them in in extraordinary circumstances where the patient has already expressed that they will be well received or I feel that it is essential that this person here this from me at this time. (E.g. I was caring for a woman who had fou d her daughter dead of an overdose several weeks earlier. She was talking about how she went to her dad's grave to talk to him. I told her that I believe that we can connect to our ancestors and her father wants to support her, but also grief is meant to be done in living community and not something she carries by herself. This feels essential to being human and sometimes feels like I'm breaking some "doctor code"). I think I lost the thread there a bit. Anyway, I appreciate this exploration a great deal.
That last phrase, "trying to resist instrumentalisation by instrumentalising" reminds me of a line McGilchrist cites from Heidegger: "The evil and thus keenest danger is thinking itself. It must think against itself, which it can only seldom do." But in the introduction to The Matter with Things I believe McGilchrist provides a more satisfying response:
“I want to permit something that I believe is already there in the reader to flourish. Philosophy may at times aspire to be, but cannot ever be, coercive: it cannot compel to a point of view. It can only allow an insight to dawn... Plato described the process as a spark that crosses the gap... The truth is not arrived at ultimately by argument alone, though discussion plays a valuable role along the way in dispelling misconceptions (if it didn’t, I would hardly have bothered writing a long book)...”
The questions we grapple with include: What is a healthy relationship between the hemispheres? And what might that look like in a healthy culture? Here's another relevant passage from McGilchrist's book:
“In a culture in which computation was not grossly over-prized, an experienced individual would function in almost every aspect of life according to embodied skills, unconscious reasoning, and intuition, with, of course, incursions of analytic thinking, but only when an obstacle was encountered. And the passing on of these skills, through shared experience, attention and imitation, would be the whole purpose of a culture and its traditions. In our culture, all mores have been abandoned; and what should remain implicit and in the realm of embodied skill is foregrounded as a ‘problem’ to be consciously solved – with the result that we grossly simplify and omit what is beyond calculation. I remind you of Whitehead’s insight: ‘civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.’ The implication is clear: when it throws the process into reverse, and impels into the spotlight processes that should be going on in the background, it produces a sort of technically clever, but in reality ignorant, barbarism. Or something that seems very like a species of mental illness.”
So the answer seems to be that, no, we don't necessarily have to make the case in left hemispheric language or engage in non-relational systems. But it may be precisely because our culture exhibits many of the harmful features described above that many people have found the extended discussions within his books particularly helpful. And it should illustrate that, insofar as his writing comes across as a left hemispheric way of saying what others have been saying all along, it is intended as an example of how the left hemisphere can fulfill its proper role as a servant to, and advocate for, the world of the right hemisphere. The hope is that this will help that spark (already present in feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists, etc.) to "cross the gap" for people who are so thoroughly captured by the world of the left hemisphere that they have thus far remained unreachable. And it has managed to do that, judging by the reaction of many readers.
Do some of those who have been preaching this all along, only to be historically sidelined and silenced, feel somewhat exasperated that it took, by all accounts, a privileged pedant of McGilchrist's pedigree to reach these people? Yes, some do. And justifiably so! Others view this apparent progress and cross-cultural appeal with skepticism, pointing out the danger that his work could be used to justify a less-than-progressive political agenda. The misappropriation of the work of one person or group to forward the ends of another is unfortunately not uncommon. All these tensions should be addressed. And to some extent they have. McGilchrist has often expressed his concern and support for marginalized indigenous cultures. And the danger of having a hubristic emissary in the political arena is a moral lesson with wide appeal, however the ambiguity of exactly how the hemisphere hypothesis might be applied still makes some people uncomfortable. But given the need for contextually sound judgement, addressing our unease with ambiguity could be exactly the point.
So what relevance does McGilchrist hold for people who already recognize values and a sense of the sacred? For people who are not overly reductive and instrumental in their thinking, and who already live in a culture that has retained (or reclaimed) its customs and traditions? More directly, should "feminist philosophers, black theologians, artists", etc. be interested in a hypothesis that tries to explain (at long length) what they already intuitively understand? To take a non-Western example, in Japan Shinto beliefs are very animistic, even panpsychic, and there are many other features that place the Japanese culture more toward the right hemisphere when compared to Western civilization. But cultures can and do change, and knowledge, beliefs, and lifestyles with them. So the primary relevance of McGilchrist's thought, for people and cultures that are not captured by the world of the left hemisphere, may be in serving as a bulwark against colonialism (particularly with regard to indigenous peoples), homogenization, and assimilation by the contemporary West. In short, in the context of a healthy culture, the hemisphere hypothesis can serve as an evidence-based defense for non-Western ways of being, an important part of any cultural "immune system".
Great question, Elizabeth. I like the idea of letting go of the demands of the left hand path through the mind. Can we write/sing/word in such a way that re-faeries the gyrus and sulci, that re-peoples all of our horizons and verticals. I love your phrase "weaken the pathways" especially applied to the flow of depersonalization and vivisection that has become thought itself. I don't know exactly what I am about with my stufff but I feel like when I let go of something akin to those forces my language starts to skip in a way that kicks up both metaphor and image that aren't as obviously "me" alone as more structured stuff. I am sure a danger exists to use this as an excuse to not think clearly at all (see Heidegger) rather than to think beneath a strange moon. If Barfield is right and this exacting, dissecting way of seeing/describing is the breaking of the older innate poetics of participation then maybe weakening those pathways might allow the older current to pour through the channels, reversing the losses and the alienations and setting loose all manner of Holy and once familiar like a dam break summoned by the reversal of the river itself. Or maybe I am just a bit over-baked by working on a roof and wishing over this well.
Elizabeth, I really enjoyed this post. I too am a follower of Ian McGilChrist's work and look forward to the interview on your podcast. In regard to "instrumentalisation", I have a particular question on my mind, and perhaps you might add it into your conversation with him. How might disabled people, those wh are severely limited in their ability to perform actions in the world and who therefore favour right hemisphere processes, help to de-instrumentalize society? They appreciate and rely on relationships more than most, and they have much to contribute—like the other marginalised groups you mention—about the intangible, unquantifiable value of connection. It can be insulting to hear, "Use your time to pray." Yet perhaps we are too quick to dismiss prayer because we are accustomed to thinking of it as empty repetition, self-centred asking, or some other kind of formulaic [and therefore left brain] operation. To summarise, what can the right hemisphere do when the body is out of action?
This is profound Leanne, thank you
Thanks for this. I look forward to your conversation. I found Wittgenstein's concept of 'aspect blindness' very helpful when trying to understand why thoughtful others simply did not experience awe as I do. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2018/12/07/a-cure-for-metaphor-blindness/
Thanks for sharing the RCP link. Reading the core values and practices feels a little empty without ‘know/explore/and be in profound and loving relationship with thyself.’ Those who are not known to themselves/in denial of themselves struggle with being in relationship with others. Any type. Professional, personal, intimate, communal, etc...A deeply narcissistic parent was a prime teacher in this for me.
It feels a lot like someone talking about mindfulness and it’s benefits without the deep embrace of the practice. Tout the benefits all you like, but wait until the doing breaks you open...
I’d ask McGilchrist:
Have you modeled authentically relating with yourself?
How many neighbors do you have, can you name them and do you know what their favorite food/flower is?
In the history of having colleagues, whose stories are still with you? What are their children’s names?
Are you in reciprocal relationship with the natural world around you? Have you offered yourself to its service, and if not - why? Is not the non-human world, that which provides/sustains us all elements of life, the place where we must demonstrate deepest relationship of all?
To be in relationship requires vulnerability, reciprocity, patience, authentic curiosity and to be able to track what is mine and what is yours. These are the qualities I’d model for humans, if I was inclined to do so.
I wonder what happens if we step away from the framework of dominance? If the way forward is to focus on the role of the corpus callosum—that which allows us to make sense and meaning of both “sides.”
Mindless embodiment.
Consciousness without inwardness.
Thus It becomes Obvious.
Every object is only Light, the Energy of
Consciousness.
Even so, there is no mind.
Only this stark embodiment, without inwardness.
First transcend the mind, not the body.
Inwardness is flight from Life and Love.
Only the body is Full of Consciousness.
Therefore, be the body only, feeling into Life.
Surrender the mind into Love, until the body
dissolves in Light.
Dare this Ecstasy, and never be made thoughtful by
birth and experience and death.
When nothing in the slightest is experienced or known or presumed, then there is only the Infinite Light of Bliss, the same state in which you now exist but without the compartments of your atrocious thought, without even a parcel of it hanging out. Now we are free. Then we are free. Then we were free. Then we will be free. This space of time is only a figment of your imagination. This body here is the lie by which you are bound. Be willing to give up your body, even now, even now, even now. and your mind, which is your body. Let it go. Let it go. Cling to nothing. Let it go.