6 Comments

Great review and wider discussion. Great to find a fellow aficionado of McGilchrist's work on substack. Discovering his work and his first book, was life changing for me (it allowed me to understand the origins of my idiopathetic parkinson's diagnosis, and what I needed to change to get better ( https://www.outthinkingparkinsons.com/articles/divided-brain-1 ). I haven't finished the new book completely yet, but taking it slow, reading each chapter after the corresponding interview he is doing with Dr Alex-Gomez Marin where they discussed each chapter in turn over on McGilchrist's youtube channel. They are on about chapter 13 at the moment.

Expand full comment

Superb. Since it is ineffective to point out that materialism doesn't explain human experience to people who have an incomplete experience of humanity, as you mention, I wonder if any attempt to prove the falsity of materialism might need to rest on displaying the contradictions inherent in its own axioms? It would be interesting to know if such a logical proof could be constructed, as it might then reach more LH-conditioned individuals capable of reconciling that proof with their own intuitive experience of reality. Or so it seems to me. :-)

Expand full comment

Bravo!

Expand full comment

Bravo indeed! The finish of the essay bringing it all together is excellent!

Expand full comment

Excellent summary.

Regarding psychology influencing thought, Nietzsche also advanced this view, taking the position that physiology flavored the ideas of philosophers, such that their philosophies in many cases were simply elaborate statements of dyspepsia, chronic indigestion, etc. Having observed in myself how much my physiological state colors the direction of my thinking, this has always struck me as quite accurate.

As to the implications, Nietzsche advocated a healthy diet, plenty of exercise, etc. Corpus sana, mens sana, in other words.

Expand full comment

Three years back someone handed me a copy of The master and his emissary by Iain McGilchrist. Within two lines I knew. I read the book to see if he got it right. I recognised what he tried to point at but never had found arguments for. How utterly useless it had been to even try inviting smart people into how I experience the world. I felt I had been found, understood in a way I never came across before. I also didn’t agree with some of the worked out details, and since longed to brainpick the gentle island man. To have the all night talk.

But there is the gap, I am not an academic and while I have worked my way in, by learning the language, I am unwilling to leave my form at the door to engage with anyone. So, a 101 talk is not very likely.

Interest is growing in the hemisphere theory. So is my concern. This deep gnawing that it is not enough. That the neurological proof will backfire and attempted to be integrated in the left hemispheric field of influence. That Iain will be institutionalised, so to speak. This growing unrest urges me to write, like this, to resonant minds on an intellectual level (which is not fully my natural habitat) but much more by telling the story of the right hemisphere way as I know it in the way I know best.

I seek reflectors. I feel like a scout (sure there must be more) in need of back up. Someone to hold the safety line and unwind the ball of yarn as far as Is needed. My task is shamanic in nature. A grounding job that involves digging deep into the underworld of our paved over cities. Opening the cracks for the invasive weeds that nature sends to retake the stolen bits. The vehicle for me to do that is story. Fiction not facts. Imagination, not reasoning. The implicit showing and not the explicit telling.

Sure would love to keep this conversation going, to widen it, to celebrate what we are learning….

Expand full comment