Divided Consciousness:How Do We Achieve Balanced Thinking? (Gilchrist on the Master and Emissary)
This thread is based on my recent reading of, 'The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and Making of the Western World', by Iain Mcgilchrist(2009 edition). In this book, the author looks at the balance between the left and right hemispheres, although he argues that the division is complex. A brief summary of his idea is apparent in his metaphor of the master and emissary: 'the Master realises the need for an emissary' and the Right brain is this master: The right hemisphere"s view is inclusive whereas the left is fragmentary and is a wonderful servant, but a very poor master.' Together, the hemispheres enable people to draw upon the 'four pathways to truth: science, reason, intuition and imagination.'
What is particularly relevant is the way in which McGilchrist believes that the two hemispheres affect modes of thought and philosophical understanding. In particular,
'Metaphor(subserved by the right hemisphere) comes before detonation(subserved by the left). This is a historical truth, in the sense that detonative language, is derived from metaphors, founded on immediate experience of the world.'
The author argues that the brain hemispheres come into play in the rise of movements of thought, including romanticism and the enlightenment. Gilchrist stresses that it is important for us to be able to integrate reason, intuition, feeling and imagination to our worldview, to achieve an integrated form of perception. However, he says that this does not mean not reason should be disregarded, simply that, 'The master needs to trust, and believe in his emissary.'
I have only given a very brief summary of Gilchrist's ideas, but I believe that it has relevance to a the nature of how we perceive and think about ideas. For anyone who has read this book, and I believe that it was someone on the site who recommended it to me months ago, I wonder if you are interested in discussing it further. Also, I offer the ideas of Gilchrist' as a means of reflection and discussion on how, and to what extent, we can achieve balance in our own thinking.
What is particularly relevant is the way in which McGilchrist believes that the two hemispheres affect modes of thought and philosophical understanding. In particular,
'Metaphor(subserved by the right hemisphere) comes before detonation(subserved by the left). This is a historical truth, in the sense that detonative language, is derived from metaphors, founded on immediate experience of the world.'
The author argues that the brain hemispheres come into play in the rise of movements of thought, including romanticism and the enlightenment. Gilchrist stresses that it is important for us to be able to integrate reason, intuition, feeling and imagination to our worldview, to achieve an integrated form of perception. However, he says that this does not mean not reason should be disregarded, simply that, 'The master needs to trust, and believe in his emissary.'
I have only given a very brief summary of Gilchrist's ideas, but I believe that it has relevance to a the nature of how we perceive and think about ideas. For anyone who has read this book, and I believe that it was someone on the site who recommended it to me months ago, I wonder if you are interested in discussing it further. Also, I offer the ideas of Gilchrist' as a means of reflection and discussion on how, and to what extent, we can achieve balance in our own thinking.
Comments (54)
According to tests Iām severely right-brained (or left-brain damaged) and that may be why things like drawing have always been relatively easy. I try to achieve more of a balance by activities like participating in this forum.
That's interesting because I always got on better at drawing and writing and am extremely poor at most practical tasks. No one ever looked into this about me, but I have felt that it was connected to the left and right balance of the brain.
I believe that we need to try to incorporate the four functions which Jung describes: feeling, reasoning, sensation and intuition. Most people have a dominant and an inferior one. When I was on art therapy course I had a supervisor who told me that I tend to intellectualise too much, so I try to make sure that I try to pay attention to intuition, feeling and sensation as well.
I tend to rationalise my own experiences a lot, but I have worked on this as far as possible, reading about emotional intelligence. I am also poor at physical tasks, which is not on Jung's list, so I try to give myself extra time to do them more mindfully and carefully.
To you or anyone else who replies, I will have to write a fuller response tomorrow. That is because I didn't go to bed last night because I lost my keys and sat outside on a bench for most of the night. Fortunately, when the cafe I was in yesterday opened at 8am my keys were there, which was a great relief. I was feeling okay when I wrote the thread, but, now, having been up all night has caught up on me. So, my consciousness is not in balance at all at the moment.
The Sword and Shield hypothesis is an example of functional lateralization. Supposedly your dominant hand is associated with approach motivation neural circuitry and your non-dominant hand is associated with avoidant motivation neural circuity, generally. So if you ever go to get transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy (TMS) to improve your approach/avoid motivation habits, have them target the correct side based on your handedness.
I can definitely vouch that my brain is imbalanced with respect to approach motivation. I'd like to run away from just about everything.
[quote=Iain McGilchrist, Master and His Emissary] In predatory birds and animals, it is the left hemisphere that laches on, through the right eye and the right foot, to the prey.[/quote]
Unless the bird is left-talon dominant or ambidextrous.
Check out alien hand syndrome.
Tell that non-dominant hand to shut up and shut down. It's just a self-lefteous kill joy. I can do what I want. :P
I am now replying to your response from a couple of days ago. I think that it interesting how one understands intellectualization in relation to reason. I probably take it to mean a rather restrictive use of reason. I think that the idea was discussed by Freud, amidst other processes, such as repression and subliminalisation. I believe that Freud's was critical of people trying to find rational explanations for their behaviour.
In the context of the way a supervisor suggested to me that I was inclined to use intellectualization, he actually told me that I approached 'everything in the head' and he went on to say that I seemed cut off from my emotions. I did not entirely agree with him really because I did find that many of the students had an approach to emotions which was rather artificial. In group workshops on the course some members, used to divulge stories and then go into floods of tears or ventilate extreme anger, shouting or screaming. I am not saying that none of it was genuine, but some of it seemed contrived and like a game. So, I do have queries about an approach which is just about emoting. I think that some members of the course, and even tutors were critical of me for being philosophical about life.
I actually didn't complete the art therapy training, but do still feel that I learned a lot in it. I definitely believe that art enables expression which cannot be put into words or conversations in many ways. I thought of that recently when a friend told me how she is not able to find the words to even think about her experiences recently. Apart from art therapy, I have known people who are having cognitive behavioral therapy, which often seems to me like a form of therapy involving a philosophy approach to life. But, it have heard people who are having CBT say that it goes a bit too far in that respect, and does not give enough scope in letting people ventilate about past experiences.
My reply may seem a bit too focused on therapy, and I didn't really write the thread with a view to thinking about therapy experience. It is just your reply, querying feelings, lead me to think about processing in a way which seemed best answered in connection with how those can be understood from various angles as touched upon within the psychotherapies.
We could say that the world is a right-handed world - lefties had very little role in how it's turned out since they're in the minority, their unique contributions are diluted and/or overriden - and so, while the good there is in this world can be chalked up to right-handedness, the blame for all the evil in it too falls on right-handers.
This contradicts the age-old belief that lefties and evil go hand in hand. The word "sinister" means both evilish and left proving my point. However, right-handers, well-known for their logic should at some point come to the realization that there are so few left-handed folks around that the evil in the world couldn't possibly be their doing. Evil should've been wiped off the face of the earth going by the small and dwindling number of left-handers. I'm surprised that righties still harbor suspicion against lefties given what I said. It should be the other way round. Why so few lefties? Why so [s]few[/s] no dodos? Dodos were hunted to extinction. Need I say more?
Of course someone might object to this by saying that the evil extant in this world began in the minds of left-handers and righties have been, ever since, trying to eliminate it - the abolition of evil being a work in progress, perhaps to be achieved once the last left-hander is dead and buried, a couple of centuries or even millenia being necessary before faer lingering evil also finally dies. Good then, it's suggested, will finally prevail on earth.
Granted evil has its roots in the left-handed, why does it persist then if not that it finds the perfect conditions to thrive in the minds of righties. In other words, the received wisdom that the left and right hemispheres complement each other if taken to its logical condition implicates both lefties and righties - both are culpable, the right brain (lefties) as the founder (of evil) and the left brain (righties) as the faithful follower (of evil) [Master-Slave]. The right hemisphere (lefties), imaginative (so they say), must've wondered, "What if? Just what if we take a stone and hit someone over the head with it?" The left hemisphere (righties), logical (so they say) must've immediately replied, "You know what? That's a great idea!" Deadly duo! Double trouble! Twin threats! The two, together, terror!
Thanks for your extremely interesting reply. The question of good and evil in relation to the right and left is extremely important, even though I don't think Gilchrist looks at this clearly. But, one author who has done is Jonathan Black. I have read a couple of books by him, but don't think I have them any longer, to quote from directly. However, what he pointed to was the medical symbol of Caseusis, which has the two entwined snakes, which he says represent the left and right hand side of knowledge. He states how we have the accepted right side, which is mainstream knowledge and religion. The left side is the hidden, more dangerous knowledge of the esoteric, which has been regarded as 'evil' by many, and often referred to as the occult'.
I think that this whole dichotomy is interesting, and we have to think about how people who were regarded as psychic were often referred to as witches. But, there is a whole history of esoteric knowledge, ranging from the Kabbalah, Gnostic thinking, the Hermetic ideas, alchemy and many other traditions outside of the mainstream. These may be seen as 'evil' by some, but perhaps they are simply more dangerous because rather than people following the path of authority, it is about individuals following the path of inner knowledge. Gilchrist certainly does suggest that human beings can learn a lot from incorporating some ideas from Oriental thought, and that is happening in many ways in Western culture.
But, of course, I am not wishing to overlook the question of good and evil, but, I do think that this is complex, as you and others may realise, I come from a strong interest in Jung's ideas. The confrontation with good and evil is an extremely difficult aspect of individuation. There are many potential mistakes, and that is why the emphasis on the right as opposed to left path has been the stronger, more dominant one.
Quid pro quo. I'm glad you find it interesting. You've given me quite a few insights, Jack, truth-seeker.
Quoting Jack Cummins
TheMadFool makes a mental note of this comment for later reference.
My own views of what seems to be like an old abandoned road (the occult) once the sleek new, modern highway gets done (mainstream views) is that it was, literally and figuratively, executed for "good" reasons. Much of the "knowledge" that was painstakingly gathered by practitioners (of the occult) was systematically destroyed by largely religious institutions as they deemed it heretical or some other transgression (pact with the Devil).
People who were party to the extermination of an entire way of life (occultism) thought they were doing the "right" thing. If you try hard enough I'm fairly confident that the old road can still be found, repaired, and made "good" enough to take traffic. I don't advise it though. It has danger written all over it - death maybe the least of our concerns, if you know what I mean. :grimace: :worry:
I have juggled mixed messages. When I was about 18 or 19 I was reading Jung's ideas which were extremely esoteric and attending Christian youth meetings. In these meetings people used to speak of the occult messages in rock music, which were meant to be uncovered by playing the music backwards. The ultimate example was meant to be that if you play Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards, you can hear the words 'Satan is God'. I can remember someone trying to tell me all kinds of books and music I was listening to, including my favourite 'Psychedelic Furs' albums were the work of the devil and being really distraught.
But, as I moved on I think that it can all be so simplistic, but it was all of this that lead me to question Christianity initially. And, I have read a lot in the esoteric traditions. But, there is dangerous knowledge and we only have to think of Aleister Crowley. Even the tarot has dangers. I have never used it but, once in a student hall of residence, a girl did a reading for me and she seemed alarmed by my reading. I wasn't really because I knew that I had a lot of difficulties to work through, but it ended up with me needing to reassure her because she was really worried about me.
I do think that people who spend time reading esoteric books, and following practices in them can become rather unbalanced. But, it probably depends on so many other factors. This morning, I was having a conversation with someone who pointed out to the need to listen to our bodies, and I realised that this was relevant to my thread.
I have thought about how this relates to one of your recent threads, which is the one on symmetry. Of course, it does involve the yin and the yang. However, Gilchrist does argue that there is a fundamental asymmetry to consciousness, with a need for a master. For me, this probably suggests the danger of getting lost in the quagmire of esoterica, but I suppose that there are so many philosophical dangers and red zones anyway.
I think that the main thing to remember is that even though the structure of the brain has a basis in neuroscience, it is only a model. Gilchrist is suggesting that some pictures of the division between left and right are far too simplistic. Regarding your idea of the 'coach', it leads me to think of how the transpersonal philosopher, Ken Wilber, spoke of 'witness consciousness', which can be seen as the inner narrator reflecting upon the divisions, especially the right and the left, but probably other divisions, like degrees conscious vs subconscious.
There are two, how shall I put it?, levels of symmetry. One is qualitative symmetry such as hot - cold, good - bad, up - down and so on. Asymmetry ain't possible at this level.
Then there's quantitative symmetry - the flux that occurs between hot and cold, between good and bad, so on and so forth. This is where all the action takes place and ergo, being inherently fluid, asymmetry is not only possible but also as real as real can get. However, the asymmetry initiates processes directed towards the attainment of even quantitative symmetry. That's how the cookie crumbles, Jack, truth-seeker!
We are back with the question of opposites and the nature of continuum. I imagine that all the binary aspects remain as binaries, but in real life how we define, think and experience them is where our lives take us. We go on such interesting travels into the yin and yang of the real and the fantastic, which is probably a continuum in it own right within the most mysterious complicated knot of mind and body.
I didn't mean to evade the question, but I am really looking two days after reading your posts. Of course, it could be that it is a blindspot of mine, because I do believe that we have them. The slightly complicated matter of what one feels is that we use words to describe experiences, so it does mean that it can be difficult to separate some aspects of feelings from the cause. Of course, we are talking in a fairly abstract way rather a specific one. Generally, I think that bodily sensations can be useful in identifying emotions and reason can be a way of understanding the whys. However, I do believe that all these aspects do need reflection on the processes, or otherwise, our consciousness can become a messy blur.
Thanks for your response, and I just hadn't replied because I answered ones from today. Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. It seems likely to me that each one of is wired slightly differently. It probably involves so much, ranging from genetics to the way we learn to behave. I am sure it is a complex mixture of the two because it probably involves pathway developments in the brain.
But, definitely I know of people who are left handed and struggled with being encouraged to use their right hand. My father experienced this. I am right handed and, when I broke my right wrist as an adult I had great difficulty. I tried writing with my right hand which did not work at all. But, I did experiment with drawing with my left hand and that did produce some interesting results, and I had read previously that drawing or painting with the less dominant hand is a useful way of getting in touch with aspects of subconscious experience.
I can see what you are saying about standing poised on the shore, and, of all things I will admit that I never managed to swim and I hated even going into a swimming pool. But, on topic of emotions, I do believe that we do need to stand back and use reason to help us understand it. This is not merely about not drowning, which would probably happen to me if I went into the sea. Reasoning about emotions is a way of not recognizing them for what they are rather than being pulled along by them subconsciously.I see this as being central to the ability to reflect.
I do agree that understanding emotions is extremely important. I wonder if you are suggesting that I am not putting my emotions into this. You must remember that this is online, and I am not even anonymous. But, I think it does all come down to context and, generally, when I am writing on this site, I am aiming to write philosophy. Real life is a bit different. But, I do believe that lack of emotion or too much can be a problem, but I think that it is about assessing what is relevant to any specific situation.
Actually I've no real clue as to the implications of that paper other than TMS caveats, as iterated in a few other articles. We should all be a bit wary as to drawing any conclusions. McGilchrist's thesis could still be a fanciful expansion of left/right brain myth. The split brained stuff is really fascinating though.
If brain balance is related to education and going along with McGilchrist's schema of disembodied/abstract learning versus embodied learning, we see a real deficit of the latter in U.S. education systems. Kids are turned off from learning because it has become too disembodied... one sits in a chair most of the time, writing with a pencil, staring at a screen, answering fragmentary questions (not connected to a larger project of applicability). Boring as hell, suited for robots only.
I don't live in the U.S, so I am afraid that I don't know what the education is like there. I barely know what the English one is like currently like because I only have one or two friends with children. But, of course, it is important because the education we have shapes cognition and consciousness. I found some of my own boring, but some of it very good. I also think that family teaching is an important aspect, because early life affects what happens later in a big way.
Opposites: Endpoints
Continuum: Flux (between endpoints)
T
Although there are endpoints, and a continuum, I think that it is also interesting to think of Heraclitus's idea of enantiodromia. This was about how when opposites are reached they reverse completely. So, we may be in the realms of walking along points along the continuum and watching binaries change into their opposites. Of course, we are talking on an abstract level, but I think that the ideas of Gilchrist do show how opposites within the brain and, consciousness are very complex indeed.
:up: Good news & Bad news.
[quote=Banno][...]I don't know whether to laugh or cry[/quote]
I think that it the idea of opposites reversing is probably more good news, like, for example, extreme sadness can suddenly shift into joy. There may need to be some kind of intervening life experiences for this to happen though, although I suppose that it could happen spontaneously. But, if we could only shuffle along in various positions along a continuum life may be just murky greys, with less drama than the ones presented by black and whites. The only downside, however, is that when we experiencing some kind of polarised state we have to realise that it may shift into the opposite, and that life, including our brains, come with waves.
Standing still, I move,
Moving, I stand still.
Your response about standing has lead me to think about is the whole way our thinking is not just focused in the head, but in the whole of the body. It is extremely hard to stand completely still, and my balance is not perfect. Yet, the fullest picture, which I am not sure that Gilchrist's theory takes into account is how it is not simply the brain which is involved in experience and thinking, but the entire body. However, the head does play a key role, but other organs, such as the heart play a really significant role in consciousness, and this may go beyond pumping the blood around the body to keep us alive. But, I can see that the brain is the master, even beyond the spectrum of the division between left and right brain.
When you play sport or dance or do something very physical you realise that to think the mind is the brain or purely in your head is nonsense.
Perhaps the reason why I am so poor at sport and dancing is because my brain is holding me back. Indeed, perhaps those who are not so inclined to think all the time are better at sports and dancing. But I am sure that there are some dancing philosophers.
The brain or physical head is not the seat of your intelligence.
The reason some people are poor at sports is because they don't practice.
Even meditators will tell you the brain is not the mind.
And there are many many dancing philosophers and Poets.
I think that you have a point when you say that people are poor at sports because they don't practice. I do believe that this probably is based on early childhood experiences. Personally, my parents had me late, because they married late, and I was an only child, so I spent a lot of my childhood reading and drawing and did less sport than others. Of course, I can't generalise purely from my personal experience, but I would imagine that people who are good at sports began at an early age.
I also believe that the meditators are right about the brain not being the mind. I have done some mindfulness meditation and that involves awareness outside of cerebral experience.
Childhood experiences can interfere a lot in our development in certain fields.
I have always loved sports.
The thing is Jack I bet as a child you loved crawling about and play,and that is exactly what sports and dancing are.
Can you imagine a child sitting in it's room thinking all day!
Not the most healthy thing.
The zen masters encourage lots of walking,talking and physical tasks in addition to study periods.
Nothing beats quality talking. Talking is a great exercise.
We could metaphorically say the Mouth is the mind!
I've thought about this very briefly. Too briefly. I dunno.
What i mean is i found information while meditating that i didn't have before that particular meditation session
Spot on! For those who disagree, there's a thin line between adventure and misadventure.
I am a curious about your idea of the 'thin line between adventure and misadventure'. I wonder if you can explain a little bit further.
Good video, and perhaps we need more misadventures. I think that I learn so much more from the misadventures of life, and they certainly break down the binaries of logic. The misadventures may hardwire us in exciting ways and result in entire new connections between the left and the right of consciousness. Perhaps we need to take more risks rather than staying in safe territories, in life, and in our philosophy speculations.
The question is where do we pull out answers from. Are they simply parts of ourselves, of which we are not usually familiar?
What if the subconscious and "unconcious" where we draw many of our answers are really our soul,our extended conciousness?
These tidbits of information we pull I feel we pull from our how would I put it? I guess you could call it your bloodline body? Basically I kind of piggyback some characters from a few sources to form my understanding and one of them is Manny p Hall
He once mentioned that the beginning of existence happened because of seven great spirits which are also the seventh grade luminaries in space and each Spirit was responsible for a phase of man's existence and we are in the Aryan phase currently which is phase 5 or root race is he calls it
so then if you look at existence as one big family consisting of people we come from mainly if your European like I am the fifth person in that family and that fifth person consists of everybody that has ever been born in that particular bloodline which is a very vague bloodline because it covers all of the Aryan bloodline and so try to envision it like I'm a blood cell within that massive body of the original fifth family member and I'm just one tiny little cell however I technically have the ability to gain information from all the other cells in that entire body which would be an unmeasurable number of cells /people
And this is how I explain how some people can pull certain information that others cannot and vice versa both people having gained information equally as difficult to obtain yet can't universally obtain it from either side and that is because they're from two different bodies and so in a way you have this unlimited plethora of akashic knowledge yet it is limited due to whatever body you come from
Now I'm by no means dogmatic about this viewpoint it's just a mental exercise I use and so far it seems to be difficult for me to defeat when arguing with myself LOL.
I am not sure about your idea of 'the bloodline body', but what it does lead me to wonder about is how we are connected to other minds. Perhaps, it is the left side of the brain which would allow for such connections, and that is accessible in meditation.There is the eternal debate about whether mind is simply brain, but this does still leave us as being individual cells of mind. However, there is also the connection with other minds, and to what extent we are interconnected. My own view takes on Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, but I am aware that many people see this construct as dubious. Nevertheless, our relationship with other minds is one which I feel is not explored enough, although it is central to discussion about intersubjectivity.
I am not sure about your idea of 'the bloodline body', but what it does lead me to wonder about is how we are connected to other minds. Perhaps, it is the left side of the brain which would allow for such connections, and that is accessible in meditation.There is the eternal debate about whether mind is simply brain, but this does still leave us as being individual cells of mind. However, there is also the connection with other minds, and to what extent we are interconnected. My own view takes on Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, but I am aware that many people see this construct as dubious. Nevertheless, our relationship with other minds is one which I feel is not explored enough, although it is central to discussion about intersubjectivity
well keep in mind I'm just using this as a mental format or something to look at in order to keep track of my thoughts I don't actually think that there's a literal huge type of creature made up of every single person in the Aryan race walking around somewhere in the galaxy it's merely just a thought model.
And it works with Jung's collective consciousness theory
On several occasions I've been able to pull information that I did not know previously and confirm it upon waking up and or ending meditation and found it to be accurate
And there was a time several years ago where I was struggling with a severe chemical imbalance that left me extremely foggy brand couldn't focus my mind on anything was extremely depressed it was impossible to feel anything other than sadness and sorrow and the world felt fake (my dopaminergic system was fried)
But I had a realization one day when I was thinking about a dream I had because in that dream I was sharp minded it was an amazingly happy dream one of the best experiences ever I felt beyond normal and upon waking I was back to my foggy cloudy depressed self again
But I realized that we are affected and seemingly at the mercy of the body but we are more then the body and that are mind or at least part of it transcends the body and I knew this had to be the case do to how I transcended a mental state of terrible depression completely transcended it when even pharmaceutical intervention couldn't help but upon returning to the body upon waking I was submerged back into the issues the body had
The metaphor of the map and the territory is apt for the McGil's division of the modes of each hemisphere. The Left hemisphere deals with things as represented, reduced to what is known/habituated, to what can be reproduced and manipulated. The Right plays attention to what is "presencing" which in a way always defies capture by its phenomenal multivalence, even if one is focusing on a point.
The author J.L. Borges plays with these oppositional modes in his stories. Reading McGil, I'm reminded of Funes, who after falling off a horse and injuring his head is cursed with a torrential edetic memory.
[quote=Wikipedia: Funes the Memorious: Generlization]Because Funes can distinguish every physical object at every distinct time of viewing, he has no clear need of generalization (or detail-suppression) for the management of sense impressions. The narrator claims that this prevents abstract thought, given that induction and deduction rely on this ability. This is stated in the line "To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes, there were nothing but details." [/quote]
Funes is in some sense trapped in the excessive fullness (unbounded infinity of) what "presences" even though he can still name/recall any and all particulars.