Iain McGilchrist on Existence, Being, the Limits of Reason and Language, and Schizophrenia

[Ed Konderla]

About half way through and am thoroughly enjoying it. He points to many things that the ancients already knew. We are having to relearn those things because as humans do we threw the baby out with the bath water. I am convinced that it is possible to understand and "know" everything of significance these intellectuals tell us but you can't articulate it as well. Also so much of modern science and philosophy portrays itself as knowing far more than it actually does. This allows scientists and philosophers to feel ownership and they become the gate keepers to determine what is valid thought and what isn't.

[Jim Cross]

Somebody recommended The Master and His Emissary once. I bought it and found it unreadable. It seemed to be one sweeping generalization after another with little evidence to back any of it up.

Many brains, including most primates, have left-right specialization of brain function. Even chemical molecules have left-right dispositions with the chemistry often working differently for L and D forms.

It definitely does not fit well with materialism, so maybe that's why you found it so hard to read. If you had kept reading, then you would know the hemispheres do not "specialze" in function. In fact they share many of the same functions (it's interesting you use the word "function" for the hemispheres but "disposition" for the chemicals). The difference is in their attention to the world, i.e. their modes of being. As Hoffman also points out, they are essentially two centers of consciousness within "one" subject which manage to integrate with each other seamlessly when they are connected. They are both necessary but the right hemisphere is older and generally more important for survival.

I don't think it is a matter of materialism or not. It is simply a matter of inventing connections and correlations out of whole cloth.

Wikipedia quotes one reviewer who more or less summarizes my view:

Owen Flanagan alleged many shortcomings of the book and delivered a dismissive statement: "The fact is, hemispheric differences are not well understood. Neither are patterns over 2,500 years of western history. Trying to explain the ill-understood latter with a caricature of the former does little to illuminate either"

[AshvinP]

While working for the Saudi Government in Jubail and Abha from 1988 to 1989 and in Hong Kong from November of 1995 to August of 1997 my wife and I saw so much of this stuff. Both of these countries have huge amounts of expat workers from all over the world and you very quickly become aware this has nothing to do with whiteness and everything to do with humanity. I now live on a small farm in the Andes in rural Ecuador where you have a mix of indigenous from several cultures and Spanish decent and believe me it is rampant.

Right. I have seen a fair amount of it every time I visited relatives in India and even within gatherings of Indian Americans here in the U.S. They express racial prejudices like it's just common sense.

[AshvinP]

Somebody recommended The Master and His Emissary once. I bought it and found it unreadable. It seemed to be one sweeping generalization after another with little evidence to back any of it up.

Many brains, including most primates, have left-right specialization of brain function. Even chemical molecules have left-right dispositions with the chemistry often working differently for L and D forms.

It definitely does not fit well with materialism, so maybe that's why you found it so hard to read. If you had kept reading, then you would know the hemispheres do not "specialze" in function. In fact they share many of the same functions (it's interesting you use the word "function" for the hemispheres but "disposition" for the chemicals). The difference is in their attention to the world, i.e. their modes of being. As Hoffman also points out, they are essentially two centers of consciousness within "one" subject which manage to integrate with each other seamlessly when they are connected. They are both necessary but the right hemisphere is older and generally more important for survival.

I don't think it is a matter of materialism or not. It is simply a matter of inventing connections and correlations out of whole cloth.

Wikipedia quotes one reviewer who more or less summarizes my view:

Owen Flanagan alleged many shortcomings of the book and delivered a dismissive statement: "The fact is, hemispheric differences are not well understood. Neither are patterns over 2,500 years of western history. Trying to explain the ill-understood latter with a caricature of the former does little to illuminate either"

Is it a coincidence that Owen Flanagan is also a materialist trying to explain phenomenal consciousness from neuronal systems? I suspect not.

I also suspect that's why he finds it so hard to discern "patterns over 2,500 years of western history". As we often discuss here, a large number of brilliant 20th century philosophers (and Jung) have detailed exactly those patterns of shifting consciousness. So Iain's hypothesis is nothing new in that regard. They do all tend to be idealist philosophers, because materialism a priori rejects the possibility of it happening.

[Jim Cross]

Is it a coincidence that Owen Flanagan is also a materialist trying to explain phenomenal consciousness from neuronal systems? I suspect not.

I also suspect that's why he finds it so hard to discern "patterns over 2,500 years of western history". As we often discuss here, a large number of brilliant 20th century philosophers (and Jung) have detailed exactly those patterns of shifting consciousness. So Iain's hypothesis is nothing new in that regard. They do all tend to be idealist philosophers, because materialism a priori rejects the possibility of it happening.

Perhaps a fair point. Materialists tend to be more rigorous in their thinking.

But materialists can also be very flawed in their discernment of patterns of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

History is somewhat like Rorschach test. You can see mostly whatever you want in it to explain where you think we are or where you think we will be.

[Jim Cross]

materialism a priori rejects the possibility of it happening.

You might also want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization before proclaiming on what possibilities materialism rejects.

[AshvinP]

Is it a coincidence that Owen Flanagan is also a materialist trying to explain phenomenal consciousness from neuronal systems? I suspect not.

I also suspect that's why he finds it so hard to discern "patterns over 2,500 years of western history". As we often discuss here, a large number of brilliant 20th century philosophers (and Jung) have detailed exactly those patterns of shifting consciousness. So Iain's hypothesis is nothing new in that regard. They do all tend to be idealist philosophers, because materialism a priori rejects the possibility of it happening.

Perhaps a fair point. Materialists tend to be more rigorous in their thinking.

But materialists can also be very flawed in their discernment of patterns of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

History is somewhat like Rorschach test. You can see mostly whatever you want in it to explain where you think we are or where you think we will be.

Materialists take abstractions of their conscious experience, which were abstracted to be tools for measurement of phenomenal interactions, and hold those abstractions to be the unquestionable essence and cause of all conscious experience. That is anti-rigorous thinking. And it is self-limiting/defeating, which is why the 'hard sciences', especially physics, are already showing signs of abandoning the materialist paradigm altogether (many QM scientists abandoned it in the 20th century). It is simply no longer useful to any serious scientific questions.

As for history, it is only an enigmatic black hole if we unconsciously desire it to be. Otherwise there is plenty of solid facts about it's progression on which we can build sound models and test those models. Historical materialism has failed it's test, true. Basically there was no good reason to flip Hegel's dialectics on its head, other than the flawed materialist reasoning I described above.

[Jim Cross]

Materialists take abstractions of their conscious experience, which were abstracted to be tools for measurement of phenomenal interactions, and hold those abstractions to be the unquestionable essence and cause of all conscious experience.

Where do you get this stuff from? What in the world is "unquestionable essence"?

Really you want to generalize about all materialists for all time and hold out that they think some way you project onto them.

As for history, it is only an enigmatic black hole if we unconsciously desire it to be

This does make sense coming from your viewpoint. Reality/history is whatever we desire it to be.

Marxism is a failure but Hegelian dialectics - now that's different.

[AshvinP]

Materialists take abstractions of their conscious experience, which were abstracted to be tools for measurement of phenomenal interactions, and hold those abstractions to be the unquestionable essence and cause of all conscious experience.

Where do you get this stuff from? What in the world is "unquestionable essence"?

Really you want to generalize about all materialists for all time and hold out that they think some way you project onto them.

As for history, it is only an enigmatic black hole if we unconsciously desire it to be

This does make sense coming from your viewpoint. Reality/history is whatever we desire it to be.

Marxism is a failure but Hegelian dialectics - now that's different.

I don't know what "unquestionable essence" is, and neither does anyone else, but that doesn't stop vocal materialists from claiming it for their worldview. If you think that is nonsensical like I do, then your bone to pick is with them. They posit a world of mindless particles, waves, etc. that somehow give rise to phenomenal consciousness. All of those terms originally developed as abstract concepts that could be put to use in furtherance of applied sciences which required near-exacting measurements. Only around the 19th century did the abstractions become mistaken for the actual building blocks of the Universe.

I didn't say history is "whatever we desire it to be". I said the opposite - that it is only forever beyond the reach of our knowledge if we desire it to be. As with most things in life, we limit ourselves from realizing potential due to various unconscious motivations like the avoidance of responsibility which comes with that realized potential. Even most materialists would think your claim about history as enigmatic "Rorschach test" is ludicrous. You know it's bad when even the materialists are standing on the epistemic higher ground than you are.

[AshvinP]

materialism a priori rejects the possibility of it happening.

You might also want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization before proclaiming on what possibilities materialism rejects.

I'm not sure how Marcuse is supposed to clarify anything about materialist possibilities. I was referring to the evolution of consciousness in the West, which is an impossibility for materialism because consciousness is only epiphenomenal and therefore all changes in consciousness must be reduced to material causes, which of course has proven impossible.