Bi-cameral brains in depth

[Joseph Tracy]

 Funny and in many ways I like what the profs are saying, because it is a properly humble admission of the difficulty of understanding consciousness. But as I am reading about the research I feel there is enough of a picture emerging from that work to justify McGilchrists efforts to define the basic character and style of the the 2 hemispheres and the probable reasons for brain assymmetry. I would be interesed to hear if your profs know about and have thoughts about this book.

So that is really the sum of my response to Ian. What follows is an attempt to take off from that point and develop further a response to this book. and why talkng about the research is somewhat fraught. 

What he seems to argue is that reluctance to claim a meaningful knowledge base for the hemispheric differences is usually an impasse created by an unwillingness to say what can be said, and to interpret the data in a holistic way in order to claim a kind of intuitive, common sense, and openly amendable knowledge. That is the kind of approach which would reflect  the strengths and style of the right hemisphere. The reluctance comes from a combative atmosphere. He gives examples of the general cultural atmosphere of brain research where anything short of provable causal mechanisms will be resisted as unscientific, and even cites researchers who for all practical purposes classify the right hemisphere as entertainingly useless. 

As McGilchrist moves into the philosophical part of the book, which is about making sense of how the hemispheric differences have played out in cultural, philosophic and practical tendencies, he makes a fairly strong case that every attempt to “know” the universe or ourselves is transformed according to whether the left hemisphere or right hemisphere is the mode of processing. 

We seem to have a mental process that wants truth with a small and a capital T, that wants firm knowledge. The right hemisphere offers a consolidation of our efforts, a practical working knowledge, but it is never conclusive in the way that the left hemisphere prefers. It inherently understands the inscrutability of the big picture from the POV of humans immersed in the big picture and with limited mechanisms of knowledge, all techniques of which influence the picture. I find myself to be rather  happy with this open and necessarily incomplete sense of evolving consciousness. It may  even be a reflection of an evolving and indeterminate universe. Who knows? We certainly see that every left hemisphere based approach ultimately produces an unresolveable breech in its own system and in the case of Descartes or Calvin a fair amount of unnecessary  destruction( Mason & Dixon).  In the realm of science Newton is the classic example of a highly developed and extremely useful understanding that is ultimately incomplete. Einstein moved things in a  relatively new direction but didn’t like the quantum implications of God playing dice and found his final goal of a larger theory unreachable.  In biology Lamarck has come back from the grave. The genome project may have been a worthy endeavor but in terms of expected results drew a lot of losing bets. Brain science, as noted above, offers insights but also reveals frustrating limits. The universe remains pretty mysterious, but there is a lot that we have good reason to think we understand.

In the realm of religion and politics the  left brain pursuit of  absolute truth, absolute rules and manipulable hierarchical categories has fed innumerable wars, pogroms and empires. In economics the game theories of the left brain have shown a cruel indifference to human and ecological communities, an indifference that has grown increasingly perilous for the winners as well as the losers. 

  Could human evolution require that both scientifically, and socially, we adopt a more humble attitude toward those mysteries around and within us? Have we left behind wonderful insights from non-western cultures and non-left-hemisphere weighted disciplines? Does love, universal love, self love, family and friendship love have a role to play in our destiny? Does art? Does the moral imagination? Do percetions of cosmic oneness? Perhaps our unstoppable affinity for these”subjective" things  comes from being steeped for millenia in group singing and dancing before we developed symbolic speech. Perhaps the surivival skills of harmony, sharing and delight are more important than we know.

 It seems to me that more than ever we humans have moved into an evolve or die situation that requires that we collectively make enough sense of the big picture to halt certain self destructive habits of mind, technology and emotional style, and give ouselves some room to breathe and grow up. If what we call science fails to aid this, if what we call faith or spiritual practice fail to aid this, if our political instincts toward intelligent and humane self government fails to aid this, if our freedom and resposibilities as individuals fail to aid this transition, if all these cultural forces fail to work together toward an evolutionary turn, then  there is a very good chance we will continue to allow the  accumulation of massive power in the hands of self-interested sociopaths and are fated by behaviors that are likely to result in extinction.  

These last thoughts on global danger are not in any way a product of anger or some futile sense of self righteeousness but an honest perception of global momentum shared by many serious and thoughtful people.  This book is partly a proposition about why that momentum exists, and for me it really seems to diffuse the anger that can accompany  any attempt to confont or understand that momentum. It also takes the issues away from the domain of the inevitable, of resignation to “human nature”. Our brains have changed and can continue to change and part of that change involves the nature of our self awareness. We clearly need both left and right hemispheric ‘styles’ but we may be living with a dangerous imbalance in cultural preferences as regard the best evolutionary role for each hemisphere .





On Jan 25, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> My neuropsych profs were eager to caution that we have now reached such a deep understanding of the brain and its functions that we can at last say with confidence that we know almost nothing about it.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Yes I read those reviews. What I am finding so far is that the book is very careful to build its picture of how the hemispheres work from data. Every step of the way, he draws on research and is very careful so far not to overreach and to include differing takes on that data. One of the things he points out is that brain science is with current technology and perhaps will always be a matter of intelligent interpretation since it deals with qualities and actions for which quantification makes little sense, like empathy, unjustified self confidence, manual grasping behaviors etc. Also it is almost impossible to really track the mechanisms involved( if they really are of a mechanistic nature) because they take place in a living organism. So brain scans give correspondences between activities and brain metabolism but not clearly detailed causal relationships. Also many mental processes draw on both sides of the brain which he frequently reminds the reader.
> 
> Stlll, I  think any reader will be surprised and amazed at the wealth and specificity of the data and how much can be meaningfully and confidently understood about the hemispheric differences. I know I am.
> 
> It is true that he is trying to say something philosophically profound and that is always dangerous terrain, though I have not gotten to the heart of that part of the text. The question is whether there is enough data to support it. So far the data base is so rich that the book cannot fail to leave a powerful imprint and sense of enriched understanding for me.
> 
> 
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of a number of favorable reviews, this one glowing. However a couple of reviewers according to Wikipedia cautioned against culture and psychology conclusions getting too far ahead of hard brain science.
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "You're gonna want your cause and effect, eh?"
> > Since his first book is entitled Against Criticism, I hope he isn't IN GR--
> >  but I'll mic drop in advance. ......
> > Just a little metajoke there, heh, heh.
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > I am currently reading Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the most scientifically, psychologically and philosophically profound books I have ever read. It really has me reeling with information and insight and makes sense of so much that seems inscrutable in human history and personal behavior. I came across the title and a description with a brief quote while doing research on another book. It seemed the more intriguing book so I got it from the library. Will be looking for a used copy.
> >   The topic is the roles of the 2 hemispheres of the brain and he brings together an unexpected wealth of medical/scientific research, both contemprary and historic to build a very powerful picture of the nature of each hemisphere, as well as the evolutionary logic of their differentiation. Both from the introduction and from some peeks ahead I know he has a philosophic intention that argues for a greater balance  in our cultural biases,  and greater awareness of the brain-structure origins of those biases.
> >   From a Pynchon reader POV McGilchrist takes on the brain structure basis of major themes and historic tendencies that appear throughout the body of P’s work. Essentially it is about the division in the brain between left hemisphere’s tendency to seek and produce control achieved through manipulable units of thought, communication, structure, manufacture  and the right brain’s holistic, individualistic and socially empathic style. ( there is no way to adequadetly summarize this or the pages of precise information derived from scientific research). This struggle appers in all P books and with profound starkness in Pynchon’s essay on CP Snow, and the  GR theme of mechanistic control vs nature/pursuit of bliss/personal freedom, humane solidarity.
> >
> > The writer’s background for this book is about as good as possible. Professional Psychiatrist specializing in physiological brain issues, a researcher in neuro-imaging and an  Oxford English teacher 3 times elected Fellow at All Souls College. Of equal or greater importance is the originality of his brilliance and the humane depth of his quest to understand how our brain structure fits into our historic development, and his sense that understanding these things might free us to find a better way forward.
> >
> > Has anyone else read it?
> >
> > 462 pgs of text and over 100 of end notes etc.-
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
> >
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l