Much of McGilchrist's approach depends on differentiating the holistic perspective from the object-oriented one. Where he pins this difference to hemispheres, others in neuroscience claim the dorsal brain specialized in "where" (holistically), while the ventral brain specializes in "what" (objects). Are both perspectives true, such that the RH had more dorsal capacity, and the LH more ventral? And, where McGilchrist makes much of case studies with hemispheric damage, what do case studies of damage to just the dorsal, or just the ventral, show?
My concern here is that in internalizing the RH v LH McGilchrist view, the natural thing is to take it as a metaphor of two sides either in opposition or coordination; whereas if we internalize a dorsal v ventral view of how our holistic sense relates to our sense of objects, the metaphor is of levels rather than sides, and there's less of a temptation to take the picture as being one of an inevitable competition, as if we were to each be both Cain and Able.
This is a good summary as far as it goes - that is, uncritically. But it fails to mention that none of these 11 metaphysical claims follow at all from McGilchrist's brilliant earlier work on the hemispheres. The hemispheres tell us about how we engage with the world, but nothing about the world itself. Nor does it take into account the extreme one-sidedness of attacking materialist metaphysics as over-left-brained, but leaving traditional Platonism practically untouched. I'm a great fan of 'The Master and his Emissary', which has greatly influenced my own work, but this metaphysical development is profoundly equivocal: it wrongly assumes that a hemisphere balanced perspective somehow justifies that ultimately extreme left brain pursuit - metaphysics. It's also completely inadequate from a practical point of view. I have written an in-depth review at https://www.middlewaysociety.org/the-matter-with-the-matter-with-things/ which both Iain and Jonathan Rowson know about, but have totally ignored. They continue to promote the book in a one-sided way as though there were no issues with its relationship with the earlier work on the hemispheres, shutting down the important critical discussion that needs to take place.
Really appreciated your review on the Middle Way site. I'm not a philosopher or a scholar, but have felt a little bewildered why so many people have jumped on the tome and eulogised it. It seemed to me to carry a basic polarity that moved away from the complex, ecological integration that a relational view of humans - and the world - would imply and carry. I didn't have the language to say why I felt this, but now I do... Many thanks...
I'd say to Mcllroy, trust yourself -- all you needed were the bullet points. And to everyone, you can save reading two massive books and get the message plus the great pleasure of a poetic mystic's magical writing, from mathematical physicist Brian Swimme's much shorter books, "The Universe is a Green Dragon" for the cosmology and its companion book, "Cosmogenesis," for how the mind that came up with Green Dragon was shaped to deliver it.
Thank you. Much respect and appreciation. I never would make it through those books. I have a mild headache just from your 6K word summary - on the left side, of course.
Hello, beautiful initial summary of functional components of McGilchrist's hypothesis about the symmetry of the divided brain vs divided the world. I want to know if or when the second scholarly essay that focuses on the "theological implications of Iain’s worldview?"
I'm currently reading The Matter with Things, and found myself a bit surprised at the second feature of reality listed: "Matter is an aspect of consciousness, not consciousness an emanation from matter."
In the introduction (p. 9) McGilchrist writes: "There is an infinitely vast, complex, multifaceted, whatever-it-is-that-exists-apart-from-ourselves. The only world that any of us can know, then, is what comes into being in the never-ending encounter between us and this whatever-it-is. What is more, I will claim that both parties evolve and are changed through the encounter: it is how we and it become more fully what we are. The process is both reciprocal and creative… our world is what comes into being in the encounter between us and this whatever-it-is."
Having not yet read the epilogue, it might be that the bulleted list of reality features is lacking or otherwise incomplete in certain respects, and as a list it obviously falls short of adequately conveying McGilchrist's full view. However, would it not be more in line with his view (at least as presented in the Introduction) for the second feature to read something more like "Matter is an aspect of our knowledge of the world, and consciousness is not an aspect of matter." or "Matter is an epistemological aspect of the irreducible relationship of us and reality.."? I'm not sure I'm fully getting the point across, but it seems to me that how the second feature is currently phrased can easily be confused for idealism, a position that does not seem in any way aligned with McGilchrist's. All this might be irrelevant after reading the Epilogue myself, I'm just curious.
Today finds me so compelled to voice my gratitude - blended with joy - at having connected with Jonathan Rowson, and thereby joining Substack via Prospeectiva that, with the arrival of this "Thing," what Matters expanded exponentially. This seems to be the only avenue, which I can find, to publicly express: "Thank you Mr. Rowson." This experience seems much as though I were passing through a very pleasant dining hall, being acknowledged by Mr. Rowson, and invited to join his table's discussion. The elation is ineffable.
Well done. This is an excellent explanation and summary of The Matter with Things. Even reading it, it is amazing to think of the depths and breath that Iain brings together. It is not easy to do justice to this, and this writing has.
Thank you for this! It reminded me of this conversation Iain posted on channel Mcgilchrist https://youtu.be/Jfh7LiZ2jMo?si=fhvWCFiE2PR-K3bB and also the holding paradox idea of the Love & Philosophy podcast
While I’m not a philosopher, this reflects beautifully my own long experience with attentional training , Buddhist Mahamudra schools and contemplative work with people like Cynthia Bourgeault, who @Jonathon Rowson is writing about recently
Thank you so much for this really helpful summary. I have read the book and listened to many presentations by Prof McGilchrist. This essay is a great summary and a great introduction to this supremely rich book.
Much of McGilchrist's approach depends on differentiating the holistic perspective from the object-oriented one. Where he pins this difference to hemispheres, others in neuroscience claim the dorsal brain specialized in "where" (holistically), while the ventral brain specializes in "what" (objects). Are both perspectives true, such that the RH had more dorsal capacity, and the LH more ventral? And, where McGilchrist makes much of case studies with hemispheric damage, what do case studies of damage to just the dorsal, or just the ventral, show?
My concern here is that in internalizing the RH v LH McGilchrist view, the natural thing is to take it as a metaphor of two sides either in opposition or coordination; whereas if we internalize a dorsal v ventral view of how our holistic sense relates to our sense of objects, the metaphor is of levels rather than sides, and there's less of a temptation to take the picture as being one of an inevitable competition, as if we were to each be both Cain and Able.
This is a good summary as far as it goes - that is, uncritically. But it fails to mention that none of these 11 metaphysical claims follow at all from McGilchrist's brilliant earlier work on the hemispheres. The hemispheres tell us about how we engage with the world, but nothing about the world itself. Nor does it take into account the extreme one-sidedness of attacking materialist metaphysics as over-left-brained, but leaving traditional Platonism practically untouched. I'm a great fan of 'The Master and his Emissary', which has greatly influenced my own work, but this metaphysical development is profoundly equivocal: it wrongly assumes that a hemisphere balanced perspective somehow justifies that ultimately extreme left brain pursuit - metaphysics. It's also completely inadequate from a practical point of view. I have written an in-depth review at https://www.middlewaysociety.org/the-matter-with-the-matter-with-things/ which both Iain and Jonathan Rowson know about, but have totally ignored. They continue to promote the book in a one-sided way as though there were no issues with its relationship with the earlier work on the hemispheres, shutting down the important critical discussion that needs to take place.
Really appreciated your review on the Middle Way site. I'm not a philosopher or a scholar, but have felt a little bewildered why so many people have jumped on the tome and eulogised it. It seemed to me to carry a basic polarity that moved away from the complex, ecological integration that a relational view of humans - and the world - would imply and carry. I didn't have the language to say why I felt this, but now I do... Many thanks...
I'd say to Mcllroy, trust yourself -- all you needed were the bullet points. And to everyone, you can save reading two massive books and get the message plus the great pleasure of a poetic mystic's magical writing, from mathematical physicist Brian Swimme's much shorter books, "The Universe is a Green Dragon" for the cosmology and its companion book, "Cosmogenesis," for how the mind that came up with Green Dragon was shaped to deliver it.
Thank you. Much respect and appreciation. I never would make it through those books. I have a mild headache just from your 6K word summary - on the left side, of course.
Hello, beautiful initial summary of functional components of McGilchrist's hypothesis about the symmetry of the divided brain vs divided the world. I want to know if or when the second scholarly essay that focuses on the "theological implications of Iain’s worldview?"
I'm currently reading The Matter with Things, and found myself a bit surprised at the second feature of reality listed: "Matter is an aspect of consciousness, not consciousness an emanation from matter."
In the introduction (p. 9) McGilchrist writes: "There is an infinitely vast, complex, multifaceted, whatever-it-is-that-exists-apart-from-ourselves. The only world that any of us can know, then, is what comes into being in the never-ending encounter between us and this whatever-it-is. What is more, I will claim that both parties evolve and are changed through the encounter: it is how we and it become more fully what we are. The process is both reciprocal and creative… our world is what comes into being in the encounter between us and this whatever-it-is."
Having not yet read the epilogue, it might be that the bulleted list of reality features is lacking or otherwise incomplete in certain respects, and as a list it obviously falls short of adequately conveying McGilchrist's full view. However, would it not be more in line with his view (at least as presented in the Introduction) for the second feature to read something more like "Matter is an aspect of our knowledge of the world, and consciousness is not an aspect of matter." or "Matter is an epistemological aspect of the irreducible relationship of us and reality.."? I'm not sure I'm fully getting the point across, but it seems to me that how the second feature is currently phrased can easily be confused for idealism, a position that does not seem in any way aligned with McGilchrist's. All this might be irrelevant after reading the Epilogue myself, I'm just curious.
Today finds me so compelled to voice my gratitude - blended with joy - at having connected with Jonathan Rowson, and thereby joining Substack via Prospeectiva that, with the arrival of this "Thing," what Matters expanded exponentially. This seems to be the only avenue, which I can find, to publicly express: "Thank you Mr. Rowson." This experience seems much as though I were passing through a very pleasant dining hall, being acknowledged by Mr. Rowson, and invited to join his table's discussion. The elation is ineffable.
Well done. This is an excellent explanation and summary of The Matter with Things. Even reading it, it is amazing to think of the depths and breath that Iain brings together. It is not easy to do justice to this, and this writing has.
Love the thumbnail. Does it suggest TMWT is a “weighty tome”? Or perhaps “gram to word ratio” is very good value?
I would say both. 😜
Thanks for posting. 🙏🏽❤️
Thank you for this! It reminded me of this conversation Iain posted on channel Mcgilchrist https://youtu.be/Jfh7LiZ2jMo?si=fhvWCFiE2PR-K3bB and also the holding paradox idea of the Love & Philosophy podcast
While I’m not a philosopher, this reflects beautifully my own long experience with attentional training , Buddhist Mahamudra schools and contemplative work with people like Cynthia Bourgeault, who @Jonathon Rowson is writing about recently
I’m halfway through The Matter with Things and absolutely loving it! Hugely important book.
An important male voice in all this… white, yes, christian, yes, a man of his time, yes.. and still an authentic voice calling for the wilderness!
Thank you for this!!!
He simply reworked the thoughts and book of Alfred Korzybski in his own way, adding a little about religion and metaphysics.
Thank you so much for this really helpful summary. I have read the book and listened to many presentations by Prof McGilchrist. This essay is a great summary and a great introduction to this supremely rich book.