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.
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.
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.
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.
Upon publication I posted a comment using the opening lines of chapter 3 suggesting scholastics would have difficulty grasping the implications of Iain's work because they are immersed in a 'level' of consciousness that is fundamentally out of touch with reality. Conflating the communication biased consensus-reality level of consciousness created by language with the actual reality our eyes see.
As Daniel Goleman points out in his excellent book Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, we are in the 'habit' of imposing a language and memory conditioned 'mind-sight' onto the perception capacity of our innate eyesight, and thereby perceiving the reality of our language map rather than reality itself.
Or in McGilchrist rather male dominated worldview, “The left hemisphere adopts a theory, and then actually denies what doesn’t fit the theory.” A male sense of reality that has a tendency to deny its own creation within the womb of a woman and has a hard time escaping the deadly consequences of a gender biased worldview or recognizing the species-specific problem of the non-conscious orchestrated of all human behavior.
As the essay points out; Analytical philosophy and the dominance of the machine metaphor in science[9] have created “a tradition in which most academics now are so thoroughly schooled that they can’t see that there is a problem, let alone how to escape it.” But is it fair to say that philosophy has been dominated by the male voice for so long that can't see anything wrong with using a male metaphor to understand creation?
The essay comes to the conclusion:
McGilchrist offers a philosophical vision with many strengths. It is relational, it is anti-reductionist, and it integrates perspectives from a variety of disciplines into a more than plausible whole. Any society in which such a vision has arisen will be greatly enriched if only we will take the time to attend to it.
McGilchrist has also dared to think about what a wholehearted and fully engaged attention to reality suggests about “God”. This has implications for other ways of thinking about God, and in my next article, I will consider McGilchrist’s ideas in the light of classical theism and Christian theology.
Yet do Christians take the time to attend to the experiential meaning of Jesus reason for teaching parables? Stated thus: I speak to them in parables, because seeing they don’t see, and hearing, they don’t hear, neither do they understand. (Matthew 13:13)
A reason replicated in chapter 3 of TMWT in Iain's line about our mental constructs and how we live in a world of sight and thought. While the "neither do they understand," line from classical wisdom can be understood as the non-conscious orchestration of human behavior, science IS revealing, beyond the politics of experience Gestalt the male head tends to get stuck in.
I would argue that the Christian story of crucifixion/resurrection is based on an understanding of the perceptual paradox inherent in language, as our naming of the surface impressions of reality, our eyes see and how our communication biased consciousness traps us within an 'appearances' prison of our own making. So much so that we don't understand how the appearance of resurrection in the story of humanity upon the cross of space-time, alludes to the earth turning reality of being-in-time.
A very clever story based on the optical illusion that the sun moves in the sky and cognitive illusion inherent in the reality labeling word, SUNRISE. Hence the appearance of resurrection occurs at that point of earth-axis rotation that begins to reveal the light-matter birth of a new day. A period of light?
I would argue that the story is warning about the existential prison of our conceptual level of consciousness that only be escaped through a return to the visceral level of consciousness we are born with. Hence I use salient information to practice a visceral awareness of optical and cognitive illusion, using the continuous sweep of a cosmic phenomena we apply the reality labeling word DAWN to, to feel the earth-turning reality of being-in-time.
You can use salient information to experience a participatory relevance realization, by becoming aware of the speed of earth-axis rotation at your particular cosmic location, with the science info provided here: http://www.unitarium.com/earth-speed
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 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.
This is a huge service. I bought TMWT on publication and have to confess to still working my way through it, so many insights does it trigger. To have this perspective is like placin myself on a map, and I’m grateful.
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.
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.
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.
He simply reworked the thoughts and book of Alfred Korzybski in his own way, adding a little about religion and metaphysics.
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.
Upon publication I posted a comment using the opening lines of chapter 3 suggesting scholastics would have difficulty grasping the implications of Iain's work because they are immersed in a 'level' of consciousness that is fundamentally out of touch with reality. Conflating the communication biased consensus-reality level of consciousness created by language with the actual reality our eyes see.
As Daniel Goleman points out in his excellent book Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, we are in the 'habit' of imposing a language and memory conditioned 'mind-sight' onto the perception capacity of our innate eyesight, and thereby perceiving the reality of our language map rather than reality itself.
Or in McGilchrist rather male dominated worldview, “The left hemisphere adopts a theory, and then actually denies what doesn’t fit the theory.” A male sense of reality that has a tendency to deny its own creation within the womb of a woman and has a hard time escaping the deadly consequences of a gender biased worldview or recognizing the species-specific problem of the non-conscious orchestrated of all human behavior.
As the essay points out; Analytical philosophy and the dominance of the machine metaphor in science[9] have created “a tradition in which most academics now are so thoroughly schooled that they can’t see that there is a problem, let alone how to escape it.” But is it fair to say that philosophy has been dominated by the male voice for so long that can't see anything wrong with using a male metaphor to understand creation?
The essay comes to the conclusion:
McGilchrist offers a philosophical vision with many strengths. It is relational, it is anti-reductionist, and it integrates perspectives from a variety of disciplines into a more than plausible whole. Any society in which such a vision has arisen will be greatly enriched if only we will take the time to attend to it.
McGilchrist has also dared to think about what a wholehearted and fully engaged attention to reality suggests about “God”. This has implications for other ways of thinking about God, and in my next article, I will consider McGilchrist’s ideas in the light of classical theism and Christian theology.
Yet do Christians take the time to attend to the experiential meaning of Jesus reason for teaching parables? Stated thus: I speak to them in parables, because seeing they don’t see, and hearing, they don’t hear, neither do they understand. (Matthew 13:13)
A reason replicated in chapter 3 of TMWT in Iain's line about our mental constructs and how we live in a world of sight and thought. While the "neither do they understand," line from classical wisdom can be understood as the non-conscious orchestration of human behavior, science IS revealing, beyond the politics of experience Gestalt the male head tends to get stuck in.
I would argue that the Christian story of crucifixion/resurrection is based on an understanding of the perceptual paradox inherent in language, as our naming of the surface impressions of reality, our eyes see and how our communication biased consciousness traps us within an 'appearances' prison of our own making. So much so that we don't understand how the appearance of resurrection in the story of humanity upon the cross of space-time, alludes to the earth turning reality of being-in-time.
A very clever story based on the optical illusion that the sun moves in the sky and cognitive illusion inherent in the reality labeling word, SUNRISE. Hence the appearance of resurrection occurs at that point of earth-axis rotation that begins to reveal the light-matter birth of a new day. A period of light?
I would argue that the story is warning about the existential prison of our conceptual level of consciousness that only be escaped through a return to the visceral level of consciousness we are born with. Hence I use salient information to practice a visceral awareness of optical and cognitive illusion, using the continuous sweep of a cosmic phenomena we apply the reality labeling word DAWN to, to feel the earth-turning reality of being-in-time.
You can use salient information to experience a participatory relevance realization, by becoming aware of the speed of earth-axis rotation at your particular cosmic location, with the science info provided here: http://www.unitarium.com/earth-speed
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 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.
This is a huge service. I bought TMWT on publication and have to confess to still working my way through it, so many insights does it trigger. To have this perspective is like placin myself on a map, and I’m grateful.
Incredible essay, thank you!
Thank you, this was very grounding to read. I read The Master and His Emissary a year ago and have TMWT on my list.