Perhaps the left hemisphere is one of the main "entry points" for the manipulation of humans and society? Just as an example among many: the recognition that one cannot escape a certain relativism when talking about big philosophical questions is taken by many (LH-)thinkers to mean that truth doesn't exist at all, and that everything is relative even in realms where it is obviously not. This then gets accepted by society, LH-style, with its tendency of generalizing and "equalizing" everything... The LH is very good at arguing people out of common sense with sophistical abstract theorizing.
In the past there were people who knew how to take care of themselves along with a certain amount of those who couldn't. These people have been purposely been wiped off the planet and replaced with machines.
Interesting to consider by the left brains!
Stupid left brain bastards think machines will take the place of humans are as psychotic as they come now that you put a definition to the lot.
Oh, takes a lot more energy to operate a machine compared the the little bit of food a human needs, and with energy in short supply all these machines are about to go kaput. Since the fascist agribusiness is also dependent on machines, well, stick that idea into these idiot's leftasscheek!
Another wonderful essay Winston. When people are able to examine this issue/subject it is evidence that the right side is peeking out and trying to make connection. Some have described inquisitiveness that arises about this - (which is inquistiveness about the nature of reality) - as 'the call'. That can lead to the quest which is the 'hero's journey' to use the term Joseph Campbell used.
The right can be restless and try to break through or communicate. More so in some than in others. I think that some are just about completely cut off and others are more receptive to the 'messages' (for lack of a better term) from the right. I also think that there are those who make the 'journey' and integrate left and right to a great degree. I have at times referred to them as escapists. They leave the group consensus and escape to a different reality. Not easy to do. The pull of the left and group consensus is strong. There are those who do not follow 'the call' and stiffle it. Others wrestle with it and overcome the desire to remain in 'slumber'.
This whole concept about right side perception is common across so many seemingly disparate things. Arthur Koestler used the term 'ghost in the machine'. Some call it the soul, deep self, atman, etc. It can reach out, an inner call.
And it's an interesting relationship between the hemispheres isn't it? The right without the voice that the left has but with the wisdom the left doesn't have. The left with it's unfounded conviction that it is always right but often in error against the right's knowing that there is much it doesn't know but is often correct with its intuition. And the fact that the unassuming right should be the master and the self-assured left should be the emissary.
It's like our hemispheres are an allegory of broader social relationships.
I think that the right has a voice but speaks in a language that the left rarely understands.
Yes, I think the hemispheres are isomorphic to broader social relationships. The left is part of a consensus collective --- Mammon world, the material world, maya,....
Yes you are correct - the right does have a voice, but uses few words and from a different perspective than the very articulate left.
Someone should write a screenplay from the perspectives of the hemispheres - like the 1999 film Being John Malkovich, but a little less insane and much more grounded in the left/right phenomenology.
Oh the movie is not a recommendation from me - it's very weird - just thought about being in someone's head and what could be expressed in terms of left/right hemispheres - I don't think Being John Malkovich has much to offer in that respect!
It is inevitable that a fully digitized society will experience depersonalization on all levels. It is exacerbated by the fact that art, literature, music, and entertainment have at the same time become wholly depersonalized.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "impersonal art". Many of the great masterpieces -- the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Musical Offering, etc. -- are wholly impersonal. Beauty is form, not emotion.
One of the things that McGilchrist brings out in regards to art is that modern art often requires an explanation of what the observer should see in the art - often what philosophical or social statement the art is making - it is an abstraction of an idea, as opposed to something just beautiful or meaningfully reflective of nature or human nature.
In some respects the digitization of the tools of art has been a good thing, sometimes, putting a full symphony orchestra at the tips of a young composer's fingers - to give but one example.
It seems to me this is also what's going on in modern movies, to a large degree. It's a point Critical Drinker made regarding "Midsommar" - the elevation of themes above execution and actually making a good theme. If you criticize a film on its merits (plot, character, execution), some will respond, "Well, you just didn't understand the THEMES. It's actually about..." Well sure, it might be "about" that, but it doesn't mean it's any good. Such an approach is little different than propaganda: importing a "message" for the purpose of importing a message, rather than attempting to express a truth about human nature, or even just to entertain.
Agreed - it's so sad - so many talented screenwriters and directors (I'm imagining) probably don't get a look in because they are not woke enough. Sigh.
It's been my experience that people have become so insecure that they now require an explanation to the work of art even when it is representational. They feel something, they are drawn to it - but without the story its just too overwhelming. Perhaps its my location in NZ which is in some sense unsophisticated in terms of realist painting that are not landscapes.
That's an interesting observation - the insecurity and the overwhelm. I find many people are just disinterested, possibly one of the reasons (in conjunction with utility the left hemisphere demands from anything, including art) is that in contrast to the highly stimulating social media, TV, anything on a small screen, visual art just doesn't produce enough dopamine and therefore isn't worthy of attention.
If you are in the art world, or an artist yourself, you'd think this explanation absurd, but look at the broader population. Maybe it's education as well, we are more interested in educating our kids in gender woke garbage than an analysis of Romantic painters, or what motivated Monet, or the undercurrents linking composers like Debussy and the impressionist painters. These things, the actual art and music as well as the philosophical and technical discussions were exciting and dopamine producing and worthy of our attention. Now, like a meth addict, it's not enough, not nearly enough, and so the stimuli that has the biggest hit - swiping that little screen - wins out.
I'd agree - depersonalization in that aspect of separation between artist and observer (because the art itself is such an abstraction it's difficult to connect) or between artist and his/her art (because the reason and production of the art is purely mechanical) or between the art and the observer for all of the above same reasons. Nevertheless we have an incredible capacity to connect, even to feel resonance, with something that has been produced in a way that one wouldn't think it able to convey meaning. I'm thinking of some of the avant guard composers of the 20th Century who used tone rows and sometimes completely random selection of notes - yet in the performance of something seemingly random and chaotic we can come away with something (and not just a headache!) meaningful. I think this is more the brilliance of our own imaginations and not the capacity for a random set of notes to speak wisdom to us. Even the most absurd modern art can educate us and speak to us, probably about the schizophrenic nature or the dominant left hemisphere of the artist that created the piece rather than any other profound gift.
Well of course digitized impersonal or machine crafted art is not all bad (for lack of a better word); it is only partially “bad,” which is McGilchrist’s point. He warns of a future that is only depersonalized, only left-brain oriented, only appealing to one side of ourselves. I suppose it could be argued that digitization of experience will make us less or even non-emotional, but perhaps more spiritual. If non-attachment is really a thing.
Making ppl scared of each other’s germs will do this too. I truly abhor the way of the tech world we live in as it feels physically uncomfortable constantly. Maybe younger generations are just used to this constant discomfort. I am not.
You saved the best for last!!!
Perhaps the left hemisphere is one of the main "entry points" for the manipulation of humans and society? Just as an example among many: the recognition that one cannot escape a certain relativism when talking about big philosophical questions is taken by many (LH-)thinkers to mean that truth doesn't exist at all, and that everything is relative even in realms where it is obviously not. This then gets accepted by society, LH-style, with its tendency of generalizing and "equalizing" everything... The LH is very good at arguing people out of common sense with sophistical abstract theorizing.
In the past there were people who knew how to take care of themselves along with a certain amount of those who couldn't. These people have been purposely been wiped off the planet and replaced with machines.
Interesting to consider by the left brains!
Stupid left brain bastards think machines will take the place of humans are as psychotic as they come now that you put a definition to the lot.
Oh, takes a lot more energy to operate a machine compared the the little bit of food a human needs, and with energy in short supply all these machines are about to go kaput. Since the fascist agribusiness is also dependent on machines, well, stick that idea into these idiot's leftasscheek!
Another wonderful essay Winston. When people are able to examine this issue/subject it is evidence that the right side is peeking out and trying to make connection. Some have described inquisitiveness that arises about this - (which is inquistiveness about the nature of reality) - as 'the call'. That can lead to the quest which is the 'hero's journey' to use the term Joseph Campbell used.
The right can be restless and try to break through or communicate. More so in some than in others. I think that some are just about completely cut off and others are more receptive to the 'messages' (for lack of a better term) from the right. I also think that there are those who make the 'journey' and integrate left and right to a great degree. I have at times referred to them as escapists. They leave the group consensus and escape to a different reality. Not easy to do. The pull of the left and group consensus is strong. There are those who do not follow 'the call' and stiffle it. Others wrestle with it and overcome the desire to remain in 'slumber'.
https://youtu.be/BT5j9OQ7Sh0
This whole concept about right side perception is common across so many seemingly disparate things. Arthur Koestler used the term 'ghost in the machine'. Some call it the soul, deep self, atman, etc. It can reach out, an inner call.
https://youtu.be/IXdNnw99-Ic
And it's an interesting relationship between the hemispheres isn't it? The right without the voice that the left has but with the wisdom the left doesn't have. The left with it's unfounded conviction that it is always right but often in error against the right's knowing that there is much it doesn't know but is often correct with its intuition. And the fact that the unassuming right should be the master and the self-assured left should be the emissary.
It's like our hemispheres are an allegory of broader social relationships.
I think that the right has a voice but speaks in a language that the left rarely understands.
Yes, I think the hemispheres are isomorphic to broader social relationships. The left is part of a consensus collective --- Mammon world, the material world, maya,....
Yes you are correct - the right does have a voice, but uses few words and from a different perspective than the very articulate left.
Someone should write a screenplay from the perspectives of the hemispheres - like the 1999 film Being John Malkovich, but a little less insane and much more grounded in the left/right phenomenology.
I haven't seen that movie. I will have to check it out.
I think the right uses few words but they can contain much meaning. Information is condensed, sort of like a zip file.
Oh the movie is not a recommendation from me - it's very weird - just thought about being in someone's head and what could be expressed in terms of left/right hemispheres - I don't think Being John Malkovich has much to offer in that respect!
I knew it wasn't a recommendation. I like some weird movies.
It is inevitable that a fully digitized society will experience depersonalization on all levels. It is exacerbated by the fact that art, literature, music, and entertainment have at the same time become wholly depersonalized.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "impersonal art". Many of the great masterpieces -- the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Musical Offering, etc. -- are wholly impersonal. Beauty is form, not emotion.
One of the things that McGilchrist brings out in regards to art is that modern art often requires an explanation of what the observer should see in the art - often what philosophical or social statement the art is making - it is an abstraction of an idea, as opposed to something just beautiful or meaningfully reflective of nature or human nature.
In some respects the digitization of the tools of art has been a good thing, sometimes, putting a full symphony orchestra at the tips of a young composer's fingers - to give but one example.
It seems to me this is also what's going on in modern movies, to a large degree. It's a point Critical Drinker made regarding "Midsommar" - the elevation of themes above execution and actually making a good theme. If you criticize a film on its merits (plot, character, execution), some will respond, "Well, you just didn't understand the THEMES. It's actually about..." Well sure, it might be "about" that, but it doesn't mean it's any good. Such an approach is little different than propaganda: importing a "message" for the purpose of importing a message, rather than attempting to express a truth about human nature, or even just to entertain.
Agreed - it's so sad - so many talented screenwriters and directors (I'm imagining) probably don't get a look in because they are not woke enough. Sigh.
It's been my experience that people have become so insecure that they now require an explanation to the work of art even when it is representational. They feel something, they are drawn to it - but without the story its just too overwhelming. Perhaps its my location in NZ which is in some sense unsophisticated in terms of realist painting that are not landscapes.
That's an interesting observation - the insecurity and the overwhelm. I find many people are just disinterested, possibly one of the reasons (in conjunction with utility the left hemisphere demands from anything, including art) is that in contrast to the highly stimulating social media, TV, anything on a small screen, visual art just doesn't produce enough dopamine and therefore isn't worthy of attention.
If you are in the art world, or an artist yourself, you'd think this explanation absurd, but look at the broader population. Maybe it's education as well, we are more interested in educating our kids in gender woke garbage than an analysis of Romantic painters, or what motivated Monet, or the undercurrents linking composers like Debussy and the impressionist painters. These things, the actual art and music as well as the philosophical and technical discussions were exciting and dopamine producing and worthy of our attention. Now, like a meth addict, it's not enough, not nearly enough, and so the stimuli that has the biggest hit - swiping that little screen - wins out.
I'd agree - depersonalization in that aspect of separation between artist and observer (because the art itself is such an abstraction it's difficult to connect) or between artist and his/her art (because the reason and production of the art is purely mechanical) or between the art and the observer for all of the above same reasons. Nevertheless we have an incredible capacity to connect, even to feel resonance, with something that has been produced in a way that one wouldn't think it able to convey meaning. I'm thinking of some of the avant guard composers of the 20th Century who used tone rows and sometimes completely random selection of notes - yet in the performance of something seemingly random and chaotic we can come away with something (and not just a headache!) meaningful. I think this is more the brilliance of our own imaginations and not the capacity for a random set of notes to speak wisdom to us. Even the most absurd modern art can educate us and speak to us, probably about the schizophrenic nature or the dominant left hemisphere of the artist that created the piece rather than any other profound gift.
Well of course digitized impersonal or machine crafted art is not all bad (for lack of a better word); it is only partially “bad,” which is McGilchrist’s point. He warns of a future that is only depersonalized, only left-brain oriented, only appealing to one side of ourselves. I suppose it could be argued that digitization of experience will make us less or even non-emotional, but perhaps more spiritual. If non-attachment is really a thing.
Making ppl scared of each other’s germs will do this too. I truly abhor the way of the tech world we live in as it feels physically uncomfortable constantly. Maybe younger generations are just used to this constant discomfort. I am not.