Great piece! "...a broader capacity for epistemic agility, contextual discernment, and knowing which questions need to be asked." I think also that rare / novel ideas are likelier to arise from the cross-pollination of wildly divergent disciplines- another reason why being a generalist is fruitful.
Re 'leading from confusion', may I suggest sending out something ahead of time to registered participants to afford some mulling over time ahead of sessions?
Doesn't every human being, regardless of rank and status, make it up as we go along with the consensus-reality feeling that the sounds & symbols of language are a true grasp of the reality of the world around us and our own reality? As McGilchrist writes in TMWT:
"Perception is not the same as attention, and not at all the same as thinking. But the world we choose to attend to, indeed choose whether and how to attend to, is nothing without perception. ‘We live in two worlds, the world of sight and the world of thought’, wrote Friedrich Max Müller, one of the most celebrated philologists of the nineteenth century, ‘and, strange as it may sound, nothing that we think, nothing that we name, nothing that we find in our dictionary, can ever be seen or heard, or perceived'", The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 165).
Does this passage from Iain's chapter on perception give us cause to try to understand how impoverished our sense of reality is by the communication medium of language, with all its sight-oriented sense-of-reality, surface-impression, word-labels? What do you actually 'see' when looking at this photo of yourself Johnathan? Do you see the territory or the map? Does your autopilot rush in with all those familiar descriptive words, that for the sake of behavioral efficiency 'fuse' description with definition?
And is it true that you could use any other words you care to imagine to describe what you see in the photo, without altering the 'reality' of what your eyes are seeing? Is this why Plato called out humanity's epistemic (relating to knowledge and its validation) 'delusion' when he wrote, "All this time we have been repeating the words 'know,' 'understand.' Yet we do not know what knowledge is."
Are we all raised to speak and write 'knowingly' about the 'reality' of our experience and never give a thought the cognitive behavioral therapy of the Socratic method so skillfully disguised in Plato's dialogues. Is it time to realize how we are 'winging it,' because we are speaking and writing about the 'reality' of language, as an instrument of 'thought,' with the primary purpose of self-affectation?
Hence, although Iain wrote about the primacy of affect in The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, he neglected to illuminate the motivational and non-conscious power of innate affect, in order to maintain his 'winging it' focus on one biological organ of our body's evolutionary design.
Pity you didn't read and reread Plato as a means of contemplation about humanity's epistemic delusion, and wonder why he backed up his knowledge challenge with, "I feared to see myself at last altogether, nothing but words."
Do you confuse 'who' you see in the photo, with 'what' you see, Johnathan? Does your autobiographical memory sense-of-self, falsely 'represent,' to use a favorite McGilchrist term, your reality? And is the world in this world, the reality-wise world, beyond our suspicious mind's?
Everyone acts and presumes as if everybody understands life, and why it is here, and what it is for - as if you are playing your part because it is written, and you know why it was written. But in Truth & Reality nobody knows!. Everyone is just acting, playing parts, on the seeming stage of life.
For Narcissus, it is rather empty, don't you think?. That is the nature of it: he is in a desert by a pond, looking at himself, refusing even Echo at his back. Life is not an empty stage. It is not a mere nothing. It is not a mere nothing. It is not a mere positive, not a mere negative. It is persisting, and you know not why, and you are playing a prescripted role you do not understand. You do not know or recognize or recognize the origins of it, the purpose of it, the reason for it - or even how it may be greatly purposed, so that you may be set free.
Humankind's dilemma is not knowing what Reality IS. The presumption that Reality is fixed, solid, made to die, makes human beings insane. The passing of life-forms is a matter of absolute indifference, or so it seems.
But that is not enough. If you merely look at the perceivable world, thats the way it seems. But if you enter into the subtler planes of your experiencing (energy, mind, intelligence - exercising that, being Exercised Spiritually relative to all that), you realize a greater profundity. And That Which Is Beyond (and prior) the subtler plane of experience is the Seat of it. When That is Realized, then the Indifferentiated Nature of the Association between Consciousness and Light (or Love-Bliss) is Realized.
Then, it is obvious What everything IS - what a mass of potential it is. It is possible to enter into it in such a manner that a Transfigured Form of participation in relational existence is possible during this physical lifetime, and also beyond it too.
The non-solidity must become obvious. Reality is Spirit, - not merely matter or flesh, and so forth, the usual terms in this scientific materialist age. Reality is Self-Radiant Energy - not merely things themselves solidified and coming to an end. Becoming a participant in Reality as Energy is fundamental religion, fundamental Spirituality It is fundamental to the intrinsic aspiration to Realize the Condition of Free Energy
Your response feels like a rationalized avoidance of the question about what you actually see in the photo, in a non-consciously orchestrated experience of pain-avoiding self-affectation, most evident in the last paragraph. A comment mindful of the affective neuroscience maxim: “the attempt to regulate affect — to minimize unpleasant feelings to maximize pleasant ones — is the driving force in human motivation.
As for "the Association between Consciousness and Light (or Love-Bliss) is Realized," may I suggest you read professor Stephen Porges academic paper titled: LOVE: AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE MAMMALIAN AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM. Which may help you to understand the via-negative cognitive behavioral therapy of the Socratic method of self-cross-examination, and why true knowledge exists in knowing that we know nothing.
While you can experience the Light in the more pragmatic way of the Living Resurrection practice of ancient Africa, so skillfully disguised in the Christ narrative, by learning how to transcend our conceptual-fallacy of what Time IS, by realizing the Optical Illusion of the Sun moving above a horizon and giving birth to the period of Light we name Day, along with the Cognitive Illusion of describing this earth-turning phenomena, as Sunrise?
Its a far more pragmatic "form of participation in relational existence, (that) is possible during this physical lifetime," just as classical wisdom understood it at the visceral LEVEL of consciousness. all human beings are born with.
Even as we run around in intellectual circles trying to address the METACRISIS from the same LEVEL of consciousness that created it, don't you think?
While my question about what you actually SEE in the photo relates to The triangle of reference (also known as the triangle of meaning and the semiotic triangle) is a model of how linguistic symbols relate to the objects they represent. Or how we sight an object and simultaneously name it through the millisecond functioning of our body's nervous system. Hence the question "is it true that you could use any other words you care to imagine to describe what you see in the photo, without altering the 'reality' of what your eyes are seeing?"
A question inspired by R. D. Laing's "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds." And seriously Johnathan, HOW is Reality Spirit? When we use words in such an undifferentiated way, how is that NOT simply self-affecting, need to feel good, WOO?
And can you conceive the possibility that we all have a mysteriously self-hypnotic sense of reality, driven by our instinctive capacity for imitation? May I remind you of Iain's, "William James indeed held that humans, rather than having somehow ‘cast off’ their instinctual nature, having fewer instincts than animals, had many more: ‘man possesses all the impulses that they have, and a great many more besides. In other words, there is no material antagonism between instinct and reason … no other mammal, not even the monkey, shows so large an array.’ If imitated patterns of behaviour become hardwired – and they do – and we are the imitative species, par excellence –and we are – this makes perfect sense."
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1044).
Hence, my suggestion to follow the sage advice, "Sit in a room and read — and read and read. And read the right books by the right people. Your mind is brought onto that level, and you have a nice, mild, slow-burning rapture all the time. — Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth.
BTW I forgot to mention how you can experience the Living Resurrection the way they did in Africa thousands of years ago, by becoming aware of the participatory relevance realization power of the kind of salient information that transforms your salience landscape, to use a Vervaekeism.
Did you know that in the Cosmic Location named London, the earth-turning phenomenon of Sunrise has specific ratios of Causation? Consider:
LONDON:
Latitude: 51.1186° 51° 7′ 7.00″
Radius: 4011.7674 km 2492.7967 miles
Circumference: 25206.6781 km 15662.7036 miles
Speed: 1053.15 km/h 654.40 mph
Imagine using your smartphone to check the time of the sun's APPARENT movement above a horizon and filming the earth-turning cause of this Cosmic Phenomenon, to contemplate the experiential wisdom within the Christ Narrative?
You have to rise before a Cock Crows though, having noticed salient information, so you can notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds, as you begin to FEEL how the conventional colanders of a Solar & Lunar New Year, are based on the Reality of the Earth Turning in the Darkness of Space.
Please, please be honest with yourself Johnathan. You cannot explain HOW Reality is Spirit, anymore than you can explain HOW you walk and talk without falling into a Performative Contradiction, to use another Vervaekeism.
Once you understand RH all-referential as equality for all in an unconditional way you have reached the mechanism of the Holy Spirit and have escaped the LH self-referential mechanism of ME ME ME or OS OS OS. So, it can be understood mechanically. I.E. something for everyone to understand, relating to relative values. It turns out that RH is the opposite thought system to the LH. RH-attractor fields of potential for everyone and everything to arrive at the same goal based on the least action principle for everything. It's the mind that holds the knowledge of all value relations, the action that causes the reaction of kinetic energy enabling the flow of individuals according to the least action principle. This relates to Iain McGilchrist's hypothesis of the split brain or perhaps the split mind. Nature or the universe would not survive with LH mechanics, ergo the LH has no value in balancing the forces of life. In other words, LH mechanics doesn't exist in reality. Could this be the cause of the meta crisis?
By use of the LH forceful action, we have achieved incredible things that always seem to end in destruction. The opposite is the RH's gentle power of correction as time flows, internally as well as externally. Cybernetics?
BRILLIANT! Beware of the inevitable Man-Chid Reactions though Neils, as you beg him to Grow Up & face the self-comforting Fantasy, that his Rhetoric IS Reality. There will be push-back, as he huffs & puffs in a Vain-Glorious attempt to Blow your House Down, if you catch my drift about clever stories & Nursery-Ryhmes.
Hi Niels, you wrote, "Once you understand RH all-referential as equality for all in an unconditional way you have reached the mechanism of the Holy Spirit and have escaped the LH self-referential mechanism of ME ME ME or OS OS OS. So, it can be understood mechanically. I.E. something for everyone to understand, relating to relative values. It turns out that RH is the opposite thought system to the LH. RH-attractor fields of potential for everyone and everything to arrive at the same goal based on the least action principle for everything."
Its a nice theory of something historical convention calls the Holy Spirit, but is that convention a 'conceptualization' of the 'whole spirit' of a biologically created human being, by biological processes we cannot see and have only just begun to create the tools required to investigate?
As an added response to my comment below about RH/LH functioning, our 12 'paired' cranial nerves & feedback systems related to our biological brain, Iet me share an excerpt from Alan N Schore's work:
"Emotional expression is mediated by the energy mobilising sympathetic and energy conserving parasympathetic branches of the ANS (P,30)
The core of the self lies in patterns of affect regulation that integrate a sense of self across state transitions, thereby allowing a continuity of inner experience (P,33).
The essential role of feedback from bodily systems, especially facial and postural, underlies the generation of emotion. (P,49).
This psychoneurobiological developmental model views the brain as a self-organizing system. It also fits particularly well with a number of essential tenets of nonlinear dynamic systems theory. This powerful model is now being utilized in physics, chemistry, and biology to explore the problem of how complex systems come to produce emergent order and new forms. A fundamental postulate of this conception is that there is no dichotomy between the organism and the environmental context in which it develops. The physical and social context of the developing human is more than merely a supporting frame, it is an essential substratum of the assembling system. Of particular importance to chaos theory are the transitions from one developmental stage to another, when the organism encounters instability while it shifts from one stable mode to a new mode. (P, 63).
This work emphasizes the essential contribution of the experience-dependent maturation of the non-dominant right hemisphere to the origins of socio-emotional functioning. This hemisphere, although often viewed as more primitive than the linguistic left, is actually more essentially involved in the fundamental capacities that define a human self. (p, 66).
The development of the capacity to self-regulate psychobiological state transitions parallels the primary experience-dependent maturation of the right cortex, and understanding its developing structure function relationships in the first two years of human life can offer penetrating insights into a host of affect-driven human phenomena, from the motive force that drives human attachment to the proximity causes of later forming psychiatric disturbance and psycho-somatic disorders, and indeed the origin of the self. (p, 67).
Sustained facial gazing mediates the most intense form of interpersonal communication. Eye to eye contact gives non-verbal advanced notice of the other. The temporal structure of gaze, the most immediate and purest form of inter-relation, provides clues to the readiness or capacity to receive and transmit social affect. (P,72)"
Excerpts from Affect Regulation & the Origins of the Self
Shore describes the first 3 years of life as the 'practicing' period of the adaptive behaviors that make us who & what we are as adults, based on observations of mother & child from people like Bowlby's work in the 1950s & the universal way mothers communicate through facial expression during the first year of life in particular, regardless of place or race. While the work of people like Jaak Panksepp & Stephen Porges in the field of psycho-physiological research shows our mind is the experience-dependent 'myth' of our autobiographical memory sense-of-self, which needs to be balanced by RH awareness of the big-picture within & without, by a felt-sense of how & why no LH linguistic map is the territory, our eyes actually see, philosophically speaking.
As for our split-mind, is Freud's iceberg motif of consciousness relevant and is 'mind' triune (3 in 1) in nature, with a non-conscious, subconscious, & conscious mode of functioning, including the organism's primary defenses of fight/flight/freeze, stimulus-response behavior.
Are recent revelations about our 'unseen' reality related to religious history's 'intuitive' sense of a Holy Spirit and why Einstein suggested the intuitive mind is a sacred gift & the rational mind a faithful servant, within modern societies that have forgotten the gift & worship the servant?
Please let me remind you of Iain's thoughts on intuition:
INTUITION’S CLAIMS ON TRUTH:
The heart’s unrest is not to be stilled by logic. —Friedrich Waismann
If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. —William James
There is in us something wiser than our head. —Arthur Schopenhauer
In this Part II of the book we are concerned with the paths by which we may approach the truth. Contemporary culture favours science and (very much in theory) reason as the ultimately valid approaches, and is deeply sceptical about intuition and imagination – the former because it is regarded as primitive, quirky and unreliable, and the latter because it supposedly just ‘makes things up’. I suggest that this is profoundly mistaken.
In Chapter 19, I will explore how intuition, in the form of producing insights, acts with imagination to establish our sense of the world and of what we can truly say about it. But first, I want to look at the role of intuition in everyday life – in how we manage the business of living.
Such intuition has had a bit of a bad press lately. Academic psychologists and philosophers are inordinately fond of thinking up experimental situations in which we are deceived by what our ‘intuitions’ tell us.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1033-1034). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition
loved reading this! ❤️
"There is another world, and it is in this world." - yes!
Great piece! "...a broader capacity for epistemic agility, contextual discernment, and knowing which questions need to be asked." I think also that rare / novel ideas are likelier to arise from the cross-pollination of wildly divergent disciplines- another reason why being a generalist is fruitful.
Thank you. This was very comforting to read.
Re 'leading from confusion', may I suggest sending out something ahead of time to registered participants to afford some mulling over time ahead of sessions?
Great list. Thanks.
Will there be a recording of the session I'll be sadly away
Wow - Humility and yet total self absorption!
Doesn't every human being, regardless of rank and status, make it up as we go along with the consensus-reality feeling that the sounds & symbols of language are a true grasp of the reality of the world around us and our own reality? As McGilchrist writes in TMWT:
"Perception is not the same as attention, and not at all the same as thinking. But the world we choose to attend to, indeed choose whether and how to attend to, is nothing without perception. ‘We live in two worlds, the world of sight and the world of thought’, wrote Friedrich Max Müller, one of the most celebrated philologists of the nineteenth century, ‘and, strange as it may sound, nothing that we think, nothing that we name, nothing that we find in our dictionary, can ever be seen or heard, or perceived'", The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 165).
Does this passage from Iain's chapter on perception give us cause to try to understand how impoverished our sense of reality is by the communication medium of language, with all its sight-oriented sense-of-reality, surface-impression, word-labels? What do you actually 'see' when looking at this photo of yourself Johnathan? Do you see the territory or the map? Does your autopilot rush in with all those familiar descriptive words, that for the sake of behavioral efficiency 'fuse' description with definition?
And is it true that you could use any other words you care to imagine to describe what you see in the photo, without altering the 'reality' of what your eyes are seeing? Is this why Plato called out humanity's epistemic (relating to knowledge and its validation) 'delusion' when he wrote, "All this time we have been repeating the words 'know,' 'understand.' Yet we do not know what knowledge is."
Are we all raised to speak and write 'knowingly' about the 'reality' of our experience and never give a thought the cognitive behavioral therapy of the Socratic method so skillfully disguised in Plato's dialogues. Is it time to realize how we are 'winging it,' because we are speaking and writing about the 'reality' of language, as an instrument of 'thought,' with the primary purpose of self-affectation?
Hence, although Iain wrote about the primacy of affect in The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, he neglected to illuminate the motivational and non-conscious power of innate affect, in order to maintain his 'winging it' focus on one biological organ of our body's evolutionary design.
Pity you didn't read and reread Plato as a means of contemplation about humanity's epistemic delusion, and wonder why he backed up his knowledge challenge with, "I feared to see myself at last altogether, nothing but words."
Do you confuse 'who' you see in the photo, with 'what' you see, Johnathan? Does your autobiographical memory sense-of-self, falsely 'represent,' to use a favorite McGilchrist term, your reality? And is the world in this world, the reality-wise world, beyond our suspicious mind's?
Everyone acts and presumes as if everybody understands life, and why it is here, and what it is for - as if you are playing your part because it is written, and you know why it was written. But in Truth & Reality nobody knows!. Everyone is just acting, playing parts, on the seeming stage of life.
For Narcissus, it is rather empty, don't you think?. That is the nature of it: he is in a desert by a pond, looking at himself, refusing even Echo at his back. Life is not an empty stage. It is not a mere nothing. It is not a mere nothing. It is not a mere positive, not a mere negative. It is persisting, and you know not why, and you are playing a prescripted role you do not understand. You do not know or recognize or recognize the origins of it, the purpose of it, the reason for it - or even how it may be greatly purposed, so that you may be set free.
Humankind's dilemma is not knowing what Reality IS. The presumption that Reality is fixed, solid, made to die, makes human beings insane. The passing of life-forms is a matter of absolute indifference, or so it seems.
But that is not enough. If you merely look at the perceivable world, thats the way it seems. But if you enter into the subtler planes of your experiencing (energy, mind, intelligence - exercising that, being Exercised Spiritually relative to all that), you realize a greater profundity. And That Which Is Beyond (and prior) the subtler plane of experience is the Seat of it. When That is Realized, then the Indifferentiated Nature of the Association between Consciousness and Light (or Love-Bliss) is Realized.
Then, it is obvious What everything IS - what a mass of potential it is. It is possible to enter into it in such a manner that a Transfigured Form of participation in relational existence is possible during this physical lifetime, and also beyond it too.
The non-solidity must become obvious. Reality is Spirit, - not merely matter or flesh, and so forth, the usual terms in this scientific materialist age. Reality is Self-Radiant Energy - not merely things themselves solidified and coming to an end. Becoming a participant in Reality as Energy is fundamental religion, fundamental Spirituality It is fundamental to the intrinsic aspiration to Realize the Condition of Free Energy
Your response feels like a rationalized avoidance of the question about what you actually see in the photo, in a non-consciously orchestrated experience of pain-avoiding self-affectation, most evident in the last paragraph. A comment mindful of the affective neuroscience maxim: “the attempt to regulate affect — to minimize unpleasant feelings to maximize pleasant ones — is the driving force in human motivation.
As for "the Association between Consciousness and Light (or Love-Bliss) is Realized," may I suggest you read professor Stephen Porges academic paper titled: LOVE: AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE MAMMALIAN AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM. Which may help you to understand the via-negative cognitive behavioral therapy of the Socratic method of self-cross-examination, and why true knowledge exists in knowing that we know nothing.
While you can experience the Light in the more pragmatic way of the Living Resurrection practice of ancient Africa, so skillfully disguised in the Christ narrative, by learning how to transcend our conceptual-fallacy of what Time IS, by realizing the Optical Illusion of the Sun moving above a horizon and giving birth to the period of Light we name Day, along with the Cognitive Illusion of describing this earth-turning phenomena, as Sunrise?
Its a far more pragmatic "form of participation in relational existence, (that) is possible during this physical lifetime," just as classical wisdom understood it at the visceral LEVEL of consciousness. all human beings are born with.
Even as we run around in intellectual circles trying to address the METACRISIS from the same LEVEL of consciousness that created it, don't you think?
While my question about what you actually SEE in the photo relates to The triangle of reference (also known as the triangle of meaning and the semiotic triangle) is a model of how linguistic symbols relate to the objects they represent. Or how we sight an object and simultaneously name it through the millisecond functioning of our body's nervous system. Hence the question "is it true that you could use any other words you care to imagine to describe what you see in the photo, without altering the 'reality' of what your eyes are seeing?"
A question inspired by R. D. Laing's "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds." And seriously Johnathan, HOW is Reality Spirit? When we use words in such an undifferentiated way, how is that NOT simply self-affecting, need to feel good, WOO?
And can you conceive the possibility that we all have a mysteriously self-hypnotic sense of reality, driven by our instinctive capacity for imitation? May I remind you of Iain's, "William James indeed held that humans, rather than having somehow ‘cast off’ their instinctual nature, having fewer instincts than animals, had many more: ‘man possesses all the impulses that they have, and a great many more besides. In other words, there is no material antagonism between instinct and reason … no other mammal, not even the monkey, shows so large an array.’ If imitated patterns of behaviour become hardwired – and they do – and we are the imitative species, par excellence –and we are – this makes perfect sense."
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1044).
Hence, my suggestion to follow the sage advice, "Sit in a room and read — and read and read. And read the right books by the right people. Your mind is brought onto that level, and you have a nice, mild, slow-burning rapture all the time. — Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth.
BTW I forgot to mention how you can experience the Living Resurrection the way they did in Africa thousands of years ago, by becoming aware of the participatory relevance realization power of the kind of salient information that transforms your salience landscape, to use a Vervaekeism.
Did you know that in the Cosmic Location named London, the earth-turning phenomenon of Sunrise has specific ratios of Causation? Consider:
LONDON:
Latitude: 51.1186° 51° 7′ 7.00″
Radius: 4011.7674 km 2492.7967 miles
Circumference: 25206.6781 km 15662.7036 miles
Speed: 1053.15 km/h 654.40 mph
Imagine using your smartphone to check the time of the sun's APPARENT movement above a horizon and filming the earth-turning cause of this Cosmic Phenomenon, to contemplate the experiential wisdom within the Christ Narrative?
You have to rise before a Cock Crows though, having noticed salient information, so you can notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds, as you begin to FEEL how the conventional colanders of a Solar & Lunar New Year, are based on the Reality of the Earth Turning in the Darkness of Space.
This salience-landscape altering information is available here: http://www.unitarium.com/earth-speed
Please, please be honest with yourself Johnathan. You cannot explain HOW Reality is Spirit, anymore than you can explain HOW you walk and talk without falling into a Performative Contradiction, to use another Vervaekeism.
Once you understand RH all-referential as equality for all in an unconditional way you have reached the mechanism of the Holy Spirit and have escaped the LH self-referential mechanism of ME ME ME or OS OS OS. So, it can be understood mechanically. I.E. something for everyone to understand, relating to relative values. It turns out that RH is the opposite thought system to the LH. RH-attractor fields of potential for everyone and everything to arrive at the same goal based on the least action principle for everything. It's the mind that holds the knowledge of all value relations, the action that causes the reaction of kinetic energy enabling the flow of individuals according to the least action principle. This relates to Iain McGilchrist's hypothesis of the split brain or perhaps the split mind. Nature or the universe would not survive with LH mechanics, ergo the LH has no value in balancing the forces of life. In other words, LH mechanics doesn't exist in reality. Could this be the cause of the meta crisis?
By use of the LH forceful action, we have achieved incredible things that always seem to end in destruction. The opposite is the RH's gentle power of correction as time flows, internally as well as externally. Cybernetics?
BRILLIANT! Beware of the inevitable Man-Chid Reactions though Neils, as you beg him to Grow Up & face the self-comforting Fantasy, that his Rhetoric IS Reality. There will be push-back, as he huffs & puffs in a Vain-Glorious attempt to Blow your House Down, if you catch my drift about clever stories & Nursery-Ryhmes.
Hi Niels, you wrote, "Once you understand RH all-referential as equality for all in an unconditional way you have reached the mechanism of the Holy Spirit and have escaped the LH self-referential mechanism of ME ME ME or OS OS OS. So, it can be understood mechanically. I.E. something for everyone to understand, relating to relative values. It turns out that RH is the opposite thought system to the LH. RH-attractor fields of potential for everyone and everything to arrive at the same goal based on the least action principle for everything."
Its a nice theory of something historical convention calls the Holy Spirit, but is that convention a 'conceptualization' of the 'whole spirit' of a biologically created human being, by biological processes we cannot see and have only just begun to create the tools required to investigate?
As an added response to my comment below about RH/LH functioning, our 12 'paired' cranial nerves & feedback systems related to our biological brain, Iet me share an excerpt from Alan N Schore's work:
"Emotional expression is mediated by the energy mobilising sympathetic and energy conserving parasympathetic branches of the ANS (P,30)
The core of the self lies in patterns of affect regulation that integrate a sense of self across state transitions, thereby allowing a continuity of inner experience (P,33).
The essential role of feedback from bodily systems, especially facial and postural, underlies the generation of emotion. (P,49).
This psychoneurobiological developmental model views the brain as a self-organizing system. It also fits particularly well with a number of essential tenets of nonlinear dynamic systems theory. This powerful model is now being utilized in physics, chemistry, and biology to explore the problem of how complex systems come to produce emergent order and new forms. A fundamental postulate of this conception is that there is no dichotomy between the organism and the environmental context in which it develops. The physical and social context of the developing human is more than merely a supporting frame, it is an essential substratum of the assembling system. Of particular importance to chaos theory are the transitions from one developmental stage to another, when the organism encounters instability while it shifts from one stable mode to a new mode. (P, 63).
This work emphasizes the essential contribution of the experience-dependent maturation of the non-dominant right hemisphere to the origins of socio-emotional functioning. This hemisphere, although often viewed as more primitive than the linguistic left, is actually more essentially involved in the fundamental capacities that define a human self. (p, 66).
The development of the capacity to self-regulate psychobiological state transitions parallels the primary experience-dependent maturation of the right cortex, and understanding its developing structure function relationships in the first two years of human life can offer penetrating insights into a host of affect-driven human phenomena, from the motive force that drives human attachment to the proximity causes of later forming psychiatric disturbance and psycho-somatic disorders, and indeed the origin of the self. (p, 67).
Sustained facial gazing mediates the most intense form of interpersonal communication. Eye to eye contact gives non-verbal advanced notice of the other. The temporal structure of gaze, the most immediate and purest form of inter-relation, provides clues to the readiness or capacity to receive and transmit social affect. (P,72)"
Excerpts from Affect Regulation & the Origins of the Self
Shore describes the first 3 years of life as the 'practicing' period of the adaptive behaviors that make us who & what we are as adults, based on observations of mother & child from people like Bowlby's work in the 1950s & the universal way mothers communicate through facial expression during the first year of life in particular, regardless of place or race. While the work of people like Jaak Panksepp & Stephen Porges in the field of psycho-physiological research shows our mind is the experience-dependent 'myth' of our autobiographical memory sense-of-self, which needs to be balanced by RH awareness of the big-picture within & without, by a felt-sense of how & why no LH linguistic map is the territory, our eyes actually see, philosophically speaking.
As for our split-mind, is Freud's iceberg motif of consciousness relevant and is 'mind' triune (3 in 1) in nature, with a non-conscious, subconscious, & conscious mode of functioning, including the organism's primary defenses of fight/flight/freeze, stimulus-response behavior.
Are recent revelations about our 'unseen' reality related to religious history's 'intuitive' sense of a Holy Spirit and why Einstein suggested the intuitive mind is a sacred gift & the rational mind a faithful servant, within modern societies that have forgotten the gift & worship the servant?
Please let me remind you of Iain's thoughts on intuition:
INTUITION’S CLAIMS ON TRUTH:
The heart’s unrest is not to be stilled by logic. —Friedrich Waismann
If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. —William James
There is in us something wiser than our head. —Arthur Schopenhauer
In this Part II of the book we are concerned with the paths by which we may approach the truth. Contemporary culture favours science and (very much in theory) reason as the ultimately valid approaches, and is deeply sceptical about intuition and imagination – the former because it is regarded as primitive, quirky and unreliable, and the latter because it supposedly just ‘makes things up’. I suggest that this is profoundly mistaken.
In Chapter 19, I will explore how intuition, in the form of producing insights, acts with imagination to establish our sense of the world and of what we can truly say about it. But first, I want to look at the role of intuition in everyday life – in how we manage the business of living.
Such intuition has had a bit of a bad press lately. Academic psychologists and philosophers are inordinately fond of thinking up experimental situations in which we are deceived by what our ‘intuitions’ tell us.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1033-1034). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition