[Whit Blauvelt]

Hi Charles,

So on the one hand those with the higher verbal scores are in the humanities — as anyone who reads the science journals might suspect — and by corollary the STEM “thinginess” correlates with being less verbally astute. As McGilchrist notes, the LH is more syntactically skilled, handling fluency with words, whereas the RH is more responsible for poetic depth, deeper semantics and the metaphors anchoring words’ meanings.

It would seem then that the LH has more to say, and says it better, when speaking as emissary for the RH master, than the LH has when speaking for itself. From the LH POV inspiration (that is, ideas crossing freshly from the RH) is superior, as measured by quality what’s produced in language, to what the LH can achieve by using language in a relatively isolated way for calculating what to say, as it were by logic alone.

Thus a culture of rational self-control should be inferior to a culture of inspiration. This should be even the rational conclusion. And children should best be educated to seek muses, more so than “self-discipline” according to rules and metrics.

Does this seem to be implicit in McGilchrist’s approach? Does it fit with your personal experience?

Best,

Whit