Iain's online question session of 12/7/23

  • Iain's online question session of 12/7/23

    Posted by Whit Blauvelt on December 7, 2023 at 8:51 pm

    Iain mentioned he didn’t know of a philosophical school which takes the same stance he does, of consciousness and matter both being ontological primitives. That’s dual-aspect monism, of which there are many current proponents, returnable by Google. Ram Vimal is working extensively on it (https://philpeople.org/profiles/ram-lakhan-pandey-vimal). There’s also a related triple-aspect monism, which is particularly from Alfredo Piera Jr. and Chris Nunn, of which I’m especially fond, which adds “information” as a third.

    It was amusing to hear from Iain about his feud with Raymond Tallis — another British physician and polymath — reviewing each others long books negatively. Wasn’t aware of that, and I love each of their writings. If you Google “Raymond Tallis Iain” Google knows the next word is most likely “McGilchrist” — and goes right to Tallis’s review, which Iain views as mere retribution for a poor review he’d given of Tallis’s book. I’m not sure that’s fair. Tallis’s main critique is of Iain’s personification of each of the two hemispheres, which I’ve personally found, in absorbing it, somewhat problematic too. Our goal, optimally, is integration, not separation, isn’t it? Conceptually separating them should at best be the first step of the alchemical process of “dissolve, then coagulate” — that is, separation for the purpose of recombination in a better plan.

    Chris Nunn — yet another British physician and polymath — told me in personal communication that he view Iain’s hemispheric thesis as mostly warmed-over 60s stuff, which of course Iain is anxious it not be taken as. Chris also wrote an appreciative, yet somewhat dismissive, review of Tallis’s masterwork a few years ago in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, with which Chris has a long association. Why can’t these polymathic British physicians just get along? They’re each doing great work on the frontiers of understanding, which I’ll argue combines well and productively … when I get to where I’ve more completely implemented the implications of their conjugation.

    sjahari hollands replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Members · 3 Replies
  • 3 Replies
  • Anthony Farnsworth

    Member
    December 8, 2023 at 8:35 am

    I was interested to notice that as I read about a conflict between Iain Mcgilchrist and Raymond Tallis that I had a gut reaction to side with Iain before even hearing the other side. I remember Iain relaying a jewish story about a man asking God which of the Rabbis opinions was correct and God replied ‘you are all correct’.

  • Niels Hoffmann

    Member
    December 13, 2023 at 10:13 am

    <div>Hi Ruth, thank you for your questions to Iain. I love your passion for ‘pathways to impact’, note, plural paths. William James: intelligence is the ability to reach the same goal by different means. This looks to me like Right Hemisphere mechanics! <strong style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color); background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color);”>
    </div>

    <strong style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color); background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color);”>Question 6: Ruth Crick: Hi Iain, thank you for producing this crucial body of work….I think you articulate the pathology of modernity accurately and also point powerfully towards an alternative paradigm. I am an academic but my passion has always been on ‘pathways to impact’. My question is about how you see this new paradigm (ontology/epistemology/anthropology) actually emerging in practice to change the course of history? By definition it can’t be mandated from the ‘top down’, in my view. Also, in my experience, whilst there are many people out there who will resonate with this new way of thinking at a ‘gut level’ they are usually stuck in socio-political-technical systems which are pathologically designed to reproduce the old paradigm. Often this is because the measurement models and regulatory frameworks used are reductionist, materialist and individualistic and what we measure is what we get. My question is ‘how do you think change will happen’?

  • sjahari hollands

    Member
    December 14, 2023 at 8:11 pm

    It certainly seems to me that Henri Bergson is totally in line with the ideas Iain is expressing.

    Cant see any discord there.

Log in to reply.