[Eleanor Lundholm]

We three belong to the ranks, obviously, of those who are “not sufficiently alert to (the book’s) contradictions.” Thank goodness then for Mr Ellis’s concern here and his desire to alert us to them. He tells us that he writes “with a sense of painful duty”, fearful as he is that TMWT will be appropriated by the corrupt right.

There seems a feverish sense of righteousness to this review. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and Ellis is far, far more knowledgeable than I can ever hope to be in this realm. However, it is people like me that he seeks to save from McGilchrist’s “uncritically presented” and “impractical metaphysical philosophy”, accusing him of dogmatism and an inability to develop critical awareness. Huh? A pity then that he lacks McGilchrist’s clarity of writing style.

He tells us that he is aware that readers of this review “may remain baffled” by his criticisms and suggests they refer to his own book “Absolutization” for clarification. Erm, I don’t think I’ll be doing this in a hurry, wearied as I am of trudging through this “load of near-incomprehensible waffle” (to quote Ellis himself on TMWT).

To be fair, I think hidden in here might be some valid points (his reference to Popper’s views on the philosophy of science perhaps merit some investigation; perhaps also his discussion of McGilchrist’s supposed misuse of the terms induction and deduction), but his points are so woolly and laboured that I find myself totally lacking in any kind of inspiration to find out more.

Which is a complete contrast to the effect that TMWT had, and continues to have, on me. As I see it also has had on you two. So I fear, Mr Ellis, you have a long way to go in your dutiful battle to save us all!