I have been pondering an article on the hemisphere issue for a while, and you’ve given me motivation to think about it a bit more. I have enormous respect for McGilchrist, and have found his analysis of brain functions illuminating (and personally quite helpful), although I’ve puzzled over his overarching conclusion about the relationship of the two hemispheres.
From a Christian perspective—and from a fully human perspective—I think the core issue is not whether the left hemisphere dominates the right, or vice versa, but whether sacrificial love guides both hemispheres.
And I don’t think that love is reducible to either hemisphere.
I look forward then to the results of your thinking on this topic. I'm in broad agreement with what you say here — especially the enormous respect for McGilchrist, which I wish I could have expressed better.
Jun 16, 2023·edited Jun 16, 2023Liked by Cormac Jones
Thank you for this Cormac. I am still digesting, but want you to know that the breadth of your perspective here is really really helpful. I want to reflect on your perspective more before offering any type of response, and instead address some minor details.
It's interesting that you responded to the reference to Burke by saying that the "The polarized conservative-liberal dialectic gripping the Western mind is not something I can use to describe the way I think." This is ironic since the polarized way this dialectic presents itself in the contemporary Western Mind is precisely the result of the political right abandoning the legacy of Burke, once considered the father of modern conservatism. Properly understood, Burke's work evaporates many of the binaries that characterize contemporary politics, especially where rights are concerns (see https://salvomag.com/post/paine-fully-conservative and also https://salvomag.com/post/rethinking-rights.
Regarding the "nous", at "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" we recently pointed out that this word is routinely mistranslated to underscore a secularist agenda. See https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2023/05/19/how-nous-became-a-trojan-horse-for-secularism-and-why-it-is-so-difficult-to-translate/. It is a tricky little word that is routinely misunderstood since there are no good English equivalents. It's also misunderstood since most English-speakers don't understand the complex itinerary the word has travelled down from the time of St. Paul through Neoplatonism and the Patristics down to the present. It's also misunderstood since attempts to associate nous with the English "heart" have often motivated by an ideological agenda that ends up serving atheistic secularism, as was the case with Fr. John Romanides. And in a new twist that you touch on but could profitably elaborate, nous is now increasingly reduced to simply an approximation for right-brain.
From Rod in January this year: "The nous (pronounced “noose”) is the perceptive faculty of each human person. The Bible locates it in the heart, but when I read Iain McGilchrist, it seems that physiologically it’s in the brain’s right hemisphere....Again, when Orthodoxy talks about the nous, I think of it is more or less what McGilchrist means when he speaks of the right hemisphere.... Please consider my thoughts on the nous, brain hemispheres, and the Internet speculative at this point."
From Rod this April: "It seems to me that what we Orthodox think of as the nous is the same thing that Iain McGilchrist is talking about when he discusses the brain’s right hemisphere."
You are especially generous to me, Robin; I don't know that I deserve your kindness. I'll take your comments on Burke under advisement. In truth I wasn't responding to mention of him at all, just to the label conservative, especially in the context of Dreher. I was trying to manage expectations of what I was about to write and also introduce the polarity I'm playing with in the images and talking about later on.
I look forward to reading your article on nous. Thank you for linking that. I saw the Dreher quotations, and they specifically sparked concern in me. I sent a brief email to him expressing that concern, not trying to change his mind or hold his attention, but just adding, hopefully, to other voices that might express doubt in McGilchrist's association of right brain and nous. I don't know if it had any effect, but I noticed his first question to Patitsas when he interviewed him was about the nous. I'd have to go back and reread it, but I recall the response being good.
And I am not an intellectual, nor am I an Orthodox Christian.
I think what I admire most about Dr McGilchrist is his genius, I mean, his great intellectual capacity and his ability to articulate nuance and to write analogically, which seems impossible to me. In TMWT, he writes as Jonathan carves and as Dr Martin Shaw tells stories. Form and shape of writing are important, as you well know. It meshes perfectly with Dante’s vision. And both are thematically about attention, which Dr McGilchrist weaves with care and love.
I do not follow Rod Dreher closely. Just impressions from a few interviews and a blog on Borderline Personality Disorder, which was just plain incorrect and showed something else besides.
In an artistic way I think I sense to some degree the concern of Christians vis a vis Dr McGilchrist’s worldview and it is good to note, as you indicated. Strangely enough, occasionally, I sense the same odd ‘jump into I don’t know where’ when Jonathan speaks. I listen to all of Dr McGilchrist’s discussions and lectures online and I sense a shift in his perspective, slight yet perceptible, not that it is any of my business, in a way.
We are all crazy materialists and we are all hopelessly LH-Captured. We are all in Paul Kingsnorth’s machine, in ways we can’t imagine.
That is the overlap with Jonathan’s and Dr Peterson’s brilliant intuition of where we are heading.
Dr McGilchrist stresses the importance of local solutions and therein lies great wisdom. You could say, he is not a corporate man.
Anyways, I just tire of people commenting on Dr McGilchrist’s contribution when they have not even read his great tome. It is about quality, even the feel of the paper is beautiful. And therein lies the tale.
“Not a corporate man”? Well, here you’re describing him as a Gnostic. That would sooner disincentivize me from devoting myself to reading the Bible-sized tome he has produced, rather than incentivize me. I believe we’re all corporate, or better, corporeal; at least I know I am. Hence Pageau’s refrain “Go to church.” The corporeality is fractal: we all seek to be part of a larger body. I see no community to be had in the church of Dante and McGilchrist. They may say “Go to church” too, but can “not a corporate man” go to church? Without putting himself above the church? Without placing himself above all the “local solutions” that *he* deems fit? Can the wisdom of local solutions avoid itself being a self-naming universalism?
I’d still like to read TMwT; you haven’t dissuaded me. I just don’t know when I’d be able to. I’m still due for a reread of Dante for goodness’ sake! (Seriously, it’s been 25 years.) I pursue God’s will, listen to what I’m being told, and look for opportunities. Meanwhile I thank you again for your perspective on McGilchrist; I value your experience following and observing him.
The Matter with Things is the most beautiful and insightful book I have ever read after Dante’s Commedia and it is written without exaggeration analogically, that is to say, the form and shape fit the point of the thesis. I can scarcely read a page without needing to pause and reflect. It is an astounding achievement of our time.
I am truly shocked and rather embarrassed by people’s dismissal of Dr McGilchrist’s great work. I mentioned Dr McGilchrist to Jonathan recently and he said he had talked to someone who had read TMWT who had asserted that it wasn’t necessary to have written such a lengthy tome when Jonathan queried him as to the length of the book, as if somehow it was just verbosity. Dr McGilchrist’s thinking closely parallels Jonathan’s in many areas and I think it is tragic that his breadth of knowledge and understanding is not being acknowledged properly by John Verwaeke, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan. For example, Dr McGilchrist dedicates zillions of pages to tirelessly define the concept of reason, for example, within which lies probably the key confusion of our times since Dante.
I don’t understand the logos and nous reference.
Rod Dreher wrote a totally inaccurate blog on Borderline Personality Disorder for example and he does seem confused about things here and there and yet he has a strange relentless drive to declare the true truth of Christianity as manifested in the Orthodox Church. He just doesn’t mince words and stands boldly without excuse. Remarkable.
These mentioned are the great men of our age. Honour is due. Think Don Quixote.
I’m very, very grateful to hear your perspective. A major objective in my writing is to be held accountable for my thoughts and ideas. I was careful to specify that I’ve only read The Master and His Emissary because I acknowledge my opinions could be outdated. Yet, as you describe, the discourse around McGilchrist has not suggested to me that they would be. I acknowledge that you could be onto something that others aren’t.
In TMaHE, McGilchrist identifies left-hemisphere thinking with logos and right-hemisphere thinking with nous, as those words are used in Greek philosophy. This contradicts, in my estimation, how those terms are taken up in the hesychastic tradition of the Church, in which McGilchrist appears not to be versed. That identification jumped out at me because at that point deep in the book I had long ago recognized the pattern of thymos and epithymia in what he was describing — in fact I originally read the book because I already had that strong suspicion. Meanwhile Dreher recently repeated the McGilchrist teaching on logos and nous as part of his response to having read The Matter with Things, leading me to believe that that take was still current. I regret if I was led astray on that point. But where there is contradiction between the Fathers of the Church and a modern author, my affinity for the Church is not likely to be in doubt, to say the least. One has stood the test of time and born the fruit of love that is the fulfillment of all creation, and the other hasn’t.
That’s not to say that The Matter with Things could not as you suggest make me regret some of the colorful criticisms I made of McGilchrist’s ideas, even while I — and I hope this is evident in what I wrote — greatly esteem the work he has done and the achievements he has made. I think he has taught us all a tremendous amount of knowledge about our minds, and how I would discuss the contemplative aspects of thymos and epithymia are now strongly influenced by his insights. I say that not even having read TMwT! That said, I have questions for you who have read it.
These are my impressions; feel free to correct them. (I recognize that would entail you doing me, the unread, a favor, which you are not obliged to do.) It appears McGilchrist has a good many materialist detractors. My impression is that a great deal of TMwT is spent appealing to them in their language, according to their materialist values. Is this the case? If so, it would be easy to see how people who aren’t materialists find this part of his work tedious, unnecessarily long, and a discouragement from investing the large amount of time (and money) the book requires. Meanwhile his avowed panentheism is going to face an uphill climb with any Orthodox Christian theological thinkers. Fr. Seraphim Rose, for example, already identified panentheism as the forefront of antichristian philosophy a couple generations ago (not that his influence is totalizing by any means, but his teaching is representative of my point). That said, Orthodox writers like Dreher and now Kingsnorth are speaking highly of McGilchrist and finding great value in his work. Dreher, never the dogmatist, could hardly speak more highly of him than he does. Concerning Pageau, yes there is obvious overlap between the two, and he has had McGilchrist on his channel for a congenial conversation; but based on TMaHE I can also easily see why he would be less than worshipful about his work, even if giving it due respect. Your pushback, which I greatly appreciate, inspires me to look critically at my former opinions, and yet whenever I think back to the book that I have read, TMaHE, I struggle to come to any different conclusions.
Meanwhile I understand Timothy Patitsas is working on something in regard to McGilchrist; I would expect his take to be the most agreeable to you yet.
On point with things I've been contemplating man! I've been digesting (and appreciating) a fair bit of Kingsnorth and Dreher lately. The Master and His Emmisary was the first book I read after finishing highschool and it blew my mind more than a little. I deeply appreciate Dr. McGilchrist's influence on my worldview. Reading your thoughts about thymos, epithymia and logos in the context of his work has actually brought a little more clarity to the terms.
I also very much appreciate your input ("when you bite into knowledge prematurely, you’re not perceiving it in its proper context" is an awesome insight), so thank you! And God bless.
Thank you very much, Peter! It’s very helpful to me hearing which thoughts strike a chord with people. I learn a lot in responses like these. I too appreciate McGilchrist’s influence very much; how I am able to perceive the contemplative aspects of thymos and epithymia is so much richer and fuller because of him.
Dr. McGilchrist's work was had a lot of influence on me at one point, though I've moved away from him now. As far as a rescue team goes, I know Dr. Patitsas is reading his work now, and finds it important. I'm sure however he reads his oeuvre, it will be thoroughly beauty-first, and maybe resolve the dialectic fatalism you identify. Of course, I did hear Dr. McGilchrist say once (I paraphrase) "that the very attempt to solve a problem through reaction is by necessity part of the problem."
p.s in accord with this comments section thread, I'd be curious to hear more about Shakespeare as you understand him.
Oh, I'd be very interested to hear why you've moved away from him. Have you written anything on the topic? And have you read The Matter with Things? I'm officially canvasing for opinions on that book now. Regarding your paraphrased quotation, the history of dialectic has reached the point of sublating itself, such that I can't take singular sayings like that on their face without seeing the whole context.
re your ps: I don't have a solid take on Shakespeare; it was only a couple years ago that I first had insight into the cosmic pattern of Hamlet. I love the tragedies best, where it appears his specialty is tracing the patterns of corruption. Even in the comedies his focus appears to be on the fecundity that accompanies the patterns of corruption. Maybe that's why he hasn't been of much visible interest to the Symbolic World crowd — a lack of focus on the patterns of creation. Maybe that says something archetypal about the post-medieval West.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I haven't written anything on the topic, nor have I read The Matter with Things, though I'd love to. As regards the quotation, fair point.
Truth be told I can't say I have a good reason. In one of the comments above you say his primary value may be in his criticism or (this may be too generous) dismantling of materialism by means of the very language thereof. Probably this is at least somewhat the case, and as such, his work doesn't hold as much interest for me these days, as say, reading St. Sophrony. I think a bigger part though has to do with what you mention in terms of renunciation: after converting I went through a pretty long period of reevaluating my position in regards to the intellectual life, art (my self-identity was pretty bound up with poetry as a vocation), etc. Total (seemingly) epistemological upheaval. Anyway, I'm returning to a lot of thinkers I laid aside in that period, as I feel a bit more grounded these days. Hoping to do that with McGilchrist soon.
Thanks for the thoughts on Shakespeare. I shall ruminate.
Opinions well slung, my friend! You are perhaps *too* good at this kind of writing, lol. As always, I love the humor that comes through, especially in your embedded images (have you ever noticed that Kingsnorth looks kinda like Shakespeare?).
Oh, I don’t know — you’re very kind. I think Elizabeth has a point, though. Sarcastic wit and crafty barbs can feel fun in the moment, but I don’t know if they’re worth the trouble, especially when I have so much ignorance to mind instead. A lot of my normal rigor is spent trying to account for that ignorance. Here I let loose for fun, it’s just as hard to write, and my unleashed ignorance causes distress to a longtime reader. I did it for renewal’s sake, though, and I did get a few ideas out that I think will help me later on. I guess I don’t know how I feel about this yet.
But whoa, no I haven’t noticed Kingsnorth looks like Shakespeare… I won’t be able to unsee it now!
This glib analysis of Dr McGilchrist’s thesis and his ability to actually write about it analogically are most troublesome. Most fascinating is the fact that his ideas and perspective continue to evolve and yes, change according to new insights. I have read The Matter with Things twice and very little of what you say fits with his thinking and approach.
Wow, that's amazing to hear! Of all the conversation around McGilchrist, this is the first I'm hearing of any development of his thought since his previous book, or that The Matter with Things might alter his thesis in any way. My impression of TMwT was that it was just more and fuller. If that's not the case, I look forward to reading it. I have seen the repeated claim, however, that the hemispheres correspond to logos and nous, and I am likely still to dissent from that. Regardless, I am sorry if you read all the rashness of my opinions only to be troubled.
I can't quite pin down how but this was helpful for me to read. I've not read much of these three men but feel a certain affection and kinship with them, especially my Orthodox brothers, and particularly Kingsnorth, who is also a recent convert.
As you may have seen from another discussion, I'm not prepared to give up Shakespeare ("the West") just because he's not Orthodox but of course one must use discernment and not rely on oneself.
this is exquisite; thank you
I also have duly recorded Cormac's maxim: "Just because you have successfully perceived a pattern does not mean you are interpreting it correctly."
Great! An exquisite response
I have been pondering an article on the hemisphere issue for a while, and you’ve given me motivation to think about it a bit more. I have enormous respect for McGilchrist, and have found his analysis of brain functions illuminating (and personally quite helpful), although I’ve puzzled over his overarching conclusion about the relationship of the two hemispheres.
From a Christian perspective—and from a fully human perspective—I think the core issue is not whether the left hemisphere dominates the right, or vice versa, but whether sacrificial love guides both hemispheres.
And I don’t think that love is reducible to either hemisphere.
I look forward then to the results of your thinking on this topic. I'm in broad agreement with what you say here — especially the enormous respect for McGilchrist, which I wish I could have expressed better.
Thank you for this Cormac. I am still digesting, but want you to know that the breadth of your perspective here is really really helpful. I want to reflect on your perspective more before offering any type of response, and instead address some minor details.
It's interesting that you responded to the reference to Burke by saying that the "The polarized conservative-liberal dialectic gripping the Western mind is not something I can use to describe the way I think." This is ironic since the polarized way this dialectic presents itself in the contemporary Western Mind is precisely the result of the political right abandoning the legacy of Burke, once considered the father of modern conservatism. Properly understood, Burke's work evaporates many of the binaries that characterize contemporary politics, especially where rights are concerns (see https://salvomag.com/post/paine-fully-conservative and also https://salvomag.com/post/rethinking-rights.
Regarding the "nous", at "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" we recently pointed out that this word is routinely mistranslated to underscore a secularist agenda. See https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2023/05/19/how-nous-became-a-trojan-horse-for-secularism-and-why-it-is-so-difficult-to-translate/. It is a tricky little word that is routinely misunderstood since there are no good English equivalents. It's also misunderstood since most English-speakers don't understand the complex itinerary the word has travelled down from the time of St. Paul through Neoplatonism and the Patristics down to the present. It's also misunderstood since attempts to associate nous with the English "heart" have often motivated by an ideological agenda that ends up serving atheistic secularism, as was the case with Fr. John Romanides. And in a new twist that you touch on but could profitably elaborate, nous is now increasingly reduced to simply an approximation for right-brain.
From Rod in January this year: "The nous (pronounced “noose”) is the perceptive faculty of each human person. The Bible locates it in the heart, but when I read Iain McGilchrist, it seems that physiologically it’s in the brain’s right hemisphere....Again, when Orthodoxy talks about the nous, I think of it is more or less what McGilchrist means when he speaks of the right hemisphere.... Please consider my thoughts on the nous, brain hemispheres, and the Internet speculative at this point."
From Rod this April: "It seems to me that what we Orthodox think of as the nous is the same thing that Iain McGilchrist is talking about when he discusses the brain’s right hemisphere."
You are especially generous to me, Robin; I don't know that I deserve your kindness. I'll take your comments on Burke under advisement. In truth I wasn't responding to mention of him at all, just to the label conservative, especially in the context of Dreher. I was trying to manage expectations of what I was about to write and also introduce the polarity I'm playing with in the images and talking about later on.
I look forward to reading your article on nous. Thank you for linking that. I saw the Dreher quotations, and they specifically sparked concern in me. I sent a brief email to him expressing that concern, not trying to change his mind or hold his attention, but just adding, hopefully, to other voices that might express doubt in McGilchrist's association of right brain and nous. I don't know if it had any effect, but I noticed his first question to Patitsas when he interviewed him was about the nous. I'd have to go back and reread it, but I recall the response being good.
Dr McGilchrist does not claim to be a theologian.
And I am not an intellectual, nor am I an Orthodox Christian.
I think what I admire most about Dr McGilchrist is his genius, I mean, his great intellectual capacity and his ability to articulate nuance and to write analogically, which seems impossible to me. In TMWT, he writes as Jonathan carves and as Dr Martin Shaw tells stories. Form and shape of writing are important, as you well know. It meshes perfectly with Dante’s vision. And both are thematically about attention, which Dr McGilchrist weaves with care and love.
I do not follow Rod Dreher closely. Just impressions from a few interviews and a blog on Borderline Personality Disorder, which was just plain incorrect and showed something else besides.
In an artistic way I think I sense to some degree the concern of Christians vis a vis Dr McGilchrist’s worldview and it is good to note, as you indicated. Strangely enough, occasionally, I sense the same odd ‘jump into I don’t know where’ when Jonathan speaks. I listen to all of Dr McGilchrist’s discussions and lectures online and I sense a shift in his perspective, slight yet perceptible, not that it is any of my business, in a way.
We are all crazy materialists and we are all hopelessly LH-Captured. We are all in Paul Kingsnorth’s machine, in ways we can’t imagine.
That is the overlap with Jonathan’s and Dr Peterson’s brilliant intuition of where we are heading.
Dr McGilchrist stresses the importance of local solutions and therein lies great wisdom. You could say, he is not a corporate man.
Anyways, I just tire of people commenting on Dr McGilchrist’s contribution when they have not even read his great tome. It is about quality, even the feel of the paper is beautiful. And therein lies the tale.
“Not a corporate man”? Well, here you’re describing him as a Gnostic. That would sooner disincentivize me from devoting myself to reading the Bible-sized tome he has produced, rather than incentivize me. I believe we’re all corporate, or better, corporeal; at least I know I am. Hence Pageau’s refrain “Go to church.” The corporeality is fractal: we all seek to be part of a larger body. I see no community to be had in the church of Dante and McGilchrist. They may say “Go to church” too, but can “not a corporate man” go to church? Without putting himself above the church? Without placing himself above all the “local solutions” that *he* deems fit? Can the wisdom of local solutions avoid itself being a self-naming universalism?
I’d still like to read TMwT; you haven’t dissuaded me. I just don’t know when I’d be able to. I’m still due for a reread of Dante for goodness’ sake! (Seriously, it’s been 25 years.) I pursue God’s will, listen to what I’m being told, and look for opportunities. Meanwhile I thank you again for your perspective on McGilchrist; I value your experience following and observing him.
The Matter with Things is the most beautiful and insightful book I have ever read after Dante’s Commedia and it is written without exaggeration analogically, that is to say, the form and shape fit the point of the thesis. I can scarcely read a page without needing to pause and reflect. It is an astounding achievement of our time.
I am truly shocked and rather embarrassed by people’s dismissal of Dr McGilchrist’s great work. I mentioned Dr McGilchrist to Jonathan recently and he said he had talked to someone who had read TMWT who had asserted that it wasn’t necessary to have written such a lengthy tome when Jonathan queried him as to the length of the book, as if somehow it was just verbosity. Dr McGilchrist’s thinking closely parallels Jonathan’s in many areas and I think it is tragic that his breadth of knowledge and understanding is not being acknowledged properly by John Verwaeke, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan. For example, Dr McGilchrist dedicates zillions of pages to tirelessly define the concept of reason, for example, within which lies probably the key confusion of our times since Dante.
I don’t understand the logos and nous reference.
Rod Dreher wrote a totally inaccurate blog on Borderline Personality Disorder for example and he does seem confused about things here and there and yet he has a strange relentless drive to declare the true truth of Christianity as manifested in the Orthodox Church. He just doesn’t mince words and stands boldly without excuse. Remarkable.
These mentioned are the great men of our age. Honour is due. Think Don Quixote.
I’m very, very grateful to hear your perspective. A major objective in my writing is to be held accountable for my thoughts and ideas. I was careful to specify that I’ve only read The Master and His Emissary because I acknowledge my opinions could be outdated. Yet, as you describe, the discourse around McGilchrist has not suggested to me that they would be. I acknowledge that you could be onto something that others aren’t.
In TMaHE, McGilchrist identifies left-hemisphere thinking with logos and right-hemisphere thinking with nous, as those words are used in Greek philosophy. This contradicts, in my estimation, how those terms are taken up in the hesychastic tradition of the Church, in which McGilchrist appears not to be versed. That identification jumped out at me because at that point deep in the book I had long ago recognized the pattern of thymos and epithymia in what he was describing — in fact I originally read the book because I already had that strong suspicion. Meanwhile Dreher recently repeated the McGilchrist teaching on logos and nous as part of his response to having read The Matter with Things, leading me to believe that that take was still current. I regret if I was led astray on that point. But where there is contradiction between the Fathers of the Church and a modern author, my affinity for the Church is not likely to be in doubt, to say the least. One has stood the test of time and born the fruit of love that is the fulfillment of all creation, and the other hasn’t.
That’s not to say that The Matter with Things could not as you suggest make me regret some of the colorful criticisms I made of McGilchrist’s ideas, even while I — and I hope this is evident in what I wrote — greatly esteem the work he has done and the achievements he has made. I think he has taught us all a tremendous amount of knowledge about our minds, and how I would discuss the contemplative aspects of thymos and epithymia are now strongly influenced by his insights. I say that not even having read TMwT! That said, I have questions for you who have read it.
These are my impressions; feel free to correct them. (I recognize that would entail you doing me, the unread, a favor, which you are not obliged to do.) It appears McGilchrist has a good many materialist detractors. My impression is that a great deal of TMwT is spent appealing to them in their language, according to their materialist values. Is this the case? If so, it would be easy to see how people who aren’t materialists find this part of his work tedious, unnecessarily long, and a discouragement from investing the large amount of time (and money) the book requires. Meanwhile his avowed panentheism is going to face an uphill climb with any Orthodox Christian theological thinkers. Fr. Seraphim Rose, for example, already identified panentheism as the forefront of antichristian philosophy a couple generations ago (not that his influence is totalizing by any means, but his teaching is representative of my point). That said, Orthodox writers like Dreher and now Kingsnorth are speaking highly of McGilchrist and finding great value in his work. Dreher, never the dogmatist, could hardly speak more highly of him than he does. Concerning Pageau, yes there is obvious overlap between the two, and he has had McGilchrist on his channel for a congenial conversation; but based on TMaHE I can also easily see why he would be less than worshipful about his work, even if giving it due respect. Your pushback, which I greatly appreciate, inspires me to look critically at my former opinions, and yet whenever I think back to the book that I have read, TMaHE, I struggle to come to any different conclusions.
Meanwhile I understand Timothy Patitsas is working on something in regard to McGilchrist; I would expect his take to be the most agreeable to you yet.
On point with things I've been contemplating man! I've been digesting (and appreciating) a fair bit of Kingsnorth and Dreher lately. The Master and His Emmisary was the first book I read after finishing highschool and it blew my mind more than a little. I deeply appreciate Dr. McGilchrist's influence on my worldview. Reading your thoughts about thymos, epithymia and logos in the context of his work has actually brought a little more clarity to the terms.
I also very much appreciate your input ("when you bite into knowledge prematurely, you’re not perceiving it in its proper context" is an awesome insight), so thank you! And God bless.
Thank you very much, Peter! It’s very helpful to me hearing which thoughts strike a chord with people. I learn a lot in responses like these. I too appreciate McGilchrist’s influence very much; how I am able to perceive the contemplative aspects of thymos and epithymia is so much richer and fuller because of him.
Very interesting, as usual.
Dr. McGilchrist's work was had a lot of influence on me at one point, though I've moved away from him now. As far as a rescue team goes, I know Dr. Patitsas is reading his work now, and finds it important. I'm sure however he reads his oeuvre, it will be thoroughly beauty-first, and maybe resolve the dialectic fatalism you identify. Of course, I did hear Dr. McGilchrist say once (I paraphrase) "that the very attempt to solve a problem through reaction is by necessity part of the problem."
p.s in accord with this comments section thread, I'd be curious to hear more about Shakespeare as you understand him.
Oh, I'd be very interested to hear why you've moved away from him. Have you written anything on the topic? And have you read The Matter with Things? I'm officially canvasing for opinions on that book now. Regarding your paraphrased quotation, the history of dialectic has reached the point of sublating itself, such that I can't take singular sayings like that on their face without seeing the whole context.
re your ps: I don't have a solid take on Shakespeare; it was only a couple years ago that I first had insight into the cosmic pattern of Hamlet. I love the tragedies best, where it appears his specialty is tracing the patterns of corruption. Even in the comedies his focus appears to be on the fecundity that accompanies the patterns of corruption. Maybe that's why he hasn't been of much visible interest to the Symbolic World crowd — a lack of focus on the patterns of creation. Maybe that says something archetypal about the post-medieval West.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I haven't written anything on the topic, nor have I read The Matter with Things, though I'd love to. As regards the quotation, fair point.
Truth be told I can't say I have a good reason. In one of the comments above you say his primary value may be in his criticism or (this may be too generous) dismantling of materialism by means of the very language thereof. Probably this is at least somewhat the case, and as such, his work doesn't hold as much interest for me these days, as say, reading St. Sophrony. I think a bigger part though has to do with what you mention in terms of renunciation: after converting I went through a pretty long period of reevaluating my position in regards to the intellectual life, art (my self-identity was pretty bound up with poetry as a vocation), etc. Total (seemingly) epistemological upheaval. Anyway, I'm returning to a lot of thinkers I laid aside in that period, as I feel a bit more grounded these days. Hoping to do that with McGilchrist soon.
Thanks for the thoughts on Shakespeare. I shall ruminate.
Ah, good to have this question answered. It lets me know a little something about you and McGilchrist both. Yes, St. Sophrony is the best.
Opinions well slung, my friend! You are perhaps *too* good at this kind of writing, lol. As always, I love the humor that comes through, especially in your embedded images (have you ever noticed that Kingsnorth looks kinda like Shakespeare?).
Oh, I don’t know — you’re very kind. I think Elizabeth has a point, though. Sarcastic wit and crafty barbs can feel fun in the moment, but I don’t know if they’re worth the trouble, especially when I have so much ignorance to mind instead. A lot of my normal rigor is spent trying to account for that ignorance. Here I let loose for fun, it’s just as hard to write, and my unleashed ignorance causes distress to a longtime reader. I did it for renewal’s sake, though, and I did get a few ideas out that I think will help me later on. I guess I don’t know how I feel about this yet.
But whoa, no I haven’t noticed Kingsnorth looks like Shakespeare… I won’t be able to unsee it now!
This glib analysis of Dr McGilchrist’s thesis and his ability to actually write about it analogically are most troublesome. Most fascinating is the fact that his ideas and perspective continue to evolve and yes, change according to new insights. I have read The Matter with Things twice and very little of what you say fits with his thinking and approach.
Wow, that's amazing to hear! Of all the conversation around McGilchrist, this is the first I'm hearing of any development of his thought since his previous book, or that The Matter with Things might alter his thesis in any way. My impression of TMwT was that it was just more and fuller. If that's not the case, I look forward to reading it. I have seen the repeated claim, however, that the hemispheres correspond to logos and nous, and I am likely still to dissent from that. Regardless, I am sorry if you read all the rashness of my opinions only to be troubled.
I can't quite pin down how but this was helpful for me to read. I've not read much of these three men but feel a certain affection and kinship with them, especially my Orthodox brothers, and particularly Kingsnorth, who is also a recent convert.
As you may have seen from another discussion, I'm not prepared to give up Shakespeare ("the West") just because he's not Orthodox but of course one must use discernment and not rely on oneself.
"Shakespeare is not Orthodox" — a debatable claim. Russians, for one thing, typically claim him as one of their own.
Ha! Fantastic!