Posts Tagged ‘ Master and his Emissary ’

Music Came Before Language

One of the benefits of individual study is that, after a while it become self-reinforcing: what you learn in one area is reinforced by what you learn in another.

I am reading two books now: The Master and his Emissary and The Sounds of Poetry. The first is mainly about right-hemisphere vs left-hemisphere differences – but it is also about how people in general have degenerated because of increasing left-hemisphere dominance.

One thing you read about frequently in scientific literature is the question “Why is music so important, what hereditary advantage did it have?” His reply is basically “What a dumb question! Its usefulness is perfectly obvious. It just seems baffling to left-hemisphere people.”

I can remember vividly a family night of music in my Grandmother’s house before they had electricity. Kerosene lamps provided the illumination. Everybody took their turns performing. Grandmother played the piano – she had supported herself for many years giving piano lessons. Dad sang, and as I recall he had a fine voice – and also took voice lessons from a local teacher. Grandfather played his harmonica, a skill he was proud of – and he was a very proud man.

When electricity came, the radio came also – and we became passive consumers of music. Prior to this, people always made up their own entertainment. A favorite was ice-skating on the river – which they were very good at. The overall trend was frightening: they were becoming more and more passive.

My other book, The Sounds of Poetry, makes the same point: poetry is a form of music – and originally it was always a performing art. It isn’t hard to see that music and language have common origins. And it isn’t hard to see why it is no longer popular – people have lost interest in something so sophisticated, and only want simple, immediate forms of gratification.

I can take this even further. Our family were Missouri Mormons and originally speaking in tongues Glossolalia was a common event. This was usually followed by someone interpreting the speech for the rest. No one doubted either one.

Glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units.

This likely the type of language first used – before the vocabulary and syntax became standardized.

Babies first use this type of language, and mothers automatically change their way of speaking to accommodate them.

The Two Ways of Being

I am in the process of reading The Master and his Emissary – which will no doubt take me awhile. I often congratulate myself on being a failure – but still leaving myself some time to build a new life. I wish everyone could do it.

I learned of the author, Iain McGilchrist, from a report in Poetry Magazine, of all places. But he is best known as a brain scientist. The following is from page 93. I have sub-divided some of his paragraphs to make them more readable online:

I suggested that there were two ways of being in the world, both of which were essential.

One was to allow things to be present to us in all their embodied particularity, with all their changeability and impermanence, and all their interconnectedness, as part of a whole which is forever in flux. In this world we, too, feel connected to what we experience, part of that whole, not confined in subjective isolation from a world that is viewed as objective.

The other was to step outside the flow of experience and ‘experience’ our experience in a special way: to re-present the world the world that was less truthful, but apparently clearer, and therefore cast in a form which is more useful for manipulation of the world and one another. This world is explicit, abstracted, compartmentalized, fragmented, static (although its ‘bits’ can be re-set in motion, like a machine), essentially lifeless. From this world we feel detached, but in relation to it we are powerful.

I believe the essential difference between he right hemisphere and the left hemisphere is that the right hemisphere pays attention to the Other, whatever it is that exists apart from ourselves, with which it sees itself in profound relation. It is deeply attracted to, and given life by, the relationship, the betweenness, that exists with this Other.

By contrast, the left hemisphere pays attention to the virtual world it has created, which is self-consistent, but self-contained, ultimately disconnected from the Other, making it powerful, but ultimately only able to operate on, and to know, itself.

This guy can write!

Is Perfection Possible?

The answer is obviously no. But individuals or societies with right-brain deficit disorder believe it is possible, irregardless of how many times it has been attempted – and failed at – before.

My source here is the marvelous book The Master and his Emissary in Chapter Two, What the Two Hemisphere’s ’Do’, in the section Self-Awareness and Emotional Timbre:

The right hemisphere is also more realistic about how it stands in relationship to the world at large, less grandiose, more self-aware, than the left hemisphere…In the words of one researcher into head injury, “children with right-brain deficit disorder is ignore task obstacles, accept impossible challenges, make grossly inadequate efforts, and are stunned by the poor outcomes.”

Although relatively speaking the right hemisphere takes a more pessimistic view of the self, it is also more realistic about it. There is evidence that those who are somewhat depressed are more realistic…

Contrast this with the mandatory optimism required in the workplace and in American society at large. Difficulties must absolutely be ignored – as we plunge into disaster after disaster.

This is what I got from listening to the book 1861, about the circumstances leading to the Civil War. He does an amazing job of showing how incompetent Americans were, over and over – but will not draw this conclusion himself. His audience: Americans as incompetent as ever, would savage him.

Digital Technology and the Brain

I am hard at work reading The Master and his Emissary, about the relationships between the mind and the brain. This is a big book in every way, and I am slowly plodding my way through it, absorbing a little at a time.

My point here is simple: that digital technology functions much like left-hemisphere does – and has all of its shortcomings, since it cannot function as the right-hemisphere does. Or as the brain does, with its ample interconnections between the two.

I have spent a lot of time in the last few months, and quite a bit of money too, trying to learn programming again. I knew it was important, and that everyone should understand how it worked – and what its latest advancements were.

I was left asking myself “What is programming doing for me – as an emotional person?” I had to say “Not much.” The key concept here was emotions - something computers can never have.

I could just have easily concentrated on values – another thing computers can never have. There are programs that model human emotions and values – and these are valuable – to model the economy, for example. But we still have to use our human skills – and not forget them.

We have to use all of our brains, not just part of them.

The Urge to Destroy the World

This is going to be a difficult posting. My lead here is James S. Hans in his book The Question of Value, in its last chapter, which I am in the process of reading and rereading. And to be perfectly fair, the book The Master and his Emissary, which complements it.

Hans does not consider the impulse I am describing here – a strange blank spot in his reasoning which I cannot account for, because he describes its setting perfectly. Basically it is this: man is finding that the world limits his plans for infinite expansion; finds this intolerable; and therefore wants to destroy it. In the case of America, he is destroying America – and much of the rest of the world is doing the same, following our lead.

This is something few can see, even the brightest – probably because is it so horrible it is not believable. Hannah Arendt noticed this when she was writing about the Holocaust. The same thing happened in the Russian Gulag and in the Cultural Revolution – while the rest of the world still could not believe it. In that respect, nothing has changed.

I personally found this destruction intolerable in the working world, when I was part of it. Now that I am out of it, I can watch it happening; write about it; and see that this makes no difference to anyone. They cannot hear me talking.

This approach may sound familiar to you: apocryphal warnings have been going on for a long time. But the situation now is different: it is entirely new – and entirely new things are going on in it.

What is new? In the past five hundred years change has been so rapid and continuous that we are now looking at a new world – and we do not like what we see. People are ambivalent about this: insisting both that everything has changed and nothing has changed at the same time. It’s about time we made up our mind. But there is one problem: we have no mind left – it has been left far behind.

For most, this is not a problem at all. For them, it is a good thing: “Our minds only created big problems for us.” they say – and they are right. We misused our minds entirely. But this is no reason to quit using them entirely. We should start over and start using them right: in harmony with everything else. But this is precisely what they do not want to do. They are like spoiled children: insisting that they must have their own way – if not, they will demolish their play-pen.

Everything has to be taken into account when we think about changing things – and this is no easy matter. But, on the other hand, it is probably not impossible – we just have to start taking the first few baby steps in that direction.

There is no shame in being a baby – but for Americans, it is. Our history is clear: babies get destroyed.

Attention Changes Who We Are

This will be brief, but to the point: paying too much attention to our things has made us like them – like machines.

I am reading The Master and His Emissary, a new book about the brain – and on its effects on us. The author, Ian McGilchrist, starts off ruthlessly, cutting down all the preconceptions we have heard about right-brain left-brain stuff. He insists on beginning with a firm foundation – even if that means clarifying some of our language. From page 28:

Our knowledge of neurobiology (for example, of mirror neurones) and of neuropsychology (for example, association-priming) shows that by attending to someone else performing an action, and even about thinking about them doing so – even, in fact, by thinking about certain sorts of people at all – we become objectively, measurable, more like them, in how we behave, think, and feel.

Through the direction and nature of our attention, we prove ourselves to be partners in creation, both of the world and of ourselves.

Martin Heidegger made much the same point in his book The Question Concerning Technology: we are our technology – and it behooves us to be aware of this. And Nietzsche before him.

My mother, when I was a small boy, could always tell who I had been playing with – because I would be acting like them.

This is one of my social skills, and I have used it in Business Process Modeling (BPM) – because I could see how things were actually being done. Most cannot; they simply adopt other’s belief’s about what is going on.

Creativity can be a Curse

Creativity, or innovation, is one thing we pride ourselves on. But it is also one thing we should be careful of.

I know I sound like some kind of reactionary or conservative here – which I am not. So I hasten to explain. It all boils down to what we think we are – and that basically the same as it always has been: our bodies and our overdeveloped brains.

But we are never satisfied with what we are and always want to be something better. This is where we can get into trouble, because we can easily end up in situations where we are worse off than we were before – much worse off. At this point we should think over what has happened to us, where we went wrong, and then try something different. This has been the goal of my life, at the end of my life.

I have lots of company, lots of people are trying to do the same thing, and some of them can talk directly to me and my problems – which I seem to be blessed with in abundance. But we seem to be a small minority. For the majority, the careful consideration of our problems is the last thing they want to do. Our problems are so horrible (as they perceive them) that they don’t even want to admit their existence. For them, the only solution is to rush on doing the same thing – or to destroy the whole mess. Or to do both at the same time. This, my dear friends, is where we are – and it is indeed a horrible situation.

I have been obsessed recently with learning programming again, as I have said in my recent posting Once Again, I Fail to Become a Programmer. As always, I am ambivalent about the Computer/Software/Internet (CSI) complex we find ourselves a part of. I am using it now, sitting here in my pajamas in my bedroom.  I cannot imagine being without my blog – the technology for which has matured considerably in the last few years. And I use Wikipedia constantly – and my online version of the Merriam-Websters Unabridged.

On the other hand, the new handheld readers, such as the Kindle, do not interest me at all. Paper books, for me, are still the greatest invention ever invented, and I have a ton of them. But lots of my friends can hardly wait to get one – and make up all kinds of excuses why. It seems to be one of those things everybody has to have – and therefore they have to too. Will their Kindles make them better readers, more learned people? No. They will simply have the latest high-tech toy, and be satisfied with that. They seem to live in a person vacuum, or black hole, that sucks everything into it.

This is amazing. We have created these marvelous things, but have ended up being nothing ourselves. We should be putting all our energy into understanding why this is so. And some of our best thinkers and artists have been doing just that.

I have become interested in poetry, at exactly the same time most have lost interest in it. Poetry Magazine had an interview in it recently with Iain McGilchrist, a Psychiatrist who works at neuroimaging, has taught English at Oxford, and who can also discuss the trends in poetry intelligently. I have his book The Master and his Emissary, and am going to be spending some time soaking it up. Things like this do me a lot of good.

On the other hand, my studies in computer programming are soaking up too much of my time – without giving me, as a person, much at all. I have found an application framework (win2py) that is compatible with me – but is not popular with the business world, which does not care much about quality work or protecting its customers – which are prey to all kinds of virus attacks – one unfortunate side-effect of the Internet.

These studies have opened by eyes to one important fact: that much of our precious creativity is going into making the CSI more powerful – and thereby more attractive to us – and thereby taking away our attention from ourselves – which should be what we are concentrating on.

In practical terms, what does this mean? It means that this morning I have to force myself to forget programming for awhile (which is a struggle, because it gets so obsessive), and concentrate on my people studies – and on some real learning.

The Will to Power is Now Universal

Nietzsche was considered something of a nut when he talked about:

The will to power (German: “der Wille zur Macht”) is a prominent concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The will to power describes what Nietzsche believed to be the main driving force in man; achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest possible position in life; these are all manifestations of the will to power.

But he was only repeating what many other German thinkers were saying at the time, as this Wikipedia article shows. The German thinkers were far ahead of the rest of the world at the time, for their breadth of vision. This is why their degeneration into Nazism was so shocking.

But this social collapse is now being acted out in our time on a far larger – indeed, global scale. Human society has been transformed into a gigantic machine – whose objective is making itself ever more powerful. To put it another way, human nature contains two basic instincts: the life instinct and the death instinct. And the death instinct is now clearly the strongest.

I am not saying anything new here – only insisting that we acknowledge this fact.

Take, for example, our inability to understand technology. I have a new book about this: Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. The author, Landon Winner, starts off well in his Introduction. But after letting his ideas sit overnight, I proceeded to write Technology is Social the next morning – and got an instant Like for it from one of my faithful readers. I was stunned, did I know more about this than Mr. Winner did, an intellectual with awesome credentials?

I also have another new book: The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World. I peeked at it too, and I think it will be more useful for me. I fast-forwarded to the last chapter: The Master Betrayed, and this quote from page 461:

The true value of man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of Truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to what lies behind the Truth. It is not possession of the Truth, but rather the pursuit of Truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever-growing perfectibility is to be found. Possession makes one passive, indolent, vain If God held in his right hand all truth, and his left hand the ever-living striving for truth, although with the qualification that I must for ever err, and said to me “chose”, I should humbly chose the left hand and say “Father, give! Pure truth is for thee alone.”

Forgive me for introducing another book: After Virtue, which is its third edition. Its main point is that Ethics no longer exists in contemporary society. It has been forgotten completely and is unlikely to be recovered. To be honest, I didn’t get too far in this book, it is too high-powered for my brain – but I will have to give it another try. Skimming through it again, I can see it has some important material. I should have begun this study much sooner, when my brain was younger – but that cannot be helped now.

I now switch to a current topic: how ethics are now defined in the business world – and an organization called Ethisphere, which recently included Microsoft in its list of most ethical companies. I could hardly believe my eyes!

It reminded me of something I should have realized long ago: that our new constellation of power (the power complex) is now able to define everything in terms of itself, and its interests. I looked up Microsoft’s Standards of Business Conduct. I quote:

Microsoft aspires to be a great company, and our success depends on you. It depends on people who innovate and are committed to growing our business responsibly. People who dedicate themselves to really satisfying customers, helping partners, and improving the communities in which we do business. People who are accountable for achieving big, bold goals with unwavering integrity. People who are leaders, who appreciate that to be truly great, we must continually strive to do better ourselves and help others improve.

We must expect the best from ourselves because who we are as a company and as individuals is as important as our ability to deliver the best products and services. How we manage our business internally—and how we think about and work with customers, partners, governments, vendors and communities—impacts our productivity and success. It’s not enough to just do the right things; we have to do them in the right way.

In other words, Microsoft is devoted to making the entire complex work better – not just itself. This, as everyone knows, is pure poppycock – Microsoft, like any successful company is focused on itself alone – but covers this up by talking about social responsibility.

One more book: Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World, by Michael Edwards, who had been an executive for several philanthropic organizations, and saw how they worked.

We are now practically floating in books that are all saying the same thing, from different perspectives. To put it crudely:

We are up shit creek without a paddle.

The Horror of it All

I must be on to something big, because I am having a hard time adjusting to it. My mind has accepted it; but my body still stubbornly rejects it, declaring that it couldn’t possibly be real.

The idea of the end of the world is probably as old as the idea of God: the world has become so evil God will destroy it completely and start over again. This appealed to many people when they still believed in God, but this is no longer the case. Lots of people say they still believe in God, but they really don’t – they are just being safe by pretending to believe, while they really believe in something else. Another writer has described this as an unconscious society, and looking at it this way begins to make sense to me too.

I will not dwell on what this new religion is in this posting, but only mention in passing that it has something to do with a new power complex, based mainly on dominance of business on a global scale.

A big shift has gone on in the last two hundred years that we do not understand consciously, so it must have happened unconsciously. This makes sense, our minds are feeble instruments for grasping reality – but we refuse to recognize this. This was the dark side of the Enlightenment: it caused us to rely too much on our minds, on reason.

The slightest self-reflection on the reliability of our minds should have convinced us of the foolishness of relying on them too much. But this did not happen, and we rushed headlong into madness. Even the disaster of the French Revolution, based on the most rational of principles, did not convince us of this mistake. Much later, the horrors of the Holocaust, which were completely rational from the Nazi point of view, did not wake us up either. Now the ultimate evil has befallen us, we are completely defenseless against it.

I am as helpless here as anyone else. My mind can see what is going on, but my body rejects it completely – and insists I am going crazy instead. What is going on here?

It’s simple: over millions of years we had developed confidence in ourselves – as a species. And the belief if we stuck together we would not only survive, but thrive – which did indeed happen. We cannot now, at this late date, reverse our internal programming and realize that continuing to do what we are doing will be the end of us. This does not make sense in the most fundamental sense: to our bodies, where all this programming is stored.

Allow me to speculate on the location of the mind and the body (or the conscious and the unconscious)- something people far more competent than myself have struggled with. I have no idea where these two things are, but it is clear to me that they are in separate places, with tenuous communications between them. The Enlightenment model of the huge, powerful mind with a more-or-less obedient body somehow attached to it – is simply false, and radically so. But we refuse to recognize this fundamental error – even though it is killing us. We would rather die than admit the error of our ways.

This brings me back to the title of this essay: the horror of it all. The horror of our present situation is so great it overwhelms us and renders us incapable of dealing with it. It has happened so slowly and insidiously (during a period of over two hundred years) and has destroyed us so completely, we cannot believe it has happened.

After I wrote this, I read an article by the psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist in the Poetry Magazine site.  He also has a book The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. This is another book I must read. I end with his quote from another poet:

Gone out every bright thing from my mind.
All lost that ever God himself designed.
Not half can be written of cruelty of man, on man.
Not often such evil guessed as between Man and Man.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 361 other followers