According to tests I’m severely right-brained (or left-brain damaged) and that may be why things like drawing have always been relatively easy. I try to achieve more of a balance by activities like participating in this forum.

That's interesting because I always got on better at drawing and writing and am extremely poor at most practical tasks. No one ever looked into this about me, but I have felt that it was connected to the left and right balance of the brain.

how, and to what extent, we can achieve balance in our own thinking. — Jack Cummins

Left and right for real? Current research acknowledges that control of some gross functions seems to fall one side or other, but not more complex aspects of thinking or being. Right-left then seeming to be a myth.

But the question still a good one. How does one usually go about such things? What, for example, are first steps, or even the first step? That would be, would appear to have to be, thinking about the question itself and what it asks, to the end of understanding what is being asked and in particular terms.

For example, how do you make furniture? Without resolving the question to particulars it becomes unanswerable, even unapproachable.

Asking what are balance, thinking, and balance in thinking is asking hard questions, if what is meant is some sort of universal definition. But you can start easily enough with answering on your own terms. Thus, what is a chair can be answered with a mix of some generality and particularity, but if it's going to be your chair, don't you think you might sit in it first, before you pay your money down and buy it?

In short, what do to think?

I believe that we need to try to incorporate the four functions which Jung describes: feeling, reasoning, sensation and intuition. Most people have a dominant and an inferior one. When I was on art therapy course I had a supervisor who told me that I tend to intellectualise too much, so I try to make sure that I try to pay attention to intuition, feeling and sensation as well.

Just those four? Are those exhaustive? Aren't there more? Aristotle was about the virtues of balance. If that's Jung's area, it would not be the first time a psychologist "discovered" something already well-known. As to "dominant" and "inferior," those terms need definition. For example, how would you classify intellectualization, or place it on your four axes?

I tend to rationalise my own experiences a lot, but I have worked on this as far as possible, reading about emotional intelligence. I am also poor at physical tasks, which is not on Jung's list, so I try to give myself extra time to do them more mindfully and carefully.

For example, how would you classify intellectualization, or place it on your four axes? — tim wood

Yours a remarkably non-responsive response. And I suspect you don't see it. On your four axes, I would place intellectualization in itself as not reason, not intuition, not sensation. That leaves all feeling. And seems right. So do you have any idea what you're feeling? And do you have any understanding of why?

To you or anyone else who replies, I will have to write a fuller response tomorrow. That is because I didn't go to bed last night because I lost my keys and sat outside on a bench for most of the night. Fortunately, when the cafe I was in yesterday opened at 8am my keys were there, which was a great relief. I was feeling okay when I wrote the thread, but, now, having been up all night has caught up on me. So, my consciousness is not in balance at all at the moment.

They managed to create Alpha Zero using two players and a coach. I suspect we have a similar setup and the illusion of a single mind.

Approach Motivation in Human Cerebral Cortex

The Sword and Shield hypothesis is an example of functional lateralization. Supposedly your dominant hand is associated with approach motivation neural circuitry and your non-dominant hand is associated with avoidant motivation neural circuity, generally. So if you ever go to get transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy (TMS) to improve your approach/avoid motivation habits, have them target the correct side based on your handedness.

I can definitely vouch that my brain is imbalanced with respect to approach motivation. I'd like to run away from just about everything.

In predatory birds and animals, it is the left hemisphere that laches on, through the right eye and the right foot, to the prey. — Iain McGilchrist, Master and His Emissary

Unless the bird is left-talon dominant or ambidextrous.

Check out alien hand syndrome.



Tell that non-dominant hand to shut up and shut down. It's just a self-lefteous kill joy. I can do what I want. :P

I do plan to answer the couple of replies on this thread but not immediately. This is because I am in bed sick with a sore throat. I don't think it is Covid_19, but just the result of getting wet in the rain. But, I apologise for abandoning the thread which I started.

I am now replying to your response from a couple of days ago. I think that it interesting how one understands intellectualization in relation to reason. I probably take it to mean a rather restrictive use of reason. I think that the idea was discussed by Freud, amidst other processes, such as repression and subliminalisation. I believe that Freud's was critical of people trying to find rational explanations for their behaviour.

In the context of the way a supervisor suggested to me that I was inclined to use intellectualization, he actually told me that I approached 'everything in the head' and he went on to say that I seemed cut off from my emotions. I did not entirely agree with him really because I did find that many of the students had an approach to emotions which was rather artificial. In group workshops on the course some members, used to divulge stories and then go into floods of tears or ventilate extreme anger, shouting or screaming. I am not saying that none of it was genuine, but some of it seemed contrived and like a game. So, I do have queries about an approach which is just about emoting. I think that some members of the course, and even tutors were critical of me for being philosophical about life.

I actually didn't complete the art therapy training, but do still feel that I learned a lot in it. I definitely believe that art enables expression which cannot be put into words or conversations in many ways. I thought of that recently when a friend told me how she is not able to find the words to even think about her experiences recently. Apart from art therapy, I have known people who are having cognitive behavioral therapy, which often seems to me like a form of therapy involving a philosophy approach to life. But, it have heard people who are having CBT say that it goes a bit too far in that respect, and does not give enough scope in letting people ventilate about past experiences.

My reply may seem a bit too focused on therapy, and I didn't really write the thread with a view to thinking about therapy experience. It is just your reply, querying feelings, lead me to think about processing in a way which seemed best answered in connection with how those can be understood from various angles as touched upon within the psychotherapies.

Left/Right, doesn't matter as such but once one of them predominates, complications arise - I'm talking about right/left handedness which I suppose serves as the most obvious marker of hemisphere dominance.

We could say that the world is a right-handed world - lefties had very little role in how it's turned out since they're in the minority, their unique contributions are diluted and/or overriden - and so, while the good there is in this world can be chalked up to right-handedness, the blame for all the evil in it too falls on right-handers.

This contradicts the age-old belief that lefties and evil go hand in hand. The word "sinister" means both evilish and left proving my point. However, right-handers, well-known for their logic should at some point come to the realization that there are so few left-handed folks around that the evil in the world couldn't possibly be their doing. Evil should've been wiped off the face of the earth going by the small and dwindling number of left-handers. I'm surprised that righties still harbor suspicion against lefties given what I said. It should be the other way round. Why so few lefties? Why so few no dodos? Dodos were hunted to extinction. Need I say more?

Of course someone might object to this by saying that the evil extant in this world began in the minds of left-handers and righties have been, ever since, trying to eliminate it - the abolition of evil being a work in progress, perhaps to be achieved once the last left-hander is dead and buried, a couple of centuries or even millenia being necessary before faer lingering evil also finally dies. Good then, it's suggested, will finally prevail on earth.

Granted evil has its roots in the left-handed, why does it persist then if not that it finds the perfect conditions to thrive in the minds of righties. In other words, the received wisdom that the left and right hemispheres complement each other if taken to its logical condition implicates both lefties and righties - both are culpable, the right brain (lefties) as the founder (of evil) and the left brain (righties) as the faithful follower (of evil) [Master-Slave]. The right hemisphere (lefties), imaginative (so they say), must've wondered, "What if? Just what if we take a stone and hit someone over the head with it?" The left hemisphere (righties), logical (so they say) must've immediately replied, "You know what? That's a great idea!" Deadly duo! Double trouble! Twin threats! The two, together, terror!

Thanks for your extremely interesting reply. The question of good and evil in relation to the right and left is extremely important, even though I don't think Gilchrist looks at this clearly. But, one author who has done is Jonathan Black. I have read a couple of books by him, but don't think I have them any longer, to quote from directly. However, what he pointed to was the medical symbol of Caseusis, which has the two entwined snakes, which he says represent the left and right hand side of knowledge. He states how we have the accepted right side, which is mainstream knowledge and religion. The left side is the hidden, more dangerous knowledge of the esoteric, which has been regarded as 'evil' by many, and often referred to as the occult'.

I think that this whole dichotomy is interesting, and we have to think about how people who were regarded as psychic were often referred to as witches. But, there is a whole history of esoteric knowledge, ranging from the Kabbalah, Gnostic thinking, the Hermetic ideas, alchemy and many other traditions outside of the mainstream. These may be seen as 'evil' by some, but perhaps they are simply more dangerous because rather than people following the path of authority, it is about individuals following the path of inner knowledge. Gilchrist certainly does suggest that human beings can learn a lot from incorporating some ideas from Oriental thought, and that is happening in many ways in Western culture.

But, of course, I am not wishing to overlook the question of good and evil, but, I do think that this is complex, as you and others may realise, I come from a strong interest in Jung's ideas. The confrontation with good and evil is an extremely difficult aspect of individuation. There are many potential mistakes, and that is why the emphasis on the right as opposed to left path has been the stronger, more dominant one.

Thanks for your extremely interesting reply. — Jack Cummins

Quid pro quo. I'm glad you find it interesting. You've given me quite a few insights, Jack, truth-seeker.

The left side is the hidden, more dangerous knowledge of the esoteric, which has been regarded as 'evil' by many, and often referred to as the occult'. — Jack Cummins

TheMadFool makes a mental note of this comment for later reference.

My own views of what seems to be like an old abandoned road (the occult) once the sleek new, modern highway gets done (mainstream views) is that it was, literally and figuratively, executed for "good" reasons. Much of the "knowledge" that was painstakingly gathered by practitioners (of the occult) was systematically destroyed by largely religious institutions as they deemed it heretical or some other transgression (pact with the Devil).

People who were party to the extermination of an entire way of life (occultism) thought they were doing the "right" thing. If you try hard enough I'm fairly confident that the old road can still be found, repaired, and made "good" enough to take traffic. I don't advise it though. It has danger written all over it - death maybe the least of our concerns, if you know what I mean. :grimace: :worry:

I have juggled mixed messages. When I was about 18 or 19 I was reading Jung's ideas which were extremely esoteric and attending Christian youth meetings. In these meetings people used to speak of the occult messages in rock music, which were meant to be uncovered by playing the music backwards. The ultimate example was meant to be that if you play Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards, you can hear the words 'Satan is God'. I can remember someone trying to tell me all kinds of books and music I was listening to, including my favourite 'Psychedelic Furs' albums were the work of the devil and being really distraught.

But, as I moved on I think that it can all be so simplistic, but it was all of this that lead me to question Christianity initially. And, I have read a lot in the esoteric traditions. But, there is dangerous knowledge and we only have to think of Aleister Crowley. Even the tarot has dangers. I have never used it but, once in a student hall of residence, a girl did a reading for me and she seemed alarmed by my reading. I wasn't really because I knew that I had a lot of difficulties to work through, but it ended up with me needing to reassure her because she was really worried about me.

I do think that people who spend time reading esoteric books, and following practices in them can become rather unbalanced. But, it probably depends on so many other factors. This morning, I was having a conversation with someone who pointed out to the need to listen to our bodies, and I realised that this was relevant to my thread.

I have thought about how this relates to one of your recent threads, which is the one on symmetry. Of course, it does involve the yin and the yang. However, Gilchrist does argue that there is a fundamental asymmetry to consciousness, with a need for a master. For me, this probably suggests the danger of getting lost in the quagmire of esoterica, but I suppose that there are so many philosophical dangers and red zones anyway.

I think that the main thing to remember is that even though the structure of the brain has a basis in neuroscience, it is only a model. Gilchrist is suggesting that some pictures of the division between left and right are far too simplistic. Regarding your idea of the 'coach', it leads me to think of how the transpersonal philosopher, Ken Wilber, spoke of 'witness consciousness', which can be seen as the inner narrator reflecting upon the divisions, especially the right and the left, but probably other divisions, like degrees conscious vs subconscious.

fundamental asymmetry to consciousness — Jack Cummins

There are two, how shall I put it?, levels of symmetry. One is qualitative symmetry such as hot - cold, good - bad, up - down and so on. Asymmetry ain't possible at this level.

Then there's quantitative symmetry - the flux that occurs between hot and cold, between good and bad, so on and so forth. This is where all the action takes place and ergo, being inherently fluid, asymmetry is not only possible but also as real as real can get. However, the asymmetry initiates processes directed towards the attainment of even quantitative symmetry. That's how the cookie crumbles, Jack, truth-seeker!

I am now replying to your response from a couple of days ago. — Jack Cummins

What is interesting is that I asked you two direct questions and you went into contortions to evade them. Thus your replies not replies.

For example, how would you classify intellectualization, or place it on your four axes? — tim wood

On your four axes, I would place intellectualization in itself as not reason, not intuition, not sensation. That leaves all feeling. And seems right. So do you have any idea what you're feeling? And do you have any understanding of why? — tim wood

I leave these to you.

We are back with the question of opposites and the nature of continuum. I imagine that all the binary aspects remain as binaries, but in real life how we define, think and experience them is where our lives take us. We go on such interesting travels into the yin and yang of the real and the fantastic, which is probably a continuum in it own right within the most mysterious complicated knot of mind and body.

I didn't mean to evade the question, but I am really looking two days after reading your posts. Of course, it could be that it is a blindspot of mine, because I do believe that we have them. The slightly complicated matter of what one feels is that we use words to describe experiences, so it does mean that it can be difficult to separate some aspects of feelings from the cause. Of course, we are talking in a fairly abstract way rather a specific one. Generally, I think that bodily sensations can be useful in identifying emotions and reason can be a way of understanding the whys. However, I do believe that all these aspects do need reflection on the processes, or otherwise, our consciousness can become a messy blur.

Keeping in mind my point here is not to pry into what is your private business, I submit that you have again sidestepped and avoided. Like a fellow at the beach talking about going into the water, walking back and forth along the line of the surf's advance along the shore, but who will not go in. To which everyone in the water and on the beach say, just do it! Go in! The water's fine. But apparently you cannot. And that's all right. I merely point out to you that your talk seems mainly diversion, distraction, misdirection from the matter at hand. And imo, that's pretty significant - but cannot be addressed indirectly or obliquely.

Thanks for your response, and I just hadn't replied because I answered ones from today. Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. It seems likely to me that each one of is wired slightly differently. It probably involves so much, ranging from genetics to the way we learn to behave. I am sure it is a complex mixture of the two because it probably involves pathway developments in the brain.

But, definitely I know of people who are left handed and struggled with being encouraged to use their right hand. My father experienced this. I am right handed and, when I broke my right wrist as an adult I had great difficulty. I tried writing with my right hand which did not work at all. But, I did experiment with drawing with my left hand and that did produce some interesting results, and I had read previously that drawing or painting with the less dominant hand is a useful way of getting in touch with aspects of subconscious experience.

I can see what you are saying about standing poised on the shore, and, of all things I will admit that I never managed to swim and I hated even going into a swimming pool. But, on topic of emotions, I do believe that we do need to stand back and use reason to help us understand it. This is not merely about not drowning, which would probably happen to me if I went into the sea. Reasoning about emotions is a way of not recognizing them for what they are rather than being pulled along by them subconsciously.I see this as being central to the ability to reflect.

All well said. What you leave out is that wrt feelings, you have to have them to understand them. And since all have feelings, no matter what some may argue, it becomes a matter of, a question of, comprehension of, handling of, quality of, experience of, openness to, & etc. of, those feelings.

This starts by answering the question, "How do I feel?" with strictest honesty and candor - to oneself if not necessarily to others. Possible starting sentences are, "I feel...". Or, "I don't know how I feel." In as much as feelings are inevitable, the latter is a sign of a problem that should be investigated. Often enough this is not-so-easy. But the difficulty should not be taken as, understood as, a lack of feeling - that would be a fatal error.

There are actually two questions that may be asked. The first opens the door; the second blows the door off its hinges. 1) What am I feeling. 2) What does it mean to feel as I am feeling. The second question in this form due to Heidegger.

And these part of the repertoire of most folks, though usually not explicitly. Asking the second question, being able to ask and answer the second question, is usually a sign of mental health in action.

I do agree that understanding emotions is extremely important. I wonder if you are suggesting that I am not putting my emotions into this. You must remember that this is online, and I am not even anonymous. But, I think it does all come down to context and, generally, when I am writing on this site, I am aiming to write philosophy. Real life is a bit different. But, I do believe that lack of emotion or too much can be a problem, but I think that it is about assessing what is relevant to any specific situation.

Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. — Jack Cummins

Actually I've no real clue as to the implications of that paper other than TMS caveats, as iterated in a few other articles. We should all be a bit wary as to drawing any conclusions. McGilchrist's thesis could still be a fanciful expansion of left/right brain myth. The split brained stuff is really fascinating though.

If brain balance is related to education and going along with McGilchrist's schema of disembodied/abstract learning versus embodied learning, we see a real deficit of the latter in U.S. education systems. Kids are turned off from learning because it has become too disembodied... one sits in a chair most of the time, writing with a pencil, staring at a screen, answering fragmentary questions (not connected to a larger project of applicability). Boring as hell, suited for robots only.

I don't live in the U.S, so I am afraid that I don't know what the education is like there. I barely know what the English one is like currently like because I only have one or two friends with children. But, of course, it is important because the education we have shapes cognition and consciousness. I found some of my own boring, but some of it very good. I also think that family teaching is an important aspect, because early life affects what happens later in a big way.

opposites and the nature of continuum — Jack Cummins

Opposites: Endpoints

Continuum: Flux (between endpoints)

T

Although there are endpoints, and a continuum, I think that it is also interesting to think of Heraclitus's idea of enantiodromia. This was about how when opposites are reached they reverse completely. So, we may be in the realms of walking along points along the continuum and watching binaries change into their opposites. Of course, we are talking on an abstract level, but I think that the ideas of Gilchrist do show how opposites within the brain and, consciousness are very complex indeed.