home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

 

Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

Dr. Iain McGilchrist states ‘relationships are more foundational than the things related’. I’m here, you’re there, we just met, we have no relationship, but it seems obvious that the two us come first and then, at best, there’s a possibility of relationship. But what if reality is different? What if McGilchrist is correct, that relationship is primary?

 

 

return to "contents" page

 

 

Elenchus. The author has posted an inset-box featuring the work of Dr. Iain McGilchrist, especially his new book, The Matter With Things.

Kairissi. It’s a massive tome, receiving ultra-superlative praise.

 

 

'One of the most important books ever published - and, yes, I do mean ever... a devastating assault' on the materialist worldview - Oxford Law professor, Charles Foster, for The Guardian

'[McGilchrist's] claims may turn modern ultra-Darwinists purple, but they cannot easily be dismissed' - Nick Spencer, Prospect magazine

 

Dr. Iain McGilchrist is a psychiatrist, neurologist, philosopher and writer. His 1600-page seminal work, The Matter with Things (2021), ten years in the making, presents the case that the brain’s left and right hemispheres see and interact with the world in profoundly different ways.

Two hemispheres, two worldviews:

Left-brain sees with tunnel vision, a narrowed focus of things in fragmented isolation, desires to analyze parts, is linear, can be ruthlessly goal-oriented, prefers literal interpretations, presses for control, exploitation, and manipulation of environment.

Right-brain is holistic in approach, seeks to understand the entirety, is comfortable with ambiguity and nuance, able to connect the dots, values relationships, looks for context and meaning, perceives a deeper connectedness with the world.

Both hemispheres are needed for a balanced view of reality; however, Dr. McGilchrist warns, a society dominated by left-brain activity can sink into materialistic malaise, will destroy itself by diminishing all that we stay alive for, all that makes us essentially human: virtue, respect for life, the sacred, authentic love, beauty, art and aesthetics, meaning and purpose.

READ MORE - quotations and summaries of The Matter With Things

READ MORE - an interview with Dr. McGilchrist

READ MORE - one chapter from his book with discussion

READ MORE - Kairissi and Elenchus discuss The Matter With Things

 

 

K. You and I have been discussing the mysteries of our favorite subject – authentic romantic love and marriage – for a long time.

E. It’s hard for us to come across anything new.

K. But we’d like to inform our readers that Dr. McGilchrist’s writings have prompted some new insights.

E. Some of it is good confirmation of what we already know.

new insights

K. But some of it – one or two items – is actually brand new material for us. We’re excited about this, and we look forward to presenting it to our readers.

E. It’s what they pay us for. So let’s get into it.

K. Why don’t we talk about Jacob’s Ladder first?

 

Jacob’s Ladder by William Blake (c. 1799–1807). Dr. Iain McGilchrist sees an image of spiritual progress, which ‘moves very beautifully in a spiral. As we ascend, we see how we thought we had the truth when we didn’t, lower on the staircase, and how the staircase winds upwards as far as we can see’. This would mean that we never see more than our attained level of consciousness allows. The staircase also suggests that each develops at his or her own rate, each lives on a different level of maturity.

 

E. I like this painting. I like paintings that portray great ideas.

K. You’re still threatening to someday produce a series of paintings, a “great ideas gallery.”

E. I’d like to share a personal note. This painting has helped me to make more real the fact that everyone’s on a different level of maturity. This principle is not newly hatched for us, but it’s another matter to actually allow it to affect one’s judgment.

we’re all just God’s immature kids at different levels of awareness

K. It’s easy to fall into the trap of condemnation and unforgiveness, the haughty “why did you do that, I would never have done that.”

E. But it suddenly just clicked for me – why should I get angry when somebody acts in a less than perfect manner? We’re all just God’s immature kids on that upward spiral of development, we’re all at different levels of awareness. But, tell us, Kriss - what do you see in Jacob’s Ladder that relates to true love?

K. I see the many staircase-spirals as different levels, different purposes, of love and marriage -- ranging from mere animal pleasures to spiritual oneness.

E. We had an entire writing featuring these many levels, and we will direct our readers to that discussion.

K. And what’s interesting is that, no matter what spiral-level you’re on, you think you’re on the highest level.

E. At any spiral-level, you can’t see any higher levels, your vision is blocked.

K. You think you’ve really arrived, it doesn’t get any better than this. I mean, if you’re a newly-wed John-and-Mary, “hotter than a brussel sprout,” well taken by “the fever,” you think you’ve made it now, with fully licensed sex forever, no more wishing and trying to get it.

E. And for a very short time, it almost seems true. But then, fairly quickly, it doesn’t feel as great anymore.

the calamity of impermanence

K. And the same is true for the other purposes of marriage. Let’s say you’ve experienced “rest to the soul” with your beloved, and now you think this peace and tranquility is set in stone. You want to stay on this spiral-level forever. But then the “rest to the soul” flies away like a frightened bird. This calamity of impermanence is true for all spiral-levels in isolation.

E. But, here’s what McGilchrist says is the real underlying reason why people fall out of relationship; or think they do.

K. We’re about to get into some radical stuff. But – the truth can sound radical when we’re used to error.

‘relationships are more foundational than the things related’

E. What could McGilchrist mean by this statement? It doesn’t make sense to us. I mean, I’m here, you’re there, we just met, we have no relationship, but maybe we’d like one. In any case, it seems pretty obvious that the two us come first in the equation and then, at best, there’s a possibility of relationship.

Rupert Spira: "We tend to imagine the world as composed of separate things – selves and others, minds and bodies, subjects and objects – each existing independently, each coming into contact with others only secondarily. From this perspective, relationship is something that happens between already-existing entities. First there is you, then there is me, and then, perhaps, there is our relationship. But what if the truth was the other way around?"

 

E. Here is an extended quote adding more detail:

 

Dr. Iain McGilchrist, The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World: 

‘The world is not just a set of separately existing localized objects, externally related only by space and time,’ writes Tim Maudlin, Professor of Philosophy and Physics at NYU. ‘Something deeper, and more mysterious, knits together the fabric of the world.’ Indeed, according to Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins, ‘to see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.’

Reductionism envisages a universe of things — and simply material things at that. How these things are related is viewed as a secondary matter. However, I suggest that relationships are primary, more foundational than the things related: that the relationships don’t just ‘connect’ pre-existing things, but modify what we mean by the ‘things,’ which in turn modify everything else they are in relationship with.

That is because what we are dealing with are, ultimately, relations, events, processes; ‘things’ is a useful shorthand for those elements, congealed in the flow of experience, that emerge secondarily from, and attract our attention in, a primary web of interconnexions. I have nothing against things, provided we don’t see them as primary.

In our ordinary ways of thinking, things must be established before there can be relationships, and so this about-turn should seem paradoxical; but as I shall explain, paradox very often represents a conflict between the different ‘takes’ afforded by the two hemispheres [of the brain]. However, we must also be prepared to find that, as Niels Bohr recognised, whereas trivial truths manifestly exclude their opposites, the most profound truths do not.

This is itself a version of the realisation that what applies at the local level does not necessarily apply in the same way at the global level. The failure to observe this principle underlies some of the current misconceptions of both science and philosophy.

I believe that nowadays we live no longer in the presence of the world, but rather in a re-presentation of it. The significance of that is that the [brain’s] left hemisphere’s task is to ‘re-present’ what first ‘presences’ to the right hemisphere. This re-presentation has all the qualities of a viritual image: an infinitely thin, immobile fragment of a vast, seamless, living, ever-flowing whole.

From a standpoint within the re-presentation, everything is reversed. Instead of seeing what is truly present as primary, and the representation as a necessarily diminished derivation of it, we see reality as merely a special case of our representation — one in which something is added in to ‘animate’ it. In this it is like a ciné film that consists of countless static slices requiring a projector to bring it back into what at least looks to us like a living flow.

On the contrary, however, reality is not an animated version of our re-presentation of it, but our re-presentation a devitalized version of reality. It is the re-presentation that is a special, wholly atypical and imaginary, case of what is truly present, as the filmstrip is of life — the re-presentation is simply what one might call the ‘limit case’ of what is real.

Stepping out of this world-picture and into the world, stepping out of suspended animation and back into life, will involve inverting many of our perhaps cherished assumptions.

 

 

K. There is a lot here. But I think we need to explain some of this.

E. A few paragraphs of McGilchrist send us spinning. What would 1600 pages do to our heads?

K. Gulp.

E. However, if something is true, it will become simpler and simpler the more we go into it. And that’s what I’m finding.

K. Elenchus, why don’t you explain what he means by a “re-presentation” of the world.

you're so linear

E. The concept is something we’ve talked about for years, he just uses new language. The left-brain – which often sounds much like what we call “the dysfunctional ego” – distorts our vision of reality. It sees everything as “things” disconnected and isolated.

K. The right-brain is not so unlike our term for the “higher self.”

E. When the right-brain becomes more active, it will re-interpret or “re-present” the world as a system of connectedness.

K. That’s not so hard to understand. And I think that I’m glimpsing what he means by “relationships are primary.”

E. If things in the world are not isolated and disconnected after all, then this would suggest that they’re in various forms of relationship.

K. Relationship is the norm if all things are connected. But it’s still hard to wrap my head around the idea that two strangers are already in relationship.

strangers in the night

E. What do we mean by “strangers”? This is how the left-brain sees the world. Everyone is separate and isolated.

K. And I suppose this would mean that all humans are in relationship, but some have a closer bond than others.

E. I think that’s the better way of looking at it.

K. So, what do we have here? Let’s say more on “relationship is primary.” It seems that we’re speaking of “relationship” as if it were a stand-alone entity in the world with its own existence. Does this take the concept too far?

E. Maybe not. We’ll have to proceed very carefully here lest we fall into more confusion. But I think “relationship” can be viewed as a “thing.”

K. You’ll have to explain this.

E. Recall what Rupert Sheldrake said about morphic fields.

K. He said that morphic fields organize energy.

the cosmos is a system of organized-energy fields

E. They do this in the universe, all the way up the line from atoms to galaxies.

K. Morphic fields constitute a “hidden blueprint” for why things are shaped as they are.

E. Sheldrake also said that morphic fields affect social interactions of all living things.

K. And now we’re back to “relationships.” What does this really mean?

E. Morphic fields are primary, are the “hidden blueprints” of the universe, and this is why relationships are primary. I think that morphic fields which govern or manage relationships are fields of energy.

K. Organized energy which is directed toward certain ends and purposes.

E. Let’s consider, as an analogy, the fields of energy surrounding a magnet.

E. A magnetic field of energy is put together in a certain way. The iron filings are not all over the place but in a certain arrangement.

K. They follow the underlying energy. And the iron filings are not primary, the energy field came first.

E. I think there’s a morphic energy field directing Twin Souls.

K. The Twins are like the iron filings. But the energy field of “relationship” came first.

E. Each Twin couple has their own unique morphic-field of relationship. This is why another pretty face can’t enter their energy field.

K. It would be like wooden toothpicks trying to be directed by the magnetic field. It won’t work, there's no attraction.

 

 

K. I’m reminded of the common phrase, couples want to “work on their marriage.” But notice. They see themselves as primary and the marriage relationship as derivative, now sagging, needing a boost.

E. The marriage relationship cannot be vitalized. It’s like the iron filings saying, we need to gin up the energy of the magnetic field. The “relationship,” in its essence, either exists or it does not, you have it or you don't. And if you have it, it's not going away, because relationship morphic-fields are eternal, part of God's mind.

K. You cannot turn someone into your Twin by trying very hard, being nice, and “working” at it.

 

 

E. There are many side-issues, much could be said, but we will leave this to the meditations of our readers.

'the ever-moving stability'

E. Kriss, we must talk about one of McGilchrist’s most counter-intuitive concepts. Initially, I found it very jarring to contemplate, but I now see he’s correct. It’s the “ever-moving stability.”

K. Will this become simpler and simpler, as well?

'a stable and changeless form of movement generated eternally'

E. Yes, I think so. McGilchrist introduces this idea in the masthead quotations of one of his chapters. Allow me to reprint these statements:

It is nonsense to conceive of nature as a static fact, even for an instant devoid of duration. There is no nature apart from transition, and there is no transition apart from temporal duration. Alfred North Whitehead                       

For all bodies are in perpetual flux, like rivers, and parts are constantly entering into and leaving them. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz                                                                      

By changing, it remains the same. Heraclitus

(Editor: From the endnotes)

It is also of interest that the seventh-century theologian Maximus the Confessor wrote: ‘When nature has come to exist in God through the essential unity of him in whom it was created, it will possess an ever-moving stability and a stable and changeless form of movement generated eternally round that which is one, unique and always the same. It has been said that this state is a direct and permanent grounding in the first cause of created beings’ (Maximus, ‘Various texts on theology, the divine economy, and virtue and vice: fifth century’: 1990–2020, vol 2, Part III, §48).

K. Elenchus, what is the real significance of this? Why is it important?

E. Volumes could be profitably written to answer your question. The significance impinges upon the nature of reality itself, how we develop into mature beings, and the inner-workings of creativity.

K. I’d like to hear your thoughts, but I’ll tell you what this reminds me of. In the Gospel Of Thomas article we posted this:

 

restless, chattering, endless motion, ever seeking

Krishnamurti lecture: 26.May.1966.

“When one is awake, with Light in oneself, there is no seeking. Only the man in darkness is always searching for light, for more experience…A monkey is restless, scratching itself, chattering, endless movement. So is our mind. One says, ‘I must control it’ and concentrate. We don’t realize that the entity demanding control is still the entity that is like the monkey.”

K. I think everything we’ve said above concerning “motion and rest” is somewhat valid and helpful, but Krishnamurti might have inadvertently offered clarity here. The “monkey mind” is never at rest.

E. I think you’re onto something here. Krishnamurti says that if we have Light within ourselves, then the frantic search for satisfaction ceases.

K. We feel ourselves, at a deep level, to be “enough.”

E. And so, spell it out for us, Kriss. What is the cryptic statement of “motion and rest” really about?

K. The whole book of Thomas’ Gospel is that of drawing distinction between those who know about the inner Light and those who don’t.

E. Yes… very good… this would mean then, according to this view, that the world is divided into these two camps –

K. -- those who are at “rest” and those who are in constant “motion.”  

E. And look at the context in "Thomas." Jesus said, if they ask you, what is the evidence that you are from the Light? - tell them, "It is motion and rest."

K. In other words, everyone is led by one of these. The world is in constant "motion" but those of the Light sense a state of "rest" at the soul level.

 

 

rest and motion

K. Would you say that the “rest and motion” of Thomas is related to McGilchrist’s concept?

E. Here’s what I see. McGilchrist is speaking out against the left-brain tendency to turn everything into a soulless “thing,” a machine. And when we see people as machines we rob them of their essential humanity.

K. And that essential humanity is always changing, in flux, becoming something more.

E. The left-brain, like the biologists McGilchrist decries, does not believe in quantum mechanics and its perpetual motion.

K. Machines do not grow and develop and so they don’t need the capacity for “eternal motion.”

E. The left-brain sees everything as static, lifeless, inert.

John is posterboy for left-brain thinking

K. And, of course, if “John” is dominated by left-brain thinking, he will devalue the personhood of “Mary.”

E. She’s a “thing” to him, just an object of pleasure.

K. When McGilchrist quotes the seventh-century theologian, the message seems to be, all things in God are moving and developing, yet there is also an aspect of remaining the same. God’s mind is reflected in the “hidden blueprints” and in Twins’ progression. The mind of God is always and forever at rest in, centered upon, virtue, love, kindness, and the like. This never changes. And yet the godly mind will be constantly growing, expanding innate potential. There’s nothing static about God’s mind or the spiritual growth of Twins: always reaching forward, always delighting in becoming more.


Postscript 

E. We spoke of “the calamity of impermanence.” Can we give the antidote, Kriss?

K. It’s a big subject, and I hate to give a quick answer, but, if I must, I’ll say this: Look at the article with all the different purposes of marriage. They’re all good but, focusing on one, if that’s all you have, it won’t last.

E. And why won’t it last?

Can the pleasures of love and marriage be made permanent?

K. Because any one of them is not a true representation of the mind of God. We need the full package. There may be attractions attendant to any of the levels, but they’re lower level attractions – anything is lower level if the mind of God is not truly represented.

E. The iron filings live in a “permanence.”

K. That’s right. Once a Twin couple accesses a more complete sense of the mind of God, then their underlying morphic field is substantially activated, the energy is much more fully online, and now their attraction for each other is not going away… None of these analogies perfectly describe the process. Words always fall short of the reality. But hopefully we have pointed in the right direction.

 

“You can’t make the creative act happen. You have to do certain things, otherwise it won’t happen. But it won’t happen while you are doing them.”

“What is required is an attentive response to something real and other than ourselves, of which we have only inklings at first, but which comes more and more into being through our response to it – if we are truly responsive to it. We nurture it into being; or not. In this it has something of the structure of love.”

- Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions

 

the structure of love

E. McGilchrist seems to be saying that creativity is a close sister to the “structure of love.” But does love have a “structure”? What do you think, Kriss?

K. Well, I wouldn’t have thought so, but after our discussion I’m finding some new perspectives. Let me ask this: Does the "love" or attraction of the iron filings to the energy field have a “structure”? Assuredly, it does. And how shall we define “love”? There are different definitions, but, for Twins, it’s all about that underlying morphic field. Without that, you have no relationship, and there’ll be no love – not the kind couples want.

E. “You can’t make the creative act happen.” And even if you’re Twins, you can’t just put it in your daytimer to feel all lovey-dovey at the appointed hour.

K. It is like creativity. The best we can do is “attend” to it; that is, remain open in one’s spirit, keep oneself from left-brain hegemony.

 

Editor's last word:

See Krishnamurti's lectures on "attending" or attention versus concentration.