Dialogue, as spoken in the days of Shakespeare, it seems MORE ELOQUENT than today’s speech, SO WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR SPEECH AND WHY?

 

“Iain McGilchrist’s book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, makes the case that the left hemisphere has taken over our minds and reshaped the world in its image in a way that is good for neither humans nor the planet and everything that lives on it.

“A way of thinking which is reductive, mechanistic has taken us over,” said McGilchrist in The Divided Brain.

 “We behave like people who have right hemisphere damage.

“The left hemisphere’s goal is to enable us to manipulate things, whereas the goal of the right hemisphere is to relate to things and understand them as a whole. Two ways of thinking that are both needed, but are fundamentally at the same time incompatible.”

“[The left hemisphere] treats the world as a simple resource to be exploited. It’s made us enormously powerful. It’s enabled us to become wealthy, but it’s also meant that we’ve lost the means to understand the world, to make sense of it, to feel satisfaction and fulfilment through our place in the world.”

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/neuroscientist-argues-the-left-side-of-our-brains-have-taken-over-our-minds-1.6219688#:~:text=*Originally%20published%20on%20October%2022,understand%20them%20as%20a%20whole.   “

 

Ok, McGilchrist is a NEUROSCIENTIST and he is describing what is going on from a NEUROSCIENTIST’S point of view, and his findings are REAFFIRMED in the languages of PHYSICS by Bohm and in PSYCHIATRY by Laing and Vygotsky and in Philosophy by Wittgenstein in the respective languages of their profession; i.e. THEY ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING; … i.e. as McGilchrist puts it, WE’VE LOST THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD.

 

*** NOTE ON LANGUAGE USAGE * * *

 

Since my investigations have been based in PHYSICS and the REVOLUTIONARY RE-THINKING of PHYSICS which has taken things from MATERIAL OBJECTS IN EMPTY SPACE, to the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM where we now recognize MATERIAL FORMS to be CONDENSATIONS OF THE ALL-INCLUDING PLENUM aka WAVE-FIELD, my preference has been to use the language of DAVID BOHM.  Bohm describes what is going on in the WAVE-FIELD based terms of “THE DROP OUT OF THE FEMALE CONJUGATE, referring the PEAKING and TROUGHING of the WAVE where the PEAKING is the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING component of the WAVE and the TROUGHING is the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING component of the WAVE, … and HERE WE MUST NOT FORGET that EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX so that PEAKING and TROUGHING only give the APPEARANCE that there are “PEAKS” and “TROUGHS”.   This is just a CAUTIONARY NOTE to remind ourselves that THERE ARE NO ACTUAL “THINGS” such “PEAKS” and “TROUGHS”, there is only “PEAKING” and “TROUGHING”.  We can’t CATCH A PEAK and put it in on display as a stand alone item, and likewise in regard to the TROUGH.

It is NOT my desire to COMPLICATE THE HELL OUT OF THINGS, thus CONFUSING THE READER, but having “WORKED” on the challenges of communicating these things for many years, I know that EVEN famous thinkers like PIAGET (as Vygotsky points out) SCREW UP by FORGETTING THAT WHILE OUR LANGUAGE HAS THE CAPABILITY OF PUTTING TOGETHER AN AMALGUM OF “TRUTH AND LIES” (LANGUAGE IS “PUTTY IN OUR HANDS”) IT SUPPORTS OUR MISTAKEN ELABORATIONS ON “WHAT A PEAK DOES” (“WE SAY THAT” IT GROWS LARGE AND PUSHES THINGS) and “WHAT A TROUGH DOES” (“WE SAY THAT” IT DEEPENS AND OPENS UP AND REALLY SUCKS), our MANNER OF SPEAKING in terms of WAVES, if we are not careful, CAN CONFUSE THE ISSUE and MISREPRESENT PHYSICAL REALITY, and, YES, VYGOTSKY IS CORRECT, PIAGET HAS REALLY SCREWED US UP, but we are OVERCOMING HIS SCREW-UP IN THIS NOTE.

*** END OF NOTE ON LANGUAGE USAGE * * * *

 

Ok, the above note is just a CAUTION to reminds ourselves that what we really need is a FLOW BASED LANGUAGE rather than the BEING BASED LANGUAGE that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are using, because by our giving a foundational role in our language to the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING (inventing things-that-be) and GRAMMAR (giving local authoring powers to the invented things-that-be), while it CONVENIENTLY BREAKS EVERYTHING UP INTO LOCAL, EXPLICIT SEPARATE FRAGMENTS, gives us in the same fell swoop, AN EXPOSURE TO ERROR BY WAY OF SPLITTING APART THAT WHICH, IN REALITY, IS INNATELY NON-SPLITTABLE; i.e. WHERE THE MATERIAL FORMS (CONTENT) AND THEIR ENERGY CHARGED PLENUM (CONTAINER) “ARE ONLY ONE”.

(more…)