Back to Iain McGilchrist... I came across his work quite a few years back and bought his book, The Master and his Emissary. I see on my Kindle that I read 27% of it. So, I've started again - this time on Audible as I have a lot to read for the dreaded.
The two hemispheres' different ways of seeing the world seem to me to be related to this 'poised' state that I described in boxing and meditating - being both focused and open simultaneously. Both modes are important, critical for maximal survival, but usually we flip between, like the duck/rabbit illusion. And, he suggests, in the current era, the left is so prioritised that we are losing the use of the right.
In fact, this is how the analytic philosophy seems to me - all left... it's disembodied and detailed and full of confidence.
I haven't got far enough yet to say anything sensible, but what I am wondering is how this one-dimensional attitude affects ethical thinking. I'd really like to explore that.
As I've been reading papers for the dreaded, I've come across some things that seem significant in this respect. For example, when assessing the risks and benefits of a certain treatment, you can't do it without considering the individuality and subjectivity of the patient. A bald man won't be so upset by hair loss as a young woman; a person with insomnia might like to feel drowsy if she takes her medication at night.
The world can't be determined by rules. Logic in so many ethical arguments is founded on a feeling - that sentient beings find something aversive, say - that these arguments can never be divorced from bodies and minds.
I'd like to get in touch with IMcG, but I need something sensible to say.
Comments