Fragment 36

In this "Fragment" I want to discuss two books that I have recently read, and some of the insights and problems with the books. They do not pertain directly to the topic of Crossing the Abyss, but they are about thinking , so they indirectly apply to the topic of Crossing the Abyss. I also have a few things to say about working with the Excellent Goddess Nephthys. Yes, it is going to be a rambling "Fragment". The two books are: "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" by L. Shlain, and "The Master and his Emissary" by I. McGilchrist. Both books are about the Right-Left hemisphere split in the human brain, and how it has affected the history of Western Civilization. The first of the two books (also this is the order I read them in) "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" tries to identify the difference in the two hemispheres with gender. The right hemisphere is identified with the feminine thinking, and the left hemisphere with masculine thinking. To begin with this seems very problematic. How are we supposed to differentiate between "feminine" thinking and "masculine" thinking? This seems to be an overly simplistic model. This does not mean that the book is not entertaining, and does not have insights into the two types of thinking. It is the label that I do not like. So let us begin with an examination of the two types of thinking. According to split brain theories, the right brain looks at the big picture, uses context, can accept ambiguity, and is more pessimistic. The right brain is also more concerned with images and metaphor and other non-linear thinking. The left brain in contrast is adverse to metaphor, and images, is absurdly optimistic, and prefers language and logic to metaphor, images, and context. The right brain also does not like ambiguity or uncertainty. While Shlain tries to identify the two types of thinking with gender, McGilchrist does not, but on the two types of thinking he agrees in general with the above outline of the two types of thinking. It took me a while to understand the two types of thinking, and what they represent. As a matter of fact it was not until I was reading the last chapter of the last book that everything fell into place. The two types of thinking are what I have identified in past "Fragments" with magical thinking (right hemisphere), and compartmentalized thinking (left hemisphere). Right hemisphere thinking, I have identified with Bruno, J. Bohme, and the Renaissance Magi. Left hemisphere thinking with J. Calvin, P. Ramus, and M. Mersenne. So let us get back to Shlain's book: "The Alphabet versus the Goddess". Shlain does ask some very profound questions. Why do societies that forbid images are women denigrated, and treated as property? Islam is of course, the modern day example of this. Is there some connection to the alphabet and the forbidding of images? The ancient Israelites and Cannanites were the first people to use an alphabet. Second Commandment forbids all images, not just those of the divine. Shlain points out that there is no distinctive ancient Israelite art. How could there be in a society that bans images and ornamentation. Shlain's thesis is that societies that become literate and adopt an alphabet usually treat their women as inferiors. We all remember Moses being thankful that he was not born a woman. Shlain has collected an impressive amount of evidence for his theory. The trouble is he does not have a good reason why the suppression of images leads to the inferior status of women. He argues that somehow when the left brain suppresses the thinking of the right brain that women become inferior to men this answer seems too simplistic to me.While the Greeks did not treat their women that well, the Romans did more than anyone to strengthen monogamous marriage. This brings me to a fact Shlain did not address that it is polygamy that leads to treating women like property. Also the classical Greeks and Romans never forbid images, even though they had an alphabet. That being said, Shlain's book is worth reading and pondering. Let us now turn to McGilchrist, and his bood "The Master and his Emissary". McGilchrist does not make the mistake of identifying the split brain with gender, instead he uses the philosophy of Heidegger and the phenomenologists for the framework of his thesis on split brain theory. The part of Heidegger's philosophy that he uses the most is the Hermeneutic circle. That we go from subjectivity to objectivity to subjectivity. In simpler terms, We first experience the presented world as a whole, then we cut it into parts abstracting some features in which we then return to the presented world. An example should make this clear, I am using Heideggers' example of Newton's physics. Humans did not learn to build bridges by studying Newton's physics, instead they used trial and error. they then abstracted what works out of the trial and error, this becomes Newton's physics. Which then is returned to the world for use. The right brain would be the initial presented world, the left brain would be the abstraction of physics, and then the right brain would take over the abstraction and put them into context in the presented world. McGilchrist thinks that the left brain has usurped the place of the right brain as master. Instead of being a servant of the right brain the left brain has become the master. Again like Shlain, McGilchrist uses Western history to explain his theses. And again like Shlain I think McGilchrist's theory is too simplistic. In that he does not acknowledge outside influences on human activity. Of course, I am referring to my theory of the Egregores. That being said, McGilchrist's book is full of insights, especially when it comes to the modern world. That the left brain would turn society into a closed system. An overly optimistic closed system this type of thinking leads to Utopian thinking. As the twentieth century has shown Utopian thinking is a plague on the human race. So let us go to some quotes by McGilchrist; on how a left brain society would function. (all quotes taken from "The Master and the Emissary"): There would be an increase in both abstraction and reification, whereby the human body itself, and we ourselves, as well as the material world, and the works of art we made to understand it, would become simultaneously conceptual and seen as things"MGilchrist points out that the left hemisphere prefers to see things as mechanical or machines than living beings. This of course sounds familiar to the present day. Back to McGilchrist: "There is a complete loss of the sense of uniqueness. All of these features are identifiable as facilitated by the left hemisphere." Back to McGilchrist: "Philosophically, the world would be marked by fragmentation, appearing to its inhabitants as if a collection of bits and pieces apparently randomly thrown together: its organization, and therefore meaning,would come only through what we add to it, through systems designed to maximise utility, Because the mechanical world would the model by which everything including ourselves and and the natural would be understood, people in such a society would find it hard to understand the higher values in Schelers hierarchy of values, except by utility..." Let us now take a look at what such a government would look like: "Such a government would seek total control-it is an essential feature of the left hemisphere's take on the world that it can grasp it and control it." And of course the people governing would get very angry if it met with resistance. This would lead to a paranoid society. Like the one the progressives are trying to build. This is the direction the progressive left wants to lead us. To a society ruled by fear, and paranoia; where anything one says can cause them to get cancelled. This is one of the strong points of McGilchrist's analysis. That in a schizoid type society , schizoid type individuals would succeed, and become the leaders. The present day is of course proof of this claim. The Progressive ruling class is always paranoid, always virtue signalling living is fear that they shall become victims of the society they created. This should come as no surprise that in a sick society the sick would be the leaders. McGilchrist also has a lot of interesting insights on art. The trouble with McGilchrist is that it is too simplistic. Although he has diagnosed our present society, he does not seem to have a prescription. He does have some ideas of a solution coming from art. It is unfortunate that neither Shlain or McGilchrist were deeply read in Occultism. If they had been, they would have recognized that the two types of thinking they are examining were known for centuries: compartmentalized thinking, and magical thinking. And that the only way to restore the balance is through magical practice. Magical practice leads to magical thinking. So to conclude this part let me make some random remarks on the two books. To begin with "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" is an inferior book to "The Master and his Emissary". Shlain does ask a lot of interesting questions, about the use of imagery and the place of women in society. Shlain and McGilchrist believe that the left hemisphere has taken control of modern society. And that is why modern culture is so ugly and barren. McGilchrist makes the interesting point that not even art critics no longer talk about the beautiful. I have written elsewhere that flat ugly (schizophrenic) art is a reflection of the sterile inner state of modern humanity. I am suspicious of split brain theories. The trouble with split brain theories is that we do not have enough data. Research on split brain theories only goes back a few decades; less than a century. We have no data, or idea how an ancient, or a medieval individual's brain functioned. The other problem is of course, if a theory gets expanded too much, it explains nothing. I believe in a magical view of consciousness. Not that these theories are not valuable or interesting, but they are a product of their times. Humans have been telling stories of how things work since before recorded history, and in the centuries to come our theories (stories) shall look as outdated and quaint as theories from past centuries. The main insight I gained from McGilchrist's book is that modern societies are of a schizotypy nature. That the reason that many of the Western nations have chosen Progressive politicians is because compartmentalized thinking has led to a schizotypy form of society. And it is easy to observe the anger of the schizotypy personalities that inhabit the ruling and chattering class when events do not go their way. Cancel culture, the smearing of innocent individuals for political motives are all too common in the present day West. It should be easy to see how this anger could easily become political violence. Hoggg is the demon of the age, denigrating everything he touches, taking everything he can, and always asking for more. One last insight I got from the two books is the importance of history for a person. Both Shlain and McGilchrist used history to try out their theories. If an individual is deprived of a history they become an invalid, not having the vast panorama human experience to compare and test their theories and actions against. And of course this is another ambition of Hoggg and the Progressives is to wipe out history. I shall conclude with a few remarks of working with the Goddess Nephthys. I have made no secret that I have special devotion to Nephthys the Excellent Goddess. I have found Nephthys to be a gentle goddess, after all she is the goddess that leads the dead by the hand to the happy Isle of the Dead. The insight I gained was that I was wrong to call Nepthys a blind goddess. This is an insight I gained from reading McGilchrist, I am hoping this insight shall help when calling Nephthys, so let me conclude this "Fragment" with a quote from "The Master and the Emissary": "A thousand insights are not sufficient to prevent the living form being reduced to sight , when unaided by the other senses to a two dimensional diagram, what Herder calls a "pitiful polygon" This fate is avoided when the viewer's eye becomes his hand,"