Ian McGilchrist wrote something which has profoundly influenced the way I think about the world, our place in it, the way we interact with each other, and our culture. It's a book called "The Master and his Emisssary".

It is a very large book, great if you like covering all the bases, and really getting into the argument, which I found quite compelling. It lays out a model of how the brain functions, in which consciousness emerges from the interplay between two different, quasi-autonomous, counsciousnesses, which stem from the left and right brain. It does away with old theories of hemispheric differentiation (bicameral mind, anyone?) and sets out a new one, which can be summarised thusly: the between the hemispheres lies not so much in what is processed where, but rather in how it's processed.

Basically, as we go on about our days, we have two kinds of processing happening, which can be broadly characterised as processing-as-prey and processing-as-predator. Suppose we are attempting to hunt. We are using a certain type of focused awareness, that zooms in on our objective. In order for it to work, this awareness cannot be simultaneously paying attention to the foliage around our prey, the pretty sundown, even individuals other than the prey we've selected, such as other gazelles. I'm sure we've all been so absorbed in a single-minded (great word for this situation) pursuit that we couldn't hear other people talking directly to us. That's an example of how this type of awareness filters out many inputs, if it is to function correctly.

Here's the thing, though. In a world in which we are always predator, that might work. But we are also prey. And if we've presently so manipulated our environment so as to almost never be faced with predators, there's still hazards around. So, another type of awareness has to be there constantly - or we die. It's our consciousness as prey. If we are so absorbed with the gazelle we're hunting that nothing can shake us out of it, a predator will be able to get right next to us, and gobble us up. Or we might fall into a ravine. So, in order for the hunt to work, we need to have this other consciousness, which is not focused at all, but rather is constantly scanning the environment for the slightest hint of an approaching lion.

So, if we do hear a roar, our consciousness will be snapped out of predator mode and into prey mode. If our objective was to find something to eat, it has now changed to not become something that's eaten. Notice this implies that the counsciousness-as-prey has priority, it is the one which must be listened to if there's a conflict, as we can always hunt later, if we're still alive, but if we're eaten even once, well, then we can't hunt anymore, can we?

For McGilchrist, this suggests that the master counsciousness, which has its seat on the right hemisphere, sets out these objectives (find food, build house, get firewood, find a job) for his emissary to take care of. And if at any point the master counsciousness decides the objective has changed, it is changed immediately, and the emissary, who sits on the left hemisphere, has to execute the new plan.

The problem is that, when the emissary is going about the business of solving some narrowly defined problem, he must be left alone in order to function well. This may give it ideas, namely the idea that he is the only real consciousness, and he doesn't need the master at all. Such is, for McGilchrist, the state of our present culture. Any type of unfocused processing is frowned upon and left-hemispheric objectives rule the day. Hence, we have manipulated the world to rid ourselves from ever having to face a predator, or even hazards, as much as we can. The emissary, like a shady vizier, sees his dethronement with horror, and so individuals walk around doing what they can to never have to engage in any free-flowing thought which might create new ideas, objectives, and perhaps even re-generate the world.

The emissary works through language. It's one of his main tools. Mental chatter keeps consciousness from defaulting back to the master. Meditation may help us finding the master again, and update our programming to account for the change in the environment. Perhaps we have endeavoured to be very productive a few generations ago because we lived in times of food scarcity, and that urgency has trickled down the generations via left-hemispheric capture into the present time, where the threat to our food security lies arguably more with excessive productivity (diminishing returns, environmental collapse, etc) than with lack of human productivity.

Perhaps if we took a moment to listen to the master, we would see it that way. If we don't do it voluntarily, it will have to be done for us, in the form of a crisis, personal or global. I feel there's a few of us who've sensed this already, and are sending signs to the culture to get away from our present mode.

The second half of the book sets out a very high-level view of how McGilchrist believes the interplay between relative dominance of hemispheres has been recorded via art history. If I feel strongly that the first half is worth the read, though it may at times be a bit too dense for the causal read - not a criticism of the author, merely the suggestion that someone should write a more accessible version of the argument - this second half is too thin on the details and does that pursuit a disservice. It would have been better to ommit it altogether and perhaps do that work somewhere else, or suggest it be done by someone else. It even veers into the stereotypical, and perhaps even misunderstands the purpose of art as a vehicle for change, which is rarely to be found on statistical analysis but rather on contemplating the best examples. I may be too close to this subject, too critical of History of Art as a subject in and of itself, to serve as impartial judge (which I never claimed to be anyway) but suffice it to say that the second part is absolutely unnecessary to the arguments the book sets out and that one can be thoroughly persuaded by the first half while simultaneously rejecting the second. And since the book is about 600 pages long, if I remember correctly, knowing you may confidently read only half of it for a thorough understading of the argument will perhaps be greeted as good news by some of you. Perhaps even motivate a read.

Do be aware that it is a quite technical book, with a particularly long chapter at the beginning which the author understands will act as a bit of a hurdle before the argument is laid out. Know that time is not wasted and is necessary for you to stand on good stead in following the really meaty part of the argument. However, as set out before, there is perhaps space for a less thorough, more accessible, version of the argument to be published for more general consumption.

Heck, maybe I should write that one myself.