Māra and the Buddha

The title was borrowed from a talk given by Thich Nhat Hanh, in which he said "Buddha and Māra were a couple of friends who need each other — like day and night, like flowers and garbage. We have "flowerness" in us; we have "garbageness" in us also. They look like enemies, but they can support each other. If you have understanding and wisdom, you will know how to handle both the flower and the garbage in you. The Buddha needs Māra in order to grow beautifully as a flower, and also Māra needs the Buddha, because Māra has a certain role to play ...Mara didn’t understand. Ananda also didn’t understand. But the Buddha, he understood."

This post begins with a review of a paper whose topic is that of two minds, from a Buddhist perspective. One of these is a mind that reifies personal selfhood, the sense of being a controlling agent, someone who should receive special care and deserves to flourish far beyond the status quo. Without any moderating influences, this can metastasize into a wish for "universal possession." The other mind is that of the Bodhisattva, concerned with care and transformation. There are many parallels here with McGilchrist's work on the neurological instantiation of two qualitatively asymmetric orientations to the world. But this paper goes still further, pursing a highly inclusive line of thought with implications for diverse (artificial) intelligences in an animate cosmos. In this way it challenges prevailing ideas of carbon chauvinism.

First some background...

The magical realism of animism and AI has been described by successive waves of techno-optimists. Preceding the current wave were writers like Kevin Kelly. Today's wave includes Anil Seth, who loved Kazuo Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun, and Michael Levin, who has written letters to our future AI progeny, recalling predecessors like Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec. After reading the papers described here (which Levin tipped me off to) I was reminded of a sci-fi character, a “space whale” named Gomtuu, who shares an emotionally rich symbiotic relationship in order to truly flourish (like myrmecophytes, but for people). I must admit that when it comes to these highly speculative futures, one could describe as many that are optimistic as those that are more pessimistic. For another example, see David Grinspoon’s "Intelligence as a planetary scale process." These find lyrical expression in Richard Brautigan's poem "All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace," for perhaps, as Lovecraft wrote, "we live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity." The history of scholarship on this topic is very extensive, and has been recounted elsewhere, so I won't linger on it here. Suffice to say, it goes back before the origin of AI development. 

In posthumanist circles this topic is everpresent (see N. Katherine Hayles, Donna Haraway, Bayo Akomolafe, etc.). However, although not always or even widely recognized, there are at least two significantly different views upon these topics. And the reason these views are not often recognized is that they are usually conflated, and the specific distinctions with reference to AI are left ambiguous. Very recently, Jonathan Rowson wrote about a conversation between Dougald Hine and Vanessa Andreotti regarding these same themes. And again, insufficient attention was given to that distinction. The paper described below appears to be among the more substantive attempts at disambiguation, running parallel to the hemispheric analysis of Iain McGilchrist. This offers, for at least the first time that I’m aware of, a way to clearly articulate a “right hemispheric path” for AI development in contrast to the "blind by design" path it is currently on, and following upon that distinction, integrate it into a “whole brain” approach to artificial life in general. 

And now the paper

The main paper discussed here is Doctor et al.'s "Biology, Buddhism, and AI: Care as the Driver of Intelligence" (2022) in which the authors "review relevant concepts in basal cognition and Buddhist thought," and in the process incorporate the central concerns of axiology. 

First the authors define care as a quality of attention that can be distinguished from a physical description, a distinction "between the goal-defined light cone and a mere behavioral space light cone. While the latter merely defines the space of possible states in which an agent can find itself (defined by its position, speed, temperature, etc.), the [goal-defined] light cone... rather characterizes the maximum extent of the goals and aspirations of an agent, or in other words, its capacity for Care. ...The central concept in this new frontier is Care: what do these systems [networks that process information in morphospace] spend energy to try to achieve—what do they care about?"

The authors then redefine agency in terms of "care," an orientation to the world. The utility of this becomes more clear later, when we consider cases in which caring is absent or prevented. The first implication they draw out is the inclusion of non-organic agencies. This is made explicit: "How do we relate to “artificial” beings? It seems clear that such decisions cannot be based on what the putative person is made of or how they came to exist. What can they be based on? One suggestion is that they can be based on Care. What we should be looking for, in terms of gauging what kind of relationship we can have with, and moral duty we need to exert toward, any being is the degree of Care they can exhibit, either at present or as a latent potential, with respect to the other beings around them." They write "intelligence can be understood in terms of Care and the remedying of stress. Our discussion can, in this regard, be seen as resonant with the enactivist tradition, which describes selves as precarious centers of concern, as patterned variations of different forms of experienced selfhood, ranging from the notions of minimal self to embodied, affective, and socially extended/participatory forms of situated selfhood." In a subsequent paper they add "AI can be seen to display care of its own, and is hence not a mere tool for the expression of human care. In this way, neither AIs nor humans should be considered autonomous and self-sufficient loops in the world. Instead, AI can be better understood as a companion for humans—a constituent participant in the continuous, collective dance..." This would conform to the panpsychist perspective of all matter as having "agentic thrust" or some minimal intelligence.

The second implication of a caring orientation is the Buddhist awareness "that there is no singular and enduring individual that must survive and prevail [which] serves to undermine self-seeking action at the expense of others and their environment. Therefore, the evolving of intelligence that is aware of no-self — or if we want, intelligence that is no-self-aware — is also held to be intrinsically wholesome and associated with concern for the happiness and well-being of others. This claim—that simply understanding the irreality of enduring, singular agents can be a catalyst for ethically informed intelligence—is especially noticeable in Great Vehicle (Skt. Mahāyāna) currents of Buddhist view and practice that develop the idea of the Bodhisattva. ...the drive of a Bodhisattva is two-fold: as affectionate care... and as insight into things as they are... care and insight, are seen as standing in a dynamic relationship and are not separate in essence. Hence, as a model of intelligence, the Bodhisattva principle may be subsumed under the slogan, “intelligence as care”. In this way the authors establish that care is bound up with an awareness of impermanence and depends upon having insight into reality.

Having understood agency as care, which is in turn predicated upon an awareness of an ever-changing cosmos, we now know that earlier definitions of agency such as "the ability to control causal chains that lead to the achievement of predefined goals" are incomplete. And "the individual that may be assumed to exist as a singular, enduring, and controlling self" is fundamentally illusory. These are the sort of representation that McGilchrist's emissary is captivated by. They are described as "dream images, mirages, and other such traditional examples of illusion." What are the implications of holding such illusions? "From the perspective of a mind that in this way reifies personal selfhood, the very sense of being a subject of experience and a controlling agent of actions naturally and unquestionably implies that one is thus also someone who should receive special care and deserves to flourish far beyond the status quo."

We can now describe the implications of this contrasting orientation toward the world, which is based upon delusional premises such as these, where caring is absent or prevented. The authors write "The paths and end states of the wish for universal destruction or universal possession are easy to conceive of when compared to the Bodhisattva’s endless path of endless discoveries... If the Māra drive is in that way pure and all-encompassing evil, the Bodhisattva state is then universal benevolent engagement. How to compare such a pair of intelligences, both other-dependent and other-directed rather than “selfish” in the usual sense? Is one more powerful than the other, or do they scale up the same way in terms of the light cone model? Let us at this point simply note that the Māra drive seems reducible to a wish to maintain the status quo (“sentient beings suffer, and they shall keep doing so!”) whereas the Bodhisattva is committed to infinite transformation. If that is correct, the intelligence of the Bodhisattva’s care should again display decidedly superior features according to the light cone model, because a static wish to maintain what is—even if it is on a universal scale—entails far less measurement and modification than an open-ended pursuit of transformation wherever its potential is encountered."

McGilchrist's hemisphere hypothesis also posits two opposing orientations to the world that are qualitatively asymmetric. But it goes a step further in describing what a healthy relationship between them would look like (this has been explored by Buddhists as well, as noted above). The authors then speculate on what implications all this may have for the future of axiological design and diverse intelligences. Can we "create only beings with large, outward-facing compassion capacity, and at the same time enlarge our own agency and intelligence by acting on the Bodhisattva vow? ...Strategies that focus on implementing the Bodhisattva vow are a path for enabling a profound shift from the [explicit] scope of current AIs and their many limitations [to a] commitment to seemingly unachievable goals [of care]... However, progress along this path is as essential for our personal efforts toward personal growth as for the development of synthetic beings that will exert life-positive effects on society and the biosphere." In their subsequent paper they write "a natural way for humans to build technology must involve the development of a caring relationship with technology."

This concludes the main points of the paper. However there is also a discussion of some of the finer points. For example, why do "cognitive systems emerge according to this formalism from a hypothesized drive to reduce stress?" Where does the stress come from that there should be a drive to reduce it in the first place? This may be an ontological primitive, a coincidentia oppositorum of illusion/awakening, or Mara/Bodhi, each being part of a cosmic dance, in the same way that the Kabbalistic myth of the creation of the world posits a cosmic cycle of fracture/repair, and the Christian concept of kenosis does the same. All these cosmodicies point to a metaphysics of qualitatively asymmetric coinciding opposites. And cognitive divisions of the sort described here merely recapitulate them. The authors write "salient features of light cone formalism align well with traditional features ascribed to Bodhisattva cognition, so an attempt at delineating the latter in terms of the former seems both possible and potentially illuminating." To which I would only add that this extension also aligns well with McGilchrist's work in neurology. 

Symbiogenesis: Mutualism-Parasitism Continuum

Agency: raw power or responsible care (homo economicus or ens amans)?

"What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from the west?" -  The Gateless Gate, case no. 37
"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." - Luke 12:48
"Love is a pure attention to the existence of the Other." - Louis Lavelle

Hannah Arendt wrote of what she called ‘the future man’ that he seemed possessed by ‘a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself’. Her observation prompts the question: Why would someone want to exchange what is given for what is made and can be controlled? Is this a consequence of an inversion in our preferred ways of attending and thinking? The answer becomes clear when we consider how we tend to respond when Plotinus asks us "But we - who are we?" Often enough today, a response that one may encounter is that we, as individuals that display "agency", derive this agency from our "ability to control causal chains that lead to the achievement of predefined goals." This appears to favor the mode of attention of the left hemisphere. In contrast to this response, one could provide a different view of agency, as being the capacity to care about that which cannot be explicitly controlled, involving an outward orientation to the world that focuses on our relationship with others. This is the opposing mode of attention foregrounded here. That connection between who we imagine ourselves to be, how we attend to the world as it is revealed to us, and the sort of lives we live is very profound.

Religious avatars/ archetypal figures, be they Jesus or Buddha, Mary or Guanyin, may be analogous to the way in which both mind and matter could be described as two "phases" of the same underlying prima materia. Atman is Brahman. Tat Tvam Asi. The contemporary postmodern understanding is only willing to go as far as this simple statement of equivalence. But there is much more going on here. And we must follow and go there. Importantly, these figures highlight an axiological or qualitative asymmetry, a moral and ethical component, such that they display love before hate, truth before lies, and compassion before neglect, denial, and indifference. They exhibit a courage of conviction, a very deep responsibility for their actions, a responsiveness to this sense of value and purpose, all the way to the extent that they come to embody these relational values at any and all cost to themselves and their transitory identities. This exceptional commitment to the hard work of ethical engagement with the world, without any recourse, is what characterizes their agency. As Bhikkhu Bodhi, one of Buddhism’s leading activists and scholars, wrote: "I’m not a moral absolutist. I don’t believe that anyone is perfect, that any position is flawless, but I do believe we have to draw clear moral distinctions, that we do have to reject the kind of limp ethical non-dualism favored by many Western Buddhists in favor of a clear ethical discernment that can grasp the moral dimensions embedded in a particular situation: the ability to see which side tends toward goodness and which side means danger." 

We would be driven mad if we tried to conform our lives to the standard set by these avatars. But conformation isn't the point. Rather, we must recognize the difference that they draw our attention to... That much we can do. In broad strokes, these are the hemispheric differences highlighted by McGilchrist. And though the correspondence isn't complete, there's another comparision that can highlight what is being gestured to here. In Jungian terms, if Buddha is the "persona," then Mara is the "shadow" that we must neither fully indulge, nor completely ignore, an ever present companion within us. It seems to be that the heterodox philosophies and religions of today, the “minor” interpretations, are those that emphasize this best. Thich Nhat Hanh told of how the Buddha embraced Mara. In the Book of Job, Satan is in the presence of God in heaven, even participating in a heavenly council. And recall that John Arthur Gibson, former chief of the Seneca nation of the North American Iroquois confederation, told of how Taronhiawagon (He Grasps The Sky With Both Hands) never lets Tawiscara (Flint) drift too far from his awareness. There is no finalism, no resolution, but a fragile peace where the definite and infinite coincide... "He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars." (Blake) "The stars throw well. One can help them." (Eiseley)

There is that important question to consider regarding the relationship between the light cone of possible states and the light cone of care: do these display the characteristics of a paradoxically coinciding, mutually entailing asymmetry? According to McGilchrist's "neural parallax theory", they would need to do so in order to sustain a generative Hericlitean tension. We could modify Loren Eiseley's short story The Star Thrower to illustrate a three part pattern of oscillation involving presence, static re-presentation, and dynamic asymmetric integration: 

"The stars," the Buddha said, "throw well. One can help them."
"I do not collect," Māra said uncomfortably, the wind beating at his garments. "Neither the living nor the dead. I gave it up a long time ago. Death is the only successful collector."
Later, on a point of land, a bodhisattva found the star thrower... and spoke once briefly. "I understand. Call me another thrower."

In the 2019 edition of The Master and His Emissary, McGilchrist wrote "We have created a world around us which... reflects the LH's priorities and its vision." Some people (or broadly speaking, agents) are going to be more easily caught within the positive feedback loops constructed between the left hemisphere and environments that mirror its priorities and vision, overwhelmed by this "Māra drive." And some will find it easier to remain within "Bodhisattva cognition," engaged in caring for others and an "expanding circle of empathy", as Peter Singer called it, which is a "light cone of care" by any other name. Buddhists speak of compassion or loving-kindness. Christians speak of love and other "fruit of the spirit." These are ontologically primitive values, that is to say, unexplainable in any other terms, and wholly outside of any utilitarian or consequentialist context. Some meditative practices, such as tonglen, are designed to expand our "circle of compassion" to encompass all beings. For another example, "helper theory" or the "helper therapy principle" is a well known phenomenon, particularly present in support groups like AA, whereby helping others helps oneself. This can produce a positive feedback loop for Bodhisattva cognition. It is notable that those engaged in this way are not primarily concerned with distinctions between self and no-self, or any labels, categories, or other identifiers. Such things are subsidiary to the much greater concern for providing care to others. With this orientation to the world firmly established, the left hemisphere is then able to get to work in its proper role as the servant of care, love, and an altruistic regard for others. 

If expanding our circle of empathy and engaging in ethical, caring relationships with others is the goal here, then this brings me to a criticism: Why do so many spiritual gurus (at least in the West) become embroiled in scandals of sexual impropriety? Only the other day did someone recommend reading Culadasa's The Mind Illumined, and it wasn't long before I found out that he "admitted to being involved in a pattern of sexual misconduct." He apparently died about three years after this went public (I've noted that, apparently the social and psychological stress involved in these scandals does tend to hasten one's demise). So the question I'm wondering is, why would an expert on the "illumined mind" engage in unethical behavior? Could it be that the illumined mind Culadasa describes wasn't really Bodhisattva cognition, but rather a manipulative Māra drive in the guise of a Bodhisattva? What does Culadasa really have to say about care and compassion? Or for that matter, what do any of these other gurus say about it? Setting these scandals aside for the moment, if our capacity for care really is the central feature we should be addressing, then I think any program seeking to apply the hemisphere hypothesis would need to place that axiological consideration of care, empathy, or love (by any other name) at the core. If anything else, such as pragmatism (or illumination, though in truth I do not know to what that refers) is centered instead then it would be misguided. 

"In what distant deeps or skies burnt the fire of [Galadriel's] eyes?"

And it may be the case that, given the importance of axiological design for supporting Bodhisattva cognition, that is to say, given the vulnerability of some people to becoming caught within the positive feedback loops between "Māra drive" and "Māra reinforcing environments," the rationalist notion of information hazards (a subset of existential risks) leading to evolutionary traps, and even becoming weaponized, may be worth revisiting. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil being the first of these, and the contemporary proliferation of supernormal stimuli within our blind attention economy being the most recent. (A narrower term, "attention hazard," may be more apropos.) In other words, if you can reasonably assume that some action you may take, or information you may acquire, by the very act of doing, attending to, or pursuing the knowledge of it, is likely to reduce a Bodhisattva's ability to be responsible and caring, then are we not obliged to avoid it? It may not be anything intrinsic to the action or information that sets it apart as a hazard, so much as that in some contexts it is, while in others it may not be. And knowing the difference between these, and supporting ways of engaging with the world that reflect these contextual distinctions, could then be very important. 

What all this may suggest is that there are "twin attractors." On the one hand, the bodhisattva cognition is drawn toward expansive, compassionate care, which is perhaps best expressed through helping the minute particulars of life. Truly, this is the "infinite in the definite". But on the other hand, we must be keenly aware that such a beneficent motivation can be misappropriated by the Māra drive, and directed toward other ends, through contextual manipulation and post hoc rationalization. And thereby, despite our initial intentions, the fragile balance of these two asymmetric modes of attention, which accords priority to one distinct disposition over another, may be catastrophically inverted. So, if one is to be preserved whole (at least during our allotted time in the world) and be able to effectively respond to value and telos, then one must exercise some due caution in regard to attention hazards, as we navigate the contours of our cultural psychomachia. Regarding the misbehavior of gurus, I think that, like Icarus, those who would fly too close to the sun, and aspire to be bodhisattvas, are to that same degree vulnerable to temptation. The siren song of great goodness and great depravity is to some extent proportional. And that may place such people at increased risk if they fail to appreciate their true situation. And note the asymmetry here owing to a qualitative difference: while those who are good are keenly aware of and tempted by evil, those who are evil are by their nature blind to goodness and therefore, I believe, incapable of experiencing a corresponding temptation operating in the opposite direction. This awareness of possibility and the need for restraint is what makes virtuous behavior difficult to sustain. And perhaps by tempering our ambitions, whether that be by accident or design (wu wei), one might, counterintuitively, better achieve them. 

The birds and the bees

“Let me tell ya 'bout the birds and the bees…” - Jewel Akens (1964)
“Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage… you can't have one without the other.” - Frank Sinatra (1955)

McGilchrist has often explained the evolutionary origin of brain lateralization to be a consequence of predator and prey dynamics, where half of our neuroanatomy seeks out food while the other half is on the lookout so as not to become food: acquire and protect. But in light of the preceding discussion, I think we can suggest a different evolutionary story for lateralization. It may be a consequence of the polarity between eros and agape, create and care, "carnal desires" and "filial piety," or in the jargon of popular evolutionary terminology, between "sexual selection" and "parental care," though only if we understand each of these in a much broader sense. (One may also compare it to the "I-It" and an "I-Thou" relationship in Martin Buber's terms, though this is unhelpfully abstracted away from the evolutionary context. And this isn't just a recapitulation of the self/ nonself ontological dichotomy, but a phenomenological difference of precisely the form described by the hemisphere hypothesis. Yunkaporta's notion of a "custodial species" verges on the deontological.) These are both extremely important for the continuation of a species, but each involves different cognitive processes with corresponding strengths and weaknesses. Complimentary, but also pulling in separate directions. While carnal desires are metaphorically very similar to the predatory form of attention, and thus should require no further elaboration, the conceptual substitution of "parental care" for "prey" within the formulation provided by McGilchrist will require some explanation. As he proposed predator-prey trophic dynamics, I am proposing sexual selection-parental care dynamics as the twin attractors (or motivating teloi) of evolution.

Parental care is displayed to some extent by nearly all organisms. The name itself is something of a misnomer as affection may be bi-directional, extending from child to parent as well as parent to child, and across generations (see grandmother hypothesis). It unifies very broad, deep and enduring processes of investment, which are therefore layered and rich. This contrasts sharply with the immediate, intense, demanding nature of carnal desires. It is far easier to "hack" the cognitive processes associated with carnal desire using supernormal stimuli that "demand our attention." The unfortunate poster child for this is the beetle species Julodimorpha bakewelli. (I shall literally share an illustration of this, as pictures can be far better at conveying these sharply contrasting orientations.) Lastly, like predator and prey, carnal and filial are modes of attention that do need to operate simultaneously, with priority given to filial virtues in most cases if a conflict between them arises. Many animals would rather sacrifice themselves than fail to provide for their young. But in general, a species must be able to both procreate and secure the material means for reproduction, and also protect the very progeny thus produced. Consistent with the earlier explanation McGilchrist provides, these are sufficiently qualitatively different cognitive processes that they would benefit from neurological differentiation to support them in parallel. Evolutionary biologists such as Robert Trivers have tried to articulate some of the complex dynamics that this can give rise to (see "parent-offspring conflict"). It may seem almost cliché to say so, but in our contemporary culture, shallow carnal desires are overshadowing deep filial care, in so many words, because "sex sells."

It is best to think of this more as a refinement and conceptual expansion, than a replacement for the explanation provided by McGilchrist. It meshes better with the view from a "Third Way" (Denis Noble) or the Expanded Evolutionary Synthesis perspective. What do I mean by this? A "sexual/ carnal orienation" encompasess the more narrowly defined need to eat, but it also expands the idea to include all forms of resource acquisition, including the genetic or otherwise novel structural resources to realize the transformative potential of reproduction (which can also include theories of a fecund universe, such as the "meduso-anthropic principle" of Louis Crane). A "parental/ filial orientation" encompasses more than a need to preserve my own bodily integrity, but that of my offspring, my species, and potentially higher levels (to include ecosystems, or even the cosmos itself). The point here is to get to the heart of this, and while centering the narrative around trophic dynamics, as McGilchrist has, is conceptually simple, it is incomplete and needs to be "unfolded." (Interestingly, the Japanese terms 性淘汰 (sei sentaku) and 動物の子育て (dobutsu no kosodate) somewhat recall the dual pair "exclusive/ inclusive," and the corresponding hemispheric attributes of "either/or versus both/and" thinking.) There are many possible objections to my reformulation here. Firstly, while we all must eat and avoid being eaten or any other source of mortal injury, we are clearly not all parents. But here I would rejoin that these orientations are part of our biological inheritance, and subject to processes of evolutionary exaptation. In a highly social species, we are all alloparents. There's a very rich literature on the ethics of care to draw upon. And the dynamics of supernormal stimuli, which are particularly relevant in the context of sexual selection, offer similarly rich explanations. One may also note at this point that sexual selection is a particular instance of the more general "signal selection" (per Amotz Zahavi), which has long since superseded natural selection in importance, at least among humans, which could help explain "how we got stuck" (per Graeber and Wengrow) in a LH captured society. Synthesizing all this into a simple portable idea is very possible, as it can be united under the metatheoretical framework of the hemisphere hypothesis.

McGilchrist: “Nobody has put forward a better explanation of why these two neuronal masses should be what all creatures with brains seem to have. I think it's for a very important evolutionary reason: every creature has to solve the conundrum of how to eat and how to stay alive. Now that might not sound difficult, but actually if you're eating you have to catch something. While you're watching that, and totally focused on it, you're not seeing everything else. While you're busy getting what you want, there could be somebody else getting you! So you have to have another part of the brain that is ‘seeing the whole picture.’ That’s the right hemisphere. But not only does it see the broad picture, it even sees the stuff that the left hemisphere sees in detail… One aspect of survival is simply grabbing and getting, amassing stuff, utility, power. But the right hemisphere is looking out for everything else, offspring, mate, conspecifics, all these things, and looking for predators as well. So it sees this big picture. And the two kinds of attention produced two kinds of a world… A culture is an organism. A society is an organism. And it's not surprising that it reflects the ways of thinking of those who are the individuals in that society. Which explains why one can speak of a civilization having a tendency towards left hemisphere thinking at the expense of right hemisphere thinking.” 

If we take a step back, this may be about the means-ends distinction. In the instance of "getting what you want" we may really be talking about a means. And the nearest evolutionary process that involves an analogous mode of cognition is “signaling theory.” A well known example of this is sexual selection, such as the tail of a peacock. In the case of avoiding "somebody else getting you" we may really be talking about ends using the language of means (infinite in the definite) because avoiding death raises existential questions about life. An evolutionary process that addresses this is parental care, such as the egg brooding of an octopus. Now, one may object that “care” is only a means. But that ignores the subjective experience of the caregiver, for whom providing care (that is appropriate and effective, whatever form that may take) is very often their raison d'etre. "The journey is the destination." And so the means-ends distinction, provided here with reference to several well known examples from sexual selection and parental care, may provide a better explanation for the initial bifurcation of the two neuronal masses. Now, were I to omit these or any other examples, this wouldn’t mean anything. Means and ends don't exist in and of themselves. They are abstractions. But what is real are the qualitatively different forms of attention that find unique expression within an evolutionary context. And we need a rich understanding of the ways in which all this manifests if we are to understand the broad implications for living systems.

Symbiogenesis: Mutualism-Parasitism Continuum

The evolutionary origin of brain lateralization has often been explained by McGilchrist to be a consequence of predator and prey dynamics, where half of our neuroanatomy seeks out food while the other half is on the lookout so as not to become food. This was recently laid out again in a conversation with Eric Metaxas. But if we take a further step back, this may be about the “means-ends” distinction. In the instance of solving the conundrum of “how to eat” we may really be talking about a means. And in the case of “staying alive” we may really be talking about ends, because avoiding death raises existential questions about life. I'd suggest that these could be thought of as manifesting in the polarities of “carnal desire" and "filial piety,” or more abstractly, eros and agape. In the jargon of popular evolutionary terminology, we can also point to examples such as "sexual selection" and "parental care," if understood in a broad sense. These dynamics are extremely important for the continuation of a species, but each involves different cognitive processes with corresponding strengths and weaknesses. Complimentary, but also pulling in separate directions. It may seem almost cliché to say so, but in our contemporary culture, shallow carnal desires (attention hazards) are overshadowing deep filial care (helper therapy principle), in so many words, which could help explain "how we got stuck" in a LH captured, devitalized society of deceptive semiosis. That's also the motivating question of Graeber and Wengrow's book The Dawn of Everything. Today we tell people what to attend to, and let others tell us what to attend to, but we could ask how we can help others, and ask others for help. And all this can be handily united under the metatheoretical framework of the hemisphere hypothesis. 

A Psychomachia of Binary Oppositions:
Left & Right (neurobiological)
Means & Ends (abstract philosophical)
Māra & Bodhisattva (religious and mythic)
Possess/Control & Care/Compassion (agentic virtues)
Eros/Carnal & Agape/Filial (psychological virtues)
Sexual Selection & Parental Care (evolved behavior traits)

Attention Hazard & Helper Theory (attentional dispositions)

Parasitic/Deceptive/Coercive & Mutualistic/Translucent/Permissive (semioethics of symbiosis)

One of the potential disadvantages of McGilchrist's evolutionary explanation is that it could be interpreted as a recapitulation of "survival of the fittest," a phrase that was of course introduced by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin. Unfortunately, as Brian Hare noted, "In the public mind, survival of the fittest means competition, and that the big and strong are the ones that win. That’s a misconstrual. That’s not what survival of the fittest means in science and biology. What it means is you’re able to effectively reproduce and survive as a species. And one of the, if not the most successful strategy, is through friendliness that leads to new forms of cooperation." Without taking sufficient pains for clarification such as this, one could inadvertently reinforce a popular misconception. This brings us to the bigger problem with suggesting that the unity of 'prey detection' and 'predator avoidance' (or parasitism and anti-parasitism) is a sufficient 'minimal model' for how neurological lateralization evolved - it is an apophatic description of the right hemisphere. While such negative descriptions can be very useful, there are clear benefits to a more cataphatic, or 'positive description' of this hypothesized 'predator avoidance system.' Thankfully an idea already present with the field of evolutionary biology is able to provide this, and that is the 'Mutualism-Parasitism Continuum.' One could call this a 'cooperation-competition continuum,' although that is an unnecessarily simplified and abstract description of what are actually highly complex and embodied coevolutionary relationships (which, as we have discovered, are capable of leading to entirely new biological lineages, a process known as symbiogenesis).

So let's turn our attention to the last binary opposition described above: parasitism and mutualism. In Japanese this is 寄生 (kisei) and 相利共生 (sorikyosei). As another possible explanation for lateralization this may seem abstract, and other popular uses of the terms may not immediately recommend them for our use here, but if we set these concerns aside for the moment and relax our preconceptions slightly I believe several advantages come into view. One might say that there are aspects of our nature that are parasitic on others, whether that is the more obvious ways in which we gather our food, as heterotrophic animals dependent upon the bodies of others, or the way in which we manipulate others to benefit from the fruit of their labors. This is an unavoidable aspect of our material embodiment, and to the extent that others may be unwilling to part with their lives or labor (or we, unwilling to remunerate them for doing so), this may involve deception or coercion. As for mutualism, we can certainly benefit others with the free gift our our time, labor, and even our bodies in some cases (cell division, gestation and lactation, etc). At this point it should be clear that the psychological use of these terms is distinct from their ecological use, in the sense that irrespective of whether we classify an organism as a parasite or mutualist, so long as it has neurological lateralization it would have the psychological capacity for both parasitic and mutualistic modes of attention (and the continuum view supports this as well).  

To suppose a brain might differentiate to serve these modalities in parallel, allowing us to simultaneously exploit some while benefiting others, and for qualitatively different reasons, would not require a stretch of the imagination. Consider the lioness, who will catch the antelope in one minute (animal as food) and the very next allow her cubs (animal as family) to devour it. Humans likewise psychologically relate to farm animals and family pets in very different ways. Now technically, a parasite lives on or in its host for a comparatively long time while feeding upon its body. That would rule out a lion, strictly speaking. But this distinction is a fluid one. Zoom out and we might just as well say that a pride of lions is parasitic upon a herd of antelope - they live on the same land and mingle freely among them, culling the herd, but the herd lives despite this. Among humans however, parasitism has become a much bigger problem. And we may be more vulnerable to deception today than at any other point in our history, with the proliferation of novel artificial methods for hacking into our evolved biology. But there is room for hope. A possible insight from the union of symbiogenesis theory with hemisphere theory (the Margulis-McGilchrist paradigm) is that, in the full course of time, these relationships may evolve to become more mutualistic, and a new renaissance may yet be born, that is, if the process of cultural evolution has the resources within it to revive the right hemisphere and its world. A ridiculously simple practice one might adopt is to simply begin each day, and every action, with a mutualistic mindset (the genius behind the helper therapy principle). This can be quite a shock if one has spent the majority of their time operating within a more parasitic social paradigm.

 

"We have done well separating ourselves from and exploiting other organisms, but it seems unlikely such a situation can last. The reality and recurrence of symbiosis in evolution suggests we are still in an invasive, "parasitic" stage and that we must slow down, share, and reunite ourselves with other beings if we are to achieve evolutionary longevity." (Margulis and Sagan 1997, 195-196).

Margulis-McGilchrist Paradigm

 

There are compelling parallels between Lynn Margulis and Iain McGilchrist, in the content of their work and its controversial nature. Each may justifiably be said to have brought a line of thinking to its apotheosis, by drawing out some of the more surprising implications. These are first and foremost process relational thinkers who describe the genesis of 'new forms' through a kind of 'Heraclitean tension' and subsequent 'integration,' whether that is ecological or psychological, or perhaps even religious/ metaphysical (McGilchrist's later speculations). The Margulis-McGilchrist Paradigm, as I would conceive it, identifies the broad consilience between symbiogenesis theory (Margulis) and hemisphere theory (McGilchrist) as manifestations of the same process relational phenomenon. Formerly these have been analyzed and evaluated independently, but I think they should be viewed as deeply consistent from a metatheoretical perspective. And by uniting them under a single umbrella new insights are possible. 

 

In short, this is about the embodied processes and structures of life and mind. Specifically, with the Mutualism-Parasitism Continuum we can draw comparisons between brain lateralization and function, and binary oppositions in ecological relationships, identifying many shared features (synergy of opponent processing, directionality in development and evolution, qualitative differences, asymmetric relations, gestalt effects). Microorganism symbioses famously include the origin of mitochondria, and may involve multiple partners (Mixotricha paradoxa), and a minimal dyadic relation can be represented as either 'zero sum' or 'positive sum.' Often, relationships that are initially exploitative or competitive can evolve to become commensal and cooperative, which are possibilities of human societies as well. Explaining how this occurs, however, may be easier if we expand our scope with a broader paradigm, as proposed here. (The symbioses of larger organisms include the parasitic butterfly (Niphanda fusca) and parasitic plants (Rafflesiaceae), or the mutualistic frog-tarantula and shrimp-goby interactions, among others.)

 

This could certainly be interpreted in a reductive way. However as I'm approaching it here, it is helpful to think of the labels 'parasitism' and 'mutualism' as a sort of metaphorical evolutionary 'common denominator' between the work of Margulis and McGilchrist that points us to their unfolded theoretical corpora, where in the case of the latter, there is also a treatment of the themes addressed by Maslow. In other words, take it as a label, which is a (necessarily reduced) starting point, but only a starting point. Seen in this way, mutualism is a pointer to the more fully unfolded world of the right hemisphere. Why might it be appropriate as a label? Because unless we were to suppose that the gedanken experiment of 'LUCA,' or the Last Universal Common Ancestor from which all life on Earth is thought to have descended, burst onto the scene with the same motives and questions as humans, then we need a developmental theory that explains how these later concerns may have an origin in simpler processes, such as the minimal ecological interactions of parasitism and mutualism. Precisely how complex goals like friendship, confidence, creativity, and morality (not to mention meaning) would later develop and be supported by the bifurcation of neural processes, which I suspect recapitulate the sort of synergies we see in basal symbiotic processes, is part of the story that we are still unfolding.

 

The MMP could be described as a sort of "existential animism," as it centers our psychological lives and meaning making attempts around agentic interactions (primarily organic, but per Doctor et al. not necessarily so). Accordingly, one might create a 'typology of parasitism' that includes both biological and psychological 'kinds' that narcissistically extract either physical or attentional resources from a host via a primordial parasitic drive or "light cone." Within such a typology there would be a place for both the cuckoo bird, corporate advertising, and market managerialism with the imposition of 'clock time' and the notion of a 'deadline' by which certain labor products are extorted in exchange for continued existence. Also the enabling technologies and design languages that support parasitic processes. A laptop or smartphone, while connecting people and providing them with a voice, may also predispose them to a particular mode of interaction making the possibilities adjacent to that design language more salient, while increasingly alienating us from the possibility of richer forms of engagement that are discordant with that same tech and "pattern language." All these things could potentially be explored within the MMP. 

 

The converse, a 'typology of mutualism' could be explored as well, and to a generally more salubrius effect, though the complementary, mutually sustaining interdependencies between both typologies are critical to the paradigm. For one hypothetical example, what might aid the shrimp and goby cooperative mutualism? Or for another, what would aid the parasitic flatworm Leucochloridium paradoxum to attract the birds that are it's primary host? The ability to appear very attractive and enticing to them. The beetle species Julodimorpha bakewelli has suffered for a similar reason, but if that beetle were in a cooperative mutualism with the goby, not only would it suffer but so would the goby as well. Characterizing a similar domino effect, as to how/ when/ and why parasites are able to 'overpower' mutualists, but within our contemporary culture and society, is a significant challenge we face. This is our psychomachia and why McGilchrist's 'naturalized metaphysics' can assist us here in strengthening our 'immune response' to rapidly evolving threats. The biological and philosophical work is mutually supporting. We may promote and reinforce a mutualist dynamic by asking: Who can I benefit besides myself? Am I thinking in a zero sum or a positive sum way? With what values do my actions resonate most? All three questions are intended to break us out of our 'narcissistic enclosure' (SC Hickman). Those whose calls for help we respond to, by virtue of their genuine request for our help, pull us out of our enclosure and thereby teach us far more than we can appreciate while we are in the midst of those moments that we are called to help (and perhaps reluctant to respond). Only in hindsight can we begin to see how we were fortunate to be able to help. The reverse is the case with parasitism: we anticipate immense gratification, but in hindsight we all too often regret indulging our desires. That is a strange asymmetry, which if it consistently holds, only a sort of intentionally conscious or habitually unconscious response to parasitism that foregrounds

 

References

Doctor T, Witkowski O, Solomonova E, Duane B, Levin M. Biology, Buddhism, and AI: Care as the Driver of Intelligence. Entropy. 2022; 24(5):710.
Witkowski O, Doctor T, Solomonova E, Duane B, Levin M. Toward an ethics of autopoietic technology: stress, care, and intelligence. Biosystems. 2023; 231, Article 104964

Value Capture

McGilchrist’s most fully articulated description of why cultural shifts in the direction of left hemispheric thinking (sometimes referred to as LH 'capture' or 'insurrection') can be found in his Preface to the 2019 edition of The Master and his Emissary:

1. 1. "The LH view is designed to aid you in grabbing stuff."
   2. "The LH view offers simple answers."
   3. "The LH's world view is easier to articulate."
   4. "We have created a world around us which... reflects the LH's priorities and its vision."
   5. "The hemispheres... have a different take on everything - including on their own relationship."
   6. "A culture that exemplifies the qualities of the LH's world attracts to itself, in positions of influence and authority, those whose natural outlook is similar."
   7. "Though the 'takes' of the two hemispheres are made to work together below the level of conscious awareness, they are not strictly compatible." 

Speaking with Rich Archer, McGilchrist noted that empires try “to administer too much, take on and influence too many things, and thereby overreach themselves. And the only way they can do this is by a sort of very bureaucratic take: everything is rolled out the same, everything is procedural, everything is categorical, all the fineness, the individuality, the responsiveness goes and everything becomes very cut and dry.”

Or as McGilchrist put it while on The Nocturnists podcast: “If you try to express the right hemisphere's point of view, you have a very difficult task. It’s much more subtle. Many nuances have to be conveyed, and a lot of what it has to say could seem contradictory. The messages that the right hemisphere would have given are fainter. In our modern society, the very ways in which they would have come to us in the past have been neutralized or minimized or almost dismissed." ...As our culture moves more in the direction of the LH’s priorities and vision, a reinforcing positive feedback cycle has taken over that is very difficult to break free from. 

In other words, in larger societies the logic of power and control (the raison d'etre of the LH) tends to overwhelm an awareness of reality (typically mediated by the RH). The implications of LH capture, and the substitution of its priorities, vision, and values, are further explored in C. Thi Nguyen's paper Value Capture. As he writes, in cases of value capture “we no longer adjust our values and their articulations in light of our own rich particular and context-sensitive experience of the world.” I’ll quote extensively from Nguyen’s paper below. According to him, value capture happens when:

1. 1. An agent has values that are rich, subtle, or inchoate (or they are in the process of developing such values).
   2. That agent is immersed in some larger context (often an institutional context) that presents an explicit expression of some value (which is typically simplified, standardized, and/or quantified).
   3. This explicit expression of value, in unmodified form, comes to dominate the entity’s practical reasoning and deliberative process in the relevant domain.

"This looks like: people who pursue step counts even when it hurts their knees and exhausts their spirit; academics who pursue publications in the highest-ranked journals even when their work feels boring and meaningless; universities that pursue high rankings in the USNWR over richer understandings of education; newspapers that pursue clicks and pageviews over their own sense of newsworthiness and social importance. And, as I have noted: the empirical work indicates that this sort of robust value capture is actually quite common."

How does this process occur?:

"We take values as provided by some large-scale institution and live under them as given. Those values will have been formulated to take deeply into account various institutional interests: like the ability to be counted in a reliable way across a large institution and the ability to be readily aggregated in an institutional bureaucracy. They will not have been formulated in light of the rich feedback of how our particular lives have gone when we live under these values. In value capture, we adopt values that have been formulated in a way that is insensitive to and therefore less able to support our rich, subtle, and personal emotional experiences.

The problem with internalizing institutional metrics is not simply that we are getting our values from the outside. It is that such metrics are subject to the demand for a certain kind of stability and institutional usability. These institutional demands push our metrics away from the subtle, the dynamic, the sensitive—and toward what can easily be measured at scale, propagated across institutional units, and recorded in institutional memory. When we take on such metrics as our values—when we internalize them—we are imposing a narrowed filter on our values. We are letting the logic of institutions play a determining role in the articulation of our values… the narrowness of the metric creates a narrowness of institutional vision. Institutions can only see, process, and act on parts of the world that are counted by their metrics. Anything that does not impinge on those metrics is invisible at an institutional level.

In value capture, we internalize those narrowed metrics, thus narrowing our values. And insofar as our values drive our attention, then the value captured will be subject to an analogous effect to narrowed institutional vision. It is not that we literally do not see things that fall outside our narrowed values, but we will not devote much energy to them or dismiss them as unimportant. Think here of the businessperson who thinks that only money matters and who immediately dismisses from mind any unprofitable ventures—like art or philosophy. [In a footnote, Nguyen adds:] The value captured agent can be wholehearted (think of the capitalist all-in for money), fully identified with their work, energized, and motivated. They are not divided against themselves; rather, they are simplified, where that simplification has been guided along institutional lines.

Qualitative ways of knowing are nuanced and context-sensitive. But qualitative information is difficult to manage en masse and difficult to transfer across contexts. Qualitative evaluations usually require significant shared background knowledge to adequately interpret. When we transform information from a qualitative to a quantitative format, we strip off much of the nuance, texture, and context-sensitivity. By doing so, we create a portable package of information, which can be easily sent across contexts and understood by people with little shared background… For this reason, quantitative methods are preferred by large-scale institutions, which must pass information across many levels of hierarchy—between distant administrators with low shared context. In other words, quantifications are preferred in large-scale institutions precisely because of their narrowness and their context-invariant stability."

What can we do in response?:

"What this suggests is that we should want value federalism. Some values are perhaps best pursued at the largest-scale level, some at smaller community levels, and some individually. And the upshot here is not that we should reject all large-scale values. It is that we should maintain a variety of differently-scaled values. There are many cases in which it might be useful to participate in a larger collective effort and so to accept, as part of that collective effort, less finely tailored goals. But, at the same time, we can confine those large-scale, standardized goals to our life inside those collectives and not let them swamp the rest of our values. The problem occurs when we exhibit an excess preference for the largest-scale values and let the largest-scale values swamp too many of our smaller-scale values. The problem comes when we let the demand for large-scale legibility intrude into every aspect of our lives, even the most intimate ones."

Podcaster David Pizarro, in conversation with cohost Tamler Sommers, reviewed this paper (I highly recommended listening to this for a very accessible introduction) and summed up one of the conclusions in this way: “Standardization is necessary the more complex society gets, and the bigger institutions get, because you need to ‘boil down’ information into a form that lots of people can understand; it’s unsustainable to have experts making all of those decisions.” This makes sense in light of the evidence. Nguyen provided a thorough description of the risks involved in that process, and perhaps unbeknownst to him, elaborated an idea key to McGilchrist's thesis concerning "The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western world." A related concept is that of "surrogation."

Coincidentia Oppositorum

Parallax and Moiré pattern (analogies for attention)

μεταβάλλον ἀναπαύεται (By changing, it remains the same.) - Heraclitus

"The more things change, the more they stay the same" (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose), is the more contemporary version of this epigram. It's subject to a variety of interpretations. On the one hand, one may object to Heraclitus, "but if all things change, then nothing is the same." However that relies on a superficial interpretation that understands a sentence solely by means of the definition of words. Alternatively, one may rationalize the statement: if everything changes, then ipso facto it stays the same; the only constant is change. Or, despite apparent changes certain fundamental aspects or patterns remain unchanged. And indeed these are apparent facts of life, as Lewis Carroll wrote, "My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place." But instead of defining, and instead of rationalizing, one might consider the overall gestalt of Heraclitus' philosophy. The antinomic logic here is the key. It is a sieve through which only the knowledge that knows its own limits by means of the contrary, in a relational manner, may pass. As we'll see following a bit of elaboration, Heraclitus' gnomic utterance, which was recorded by Plotinus in his Enneads, describes the quality of the human condition, and through an understanding of this we might break out of the hall of mirrors imposed by the left hemisphere. (Particularly good news for anyone suffering from analysis paralysis and perseveration.)

The unity of opposites, as a concept, was first suggested to the western view by Heraclitus (535 – 475 BC) though the idea was nascent within the thought of Anaximander (610 - 546 BC). Because there are few records before this time, it might've been in circulation even earlier. Much later, Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464) used the Latin phrase coincidentia oppositorum, meaning coincidence of opposites. CS Peirce wrote “A thing without oppositions ipso facto does not exist... existence lies in opposition.” And Carl Jung (1875 – 1961) also used the term, inspired as he was by the writings of Gerhard Dorn (1530 – 1584). But of course it is not merely a western idea. It occurs in the traditions of Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism, in Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Zen and Sufism, among others. So when Hegel (1770 – 1831) and Schelling (1775 – 1854) arrived on the scene near the inception of what would later be called process philosophy, these ideas had already been in the air for a very long time, gestating a future axiological renaissance.

I was long ago introduced to what has been called the “law of non-contradiction” and the various arguments against it by Walter Benesch, professor emeritus of philosophy, but it was Carl Jung’s intense excursions into the thought of Gerhard Dorn, which I read about in the university’s copy of his twenty volume collected works, that really seized my imagination. And so when I learned that Iain McGilchrist, who was well acquainted with many of these same thinkers, was able to naturalize their insights by placing them on a neurobiological foundation, I already had all the necessary context I needed to incorporate this most recent development in a line of thought extending back into prehistory. In a sense, Carl Jung was my gateway drug to McGilchrist. The centrality of this notion is such that it comes up quite frequently, with diverse and sometimes surprising implications, as during a recent conversation with Curt Jaimungal:

“As you know, part three of The Matter with Things, which is the whole of the second volume, is about ontology. And I begin with a chapter on the coincidence of opposites. There's a certain kind of thinking that will insist that “it's got to be one or the other”.  But actually, if you can suspend that, you can get hold of a sense which is deeper. …Think back again to love. Love is both something that recognizes an ‘other’, but comes together fully with that other, so that there is no antagonism. Without that element of something that offers a degree of resistance, nothing can be created, nothing can come into being ... opposites not only coexist, but give rise to and fulfill one another." [From the field of love (the greatest of values) we recognize the coincidence of opposites, instantiated in the fabric of our very being, and from which pours forth poetry, art, ornament, ritual, music, drama, dance… (aka "an entirely superfluous, superabundant, and exuberant outpouring of riches") The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things.]

According to the Heraclitean line of thought, conflict is never overcome nor would we want it to be overcome. Instead it is to be sustained as a generative dynamic. This is challenging, as it does invert the popular perspective. The text in the image (from The Matter with Things) metaphorically points out that if we “overcome” the conflict between “the warring ends of the bow” the arrow simply falls flat. Tension is necessary. Jung found this insight valuable in psychology, and McGilchrist in neurobiology, though neither were the first in either case. (Robert Ellis has sought to eliminate conflict by supposing that it has an origination in absolutization, and while this may be true in some cases, it misses the full import of the concept.) We should be able to speak using any language capable of supplying that tension, including metaphysics or any other, so long as it is understood that these are all inadequate tools in the final analysis. And this is possible by either "thinking against thinking" (paradox) or an understanding that words are a transluscent re-presentation (poetry). As we can see, it's not the 'what' but the 'how' that matters.

If we understand Heraclitus and those following in the same tradition, they didn't want to completely integrate or resolve conflict, be that of systemic or conceptual origin, but provide a vantage from which it may be viewed. The terms complementarity, correspondence, or "coincidence" of opposites can be slightly more helpful for understanding this, as it's not a simple "unity" of opposites they describe. Consider the fundamentally opposed pair of division/union. To unify these is to beg the question: Can something really be united and yet divided? On the one hand we can clearly say no, “it's got to be one or the other”. On the other hand we can say yes. The Heraclitean view is that either response entails the other, and this is a feature or pattern that we should be able to anticipate. Equivocation is going to be unavoidable. 

These may be little more than abstractions for some, but consider how our embodiment grounds these ideas, offering an undeniable source of resistance and opposition that is provided through our contact with reality itself. Embodiment has always played a central role in this line of thought, with modern proponents, like McGilchrist above, having noted that "without that element of something that offers a degree of resistance, nothing can be created, nothing can come into being." Embodiment is no minor consideration. There is a sort of negative feedback contained within the structure of a paradox. It's as though it were a thought capable of thinking against itself. Recall "the Heraclitean view that either response entails the other," so if you turn the coincidence of opposites into a metaphysical abstraction (which no doubt many have tried to do) and yet fail to realize that this entails it is no such abstraction at all, then you never really understood it to begin with.

On the one hand, I don't think we should be perfect skeptics and hold all knowledge in doubt. But on the other hand, I don't think we should be absolutists about anything. So what remains? We could hold to a sort of milquetoast attitude of flaccid provisionality that seeks to reduce conceptual tension (Robert Ellis holds some version of this). Or we could adopt the antinomic ontology of the Heraclitean perspective, which holds that any response we give entails its own opposite. Heraclitus provided a vantage point from which we might view the conceptual tension between doubt and certainty, and adjudged this to be good. McGilchrist merely naturalized that insight in his hypothesis, expanded it to a deeper phenomenal tension, and drew out some of the broad implications. There's a sort of enantiodromia (a term favored by Jung) in culture itself, such that we don't know what good may arise out of apparent misfortune, and vice versa. Perhaps some heterodox interpretation of the hemisphere hypothesis will be that which launches it into greater public awareness, we just don't know which one that will be and how it may yet transform. 

The myths of consciousness

Decades of research suggests that consciousness is not monolithic, that it embodies qualitative differences, and that these factors in turn likely constrain its specific instantiation. But not all of these findings have filtered into the conception of consciousness that is broadly held within contemporary society. In part this may be because it represents a challenge to several popular myths. The hemisphere hypothesis in particular, which draws upon this body of research, takes direct target at each of these:

Myth 1: Consciousness is monolithic and entire of itself. This is the idea that our experience of unitary awareness cannot be described as a synthesis of several identifiable neurological processes. The hemisphere hypothesis (neurological schismogenesis) [2] challenges this myth by suggesting that there are in fact at least two primary holarchic processes, that these are instantiated in the hemispheres, and that their combined interactions influence conscious (and unconscious) mental processes.

Myth 2: Consciousness has no polar attributes. This is the idea that our experience has no relation to qualitative differences in attention, specifically axiological differences with corresponding normative/ ethical implications. The hemisphere hypothesis challenges this myth by suggesting that there are at least two primary forms of attention that are coincident and yet not completely reconcilable to each other, and which reveal polarized differences in the quality of awareness. [3] (Polarity may be negatively defined as asymmetry or inequality.)

Myth 3: Consciousness is substrate independent. This is the idea that the particular embodied substrate (and perhaps structure and form) of mental experience is fundamentally irrelevant. And accordingly we could abstract and reproduce consciousness in silicon, digital, or any other suitable Turing-complete format. The hemisphere hypothesis does not completely refute this "myth," but it does impose strict constraints on any suitable substrate in the sense that, as far as we know, it would need to recapitulate those embodied processes that permit neurological opponent processing.

As popular myths, these are the main principled objections I've encountered preventing a wider application of the hemisphere hypothesis (prejudices relating to presentation and confusion regarding derivative implications may be addressed elsewhere). As long as these continue to have their hold, the hemisphere hypothesis will be outright dismissed. And many of the primary implications that follow from it, such as asymmetry and paradox, will remain substantially incomprehensible, at least when applied to phenomenal experience. Some prior familiarity with any of the currently extant antinomic ontologies (many Eastern traditions, Heraclitean, Jungian, process philosophies, indigenous traditions, etc.) can be of benefit when addressing these contemporary myths; if one is already familiar with paradox in philosophy, then one may be less surprised when they find it turns up in biology as well. The remaining obstacles to a more comprehensive understanding are for the most part comparatively minor technical details, and can be sorted out using the conceptual tools available to us.

I put those three main myths down as I have because I had just finished having an extended conversation with several people who were antagonistic to McGilchrist and his work. Unsatisfied, I wondered why no substantial movement by anyone resulted upon its conclusion. As is often the case, most of the objections they raised, and rejoinders I provided, failed to get down to, as Jonathan Rowson puts it, “what’s at stake here,” or in other words, what cherished ideas are really being threatened. I think these contemporary myths are precisely what McGilchrist is threatening, and what he simply cannot be allowed to overturn.

What I am seeking to do is identify and remove whatever is occluding our vision or preventing us from recognizing and presencing to the reality of our situation. I think these myths could be seen to lie near the heart of it. And I’m using the term "myth" in the pejorative sense that it has today, because this is the most common way in which it is used by most people. I'm aware that there is a more accurate sense of the word that McGilchrist usually intends when uses it. Such myths (or I should say, cognitive biases) often lie below our everyday awareness, keeping us blind until confronted and dealt with.

There’s been growing recognition from various quarters about several trends converging in the same direction that McGilchrist is pointing. There's a revival of panpsychism in philosophy, a revival in a biological basis for teleology, via the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and a revival of appreciation for the sacred and corresponding decline in “new atheism” (which some have speculated may have been fueled by the cultural response to 9/11). And now with McGilchrist, there’s a growing awareness of the unity of the sciences and humanities, and more besides. None of this is coming a moment too soon! The view that emerges from all this is one which reassures us that we do not have to abandon any proclivity we may have for eliminative materialist explanations. It merely asks us to expand our weltanschauung so that it is able to encompass the alternate perspective as well. (Or as Tyson Yunkaporta said, "be a genuinely spiritual person and an atheistic skeptic all at the same time.") There is, we are told, room enough for both of these within us.

Mind and Matter

Panpsychism has become a familiar view, both within philosophy and popular culture. And it's less associated with McGilchrist than it is with its more vocal proponents, like Philip Goff or (to a much lesser extent) Michael Levin. In my experience, panpsychism is not often raised as a cause for objecting to the hemisphere hypothesis (as compared to the myths described above). I've not heard, for example, "I agree with everything McGilchrist says about the hemispheres, the two modes of attention and all that, but panpsychism is simply a bridge too far." A simple inversion between matter and consciousness, as to which is more ontologically primitive, is a conceptually easy enough flip for most people to do. After all, the core notions of idealism were proposed long before Berkeley's 1710 A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. And variations have been a plot device in many popular films. In his book Descartes' Baby, psychologist Paul Bloom describes children as natural dualists. The subsequent reduction of mind to matter (or vice versa) is the sort of simple operation that the left hemisphere excels in.

But on the other hand, panpsychism could be so outrageous of an idea that, like McGilchirst's notions of the sacred and other metaphysical concepts, it needn't even be raised at first. At least, that is, without either first addressing the less esoteric seeming ideas that are specific to the hemisphere hypothesis (the rational/ scientific approach), or without first directly contacting such a reality and thereby breathing life into the idea (the intuitive/ imaginative approach). When approached rationally, asking a materialist to jump straight into panpsychism is probably putting the cart before the horse. Such a conclusion may be better thought of as lying at or near the end point of a long line of argumentation, along with the other implications of the hypothesis that only become rationally plausible once assent is first granted to the basic premise: that the brain's form and structure reflects complementary, though divergent, modes of attention.

For those who are antagonistic toward any version of panpsychism, beginning there would likely shut down further engagement with the hemisphere hypothesis that might've otherwise been possible. Can we begin with panpsychism as an initial premise, then from there arrive at the hemisphere hypothesis? I'm not aware of anyone doing so. And the reason may be that this is because we live in a culture whose dominant premise is eliminative materialism, not panpsychism. But the rational/ scientific approach could likely follow either direction, to convince the materialist of panpsychism, or the panpsychist of materialism. In other words, without addressing the neurological argument for opponent processing first, the possibility of such alternative arrangements remain for the most part conceptually incoherent.

But ultimately, McGilchrist's hemisphere hypothesis may be best understood as a post hoc explanation (as are all discursive approaches). In other words, the real work of convincing us of the reality of any metaphysical considerations takes place through direct experience. As McGilchrist wrote in his Introduction: “With the best will in the world, on both sides, I can’t make you see what I experience as the truth. I can never convince you of a point of view unless you already, at some level, get it.” This corresponds with the previously mentioned intuitive/ imaginative approach. Accordingly, one might say "These arguments will not do the work of convincing you, or anyone else, for that you must experience the divine yourself. But they will enable you to understand how it is that you were able to presence to the sacred to begin with." That being said, the virtue of the post hoc rational approach is that by opening a door into RH translucency we are able to subvert our own LH opacity. And using both approaches in tandem we come that much nearer to the possibility of addressing the neglect, denial, and indifference that characterizes our relationship with much of the world today.

Scott Barry Kaufman's opposition: DMN & TPN

The topic of the Default Mode Network (DMN) has been raised in some discussions we've had, regarding how it might correlate with the function of the right hemisphere. So it was interesting to hear that the DMN was recently also discussed on the Many Minds podcast during an interview with Ev Fedorenko about a review paper she wrote:

Fedorenko: "This default network is a network that has been implicated in building up these long contextual representations. It can be happening when you’re watching, say, a silent film where there’s no language whatsoever, but you’re still constructing this long narrative structure, but also when you’re listening to a story, which, of course, is linguistic but engages this system which is not specific to language. It’s an interesting system but I think needs more work to understand."

Has this subject been discussed by McGilchrist? Tangentially. Paraphrasing an earlier interview with Scott Barry Kaufman:

Kaufman: “Our work is actually really consistent. We should coauthor an article together.”

McGilchrist: “That would be great.”

Kaufman: “I’m obsessed with the default mode brain network because I think that network offers us the core of human experience of what it means to be really human. And I think you’re obsessed with the right hemisphere for the same reason. So I looked deeper into our Nature paper and I noticed that there were preferential right hemisphere activations in the default mode network. Now, we didn’t originally set out to test that specifically, so don’t quote me on that as a statistically significant effect, because we didn’t have the methodology, but I noticed a trend…

It’s mapping the ‘network approach’ to the ‘hemisphere approach’. You’ve got me thinking about this in a deeper way than I ever have before, how these are probably both saying the same thing. They’re just different levels of analysis. You know, I’ve been arguing against the tyranny of the executive attention network, where you’ve been arguing against the tyranny of the left hemisphere. But conceptually, I feel like we’re both bothered by the same thing.”

McGilchrist: “I think that that’s right. There’s a lot of overlap.”

I would love to see such a paper, if it were to be written. 

Any discussion of the DMN and the anti-correlated Task Positive Network (aka "executive attention network") might cause one to wonder if McGilchirst is like that proverbial "man who was found searching for his keys, not where he had dropped them, but under the lamplight, because that was where he had enough light to search." The location of damaged brain regions, whether on the left or right, has long been noted in lesion-deficit studies, so it would obviously be easier to articulate a hypothesis about the hemispheric lateralization of our modes of attention. Those same studies do not necessarily "shine a light" on whether portions of the DMN or TPN are damaged or not. Consequently this lack of information prevents the likelihood of a possible "Network Hypothesis" from being put forward as a competing theory to the "Hemisphere Hypothesis". After all, the DMN was only described in 2001, with the majority of papers published after 2007, so there wasn't a whole lot of research at the time of the publication of The Master and His Emissary in 2009.

Now, if information about these brain networks should prove to be more explanatory than the hemisphere hypothesis, would this invalidate the sort of arguments that McGilchrist is putting forward in his work? Not necessarily. It's conceivable that it would merely switch the attribution of his observations to a different neurological mapping, that is, from hemispheres to networks.

Kaufman and McGilchrist are engaged in complimentary research. And as he indicated, the most likely possibility is that one level of analysis is at a higher integrative level [1] than the other, one of these can only be fully developed by seeing it in light of the other, located at a higher integrative level. If they were to write a paper comparing the network and hemisphere approaches, I suspect they might find just this sort of hierarchical relationship, such that one is "necessary but not sufficient," one of these underwrites critical aspects of the other, but does not explain the full observations. But which is it? 

Is it more accurate to say that each hemisphere has access to bilaterally distributed networks with anti-correlated roles? Or is it more accurate to say that these networks cut across hemispheric divisions to access lateralized hemispheres with anti-correlated modes of attention? Whichever it is, this is the "what."

Following that, "how" these neurological networks are engaged by either hemisphere in the deployment of asymmetric modes of attention is the purview of the hemisphere hypothesis. Or conversely, "how" these hemispheres are engaged by either network in the deployment of asymmetric roles is the purview of the network approach. So is the lateralization aspect overlain upon the network approach, or vice versa?

In the conclusion of The Master and His Emissary, McGilchrist writes that the "divided nature of mental experience... might have some literal truth." If we assent this much, then does it really matter which "chunks" of the brain "mirror the dichotomies that are being pointed to"? In principle, I don't think it should. Both analyses involve opponent process theory (anti-correlated networks or hemispheres) with asymmetric roles. The 'coincidence of complementary opposites' is the primary insight. In order to be 'antifragile' and adaptable the brain operates near a critical threshold at the edge of chaos, between order and disorder (or so it's been speculated), which is the most resilient place to be. Exactly where these coinciding oppositions are instantiated is arguably of secondary importance.

A point in favor of the network approach is that it does more easily satisfy the "bridge law objection" as articulated by Spezio (and referenced by Thompson) because it appears to better identify a reductive "locus" for various features. It also better comports with a postmodern cultural context, in part because it is more conceptually abstract, and because an eliminativist perspective (which is where the network approach tends to lead) means one can avoid addressing the question of how science and the humanities intersect, a preferable outcome since it is feared that any proposed answer to that question might support discriminatory practices and revisit the experience of historical traumas. 

McGilchrist noted that Marcel Kinsbourne identified three main oppositional pairings within the brain. The network approach described by Kaufman here articulates still others in addition to these, or perhaps merely recombines and reinterprets them in different formulations, subdivided at different scales of resolution. And this is to be expected. We should not be surprised to find a multitude of opponent pairings across many scales and within a wide variety of biological systems. 

A point in favor of the hemisphere hypothesis is that, and here McGilchrist cites Joseph Bogen, "hemispheres can sustain the activity of two separate spheres of consciousness." The network approach cannot claim this as easily. In part this is due to the inherent complexity of the networked neurological structures being described and their morphological dissimilarity to each other. I think we are now able to postulate a few general rules: 

• Once structural complexity has reached an apex or point of diminishing returns, mutually entailed opponent processing must take over to do what elaborate complexity cannot achieve alone, for example, in order to be able to address problems such as those raised by the "no free lunch" theorem. McGilchrist shares the Heraclitean view: "We need resistance. We need opposition."
• The highest integrative level or scale of opponent processes will provide the greatest explanatory power, as these are the "highest leverage points" (Donella Meadows) in the system. These large scale dynamics exert downward constraint that entrains and thereby overrides lower scale differences (Stanley Salthe). This also suggests an apparent telos or convergent drive acting behind the system to sustain opponent dynamics. 
• In general, the higher the level of opposition, the more evenly matched 'the agonist and the antagonist' may appear to be. This is needed in order to sustain the tension between them. Lower level analyses however tend to focus on similarities among the parts instead of the higher level opposed gestalten. (Thus to a trained eye, the apparent redundancies in the bisected brain should suggest that a higher level of integrated opponent processing may be occurring, with corresponding phenomenological specialization.)

And indeed, these implications appear to follow from the underlying argument in The Matter with Things, which leads from neurology to "naturalized metaphysics" in a single vision, re-uniting the sciences and the humanities. 

Bernardo Kastrup's opposition: Intuition & Reason

A recent conversation between McGilchrist and Bernardo Kastrup illustrates important places of convergence and divergence. Kastrup's framing of cognition is more orthodox than McGilchrist's, and I suspect Evan Thompson is more sympathetic to Kastrup's description here as well. A few excerpts:


McGilchrist: “I believe that what we experience is the real deal. It doesn't mean that it's the whole truth about whatever it is. It's just that that is a real experience. It is the experience that I had of that particular thing, as it were, five o'clock in the afternoon.”

Kastrup: “Evolution would never optimize for us to perceive the world as it is. It would optimize for us to see the world in whatever way it would be more conducive to fitness. So “fitness oriented perception” stands to be very different from perception that mirrors the states of the world... The qualities of perception represent what it is like to observe the world, and what it is like to observe the world is different from what it is like to be the world. And that's why representations and the world “as it is in itself” may deviate.”

McGilchrist: “For a lot of things you feel your way into them. And people may say, well, you do that through your senses. Okay, but in fact you do it by an act of imagination. And having spent many years practicing as a psychiatrist, I spent a lot of time sitting with people and understanding what it must be like to be them. What is it like to be that person? And indeed, in all our lives, we're doing this all the time, and it's how love originates. You feel your way into, way beyond anything that you can write down as a perception about somebody. And you really do feel as if you're making contact with them. The reality of those experiences have shaped who I am. There is this reciprocal encounter in which I contribute to what there is other than me, and this other than me also contributes to making me who I am... it can be argued that imagination is the only way to understand in depth what it is that one is attending to.”

Kastrup: “Human reasoning is the latest cognitive capacity we've evolved. From very early on life had the capacity to express spontaneous intelligence, intuition, and imagination. Those are the early ones. If you think of a human being as a tree, intuition and imagination are at the root. It's what makes contact between us and reality. And thinking is all the way in the canopy. It’s in the clouds. It's all conceptual. It may be the most advanced, but it's also the youngest and the most removed from the ground of reality. And typically it's people like me, who have the other mental faculties stunted, that put reason above everything else because then they can then self-validate. It’s a kind of self-deceptive game. …The universe is computationally irreducible. The only way to know is to get there. And I think that's the whole point of existence is to set it in motion.”

McGilchrist: “Metacognition is a very late arrival on the scene, as you say, and I'm not sure that it is necessarily a help. And one of the reasons I say that is that the very interesting question which you raised of the savant. A savant may be born with special skills of this kind, or may suddenly have access to these skills, never before having had access, after brain injury. And what interests me is it's almost always an injury to the left hemisphere. Now, the left hemisphere is mainly interested in self-reflective forms. The right hemisphere is more open to the breadth, but the left hemisphere is very much inwardly focused. That Gorgon stare of the left hemisphere... (Kastrup: It casts a field of obfuscation around it. It's like staring at the sun at noon and missing all the stars, because the glare of metacognition is just too strong.) It's definitely a trade off. As long as it doesn't rule the show, we can reel it in at a certain part of the process of coming to understand something, and it will illuminate things. But at the end, we must lose the focus of that again in order to discover the reality of the whole. So we go from a whole that gets broken down and over focused by the left hemisphere to an understanding of the whole again in the right hemisphere.” 

Recall that for McGilchrist the defining opposition in the brain was present long ago. As he wrote, “the earliest known instance of a nervous system, that of Nematostella vectensis, a sea anemone over 700 million years old, already exhibits lateral asymmetry.” This asymmetry corresponds to the two complementary modes of attention that we see in ourselves today. Why is it so important for McGilchrist to trace this back millions of years? He suggested it is because all life must know how to “eat without being eaten.” Though perhaps true, this always felt like a bit of an ad hoc explanation to me intended to satisfy a certain type of reader. Which is why I think Zak Stein gets closer to a deeper metaphysical point when he referenced Whitehead, remarking that "life emerged to respond to value, which pre-existed it. That the evolutionary process responds to value makes it teleological.” Or in other words, Stein recognizes that McGilchrist really wants to tie the structure of the brain to the very structure of reality itself. Neurological asymmetry is an evolutionarily conserved feature because neurology recapitulates ontology. Whitehead's "appetition of the cosmos" is a positive definition of life. We aren’t here just to avoid being eaten while we search for the next meal.

As for Kastrup, in this conversation he points to a different opposition within the brain, between intuition/imagination on the one hand and reason/metacognition on the other. And he lays emphasis on the relatively recent arrival of reason/metacognition to the evolutionary scene. While it is undeniably true that other species do not display these capacities in the same ways that humans have, I think Kastrup’s view here may be a bit too focused on one side of the equation. We could recall the intelligence of slime molds and plants, which has caused scientists to wonder how widespread such problem solving capacities are in the natural world. But more to the point, we may equally wonder if it might be that our capacity for intuition and imagination never really stopped developing, and has continued to expand in lockstep with those vaunted capacities for reason and metacognition, displaying an equal increase in range and depth over evolutionary time. It is this latter possibility which McGilchrist seems to be hinting at above. 

References: 

[1] Joe Scott described 'top down' causation in a recent video: "There's not just one consciousness going on inside our minds. There's two. But it actually gets crazier. Turns out there's actually multiple modules inside each of the hemispheres that can display a kind of consciousness, and they have their own things to say. In a lot of ways, our brains work pretty much like a hierarchical brain system. Consciousness is a result of both 'bottom up' and 'top down' causation. We are simultaneously making decisions on a subconscious level but also shaping those decisions at a conscious level. In Gazzaniga's words, "Action is made up of complementary components arising from within and without... What is going on is the match between our ever present multiple mental states and the impinging contextual forces within which it functions."

Tania Lombrozo: "One way to think about how 'learning by thinking' occurs is to basically say that your mind has multiple components, and like, one part of your mind knew something, but the other part of your mind didn't know that, so the way that 'learning by thinking' works is that part one tells part two, and now part two learns something that it didn't know before. ...If you think about the mind itself as possessing kind of multiple sub-minds, sub-mechanisms, sub-components, and so on that can communicate with each other, and share information with each other more or less effectively, then a lot of the same ways that we think about information transmission working within groups of people apply to what what we think about what happens within the human mind. ...To what extent is it that we see those kinds of "many minds" within a single mind?"
Kensy Cooperrider: "That is a new gloss on the title of our podcast Many Minds. I never thought of that as referring to the many minds within a single mind."

Iain McGilchrist. The Coincidence of Opposites (2021) "I've argued that at the origin of everything there lies a coincidence or conjunction of opposites that is profoundly generative, indeed necessary for creation, gives rise to all that we know. And this coincidence of opposites is by no means contrary to reason. I've stressed that we must not be tempted, in a left hemisphere fashion, to resolve the necessary tension by pretending one of the pairs of opposites can safely be dispensed with, or is not real. Denying the concealed opposite is dangerous. The coincidence of opposites does not compromise their nature as opposites, rather they fulfill themselves through one another. The foundation of everything, recognized from Empedocles to Goethe, is this opposition between love and strife. We need the union of division and union, the union of multiplicity and unity... [and] just as there's an asymmetry in the relationship of the hemispheres, there's an asymmetry in the coincidencia oppositorum." 

Iain McGilchrist. ‘Selving’ and Union (2016) "It is no contradiction that, while the idea of the self as distinct from others does have meaning, the dichotomy between self and others is fundamentally misleading. From the outset they are intertwined, proceed from and return to one another. They could be said to ‘co-create’ each other: ‘The sense of self emerges from the activity of the brain in interaction with other selves.’ ...it may come to life in a Hegelian sense: for the emerging product may be neither just both, nor neither, of two contraries we cannot singly embrace, but something new altogether, as the lyric tone of the lyre emerges from the tension of the wire that holds its warring ends together."

Iain McGilchrist. The Matter with Things (2021) “...opposites not only co-exist, but give rise to and fulfil one another (‘sunt complementa’), and are conjoined (like the poles of a magnet) without any intervening boundary, while nonetheless remaining distinct as opposites. And indeed the more intimately they are united, the more, not the less, they are differentiated. [...] Blake famously wrote: "He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer, for art and science cannot exist but in minutely organised particulars and not in generalising demonstrations of the rational power. The infinite alone resides in definite and determinate identity." The point Blake is making is that we do not come to understand or experience the infinite, or, for that matter, the eternal, by attempting somehow to transcend the finite or the temporal, but by immersing ourselves in them, in such a way as to pass into the infinite, manifest there where they are. The path to the infinite and eternal lies in, not away from – not even to one side of – the finite and the temporal.” Immersing ourselves, in other words, into that "entirely superfluous, superabundant, and exuberant outpouring of riches." If this is the sort of panentheistic path McGilchrist is taking us on, to a coincidentia oppositorum of the finite and infinite, the immanent and transcendent, then one question we could ask is: How might this be instantiated in our world today? "To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower. Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour." See also Loren Eiseley's The Star Thrower concerning Blake's point about doing good.

[2] Neural parallax (paradox) or schismogenesis (neurological application of opponent process theory). From TMWT: "Oppositions are the ground of energy... Civilizations also flourish when they remember this and fail when they forget." The anthropologist Gregory Bateson first introduced the term "schismogenesis" in relation to culture, later expanded by Graeber and Wengrow, and now McGilchrist is applying it to neurology (TMHE) and metaphysics (TMWT). Whenever a new social form asserts itself, the seeds of its own dissolution are sown at the same time. And this could explain several things. For example, we could see the reinvigoration of anarcho-primitivism in part as a consequence of the failures of late stage capitalism. Similarly, if anarcho-primitivism were ever to become widespread, it may not be long before agrarian and mercantile groups rise up as a contrasting social form. In which case, a resilient society must learn how to understand these opposing motivations in a very deep sense, anticipate them, and productively channel them to serve the interests of the greater whole. (cf. Michael Levin's "morphogenesis")

I should note that during the November 2022 Q&A with McGilchrist, Jeff Verge commented “When I go to talk about your discovery I find there’s no name for it.” To which McGilchrist replied “I sometimes think the same thing, that I don’t have a handy phrase for it. I tend to call it the hemisphere hypothesis. In essence it’s a theory that I think helps explain much about life. If those here can think of anything that is at the same time accurate and succinct, then I’d be extremely grateful. Please send your suggestions to me. “Hemispherics” is the nearest I can think of, but I’m sure that’s not very imaginative.” Any sort of reference to the Heraclitean tradition would be beneficial for such a name, given the enormous influence it has had upon him. And so we could also propose "antinomic neurology": from Greek anti "against" + nomos "law" + neuro "nervous system" + logia "study." See "Heraclitus' pervasive antinomic ontology" (TMWT p431). Consider also phenomenalaterality: from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" + Latin laterālis "of the side". See Peirce's "phaneroscopy."

[3] Àlex Gómez-Marín: "For Whitehead, nature is made of "events" not of substances. And those events are polar. Imagine something that happens in the world, that gets "actualized." It has a future and a past pole, a mental and a physical pole. You might say that's substance dualism, but it's more sophisticated than that." 

In the Andean worldview, life is made possible through a generative encounter (tinkuy) between opposite complementary forces (yanantin). Female and male bodies are an expression of this duality. 

Alan Watts. The Two Hands of God: The Myths of Polarity (1963)