How “The Matter With Things” Can Transform the World | book by Iain McGilchrist

Oppositions are the ground of energy, and civilizations flourish when they remember this truth and fail when they forget it.

“oppositions are the ground of energy civilizations also flourish when they remember this and fail when they forget”

McGilchrist is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who grounds his arguments in academic literature on brain function while also drawing on his experience as a psychiatrist listening to patients' stories, particularly voices from people with schizophrenia, autism, and brain damage, complemented by deep philosophy of truth and epistemology.

“he's a neuroscientist he's a psychiatrist and he goes deep into philosophy and has been a professor at All Souls college and these different Realms really come together beautifully in the book because part of the book is looking at the academic literature on the left brain and the right brain and yet this is backed up with his experience as a psychiatrist working with patients listening to their stories he brings in a lot of voices from people with schizophrenia and autism and uh right hemisphere left hemisphere damage”

In quantum physics, physicists have noticed that what actually manifests in the physical world seems to depend on whether or not there is an observer watching it happen, which has opened physicists' minds to new ways of understanding the relationship between consciousness and the material world.

“if you've heard it all about quantum physics and about how these physicists have noticed in a particular experiment that what actually manifests in the physical world seems to depend on whether or not there is an observer whether or not somebody is watching it happen and that's a really weird result from physics but he kind of argues that actually that has opened the mind of physicists to new ways of understanding Consciousness and the material world”

The two hemispheres of the brain are kept fairly separate with limited connections across them, and parts of the brain actually inhibit communication between the two halves, suggesting this structural separation serves a functional purpose.

“one initially puzzling feature of both the human brain and also animal brains is that the two hemispheres are actually kept fairly separate there's not as many connections across the hemispheres as there is within a hemisphere and as a matter of fact parts of the brain actually inhibit communication between the two halves”

McGilchrist's central thesis is that the right hemisphere needs to be the master and the left hemisphere needs to be the Emissary or the servant, not that the left hemisphere should be discarded but that their relationship needs to be inverted from current Western dominance patterns.

“his thesis is that the right hemisphere needs to be the master and the left hemisphere needs to be the Emissary or the servant and this is actually the title of another book he wrote the master and his Emissary I've read both books both are great but I would actually recommend starting with the matter with things but the thesis is so powerful”

The engineer-machine analogy represents a left-hemisphere approach where the engineer seeks total control and the machine submits entirely to the engineer's will, while the gardener-garden analogy represents a right-hemisphere approach where the gardener attends to the needs and desires of the plants and co-creates the garden with them rather than forcing them into mechanical patterns.

“the analogy of the engineer engineering a machine versus The Gardener cultivating the garden and as you might imagine it's the left hemisphere that likes the engineer analogy where the machine is entirely under the will and control of the engineer and a lot of modern society sort of treats everything including living systems and people and nature and all of this as if it were mechanical by projecting its own image of yes it would be great if everything could submit to my will whereas the right hemisphere image here is much better depicted by The Gardener and the garden where The Gardener has to attend closely to the needs and the desires of the plants in the garden”

The mark of intelligence is the ability to hold seemingly contradictory things at the same time without immediately rejecting one side, and when you learn both deeply you often find in the right moment a resolution—this is intellectual and spiritual growth.

“I have always thought that the mark of intelligence is an ability to hold to things that are seemingly contradictory at the same time to learn and understand understand about both without immediately rejecting and immediately trying to resolve them and if you can do that I think oftentimes you find that in the right moment or with the right real life experience you find a moment when you're able to resolve some of these and that's sort of growth I think that's spiritual growth that's intellectual growth”

The deepest truths always include a third part which is the reconciliation of opposing truths; like a magnet with two poles, if you try to chop off one pole you do not eliminate it—you just make the magnet shorter while it still retains both poles.

“stay with the contradiction if you step you will see that there is always something more than two opposing truths the whole truth always includes a third part which is the reconciliation and he uses this magnet analogy where you have two poles of a magnet and if you try to chop off one of the poles it's not that you actually chop off that pole you just make the magnet shorter and it still has the two poles”

The left hemisphere sees the parts in isolation and detail, while the right hemisphere sees the whole and how parts fit together in a dynamic whole; trying to understand music by examining individual notes in ever-greater detail outside the flow of the whole work will never reveal the unique quality, power, and life of the music.

“another hemisphere difference is that the left hemisphere sees the parts whereas the right hemisphere sees the whole and how the parts sort of fit together in this Dynamic hole so let me give you a quote on this it would be like trying to account for The Unique quality the power and yes the life of a piece of music by examining each note or at most a phrase in ever greater detail outside the flow of the whole work”

The paradigm shift must be 'toward something better'—not just away from power, dominance, and concentrated power, but toward things that are most meaningful, beautiful, and valuable: things with inherent value in the world.

“this book essentially is it answers the question the paradigm shift in service to what to what ends do we want to transform our systems and it can't just be away from something it can't just be away from Power dominance and concentrating power which which it it does have to be those things but it needs to be toward something better and that toward something better is captured by this framework he lays out which is essentially toward the things that are most meaningful and beautiful and valuable the things that have have inherent value in the world”

The left hemisphere not only builds maps of the world but also sometimes projects its own map onto reality, causing it to perceive and interact with the world through a filter of its own models rather than responding to what is actually present.

“the left hemisphere not only builds the map but also sometimes projects its map onto what it sees in the world so if you've ever been talking to somebody and you're trying to communicate but you feel like they're trying to fit you in a box or something you're saying into some model they have of the world or model they have of people like you that doesn't fit and you're like no that's not it but they keep on uh fitting you into that box”

Reality is usually asymmetric rather than symmetric or equal, as seen in art, nature, and the golden ratio, and this recognition frees one from the constant exhausting effort to force symmetry into situations.

“another truth about reality in this framework that I have found so helpful is the truth that reality is usually asymmetric and he goes deep into this he talks about art and the golden ratio and all this stuff but I've noticed since reading that part that I'm constantly struggling against some foe in my imagination which is really coming from the public dialogue that is constantly trying to force me to make everything equal”

The left hemisphere has a fundamental problem dealing with depth, whether in space, time, or emotion; Western civilization has suffered from a loss of the dimension of depth as identified by Paul Tillich.

“the left hemisphere has a problem dealing with depth whether that be depth in space in time or in Emotion I resonate with Paul tillich's judgment the decisive element in the predicament of Western man in our period is his loss of the dimension of depth”

In public debates, both naive positivism and naive deconstructionism are typical left-hemisphere fictions—each is an ill-concealed power grab completely lacking in subtlety and devoid of true connection with the world, having lost the 'betweenness' in which fidelity can operate, which is only properly understood by the right hemisphere.

“sometimes in our public dialogues we have two sides that are at war with each other where both sides are honestly a left brain grab at power so let me give you another quote here both the views currently on offer in so much public debate today naive positivism and naive deconstructionism are typical left hemisphere fictions each is an ill-concealed power grab completely lacking in subtlety and devoid of any sense of our true connection with the world the betweenness in which Fidelity can operate has been lost that is only understood properly by the right hemisphere”

Each person has their own unique saliency frame—the things that become prominent to them and the things that get pushed to the side—and these frames are different for each person but can still be beautiful in their difference, allowing people to move into McGilchrist's framework with their own unique way of paying attention to the world.

“he's saying is each person has their own unique uh character of the way they perceived the world and one person's way of perceiving the world one person's what I would call salian frame the things that come forth to them the things that become really prominent to them the things that get uh pushed to the side for them it's different for every person and it can still be beautiful in that difference so social sciences economics and Human Relationships these are things that are very strongly in my San's frame physics is more in his salian frame”

Anger and disgust are power-oriented emotions that chase truth into hiding: when you use disgust or anger in response to someone trying authentically to describe their experience, people respond by hiding what they really feel, think, or say, so the use of these emotions forces projection onto the world and causes reality to hide.

“both anger and disgust are really power oriented emotions they're emotions of you trying to get something you want in the world or trying to impose your will onto the world and I would actually say both of these emotions Chase truth into hiding like if you're interacting with someone and you use disgust or anger in response to them trying authentically to describe their experience or their understanding with the world people will respond to that by not sharing things with you by by hiding what they really feel think or say”

This narrative of right-hemisphere primacy and co-creative attention is a story that every person can be called into, not something requiring access to seats of power; if enough people embodied this, it would transform society, and they can do so from their own unique vantage point.

“this is a story that every person can be called into and I want to explain how this manifest for me so as I read this one thing that seemed almost weird to me was that he was not applying this stuff to Human Relationships interpersonal relationships if you're to understand them in this way it makes so much sense and yet all of his examples are kind of about people versus art or people versus physics or whatever and it just seemed like that was missing from his salian frame and the same with any kind of social science”

Most religions throughout history have recognized limitations on the use of the word 'God' because words cannot capture what they are trying to describe—just as words cannot fully capture what a person looks like or what pineapple tastes like.

“most religions throughout history have had limitations on the use of the word God in recognition that the word cannot capture the thing it's really trying to capture which is true of basically almost anything we might talk about like can words capture how a person looks and like can you say okay they have brown hair and bangs and whatever and no you cannot know how a person looks until you actually see them cuz words just don't capture it and one analogy that he uses at some point in the book is that um it's like a fishnet where the words are the net and they're trying to capture a reality but all you get I think he says is the drippings of the fish net with your words you don't get the real reality you have to taste the pineapple no set of words can describe what pineapple actually is experienced like”

Religious communities often recognize that you cannot talk about something as deep and profound as that which is sacred, yet you are compelled to talk about it, creating an uncomfortable paradox that is inherent to religious life.

“at some point he says people in religious groups often recognize you cannot talk about something as deep and profound as this sacred thing you're pursuing and yet you have to talk about it and there's this uncomfortable Paradox in that but of course Paradox is part of his uh depiction of reality”

All societies operate on myths, and the question is whether those myths point the society toward the valuable, the truly inherently valuable, the good, the beautiful, the loving, or toward a road that puts the left hemisphere in charge.

“all societies operate on top of myths and the question is do those myths point that Society toward the valuable the truly inherently valuable The Good the beautiful the the loving the kind whatever it is do do those myths point the society in the direction of that of Truth or do the society's myths Point them toward a road that puts the left hemisphere in charge”

McGilchrist's framework is deeply grounded in science and yet helps grapple with that which science cannot access—beauty, meaning, love—and it rejects dogmatic versions of all religions including atheism and secular religion without forcing all religions to be exactly equal.

“this is because it's a narrative that is deeply grounded in science and yet it helps us to Grapple with that which science cannot access that's one part of the story it also gives us a framework that does not reject religion and replace them with a new religion that can come in and everybody's afraid of the dogmatic version of that religion instead it rejects dogmatic versions of all religions including atheism and secular types of religions and and yet it doesn't force all religions to be exactly equal”

Two central problems with the world can be intuited: first, it feels like we're living inside a machine incapable of perceiving real value where people get trapped in systems (like healthcare) that fit them into boxes rather than seeing them as inherently valuable; and second, it feels like we're living inside a mad mind where society has some variation of schizophrenia—super logical yet profoundly out of touch with reality.

“if we try to describe what is wrong with the world right now what is the matter with things oh and the title has multiple meanings but um if we try to describe that intuitively there are kind of two images that I have seen popping up in multiple Arenas where one is it feels like we're living inside a machine it feels like we're living inside a system that is incapable of perceiving real value”

The book 'The Matter with Things' by Iain McGilchrist is one of the few books with the potential to be transformative both on the personal level and on the societal level because it provides both hope and a paradigm shift in how to think about the world.

“this book is one of the few books I've ever read that has the potential to be transformative both on the personal level but also on the societal level”

When you perceive someone as viewing you as inherently valuable rather than as an instrument to their ends, that is a right-hemisphere way of interacting; conversely, when a doctor treats you as a number to move through quickly rather than as a person whose specific pain matters, that is a left-hemisphere way of perceiving and acting.

“when you're in a relationship and you perceive yes this person is viewing me as being inherently valuable inherently worth their time that's a more right hemisphere way of interacting whereas if you're in a doctor's office and you get the sense that the doctor doesn't care about you but the doctor is just uh trying to meet their numbers and trying to move you through fast enough to meet their goals that's more of a left hemisphere way of perceiving things”

Science and reason are not purely left-hemisphere processes, nor are intuition and imagination purely right-hemisphere; instead, each hemisphere contributes to each of them but in consistently different ways and to different degrees depending on what is meant by each term.

“I suggested that we should reject the common simplistic idea that science and reason are the domain of the left hemisphere and intuition that of the right hemisphere instead we saw that each hemisphere contributes to to each of them but in a consistently different way and to different degrees depending on what is meant by each term”

The speaker has noticed a gap in McGilchrist's application of his framework: human relationships and interpersonal dynamics are underexplored, even though the framework illuminates these domains powerfully.

“one thing that seemed almost weird to me was that he was not applying this stuff to Human Relationships interpersonal relationships if you're to understand them in this way it makes so much sense and yet all of his examples are kind of about people versus art or people versus physics or whatever and it just seemed like that was missing from his salian frame”

Evil is real and exists, but there is an asymmetry between good and evil: good can encompass evil (transform it), but evil cannot encompass good.

“he does not deny the existence of evil and yet there's an asymmetry between good and evil in the sense that the good can Encompass the evil but the reverse is not true”

By paying a certain kind of alienating, fragmenting, and focal attention, you can reduce humanity, art, sex, humor, or religion to nothing—stripping them of all value.

“paying a certain kind of attention you can humanize or dehumanize cherish or strip of all value by a kind of alienating fragmenting and focal attention you can reduce Humanity or art sex humor or religion to nothing”

Reading McGilchrist gave the speaker a frame and language for things that had been intuitively true, solidifying and legitimizing insights that had been vague or dismissed, thereby supercharging a journey that was already underway toward recognizing real truth.

“what people will experience at least what I experienced is as you're going on this journey through life you are moving towards something that's real you're interacting with it and and and it's this journey you're on and this book felt to me like it almost supercharged that journey by taking things that I had framed in one way and they were real truths but sort of Sol not solidifying but sort of giving me a frame that it's like oh that that is the real thing that's what I was trying to get at through these other ways of thinking”