037 - It's Not Only Rock but the Roll as Well: Exploring Hegel's Vernunft & Verstand

This episode looks again at the left brain/right brain dichotomy, and how so much is missed when the left brain view dominates, which it does in today’s world almost exclusively (polarization, either/or, us versus them type thinking).   

With left brain thinking alone, one misses the big holistic picture.  The right brain sees relations, movement, processes, and life.  While the left brain creates a map, the right brain is living in the territory.  Right brain thinking understands that every stick has two ends, and that without the stick neither end can exist.  

Both types of thinking are of course needed and necessary, but when left brain thinking is exclusively used, creativity and intuition are stomped out.  And so is the ability to practice true reason (vernunft).  While brain hemisphere research came after Hegel's time, he was very much aware of this difference in thinking, the common understanding (verstand) versus reason (vernunft).  

This episode explores the difference, with several contemporary examples to bring this difference to light. 

Transcript

0:00

Hello, this is Gregory Novak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 37. Welcome back, please follow the podcast Facebook page at cunning of Geist, and you can also follow me on Twitter at cunning of Geist. The purpose of this podcast is to explore philosophy psychology and science. With the aim of demonstrating that we have a free and purposeful mind, which we can use for meaningful action in society. Now let's get on with the current episode. I'm sure that most of the listeners to this podcast have heard of the rock and roll band. The rolling stones they've been around for quite a long time and their guitarist and co songwriter, Keith Richards, as an interesting quote regarding rockets. He said, quote, everyone talks about rock these days. The problem is they forget about the role and quote. Now, while he was talking about rock music, this quote has broader implications and that's going to be the theme of this episode, allow me to. We've talked about the difference between left brain understanding and right brain reasoning before and several episodes, uh, the left brain understanding, the German word is for stunned and for the right brain reasoning, the German word is which ha Cagle refer. Um, we did a full analysis of this and episode 10, the divided brain and the unhappy consciousness. And we touched on it again in episode 21 on Marshall McLuhan and titled the rise return of tribalism technology McCluen and Hagle. Let me read a quote from author, Ian McGilchrist. That explains the difference in these two brains. Two brain hemispheres. Very well. Because of its narrow focus and emphasis on getting certainty. The left hemisphere sees only bits and pieces fragments. We should attempt to put together to form a hole in the living world. Context is everything, but this is neglected by. Left hemisphere. That's the right hemisphere prefers the explicit without understanding that rendering things explicit and isolating them under the spotlight of attention denatures, and ultimately kills them just as explaining a joke or a poetic metaphor, robs it of its meaning and power and quo. So essentially it is the right brain that sees the context, the big picture, the life, the mood. And the left brain just keeps dividing things up and categorizing things and Hagle understood this difference very well. Although he was obviously not aware of brain science, he just understood it in terms of how the mind operates now. as I mentioned, verse Stein is the German word for understanding and Hagle makes a very clear statement about how this first stand is, is incomplete. Let me quote him, quote, a table of contents is all that understanding gives the content itself. It does not furnish it all. And quote Hagle is saying that for stomp, the understanding provides the outline, the map, whereas the reason for supplies, the content. Now I like to use these German words because it breaks up the connotations that we have as, as English speakers, in terms of what understanding and reason mean. There are a lot of words in English that refer to reason, thought thinking rationality, et cetera. So I like to use Vistaprint and for enough, because very clear that the gestalt is the, uh, left brain. Dividing, the kind of thinking and Vernon is the right brain holistic kind of thinking. So I'm going to use those terms frequently in this episode, Hagle goes on quote, instead of making its way into the inherent content of the matter in hand, understanding always takes a survey of the whole assumes a position above the particular existence about which is speaking. I, it does not see it at all. And this is what I want to focus on in this episode that the left brain is an abstraction of reality and its representations do not move. They are fixed like a rock, the right brain, however, sees and comprehends real life. And the such it flows either rolls along just as real life does just as any great rolling stone song. Unfortunately today in the world, we are more and more focused on the left brain's categories and we have not much to do with the right brain. And this is a big problem. I believe thinking true reason it flows it roles. Yes. We need our categories to make sense of things, but we need to integrate this understanding into the bigger picture, into the holistic picture. Hereclitis was the first philosophy to say that everything flows and the great contemporary philosopher Keith Richards with certainly. Now I want to give some examples here in terms of real life and what this means. So hopefully it will give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about. in today's world, we tend to focus on the rock, but we forget about the role. And, these examples that I'm going to give are gonna hopefully point. the left brain divides a categorizes. It misses the big holistic. It misses the life of the thing that it's looking at. The first example I want to talk about is political parties. And I know this is very, very topical today, but I'm going to get into it, not from a standpoint of defending or attacking one party or the other, but just, just what seems to be going on today with, with political parties in, and left-brain thing. Now in the United States party, affiliation breaks down approximately 30% Republican, 30% Democrat and 40% the. Now, if you're listening to the news media you'd believe it was 50 50, but it is not, This trend of, of polarization. It's been going on strongly in the United States and it's probably going on all over the world. and basically what it boils down to is it today, if you think, you know, someone's party, you think, you know, everything there is to know about them. And there's nothing more to know, um, in the case of indepen. Such as myself. It's the question. Well, who did you vote for? You may be to have been, but who'd you vote for? And that yields the same result then once you know who to vote for, you know, absolutely everything there is to know about me. And there's nothing more to know. No. I am a registered independent, but I do consider myself a liberal and a very much a progressive in broad sense of that word. But I don't like to think of myself as belonging to a team. I'm not a joiner crowds. I've found often get it wrong. and, I've also noticed another thing that's disturbing is oftentimes when somebody identifies with the group often, that's when the thinking styles. And it's not just in politics at this occurs, it goes on and religion. And other identification groups, identity. Now I've heard all the arguments for joining a political party. I'm not against that. people say we need parties to organize efforts and get things done. I understand that. And, and many people pick the party that best represents their goals so they can go make it. I get that. however, big and independent doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion or that I can't break things down, or that does not mean that I can not work toward certain goals is just the, sort of the dark side of party affiliation that has me, has me worried. I see the harm they can do as well. Uh, particularly when the belonging to a party leads one to stop thinking things through thinking the issues through one by one, thinking the. Through one by one and all their, uh, all that's going on with them too often today, people think only of what is good for their parties. Like a team sport, winning is everything, but politics should not be a team sport, I believe. And it's unfortunate. It's taken on this, this aspect. There are big issues at stake here, all over the world. and again, let me say, I have no problem with people. Joining a party is just when the, when they join and then they stop thinking that's. I have the problem now, I've noticed that people in parties are often Lowes to speak against anyone in their own. Why is that, you know, it's impossible than any group of 30% of Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, that there's not some bad actors in those parties in both parties. So if there's need to just, overlook any person that's in their own party in terms of being wrong or troublemaker, that's unfortunate too often today, many partisans only care about the optics of their party and not the. If something happens, is this good for us or bad for us? If it's good, we need to milk it for all it's worth. If it's bad, we need to ignore it or spin it into something else or created a distraction or find a way to blame the other party for it. And both sides do this. It's, it's a pack that both sides have made with the devil and it's getting very extreme. And the result I don't believe is good politics, I think is fine. As long as you have one foot in the country and another foot in the wrong. And then you can have interesting dialogue and, uh, and you can address the issues for what's good for the country. But when the country is itself a sacrifice to a scorched earth policy, then everybody loses. I, I, I believe, and I've lived long enough to see this polarization increased to a level I've never seen before in my lifetime, even worse than the sixties now. I've seen people in social situations that meet somebody for the first time, they'll ask a question or two to, to smell out, to sniff out what the person's party affiliation is. And once they find out, you know, everything they can, uh, that there is to know about the person is this fair to me, it is not. It's the result of blind left brain thinking, categorizing the missing, the true human being that is staying there in front. I'm not saying you have to agree with everybody on everything. Not at all. You know, spirited debate is, is what makes for good policy and w one could certainly vote for whoever they want with passion. But when you say things like I can never be friends with anyone that voted for blank, isn't that a rather limiting belief opponents should be one strike against a person if, if it's against you, but it should just be the only strike the sole determinant of who your friend is or who your friends aren't. you know, now let me say, I don't believe that discussion. Well, Greg, would you be friends with the Nazi is relevant here. It's a strong man argument. It changes the argument. Unfortunately the polarization. So when you actually hear people being accused of being Nazis today, and that's unfortunate because it lessens the crimes that the Nazis actually committed, it, it waters down what that actually means. My point is that one should not write off a whole person immediately based on who they voted for. You know, that one of the best examples I know of is. we had two Supreme court justices in the United States, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They're both on the U S Supreme court, the highest court in the land. It's a lifelong appointment in the United States. And justice Scalia was as right-wing as they come. And judge Ginsburg was as left-wing as. But, you know, they were great friends. They had tremendous respect for each other. They in their spouses attended opera together and they even vacation together can imagine. they, this did not mean that they agreed on the ruins. Of course they didn't, but they could see beyond this, to the full person and they enjoyed this full person. They enjoyed each other's intelligence and they enjoyed the conversations that they had on other things, other than the latest ruling, they were both highly intelligent people that enjoyed each other's company. And that's, that's great. The left brain for Stotz sees a category, not a person, the right brain for non sees the full. you know, in all the times we were, perhaps more talent or this, but today it's gotten much more extreme. It's interesting. I just saw a quote the other day, documentary filmmaker, Ken burns. You may have seen a number of his documentaries. One in particularly that stood out was this documentary in the civil war, a couple decades ago. And he believes is one of the worst times in American history today, I'm going to call. It's really serious. There are three great crises before this, the civil war, the depression and world war II. This is equal to it. and during this interview quoted Abraham Lincoln from an 1838 speech. And I'll read what Lincoln had to say quote from once, shall we expect the approach of danger shall some transatlantic, military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow, never all the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa could not by force take a drink from the Ohio river or make a track on the blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die by accident. And it's not just in the U S these issues of polarization and division are nearly everywhere. As far as I can say, that's because we no longer isolated in our countries. We truly live in a, in an electronic, global living room. As I discussed in episode 21 and travel. But let's move on to another example and that's, um, geographic location. And I'm going to focus on the American states in this example, but wherever you live, I'm sure you can come up with your own examples in your own country, Americans. Some anyway, tend to write off whole states, even whole sections of the country. And they're thinking we now in America have red states versus blue states, red for Republican blue for Democrat. Isn't that. Isn't that great left brain identification. But what about us independence? Where the majority in many states, maybe they should be red, blue and purple states, but none of the media likes to keep it safe. Identity politics, politics, simple, just red and blue states. Thank you. For example, I grew up in New York. In the United States. And after working for a few years in New York, I took a job in the state of North Carolina and lived there for nearly 10 years. My next door neighbor was born and raised in North Carolina. uh, he would often say that he would never step foot in New York, that the people there were crazy. He lumped all new Yorkers, regardless of ethnicity or where in the state. They lived as loud, aggressive, and obnoxious having grown up in New York state. I knew they were all types of people there, including many transplanted southerners, but his mind was made up. He only saw the brain category of new Yorker and every new Yorker was included. And of course it goes the other way as well. I often hear comments today of the south Southern United States being all biggest and racists. I actually heard somebody say that they were going to drive across the country, but they were going to take her route that would completely avoid Texas because they would not step foot in. I guess it's two Republican, the ultimate red state, but perhaps unknown to this person is most of the large Southern us cities, such as Dallas, Texas, they've had a massive influx of northerners over the last 30 years or so. And they're easily many northerners in these large urban centers, not just a small minority, it's quite significant. So you have all types of people in these states, all types of people in Texas, if different political parties, different ethnicities, different gender ideas. And all this is lost on the person that says they will never stepped foot in Texas or New York. This polarization is growing and growing. Now another interesting area where you see it as in, is in fame being famous. There's a strong trend today, uh, that people tend to regard fame over content. The content matters less than whether someone is facing. If people that are either famous for being famous in the two biggest examples, of course, the Kardashians and Paris Hilton, but what does not need to deal strictly with celebrity here, just going to any art museum, you'll notice that people standing in front of the painting and rather than looking at the painting and observing it, deciding whether they like it and that they squint and bend over to see who the painter was. And if they've ever heard of them, if they're famous, The sign with the name of the painter and the name of the painting is the category it's for the left brand. The painting itself is for the right brain. You also see people in museums with audio recording headphones, which guides them through the museum, explaining the background of each piece. And again, you can read about these pieces in a book. The purpose of actually going to the museum is to experience the piece of art. Unfiltered. Sure. Find out about it after it is either captured your attention or it is spoken. Another example is in fashion design. If you've ever watched the red carpet for the Oscars or the Emmys, when the celebrities come in and the interviewer Ryan Seacrest, or whoever it is will say, who are you wearing? It's a perfect example here. once again, the designer is more important than the dress or the suit. It's the identity of the designer. Who are you wearing? That's that's the key question. So you can say this is all left brain encroaching itself on the, the full understanding of the right brain. Not example is money. Money can become a symbol of its own, a left-brain symbol, and it can become divorced from what money can affect purchase. money is really taken on and can't take on a symbolic interpretation it beyond the goods. It can provide, it can stand for success. It can stand for winning and Stanford attractiveness. It has said money is not the root of all evil, but love of money is along these lines. I've seen people literally ruin their lives in pursuit of more and more money at the expense of living a balanced. you probably know people like this yourself. I've seen people that have really put chasing the dollar ahead of their family and, and actually ended up in very bad situations. I think this was a clear message of the popular television series, breaking bad school teacher. Walter White had terminal cancer. He turned to crime to provide for his family. A fruit was gone. But obviously there was more going on here in terms of his own ego. And he ended up nearly destroying his family in the process. I've seen people with tons of money, not nowhere to spend it. The art world is a good example. It seems that modern artists can charge millions just because of their name. Is there talent there? Well, I'll let you be the judge, but is it banana peel stuck in the wall where thousands of dollars. C'mon NFTs are now the talk of the town and you can't even hang in NFT on the wall. What is an NFT probably asking NFT stands for non fungible tokens. And it's a kind of a thing that can only exist on a computer, but it's a one of a kind thing the first time. There was ever a tweeted was sold by Twitter founder, Jack Dorsey for$2.9 million. I'm not joking. There's a rough crude computer generated picture of a mask alien punk, and it got 11.75 million us dollars in a sale. Now, of course there are those that are lucky enough to see the emptiness of just chasing after the dog. Some of the lucky ones include John D Rockefeller Warren buffet, bill gates. They recognize this and set up foundations to give most of their money away, but many don't get it. And many suffer as a result. Don't get me wrong. Property is no virtue either, but being gainfully employed and living a healthy, balanced life with family, friends in the community seems to be the way to go a full life, a holistic life for enough. And for stent, not just. Now the last left-brain item I wanted to discuss is use of photos and social media. Ah, it seems that the photo of your experience, and it was more important than the experience itself, and this trend is getting more mainstream by the. Now if you today, if you go on vacation and you don't post a photo on Facebook or Instagram, have you really gone on vacation? So now the photo validates the experience. People constantly post photos of themselves, the children, the grandchildren, their pets, their dinner, but the photo is a moment in time. It's not the experience. unfortunately the photo is the left brain abstraction of reality. but it's becoming more important than the experiences. For a friend that takes videos of absolutely everything. Um, he takes them every event. He attends of kids, the sports they play, the school plays he's films away, even film design child's birth. But when you're so busy filming, aren't you removing yourself from the situation? Don't you want to experience the miracle of birth firsthand rather than worrying about the lighting, the right framing, et cetera. I go some people to an event or place to make an hour. I already see them thinking, oh, Let me get the, uh, great Facebook or Instagram shot here. And this is symptomatic of our increasing left brain dominated world. Now, let me conclude this episode, by coming back to Hagle, Hagle taught that things always need to be put in relation to other things to find their meaning. And this is a strong theme that runs through all of the Galea aneurysm, and it is reason that makes these connect. You can see it in the individual consciousness, kneading and other consciousness that halal describes in the phenomenology of spirit. You can see it in the notion of being in and foreign self that haggled discusses in the science of logic, being in yourself is separation being for yourself, the, seeing another and recognizing the difference being in and for yourself as incorporating yourself and the other into a broader conception. That includes. Now we've discussed this in depth back in episode four, the road to true infinity. So I'm not going to do it here. We also briefly touched on this in episode six and Dr. Martin Luther king, who was a galleon, but certainly we need our left-brain categories to think no question, but it does not end there. We also need Vernon. For reason, we can't focus only on the rock. We need the role as. Well, that's a wrap for this episode. Thanks so much for listening. Please pass on the word about this podcast. If you're enjoying it to, to others that may may benefit from it. And as I say, each episode at the end, all references will be listed in the cunning of Geist Facebook page at cunning of Geist. This is Gregory Noveck. This is the cunning of Geist CNX time.