I N T H E B E G I N N I N G
"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."
MICHELANGELO BUONARROTI
MICHELANGELO BUONARROTI
Michelangelo's 'The Creation of Adam’ is surely the Western world’s most ubiquitous image. Ask yourself this..."Of all the frescoes which adorn the Sistine Chapel*, and with the rest of the massive and glorious heritage of renaissance art from which to plunder, why is it that the modern world has taken this one image so much to heart?"
In an age obsessed with communication and with a population more educated and visually literate that at any other time in human history this particular art work has been relentlessly lauded, derided, debated, parodied, plagiarised, merchandised, cartooned and otherwise exploited. And yet in spite of being subjected to this massive over-exposure it has lost none of its impact; there has to be a reason. And..."It’s a great painting"...is not the answer that I'm looking for. Okay, you could say that it’s the focal point of a scheme of work which was the precursor of cinematography and TV culture (the whole of the Sistine Chapel** is one vast storyboard epic after all); and Michelangelo is definitely the ultimate go-to-guy if you're after an image of the Almighty. This alone would have guaranteed 'The Creation' an exalted position in modern iconography.**
In an age obsessed with communication and with a population more educated and visually literate that at any other time in human history this particular art work has been relentlessly lauded, derided, debated, parodied, plagiarised, merchandised, cartooned and otherwise exploited. And yet in spite of being subjected to this massive over-exposure it has lost none of its impact; there has to be a reason. And..."It’s a great painting"...is not the answer that I'm looking for. Okay, you could say that it’s the focal point of a scheme of work which was the precursor of cinematography and TV culture (the whole of the Sistine Chapel** is one vast storyboard epic after all); and Michelangelo is definitely the ultimate go-to-guy if you're after an image of the Almighty. This alone would have guaranteed 'The Creation' an exalted position in modern iconography.**
But there are infinitely greater depths to this work than its status as pop culture cliché would lead us to believe; all we have to do is shed a few minor preconceptions and join a few dots for them to become blazingly obvious. That's because all truly great works of genius incorporate an element of ambiguity; this quality stimulates the viewer to seek sub-textural nuance and, as audiences evolve with ever greater capacity to understand, richer levels of meaning are progressively revealed (or stimulated). It is my personal belief that this image presents clues to nothing less than, wait for it, the very nature of reality which could only be apprehended with the benefit of a profound knowledge of ancient Hermeticism or, importantly, in the light of scientific discoveries made in the first half of the 20th century (and which the even the scientific community has yet to fully comprehend). Did Michelangelo intentionally encode these messages within this fresco? The answer in my mind has to be ‘yes’ to at least one, ‘maybe’ to others, and to some definitely 'not'. But does it matter?
We don’t have Michelangelo to interrogate; what we have is his incredible visual legacy and, when all's said and done, that's probably better; because if there are indeed these layers of meaning embedded in his work, regardless of whether the artist intended them to be there, or even understood them (or, for that matter, we overlaid ourselves), surely doesn't detract from their validity***. It’s simply the nature of inspiration - to a greater or lesser extent, consciously or otherwise, the artist is merely a channel. Richard Wagner said: "I am convinced that there are universal currents of Divine Thought vibrating the either everywhere and that any who can feel these vibrations is inspired." And that's particularly germane, given this subject matter.
* Although Michelangelo is popularly considered as the sole painter of the Sistine Chapel Sandro Botticelli, Pietro Perugino, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Pinturicchio also made significant contributions and Raphael was commissioned to create tapestries.
** Botticelli's 'Birth of Venus' must rank a close second followed by the Mona Lisa and the Sphinx.
***There is a subtle clue in Michelangelo's statement..."Man paints with his brains and not with his hands" which prepares the stage for a drama of polarity between mind (and by implication the realm of psyche/spirit and God) and the physicality of 'man' and his environment and creations.
* Although Michelangelo is popularly considered as the sole painter of the Sistine Chapel Sandro Botticelli, Pietro Perugino, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Pinturicchio also made significant contributions and Raphael was commissioned to create tapestries.
** Botticelli's 'Birth of Venus' must rank a close second followed by the Mona Lisa and the Sphinx.
***There is a subtle clue in Michelangelo's statement..."Man paints with his brains and not with his hands" which prepares the stage for a drama of polarity between mind (and by implication the realm of psyche/spirit and God) and the physicality of 'man' and his environment and creations.
"The human brain weighs only three to four pounds but contains about 100 billion neurons. Although that extraordinary number is of the same order of magnitude as the number of stars in the Milky Way, it cannot account for the complexity of the brain."
GERALD D. FISCHBACH - Scientific American, September 1992
GERALD D. FISCHBACH - Scientific American, September 1992
Let's start with this one fundamental precept - great artists don't waste paint. Every mark on a canvas (in this case ceiling) is saturated with meaning. Painters don't just splash the stuff around (and if you have ever seen a movie of Jackson Pollock at work you'll know that this even seemingly random applications of pigment are intensely thoughtful). To compound it Michelangelo was principally a sculptor; and as a breed they are even more purposeful and fastidious in their planning - make a mistake on a sculpture and you can't paint it over, it's back to see the nice little man at the quarry.
So if you see something unnatural, distorted, out of place in a painting, something that jars, don't just accept it; seek a reason. Now take a second look at that unnaturally billowing cloak which encompasses the image of God and his host of angelic compadres and give particular attention the smaller blue cloak whilst you are at it; they are seemingly attached to nothing and would seem to serve no practical purpose. The powerful updraft which would be responsible for making that 'rose madder' cloak billow like a tarp' on an Eddie Stobart flatbed is strangely having no effect on the blue drapery beneath it which is seemingly being blown in a contrary direction. And don't accuse me of being pedantic with cries of 'artistic licence'; because that term was invented by idiots who know nothing of about art (...don't get me started). Remember, every single element in a composition invariably communicates, contributes to or supports a message. So don't tell me that these are simply pleasing visual devices; it is the nature of genius, such as was possessed by Michelangelo, that he would have found it impossible to churn out mere eye candy even if, in the very unlikely event, this had been his conscious intention.
So if you see something unnatural, distorted, out of place in a painting, something that jars, don't just accept it; seek a reason. Now take a second look at that unnaturally billowing cloak which encompasses the image of God and his host of angelic compadres and give particular attention the smaller blue cloak whilst you are at it; they are seemingly attached to nothing and would seem to serve no practical purpose. The powerful updraft which would be responsible for making that 'rose madder' cloak billow like a tarp' on an Eddie Stobart flatbed is strangely having no effect on the blue drapery beneath it which is seemingly being blown in a contrary direction. And don't accuse me of being pedantic with cries of 'artistic licence'; because that term was invented by idiots who know nothing of about art (...don't get me started). Remember, every single element in a composition invariably communicates, contributes to or supports a message. So don't tell me that these are simply pleasing visual devices; it is the nature of genius, such as was possessed by Michelangelo, that he would have found it impossible to churn out mere eye candy even if, in the very unlikely event, this had been his conscious intention.
Now, half close your eyes, blur the detail; what do you see? Here's a clue; in common with Leonardo, Michelangelo had a profound interest in human anatomy and this would inevitably have involved them in the very much forbidden practice of dissection. A journeyman painter would be content to just scan a surface; a truly great painter will have an obsessive compulsion to understand the underlying structures of nature. And, if you are in the gruesome business of slicing up a cadaver, who wouldn't have a 'Yorick moment', ask themselves how few unimpressive pounds of colourless jelly in the skull can account for all the wonders of civilisation?
Believe it or not Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel under severe duress. Not only was he dragged away from his star project he didn't even consider himself a painter - he was sculptor and proud of it. Although he definitely couldn't deny a pope, and most especially Pope Julius II (Il papa terribile), and expect any future commissions, or much of any other kind of future for that matter, Michelangelo's status was such that he could at least call the shots where subject matter was concerned. Add together burning resentment, foul working conditions, a touch of boredom (the project spanned a massive four years) and a genius working for lesser minds with free choice of subject matter and you have the ultimate recipe for creative mischief.
What would be more natural that for Michelangelo to include a few in-jokes; maybe even taunts. And flaunting his exotic knowledge of the forbidden practice of dissection for all to see and for all time would have given him hours and hours of fun. (And maybe, just maybe, he wasn't past encoding a few heretical Hermetic secrets whilst he was at it.) You've seen the pics; you know where I'm going with this, let's cut to it. Overlay a scan of a human cranium on the fresco and watcha got. Perfect fit. Don't even mention pareidolia. There's no room for misunderstanding Michelangelo fully intended this to be a representation of the human brain.
I can't take credit for this observation; way back in 1990 Frank Meshberger MD recognised that this is an anatomically accurate image of the human brain; the borders in the painting correlating with sulci in the inner and outer surface of the brain, the brain stem, the basilar artery, the pituitary gland and the optic chiasm. God's hand does not touch Adam, yet Adam is already alive as if the spark of life is being transmitted across a synaptic cleft. Below the right arm of God is a sad angel in an area of the brain that is sometimes activated on PET scans when someone experiences a sad thought. God is superimposed over the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain and possibly the anatomical counterpart of the human soul. God's right arm extends to the prefrontal cortex, the most creative and most uniquely human region of the brain.
However, not wishing in anyway to minimise Dr Meshberger's insight; but it wasn't the biggest of stretches. And I remember as an student in the '70s this similarity was widely discussed in art history lectures (we may have lacked the credibility of medical credentials; but nevertheless, in those days, Grays Anatomy was required reading for art students). Whether or not Michelangelo was just playfully flaunting his anatomical knowledge and/or referencing contemporary interest in Neoplatonic philosophy (such as was espoused by Marsillio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola) this image has massive, and I mean truly massive, philosophical, theological and scientific implication which went way, way beyond simple anatomy and plunge us into the dark realms of 'Universal Mind'.
(Link to Congress of Neurosurgery website)
Believe it or not Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel under severe duress. Not only was he dragged away from his star project he didn't even consider himself a painter - he was sculptor and proud of it. Although he definitely couldn't deny a pope, and most especially Pope Julius II (Il papa terribile), and expect any future commissions, or much of any other kind of future for that matter, Michelangelo's status was such that he could at least call the shots where subject matter was concerned. Add together burning resentment, foul working conditions, a touch of boredom (the project spanned a massive four years) and a genius working for lesser minds with free choice of subject matter and you have the ultimate recipe for creative mischief.
What would be more natural that for Michelangelo to include a few in-jokes; maybe even taunts. And flaunting his exotic knowledge of the forbidden practice of dissection for all to see and for all time would have given him hours and hours of fun. (And maybe, just maybe, he wasn't past encoding a few heretical Hermetic secrets whilst he was at it.) You've seen the pics; you know where I'm going with this, let's cut to it. Overlay a scan of a human cranium on the fresco and watcha got. Perfect fit. Don't even mention pareidolia. There's no room for misunderstanding Michelangelo fully intended this to be a representation of the human brain.
I can't take credit for this observation; way back in 1990 Frank Meshberger MD recognised that this is an anatomically accurate image of the human brain; the borders in the painting correlating with sulci in the inner and outer surface of the brain, the brain stem, the basilar artery, the pituitary gland and the optic chiasm. God's hand does not touch Adam, yet Adam is already alive as if the spark of life is being transmitted across a synaptic cleft. Below the right arm of God is a sad angel in an area of the brain that is sometimes activated on PET scans when someone experiences a sad thought. God is superimposed over the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain and possibly the anatomical counterpart of the human soul. God's right arm extends to the prefrontal cortex, the most creative and most uniquely human region of the brain.
However, not wishing in anyway to minimise Dr Meshberger's insight; but it wasn't the biggest of stretches. And I remember as an student in the '70s this similarity was widely discussed in art history lectures (we may have lacked the credibility of medical credentials; but nevertheless, in those days, Grays Anatomy was required reading for art students). Whether or not Michelangelo was just playfully flaunting his anatomical knowledge and/or referencing contemporary interest in Neoplatonic philosophy (such as was espoused by Marsillio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola) this image has massive, and I mean truly massive, philosophical, theological and scientific implication which went way, way beyond simple anatomy and plunge us into the dark realms of 'Universal Mind'.
(Link to Congress of Neurosurgery website)
"The poor ego has a still harder time of it; it has to serve three harsh masters, and it has to do its best to reconcile the claims and demands of all three...The three tyrants are the external world, the superego, and the id."
SIGMUND FREUD - New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, (1932)
SIGMUND FREUD - New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, (1932)
From now on I'm working on the basis of case proved; Michelangelo consciously created a visual allegory of the human brain, in the most prominent place in one of the most important religious buildings in the western world, which wouldn't be generally recognised as such until the invention of tomography five hundred years in the future. If you don't accept this as fact then save yourself the trouble of reading further because the following expansions on this premise are only going to cause things to get progressively more bizarre.
So here we go; you're still with me. Recognise the guy on your right; he's generally known as the father of modern psychoanalysis; more accurately he's the most prominent of many modern psychologists (mainly due, in my opinion, to his ascribing sexual motives to the majority of human behaviour - sex, as we know, sells). Although now completely integrated into the pantheon of modern therapeutics, psychoanalysis - based as it is on completely abstract concepts - may well be proven to be irrelevant and ineffectual by advances in neurosurgery and neuropharmacology, and as such its tenants (some say) should be regarded as a provisional*. (To quote the pioneering statistician George E. P. Box "All models are wrong, but some are useful.”) But let's not get too picky.
So here we go; you're still with me. Recognise the guy on your right; he's generally known as the father of modern psychoanalysis; more accurately he's the most prominent of many modern psychologists (mainly due, in my opinion, to his ascribing sexual motives to the majority of human behaviour - sex, as we know, sells). Although now completely integrated into the pantheon of modern therapeutics, psychoanalysis - based as it is on completely abstract concepts - may well be proven to be irrelevant and ineffectual by advances in neurosurgery and neuropharmacology, and as such its tenants (some say) should be regarded as a provisional*. (To quote the pioneering statistician George E. P. Box "All models are wrong, but some are useful.”) But let's not get too picky.
This now thoroughly professionalised blend of neurology, philosophy, theology and anthropology which is termed 'analytical psychology’ has played a pivotal role in catalysing a concept of self as a collective of psychic entities. However, despite proof to the contrary, the great majority of us continue to erroneously view ourselves as a single indivisible unit of personality (until something goes wrong that is).
If you want a pitch perfect example of the therapeutic value of analytical psychology working in the community you'll have to go back a little further than the 20th century; to a date when a charismatic young rabbi by the name of Yeshua Ben Yusef encountered an 'individual' with a severe mental disturbance. The conversation is reported to have gone a little like this, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." The rabbi's ingenious and rapid deployment of a placebo reintegrated his patient's personality has come down to us as the 'Gadderine Swine’ (Mark 5:1-14).
If you want a pitch perfect example of the therapeutic value of analytical psychology working in the community you'll have to go back a little further than the 20th century; to a date when a charismatic young rabbi by the name of Yeshua Ben Yusef encountered an 'individual' with a severe mental disturbance. The conversation is reported to have gone a little like this, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." The rabbi's ingenious and rapid deployment of a placebo reintegrated his patient's personality has come down to us as the 'Gadderine Swine’ (Mark 5:1-14).
Freudian psychology operates on the principle that there are three distinct and discrete components to psychic structure that is commonly referred to as mind; [1] the Id (which contains the basic drives), [2] the ego (which seeks to fulfil the id’s demands in realistic ways that will create long term benefit and minimise any negative outcomes; effectively mediating between the id and physical reality) and [3] the Super Ego (the subject's conscience which punishes misbehaviour with feelings of guilt).
Freud further postulates that there are three states of consciousness; every day waking consciousness; beneath that there's the preconscious level, which acts as a repository for memories and knowledge; and further down we find the unconscious** which, contains all our powerful and primitive primal urges. (Although he was not the first to do so, that credit probably goes to American psychologist William James) Freud famously deployed the iceberg simile to demonstrate the relationship of his three psychic components one to the other and within the context of these three levels of consciousness.
Incidentally, below the famous 'Creation' fresco is a lesser known rendition of God, again operating out of a thinly disguised cross-sectioned skull. This time the id, ego, super-ego associations are even more evident (with a barely visible figure of the unconscious deep in the background shadow).
*In 1966 Joseph Weizenbaum an early computer pioneer and precursor of 'artificial intelligence' developed a computer application designed to replace the therapist. Named ELISA and driven by the Doctor script it was based on Carl Rogers (American psychologist and originator of 'Rogerian' therapy) use of neutral and open ended questions to stimulate the patient to mobilise their own personal resources towards recovery. The application (still available today) applies pattern matching rules to patient's statements to compute its replies and would nowadays be termed a 'chatterbot'. In trials it proved remarkably successful - it's an emphatic testimony to the placebo effect that human psychotherapists survived it. You can download a version of ELISA here.
**The terms unconscious and subconscious are commonly regarded as interchangeable; but 'subconscious' actually has no single or precise definition and the word is avoided in scientific context. Non-academics generally understand that 'unconscious' describes an area of mind which cannot be accessed except via the dream state and from which information cannot be recalled without some special event (as with the oft quoted case of the madeleine dipped in tea in Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu) or by employing some special technique such as hypnotism. The term 'subconscious' is understood to be almost the same except that we can choose to recall information if we make a concerted effort. As such 'subconscious' would be more accurately identified as 'preconscious' or 'sub-limen'.
Freud further postulates that there are three states of consciousness; every day waking consciousness; beneath that there's the preconscious level, which acts as a repository for memories and knowledge; and further down we find the unconscious** which, contains all our powerful and primitive primal urges. (Although he was not the first to do so, that credit probably goes to American psychologist William James) Freud famously deployed the iceberg simile to demonstrate the relationship of his three psychic components one to the other and within the context of these three levels of consciousness.
Incidentally, below the famous 'Creation' fresco is a lesser known rendition of God, again operating out of a thinly disguised cross-sectioned skull. This time the id, ego, super-ego associations are even more evident (with a barely visible figure of the unconscious deep in the background shadow).
*In 1966 Joseph Weizenbaum an early computer pioneer and precursor of 'artificial intelligence' developed a computer application designed to replace the therapist. Named ELISA and driven by the Doctor script it was based on Carl Rogers (American psychologist and originator of 'Rogerian' therapy) use of neutral and open ended questions to stimulate the patient to mobilise their own personal resources towards recovery. The application (still available today) applies pattern matching rules to patient's statements to compute its replies and would nowadays be termed a 'chatterbot'. In trials it proved remarkably successful - it's an emphatic testimony to the placebo effect that human psychotherapists survived it. You can download a version of ELISA here.
**The terms unconscious and subconscious are commonly regarded as interchangeable; but 'subconscious' actually has no single or precise definition and the word is avoided in scientific context. Non-academics generally understand that 'unconscious' describes an area of mind which cannot be accessed except via the dream state and from which information cannot be recalled without some special event (as with the oft quoted case of the madeleine dipped in tea in Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu) or by employing some special technique such as hypnotism. The term 'subconscious' is understood to be almost the same except that we can choose to recall information if we make a concerted effort. As such 'subconscious' would be more accurately identified as 'preconscious' or 'sub-limen'.
“Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious.”
CARL GUSTAV JUNG
CARL GUSTAV JUNG
Freud's star pupil Carl Jung had a far more mystical take on the subject. Whilst accepting Freud's basic tenants he extended the three levels of consciousness with the addition of a concept which he termed the 'collective unconscious'; this, he postulated, is a universally shared psychic state which contains primitive race memories and myth, and is populated by supremely powerful psychic entities which he termed archetypes - previous generations might have recognised these as Gods, angels and demons.
Jung postulated that the complex eastern and pre Christian pantheons of interrelated deities, generally dismissed by 'westerners' (from their Judeao-Christian monotheistic perspective) as primitive and pagan were, in fact, a sophisticated representation of important elements of the collective unconscious. This state of shared consciousness (which we access via the dream experiences and trance - however achieved) can be equated to the sea in which all our personal Freudian icebergs float. Paranormal phenomena, such as synchronicity (first described by Jung), precognition, telepathy and remote viewing can be accounted for if we accept that this shared psychic state operates outside of, and is not subject to the constraints of, our space/time continuum.
Jung postulated that the complex eastern and pre Christian pantheons of interrelated deities, generally dismissed by 'westerners' (from their Judeao-Christian monotheistic perspective) as primitive and pagan were, in fact, a sophisticated representation of important elements of the collective unconscious. This state of shared consciousness (which we access via the dream experiences and trance - however achieved) can be equated to the sea in which all our personal Freudian icebergs float. Paranormal phenomena, such as synchronicity (first described by Jung), precognition, telepathy and remote viewing can be accounted for if we accept that this shared psychic state operates outside of, and is not subject to the constraints of, our space/time continuum.
A further significant strata has subsequently been added to Jung's 'enhanced/theocratised' version of Freud's psychic model with concept of 'consensus consciousness' (which equates to what Charles Tart, American psychologist and parapsychologist, more accurately and scathingly refers to as 'consensus trance'); this level of consciousness represents the homogenising conventions and norms generally accepted by society which act to suppress innovation, individuality and free thinking (and which we will later refer to as a predominantly left brain, or left hemisphere, phenomenon).
The intertwined figures which Michelangelo crams within the cross-sectioned cranium are not only a cunning visual representation of the convolutions of the human cortex but also serve as a perfect metaphor for the components of the human personality; dominated as they are by the figure of God - the universal super-ego - coordinating these multiple subordinate psychic components and acting as the ultimate moral authority whilst forming a bridge between the individual and the collective unconscious which connects us all and exists outside of linear space/time.
It is a feature of the human condition to project (see Plato's Cave). We see God, gods, superior spiritual entities, however described, as 'out there'. In reality the concept of deity (in fact everything, physical or otherwise, that we experience) happens within the mind. How many times do mystics down the ages need to remind us? ("Nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21). Accepting that this painting is, indeed, an intentional representation of the human brain (and by extension 'mind' and 'spirit') Michelangelo could be viewed as the true father (certainly precursor to) of analytical psychology - move over Carl and Sigmund.
(Incidentally magical gurus from Aleister Crowley [Abbey of Thelema] to Peter J. Carroll [The Illuminates of Thanateros] actively encouraged their adherents to abandon the first person singular for the more accurate [to their minds] first person plural.)
The intertwined figures which Michelangelo crams within the cross-sectioned cranium are not only a cunning visual representation of the convolutions of the human cortex but also serve as a perfect metaphor for the components of the human personality; dominated as they are by the figure of God - the universal super-ego - coordinating these multiple subordinate psychic components and acting as the ultimate moral authority whilst forming a bridge between the individual and the collective unconscious which connects us all and exists outside of linear space/time.
It is a feature of the human condition to project (see Plato's Cave). We see God, gods, superior spiritual entities, however described, as 'out there'. In reality the concept of deity (in fact everything, physical or otherwise, that we experience) happens within the mind. How many times do mystics down the ages need to remind us? ("Nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21). Accepting that this painting is, indeed, an intentional representation of the human brain (and by extension 'mind' and 'spirit') Michelangelo could be viewed as the true father (certainly precursor to) of analytical psychology - move over Carl and Sigmund.
(Incidentally magical gurus from Aleister Crowley [Abbey of Thelema] to Peter J. Carroll [The Illuminates of Thanateros] actively encouraged their adherents to abandon the first person singular for the more accurate [to their minds] first person plural.)
"Information is information, not matter or energy"
NORBERT WIENER - American mathematician who originated the term 'cybernetics'
NORBERT WIENER - American mathematician who originated the term 'cybernetics'
The medical community regards the human brain as an organ; and if it is damaged, or for any other reason malfunctions, remedial action could follow one of two avenues - surgical or chemical intervention. But before these invasive, relatively high risk techniques, are mobilised psychotherapy may be suggested - the 'talking therapy'. Which is strange when you think about it; with the risk of appearing crude, picture a gynaecologist popping a patient into the stirrups and then engaging the seat of the problem in therapeutic conversation. No other organ on the human body receives this bizarre form of treatment.
But the brain, the argument goes, is unique amongst organs because it alone handles cognitive processes. Well maybe it is and maybe it isn't. It's pretty well accepted by now that the brain isn't the only intelligent organ in the human body; and that consciousness is more evenly distributed than is commonly understood. The gut, for instance, has its own well developed intelligence (termed the 'enteric nervous system') and the heart, via sophisticated biological communication systems, has a significant influence on the function of the brain and all our other systems.
But the brain, the argument goes, is unique amongst organs because it alone handles cognitive processes. Well maybe it is and maybe it isn't. It's pretty well accepted by now that the brain isn't the only intelligent organ in the human body; and that consciousness is more evenly distributed than is commonly understood. The gut, for instance, has its own well developed intelligence (termed the 'enteric nervous system') and the heart, via sophisticated biological communication systems, has a significant influence on the function of the brain and all our other systems.
It is worth noting that psychiatry has a lot in common with theology; it deals with unprovable abstract concepts, it can't operate without the unconditional belief of the subject, and its most successful tricks are attributable to the placebo effect. Some go so far as to say that the current concept of psychology as an effective therapy is pretty much a busted flush; the process of analysis being slow and the results unpredictable and uncertain. (Little wonder that of all the professions psychiatrists have by far the highest suicide rate.)
Although there are many aspects of the brain which are still very much a mystery the majority of brain structure is pretty well mapped and understood. And as neurosurgery and neuropharmacology develop in range and sophistication the relative effectiveness of psychology as a therapy may be further questioned. Surgical interventions such as electrical implants (similar to heart pacemakers) and precisely targeted pharmaceuticals are far more likely to provide us with the ultimate control that we seek over our neural functions, intellectual processes, emotions and consequent behaviour and achievement.
It's the classic software/hardware dilemma - is there a fault in the operating system or is an electronic component failing? Psychotherapy attempts to beneficially adjust the information processing function with a 'software' patch and neurosurgery and neuropharmacology address the mechanics of brain 'hardware'. There's a common problem for both approaches - the nature of the material that they are attempting to manipulate isn't material. As Norman Wiener put it so succinctly "Information is information, not matter or energy". In the west the general and growing consensus is that matter and energy is all that exists. However, whilst the storage and transmission of information requires matter and energy, this requirement should not be confused with information itself. The basic premise of Wiener's proposition holds true. Information, in all measurable terms, simply does not exist.
Although there are many aspects of the brain which are still very much a mystery the majority of brain structure is pretty well mapped and understood. And as neurosurgery and neuropharmacology develop in range and sophistication the relative effectiveness of psychology as a therapy may be further questioned. Surgical interventions such as electrical implants (similar to heart pacemakers) and precisely targeted pharmaceuticals are far more likely to provide us with the ultimate control that we seek over our neural functions, intellectual processes, emotions and consequent behaviour and achievement.
It's the classic software/hardware dilemma - is there a fault in the operating system or is an electronic component failing? Psychotherapy attempts to beneficially adjust the information processing function with a 'software' patch and neurosurgery and neuropharmacology address the mechanics of brain 'hardware'. There's a common problem for both approaches - the nature of the material that they are attempting to manipulate isn't material. As Norman Wiener put it so succinctly "Information is information, not matter or energy". In the west the general and growing consensus is that matter and energy is all that exists. However, whilst the storage and transmission of information requires matter and energy, this requirement should not be confused with information itself. The basic premise of Wiener's proposition holds true. Information, in all measurable terms, simply does not exist.
So, according to Norbert Wiener (pictured left), the brain generates a state of being (information) which is not of the material world. It has no physical properties (neither matter nor energy); yet the physical world could not exist without it. Indeed (quick detour to the world of theology) that may well be the purpose of the physical world - the processing and storage of information. What else is 'worship' but the individual discharging of positive information towards a designated non-material entity? And if we take one step back from information (actually its the ultimate step because there's nowhere else to go) we find the data* from which all information is derived.
And here we meet the two major concepts expounded by Carl Jung (the metaphysical/alchemical psychologist); [1] collective unconscious (the non-material ocean of data in which each of our personal 'Freudian' icebergs float) and [2] archetypes (non material clusters of information which occur within the infinite mass of data which forms the collective unconscious). If all this sounds like geek speak, maybe there's a reason for that (plenty more about the binary universe later). Matter and energy (data) deprived of organising power (information) is just a flavourless gloop of infinite potential. (Or a superposition of all possible states awaiting the necessary 'observation' - to take the quantum perspective.)
Along these lines its fitting to compare data with Plasticine (modelling clay for you younger viewers) after the play group have finished with it. Typically the kids have mixed the individual colours together so many times that the clay has been rendered into a shapeless gray-brown lump. Wouldn't you be amazed if someone were to come along and take this ruined clay and tease out each of the individual colours and create intricate landscapes featuring animals and even people (for which read creating 'information' out of 'data'). Unfortunately (for my metaphor at least) and typically the Hebrew Bible got there first with multiple references to modelling out of clay; here's an instance. "Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." Isaiah 64:8.
For the final word on this aspect of the subject I refer to a Higher Authority. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them..." (GENESIS 1:27/28). God created the material world out of raw data by imparting His 'blessing' (for 'blessing' read...the process which transforms raw data into intelligible information).
Along these lines its fitting to compare data with Plasticine (modelling clay for you younger viewers) after the play group have finished with it. Typically the kids have mixed the individual colours together so many times that the clay has been rendered into a shapeless gray-brown lump. Wouldn't you be amazed if someone were to come along and take this ruined clay and tease out each of the individual colours and create intricate landscapes featuring animals and even people (for which read creating 'information' out of 'data'). Unfortunately (for my metaphor at least) and typically the Hebrew Bible got there first with multiple references to modelling out of clay; here's an instance. "Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." Isaiah 64:8.
For the final word on this aspect of the subject I refer to a Higher Authority. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them..." (GENESIS 1:27/28). God created the material world out of raw data by imparting His 'blessing' (for 'blessing' read...the process which transforms raw data into intelligible information).
*Data: information in raw or unorganized form (such as alphabets, numbers, or symbols) that refer to, or represent, conditions, ideas, or objects. Data is limitless and present everywhere in the universe. Information: data in a processed or organised form, communicated or received that has been verified to be accurate and timely, is specific and organized for a purpose, is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty. The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behaviour, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. (Business Process definition.)
"This situation suggests that our psychological and behavioural functions are under the joint control of three quite different mentalities…."
DR PAUL D. MACLEAN
DR PAUL D. MACLEAN
Somewhere in the no-man's-land between psychology and neurology pops up the puckish neuroscientist Dr Paul D. MacLean, originator of the 'Triune Brain' theory which, if somewhat startling (and still controversial), impacts on both therapeutic disciplines. Dr MacLean's big idea takes the form of a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain which he first introduced in the 1960s and expanded in his 1990 book 'The Triune Brain in Evolution'.
The triune brain (possibly more accurately the 'triune mind') theory subdivides the brain of three complex structures [1] reptilian [2] paleomammalian and [3] neomammalian which, over evolutionary time, were sequentially added to create the organ we know today. This 'triune' concept, although firmly anchored in the physical structures of the brain, bears interesting comparison to Freud's Id, Ego, and Super-ego.
The triune brain (possibly more accurately the 'triune mind') theory subdivides the brain of three complex structures [1] reptilian [2] paleomammalian and [3] neomammalian which, over evolutionary time, were sequentially added to create the organ we know today. This 'triune' concept, although firmly anchored in the physical structures of the brain, bears interesting comparison to Freud's Id, Ego, and Super-ego.
The reptilian complex, also known as the 'R-complex' or 'reptilian brain' was the name MacLean gave to the basal ganglia, structures derived from the floor of the forebrain during development. (Comparative neuroanatomists once believed that the forebrains of reptiles and birds were dominated by these structures.) MacLean contended that the reptilian complex was responsible for species typical instinctual behaviours involved in aggression, dominance, territoriality, and ritual displays.
The paleomammalian brain consists of the septum, amygdala, hypothalamus, hippocampal complex, and cingulate cortex. MacLean first introduced the term 'limbic system' to refer to this set of interconnected brain structures in a paper in 1952. Whatever the merits of the triune brain hypothesis, MacLean's recognition of the limbic system as a major functional system in the brain has won wide acceptance among neuroscientists, and is generally regarded as his most important contribution to the field. MacLean maintained that the structures of the limbic system arose early in mammalian evolution (hence 'paleomammalian') and were responsible for the motivation and emotion involved in feeding, reproductive behaviour, and parental behaviour.
The paleomammalian brain consists of the septum, amygdala, hypothalamus, hippocampal complex, and cingulate cortex. MacLean first introduced the term 'limbic system' to refer to this set of interconnected brain structures in a paper in 1952. Whatever the merits of the triune brain hypothesis, MacLean's recognition of the limbic system as a major functional system in the brain has won wide acceptance among neuroscientists, and is generally regarded as his most important contribution to the field. MacLean maintained that the structures of the limbic system arose early in mammalian evolution (hence 'paleomammalian') and were responsible for the motivation and emotion involved in feeding, reproductive behaviour, and parental behaviour.
The neo-mammalian complex consists of the cerebral neocortex, a structure found uniquely in mammals. MacLean regarded its addition as the most recent step in the evolution of the human brain, conferring the ability for language, abstraction, planning, and perception.
The triune model continues to hold interest for some psychologists and members of the general public because of its focus on the recognizable differences between most reptiles, early mammals, and late mammals. Reasons for the success are its simplicity; the theory in this form recognizes three major evolutionary periods in the development of the brain that are characterized by three recognizably distinct ways of solving adaptive challenges). Under this model, the 'neocortex' represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modelling and simulation; the 'reptilian brain' refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behaviour and other 'reptile' behaviours; and 'limbic brain' refers those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviours, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviours and affects that arose during the age of the mammals.
The three brains are said to act in coordination or competition in this variation of the model. While there is no scientific consensus on the applicability of the model at a level other than the three distinct evolutionarily distinct brain systems, some people find this to be a helpful model because of its broad explanatory value.
The triune model continues to hold interest for some psychologists and members of the general public because of its focus on the recognizable differences between most reptiles, early mammals, and late mammals. Reasons for the success are its simplicity; the theory in this form recognizes three major evolutionary periods in the development of the brain that are characterized by three recognizably distinct ways of solving adaptive challenges). Under this model, the 'neocortex' represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modelling and simulation; the 'reptilian brain' refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behaviour and other 'reptile' behaviours; and 'limbic brain' refers those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviours, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviours and affects that arose during the age of the mammals.
The three brains are said to act in coordination or competition in this variation of the model. While there is no scientific consensus on the applicability of the model at a level other than the three distinct evolutionarily distinct brain systems, some people find this to be a helpful model because of its broad explanatory value.
The popularity of the model can also be seen in the way it parallels recurring themes in popular culture and the arts. For example, some languages have phrases which refer to speaking from the 'head', 'heart', or 'gut', or philosophically of the three virtues of 'wisdom, benevolence and courage' - or psychologically of 'thinking', 'feeling', and 'willing'. In The Wizard of Oz, for example, the quest for a 'brain', a 'heart', and 'courage' play a central role. The three elements of the triune model map comfortably onto these more abstract conceptions.
I like to think that had Michelangelo fallen under the influence of Paul MacLean's compelling model the population of his 'Sistine Brain' may perhaps have been even more exotic. But don't think that Michelangelo had entirely omitted the reptilian aspects of the mind from his schema; a (significantly) serpent/human hybrid is depicted as 'Lilith' Adam's first wife and the ultimate tempter. The trinity of figures in this area of the composition can (left to right) be viewed as neo-mammalian (Adam; analytical), paleomammalian (Eve; intuitive), reptilian complex (Lilith; reflexive).
I like to think that had Michelangelo fallen under the influence of Paul MacLean's compelling model the population of his 'Sistine Brain' may perhaps have been even more exotic. But don't think that Michelangelo had entirely omitted the reptilian aspects of the mind from his schema; a (significantly) serpent/human hybrid is depicted as 'Lilith' Adam's first wife and the ultimate tempter. The trinity of figures in this area of the composition can (left to right) be viewed as neo-mammalian (Adam; analytical), paleomammalian (Eve; intuitive), reptilian complex (Lilith; reflexive).
"The phrase 'nature and nurture' is a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads the innumerable elements of which personality is composed."
FRANCIS GALTON - 1874
FRANCIS GALTON - 1874
There are two concepts usually regarded and separate propositions - nature/nurture and bottom up/top down - but which are intimately related. encapsulates the perennial tussle between psychologists and philosophers. TOP-DOWN, BOTTOM UP
Nature/nurture is to do with what shapes our personality to what extent does our innate evolved psychic structures contribute to our personality and consequent behaviour and to what extent do our life experiences cause us to do the things we do.
Bottom up/top down: is to do with how we receive and interpret information to what extent does our innate evolved psychic structures contribute to our perception of reality and consequent reactive behaviour. The first deals with personality, the second deals with perception and the one thing that they have in common is that they influence our behaviour. So, for these purposes let's deal with perception/personality as one element and behaviour as another element.
The battle royal of psychology can be encapsulated in two words 'Nature' and 'Nurture'. To what extent are our characters hardwired into our neural structures and to what extent are our psyches shaped by our perceptions of physical circumstances, life events, and the influences of those with whom we come into contact. It's a tug of war that has raged back and forth for the last 200 years.
There is no doubt that 'nurture' has a great influence on 0ur personalities; in Ira Levin's book 'The Boys from Brazil' remnant Nazis are attempting to clone Hitler; but they don't believe that it is sufficient to merely reproduce a cellularly identical individual and they go to great pains to ensure that their neo-Fuhrers are brought up in as near identical circumstances to the original as they can reproduce.
The central character travels Europe and North America to investigate the suspicious deaths of a number of middle-aged civil servants. He meets several of their widows and is amazed to find an uncanny resemblance in their adopted, black-haired, blue-eyed sons. It is also made clear throughout the film that, at the time of their deaths, all the civil servants were aged around 65 and had a cold, domineering, and abusive demeanor towards their adopted boys, whereas their wives were aged around 42 and over-spoiled them...in an attempt to create the familial and social conditions that formed the personality of the Fuhrer.
The surviving Third Reich scientist, Dr Mengele, who devised the programme, had obviously very fixed ideas as to the nature versus nurture debate, and he was leaving nothing to chance.
The lyrics of Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story the Jets, in their serenade to 'kindly' Sergeant Krupke, express another strong opinion on the subject.
"This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care...It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed. He's psychologic'ly disturbed...In the opinion on this court, this child is depraved on account he ain't had a normal home...Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived."
The Jets as you can tell are strong supporters of the nurture camp; not least because they believe that it absolves them of ultimate responsibility for their delinquency.
If dramatists can't make up their minds you'd think that psychology professionals would at least provide clear guidelines. Unfortunately not. Opinion has fluctuated dramatically over the last century and a half.
Currently the pendulum, however, seems to be swing in the direction of the 'naturist' argument. Steven Pinker a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind says,
"...the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses."
And this statement directs us to the nub of the problem which rests with the manor in which we humans derive our experience of reality. The unlimited nature of the ocean of data in which we swim or the fixed nature of the hardware that we employ to form meaningful and useful information from the data. And to what extent the hardware adapts to data input and to what extent it distorts data. Psychologists call sensory input, the nurture element, 'bottom up' and they call the data processing function, the nature element, 'bottom down'. Just about everyone agrees that these two 'ingredient' exist. Just about no one agrees on what proportions are of this recipe.
Nature/nurture is to do with what shapes our personality to what extent does our innate evolved psychic structures contribute to our personality and consequent behaviour and to what extent do our life experiences cause us to do the things we do.
Bottom up/top down: is to do with how we receive and interpret information to what extent does our innate evolved psychic structures contribute to our perception of reality and consequent reactive behaviour. The first deals with personality, the second deals with perception and the one thing that they have in common is that they influence our behaviour. So, for these purposes let's deal with perception/personality as one element and behaviour as another element.
The battle royal of psychology can be encapsulated in two words 'Nature' and 'Nurture'. To what extent are our characters hardwired into our neural structures and to what extent are our psyches shaped by our perceptions of physical circumstances, life events, and the influences of those with whom we come into contact. It's a tug of war that has raged back and forth for the last 200 years.
There is no doubt that 'nurture' has a great influence on 0ur personalities; in Ira Levin's book 'The Boys from Brazil' remnant Nazis are attempting to clone Hitler; but they don't believe that it is sufficient to merely reproduce a cellularly identical individual and they go to great pains to ensure that their neo-Fuhrers are brought up in as near identical circumstances to the original as they can reproduce.
The central character travels Europe and North America to investigate the suspicious deaths of a number of middle-aged civil servants. He meets several of their widows and is amazed to find an uncanny resemblance in their adopted, black-haired, blue-eyed sons. It is also made clear throughout the film that, at the time of their deaths, all the civil servants were aged around 65 and had a cold, domineering, and abusive demeanor towards their adopted boys, whereas their wives were aged around 42 and over-spoiled them...in an attempt to create the familial and social conditions that formed the personality of the Fuhrer.
The surviving Third Reich scientist, Dr Mengele, who devised the programme, had obviously very fixed ideas as to the nature versus nurture debate, and he was leaving nothing to chance.
The lyrics of Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story the Jets, in their serenade to 'kindly' Sergeant Krupke, express another strong opinion on the subject.
"This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care...It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed. He's psychologic'ly disturbed...In the opinion on this court, this child is depraved on account he ain't had a normal home...Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived."
The Jets as you can tell are strong supporters of the nurture camp; not least because they believe that it absolves them of ultimate responsibility for their delinquency.
If dramatists can't make up their minds you'd think that psychology professionals would at least provide clear guidelines. Unfortunately not. Opinion has fluctuated dramatically over the last century and a half.
Currently the pendulum, however, seems to be swing in the direction of the 'naturist' argument. Steven Pinker a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind says,
"...the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses."
And this statement directs us to the nub of the problem which rests with the manor in which we humans derive our experience of reality. The unlimited nature of the ocean of data in which we swim or the fixed nature of the hardware that we employ to form meaningful and useful information from the data. And to what extent the hardware adapts to data input and to what extent it distorts data. Psychologists call sensory input, the nurture element, 'bottom up' and they call the data processing function, the nature element, 'bottom down'. Just about everyone agrees that these two 'ingredient' exist. Just about no one agrees on what proportions are of this recipe.
The Jets as you can tell are strong supporters of the nurture camp; not least because they believe that it absolves them of ultimate responsibility for their delinquency.
If dramatists can't make up their minds you'd think that psychology professionals would at least provide clear guidelines. Unfortunately not. Opinion has fluctuated dramatically over the last century and a half.
Currently the pendulum, however, seems to be swing in the direction of the 'naturist' argument. Steven Pinker a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind says, "...the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses."
And this statement directs us to the nub of the problem which rests with the manor in which we humans derive our experience of reality. Unlimited nature of the ocean of data in which we swim or the fixed nature of the hardware that we employ to form meaningful and useful information from the data. And to what extent the hardware adapts to data input and to what extent it distorts data.
Psychologists call sensory input, the nurture element, 'bottom up' and they call the data processing function, the nature element, 'bottom down'. Just about everyone agrees that these two 'ingredient' exist. Just about no one agrees on what proportions are of this recipe. How much outside influences shape the structure of our brains over evolutionary time, how much life experiences shape the mentality of an individual, how much 'hard wired' brain structures shape our interpolation of external data. How much the limitations of our sensory organs restrict our appreciation of the totality of existence. And how much of our 'joining the dots' facility allow for misinterpretation and wishful delusion.
Mystics would point out, of course, that all of these sophisticated conjectures are pointless. That the difference between the observer and the observed is a false distinction and that existence is a timeless continuum hidden from us by over reliance on intellect. Nature versus nurture is essentially a null concept.
If dramatists can't make up their minds you'd think that psychology professionals would at least provide clear guidelines. Unfortunately not. Opinion has fluctuated dramatically over the last century and a half.
Currently the pendulum, however, seems to be swing in the direction of the 'naturist' argument. Steven Pinker a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind says, "...the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses."
And this statement directs us to the nub of the problem which rests with the manor in which we humans derive our experience of reality. Unlimited nature of the ocean of data in which we swim or the fixed nature of the hardware that we employ to form meaningful and useful information from the data. And to what extent the hardware adapts to data input and to what extent it distorts data.
Psychologists call sensory input, the nurture element, 'bottom up' and they call the data processing function, the nature element, 'bottom down'. Just about everyone agrees that these two 'ingredient' exist. Just about no one agrees on what proportions are of this recipe. How much outside influences shape the structure of our brains over evolutionary time, how much life experiences shape the mentality of an individual, how much 'hard wired' brain structures shape our interpolation of external data. How much the limitations of our sensory organs restrict our appreciation of the totality of existence. And how much of our 'joining the dots' facility allow for misinterpretation and wishful delusion.
Mystics would point out, of course, that all of these sophisticated conjectures are pointless. That the difference between the observer and the observed is a false distinction and that existence is a timeless continuum hidden from us by over reliance on intellect. Nature versus nurture is essentially a null concept.
“One glance at a book and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for 1,000 years. To read is to voyage through time.”
CARL SAGAN
CARL SAGAN
The central figure in the 'Sistine Brain' is traditionally ascribed to that of God (such a loose definition, but presumably intended to represent the Hebrew God in a Christianised form). The right forearm of this senior and dominant figure (super-ego) is the only element to protrude from within the confines of the cross-sectioned cranium; which is a representation, not just of the anatomical brain, but also the mind. The pivotal significance of the mind-reaching-out gesture cannot be overstated.
Skip back 5,000 years or so; human society was teetering on the point of maximal development. The limitation to further growth was simply the inability of the brain to store, retrieve, disseminate and exchange information. What in computer terms would be attributed to processing power - effectively we had very small hard drives, not enough RAM and very limited interconnectivity. Our ability to expand our intelligence had simply bumped up against a simple physical limit. The cerebral cortex (the outer surface and last area of the brain to evolve) had contorted like fleshy origami to make maximal use of the limited space; but further expansion was just not possible. It had reached its physical limit. Our heads simply couldn't get any bigger.
Interestingly it wasn't a problem with the cranium's ability to expand which caused the road block; it was the size of the female pelvis. That's because in order to facilitate the birth of increasingly macrocephalic progeny the gap between the female sacral promontory and the inner pubic arch had expanded to the point where any wider would begin to compromise the gender's ability to walk; and if you can't run faster than your predator it doesn't bode well in terms of natural selection. There are clues everywhere..."I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." GENESIS 3:16. It is not without reason that a key element of the human female sexual attraction is a broad pelvic girdle; which was historically emphasised by clothing such as hooped dresses, bustles and bows, and latterly tight skirts and high heels; all of which, no surprise, impede walking. It took the necessities of two world wars for men to concede to women the right to wear trousers. (So, yes, it's imprinted on the male psyche to prefer women broad assed and hobbled.)
Something had to give and the solution when it came was simple - we had to go exosomatic; that is, we needed a means of storing information outside of our brains. This 'one great leap' alone caused us to side-step our allotted place in evolution; as soon as we learned to write everything changed. Hence the profound significance of the arm of God reaching out from the confines of the human mind.
Gods of the written word, and communication in general, appear in ancient pantheons wherever civilisation flourished. (Isolated communities which did not develop exosomaticly remained in their original slot in evolution, in balance with the prevailing ecosystem and food supply, in the original 'Eden state'.) The most well known exosomatic god was the ancient Egyptian Thoth which, following Alexander's annexation of Egypt, became Hellenised as Hermes and awarded the honorific of Trismagistus (Thrice Great), and which later became syncretised as the Roman god Mercury.
There are various explanations for the title Trismagistus, only one of which I find convincing (i.e. Hermes was master of the three great occult sciences - astrology, alchemy and theurgy); my suggestion would be that it is because of his threefold achievement in data handling [1] storage [2] processing and [3] sharing. If you had to restart civilisation from scratch these three elements are all you need; that and 5,000 years will get you from banging flints together to walking on the moon.
Image of 'The Fall'
Skip back 5,000 years or so; human society was teetering on the point of maximal development. The limitation to further growth was simply the inability of the brain to store, retrieve, disseminate and exchange information. What in computer terms would be attributed to processing power - effectively we had very small hard drives, not enough RAM and very limited interconnectivity. Our ability to expand our intelligence had simply bumped up against a simple physical limit. The cerebral cortex (the outer surface and last area of the brain to evolve) had contorted like fleshy origami to make maximal use of the limited space; but further expansion was just not possible. It had reached its physical limit. Our heads simply couldn't get any bigger.
Interestingly it wasn't a problem with the cranium's ability to expand which caused the road block; it was the size of the female pelvis. That's because in order to facilitate the birth of increasingly macrocephalic progeny the gap between the female sacral promontory and the inner pubic arch had expanded to the point where any wider would begin to compromise the gender's ability to walk; and if you can't run faster than your predator it doesn't bode well in terms of natural selection. There are clues everywhere..."I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." GENESIS 3:16. It is not without reason that a key element of the human female sexual attraction is a broad pelvic girdle; which was historically emphasised by clothing such as hooped dresses, bustles and bows, and latterly tight skirts and high heels; all of which, no surprise, impede walking. It took the necessities of two world wars for men to concede to women the right to wear trousers. (So, yes, it's imprinted on the male psyche to prefer women broad assed and hobbled.)
Something had to give and the solution when it came was simple - we had to go exosomatic; that is, we needed a means of storing information outside of our brains. This 'one great leap' alone caused us to side-step our allotted place in evolution; as soon as we learned to write everything changed. Hence the profound significance of the arm of God reaching out from the confines of the human mind.
Gods of the written word, and communication in general, appear in ancient pantheons wherever civilisation flourished. (Isolated communities which did not develop exosomaticly remained in their original slot in evolution, in balance with the prevailing ecosystem and food supply, in the original 'Eden state'.) The most well known exosomatic god was the ancient Egyptian Thoth which, following Alexander's annexation of Egypt, became Hellenised as Hermes and awarded the honorific of Trismagistus (Thrice Great), and which later became syncretised as the Roman god Mercury.
There are various explanations for the title Trismagistus, only one of which I find convincing (i.e. Hermes was master of the three great occult sciences - astrology, alchemy and theurgy); my suggestion would be that it is because of his threefold achievement in data handling [1] storage [2] processing and [3] sharing. If you had to restart civilisation from scratch these three elements are all you need; that and 5,000 years will get you from banging flints together to walking on the moon.
Image of 'The Fall'
Human development is currently undergoing another massive incline in the exosomatic path of literacy; and only time will tell whether Tim Berners Lee will one day be recognised as a 20th century emanation of Hermes (maybe sharing joint honours with Bill Gates). After all, what are the twin Hermetic pillars of Joacim and Boaz (and all the other cultural representations of universal polarity such as yin and yang) but the two units [0 + 1] which comprise the binary code of the universe?
Humans have taken to these new technologies like 'lion's food' and usage is spreading faster than any previous technology; automated data processing, and particularly the Internet, is having a massive impact on the world economy and on social interaction; it is as though humans have finally recognised their ultimate direction. Moore's Law (named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore) states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years (or 18 months if you follow the David House version). Remarkably this law has held an absolute course since 1965.
Humans have taken to these new technologies like 'lion's food' and usage is spreading faster than any previous technology; automated data processing, and particularly the Internet, is having a massive impact on the world economy and on social interaction; it is as though humans have finally recognised their ultimate direction. Moore's Law (named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore) states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years (or 18 months if you follow the David House version). Remarkably this law has held an absolute course since 1965.
Tracing technical progress since the exosomatic leap (the written word was first introduced back in Sumer, as far as we know, in around 3200 BCE) and we find that nothing much happened for the first 4,600 years. And it's also worth noting that apart from a relatively limited number of theologians, nobility and intelligentsia the vast majority of the population was profoundly illiterate and dependent on the minority educated class or oral tradition for the transmission of their history, genealogy and mythology. Nevertheless despite these crushing (by today's standards) limitations they somehow managed to produce a vast body of literature, philosophy and theology which still massively influence our thinking and behaviour today. The Hebrew nation etc...
However in the early 17th century it looks like Hermes made the decision to involve the rest of the population in the exosomatic revolution. In the developed world illiteracy has fallen to almost zero and the means of production, storage, manipulation and dissemination of information has skyrocketed. If a graph were plotted from 3200BC to date, in terms of information technology and distribution of knowledge, we would be looking at a virtual flat line to Caxton's invention in 1450AD and then a gradual steepening to around 1725 (about the time of the industrial revolution) and thereafter a dramatically exponential curve. Now the plot line is virtually vertical to the point where baby boomers have witnessed more technological advances in their lifetime than in the whole of recorded history and most of that packed into the last 20 years.
With the advent of the Internet (by far Hermes' best idea to date) access to information has been truly democratised with the sum total of the human knowledge-base open to all and, importantly, it's now physically secure (no scrolls to rot in desert caves and no despot to burn books) due to its instant availability and borderless breadth of distribution (that's excepting the odd neutron bomb or massive solar flare in which case the old paper and print ways are probably still best). Right now you have to ask yourself "are we shaping the technology or is the technology shaping us?" It's another example of a self-referring loop represented in 'The Creation' because the simple answer has got to be "both".
However in the early 17th century it looks like Hermes made the decision to involve the rest of the population in the exosomatic revolution. In the developed world illiteracy has fallen to almost zero and the means of production, storage, manipulation and dissemination of information has skyrocketed. If a graph were plotted from 3200BC to date, in terms of information technology and distribution of knowledge, we would be looking at a virtual flat line to Caxton's invention in 1450AD and then a gradual steepening to around 1725 (about the time of the industrial revolution) and thereafter a dramatically exponential curve. Now the plot line is virtually vertical to the point where baby boomers have witnessed more technological advances in their lifetime than in the whole of recorded history and most of that packed into the last 20 years.
With the advent of the Internet (by far Hermes' best idea to date) access to information has been truly democratised with the sum total of the human knowledge-base open to all and, importantly, it's now physically secure (no scrolls to rot in desert caves and no despot to burn books) due to its instant availability and borderless breadth of distribution (that's excepting the odd neutron bomb or massive solar flare in which case the old paper and print ways are probably still best). Right now you have to ask yourself "are we shaping the technology or is the technology shaping us?" It's another example of a self-referring loop represented in 'The Creation' because the simple answer has got to be "both".
EXOSOMATIC TIMELINE:
First Period 4,650 years beginning: 3200 BC first evidence of writing – 1450AD Caxton printing press.
First Period 4,650 years beginning: 3200 BC first evidence of writing – 1450AD Caxton printing press.
Second period 545 years beginning: 1450 Caxton printing press - 1725 first punched cards - 1768 Encyclopædia Britannica - 1792 Optical telegraph - 1837 Morse telegraph - 1837 Pitman Shorthand - 1839 4p Postal Service - 1839 Micro-photograph (microfische) - 1866 Transatlantic telegraph - 1870 Elementary Education Act (UK) - 1879 QWERTY keyboard - 1880 IBM founded - 1894 First Commercial Movie - 1897 Radio Telegraphy - 1889 Gramaphone disc - 1913 Radio - 1920 Stenotype machine - 1927 Sound film - 1928 IBM card format - 1935 Penguin Books - 1936 BBC TV - 1943 Colossus Mk 1 (Bletchley Park) - 1964 IBM manufacture PCs - 1970 Computer mouse invented - 1971 email - 1971 Sony VCR - 1977 Apple Computers - 1979 Mobile 1G Networks - 1982 CD - 1992 Public Internet.
Third period 35 years beginning: 1992 Public Internet - 1995 Amazon - 1997 DVD - 1998 Google - 2003 Human Genome Project completed - 2001 Wikipedia - 2004 Facebook - 2006 Twitter - 2006 Blu-ray - 2008 Large Hadron Collider operational - 2025 development of 'Strong AI' (artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence - see AI graph - at which point Skynet starts sending robots back from the future).
(Interestingly other brain shaped cloaks appear both in the Sistine Chapel and in subsequent art history; for me the most pertinent image is by Rubens [see appendix] in which it is Hermes, complete with his trademark caduceus, and not God who is reaching out from the thinly disguised reference to the brain.)
"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone
observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."
MARTIN REES
Baron Rees of Ludlow, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, Astronomer Royal
observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."
MARTIN REES
Baron Rees of Ludlow, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, Astronomer Royal
I never get tired of reading the above quotation from Martin Rees (our current Astronomer Royal); encapsulating as it does the magically counter-intuitive nature of modern physics. This proposition comes in two flavours termed either the 'Weak Anthropic Principle' or the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. It was the eminent physicist and quantum super star - John Wheeler - who gave the graphical expression to this startling concept which went down in the history books. Wheeler's strange eyeball looking at its tail was his way to represent a self-referential system in which our observation creates everything in the universe, including ourselves, the observers. (There is also an animated version of the diagram which is even more revealing and fascinating.)
This characteristically strange visual analogy (my version to the left) poses two pivotal questions [1] is the universe a self-excited circuit which was most excited at the big bang and has since been slowly winding down? Or [2] was the universe in a superposition of all possible states until life emerged and began observing more organized versions of the universal wave function from that point on the world timeline?
Option one or option two? To be completely honest, I really don't care. At heart I'm just a quantum groupie; I follow the band, I'm entranced their music, whether I fully comprehend their lyrics is pretty much irrelevant to me. What really matters is that guys like Rees and Wheeler have liberated me from the leaden deterministic constraints of Newtonian physics; and I just revel, as any budding mystic should, in the freedom of intellect and imagination provided by the quantum perspective - terms like 'counter-intuitive' are my briar patch. So just bring it on why don't you, stranger the better.
Option one or option two? To be completely honest, I really don't care. At heart I'm just a quantum groupie; I follow the band, I'm entranced their music, whether I fully comprehend their lyrics is pretty much irrelevant to me. What really matters is that guys like Rees and Wheeler have liberated me from the leaden deterministic constraints of Newtonian physics; and I just revel, as any budding mystic should, in the freedom of intellect and imagination provided by the quantum perspective - terms like 'counter-intuitive' are my briar patch. So just bring it on why don't you, stranger the better.
As a schoolboy classical physics just purely irritated me; but, having come across it later in life, quantum mechanics drives me bat crap crazy - I just can't get enough of the stuff. And I'm getting quite good at comprehending things which are beyond my understanding. I floss my teeth with string theory, live by strong anthropic principles, rest my head on a pillow of quantum foam and take my vacations in Copenhagen (quantum in-joke). The towering personalities, the mind wrenching theories, the incredible achievements and even more incredible potential. (I attribute this infatuation to an art school training and a generally right brain disposition - see below).
From my cheering-on-the-sideline perspective I don't see all the complex mathematics I just see fascinating abstractions and breathtaking leaps of imagination as people with brains the size of planets attempt to fathom the unfathomable and express the inexpressible. The problem that physics is bumping up against is not in making the big discoveries (although heaven knows that's difficult enough) it's in being able to communicate them. Prosaic non-mathematical language just isn't up to the task; that's why what has been issuing from the mouths of our leading physicists is beginning to sound like a clumsy attempt at poetry or a regurgitation of eastern mysticism. Had they not got impressive academic credentials backed up by a collection of Nobel prizes collecting dust on their mantle shelves I'm not sure that they would be taken so very seriously.
From my cheering-on-the-sideline perspective I don't see all the complex mathematics I just see fascinating abstractions and breathtaking leaps of imagination as people with brains the size of planets attempt to fathom the unfathomable and express the inexpressible. The problem that physics is bumping up against is not in making the big discoveries (although heaven knows that's difficult enough) it's in being able to communicate them. Prosaic non-mathematical language just isn't up to the task; that's why what has been issuing from the mouths of our leading physicists is beginning to sound like a clumsy attempt at poetry or a regurgitation of eastern mysticism. Had they not got impressive academic credentials backed up by a collection of Nobel prizes collecting dust on their mantle shelves I'm not sure that they would be taken so very seriously.
John Wheeler's eyeball drawing is a typical case in point. Operating as it is on the very edge of the human comprehension you can't fault the logic and the graphic expression has at least the virtue of being direct and unmistakable; but you wouldn't commission Mr Edwards to decorate your chapel ceiling. Michelangelo on the other hand you could trust to make a half decent job of it. So what if we gave John Wheeler's scrappy sketch to the master? Personally I think someone may already have done so; or (which is so much more likely) Michelangelo had conceived this mind-bending concept for himself - five hundred years prior to the advent of quantum theory.
On the right hand branch we have the big bang, the ultimate act of creation, God by any other name; on the left hand you have mankind, the created. It's the ultimate depiction of the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. Mankind, by the very act of observation, initiating the creation of a universe that is optimally habitable to us because we could not create a universe in which we could not exist; and with the ultimate act of creation occurring between them like electricity arcing across the gap in a spark plug.
This self referring loop, which is increasingly blurring the once strict demarcation between the creator and the created, has been happening in an incremental fashion ever since humanity began questioning the mysteries of the 'heavens' (in fact this act of 'questioning' - as in 'critical' observation - may well be the defining factor between humanity and the rest of creation). By observing we create, by creating we observe what we have created in an endless and progressive cycle. As technology has become ever more sophisticated and we have moved from the naked eye to the Hubble telescope (and, at the other extreme, the Large Hadron Collider) we are able to penetrate ever deeper into space/time; with the ultimate goal of observing the big bang, creation itself. In doing so we are making a literal, nuts 'n' bolts rendition of John Wheeler's whimsical diagram.
Just like the Adam portrayed in the Sistine Chapel we are engaging with the Creator in (as near as technology allows right now) the act of creation. But, and here's the crucial point, it's not the Creator making the contact with Adam 'then' (way back at the dawn of time) - its us making contact 'now'.
On the right hand branch we have the big bang, the ultimate act of creation, God by any other name; on the left hand you have mankind, the created. It's the ultimate depiction of the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. Mankind, by the very act of observation, initiating the creation of a universe that is optimally habitable to us because we could not create a universe in which we could not exist; and with the ultimate act of creation occurring between them like electricity arcing across the gap in a spark plug.
This self referring loop, which is increasingly blurring the once strict demarcation between the creator and the created, has been happening in an incremental fashion ever since humanity began questioning the mysteries of the 'heavens' (in fact this act of 'questioning' - as in 'critical' observation - may well be the defining factor between humanity and the rest of creation). By observing we create, by creating we observe what we have created in an endless and progressive cycle. As technology has become ever more sophisticated and we have moved from the naked eye to the Hubble telescope (and, at the other extreme, the Large Hadron Collider) we are able to penetrate ever deeper into space/time; with the ultimate goal of observing the big bang, creation itself. In doing so we are making a literal, nuts 'n' bolts rendition of John Wheeler's whimsical diagram.
Just like the Adam portrayed in the Sistine Chapel we are engaging with the Creator in (as near as technology allows right now) the act of creation. But, and here's the crucial point, it's not the Creator making the contact with Adam 'then' (way back at the dawn of time) - its us making contact 'now'.
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI
Shake off those last residual preconceptions; if you were looking at an image of any other couple besides the Creator and Adam (this scene from Woody Allen's Annie Hall, for instance) you would be making a whole range of conscious and unconscious value judgements; you'd most definitely be checking out the body language.
(Read my lips, great artists don't waste paint; there is nothing random in Michelangelo's Creation, nothing unconsidered. So let's take a final look at what's happening in this scene.)
No one could fail to be aware that central focus of the composition is the space between those two outstretched fingers; it simply crackles with tension like a gap in a high-voltage power line. The whole theme is one of polarity; the right being the positive pole and the left negative (see brain test).
(Read my lips, great artists don't waste paint; there is nothing random in Michelangelo's Creation, nothing unconsidered. So let's take a final look at what's happening in this scene.)
No one could fail to be aware that central focus of the composition is the space between those two outstretched fingers; it simply crackles with tension like a gap in a high-voltage power line. The whole theme is one of polarity; the right being the positive pole and the left negative (see brain test).
The figure of God on the right exudes tension, it's dynamic, purposeful, energetic, masculine, passionate; Adam on the left is relaxed, languid, receptive, almost feminine. God is depicted as a man in full maturity with a beard, Adam is almost androgyne by comparison and clean shaven (did they have razor blades in Eden?). God is clothed, Adam is naked. God is leaning towards Adam who leans away (in any other context you'd check out the body language and conclude that it is the bearded figure was doing all the running). God is contained, housed, constrained, pressure cooker powerful, Adam is in the open; dwellingless and vulnerable. God is accompanied, Adam is alone. The colouring surrounding the figure of God is warm, florid and visceral; Adam's figure is etiolated by comparison and is placed in cool natural surroundings. And most telling of all, God is extending the right hand; Adam the left hand.
The cortex of the human brain, as most are aware (since the pioneering work of psychologist John Sperry), is arranged into functionally different left and right hemispheres; the left hemisphere has general control of the right side of the body and the right hemisphere takes care of the left side of the body. The right brain is intuitive the seat of the mystical experience, the arts and poetry (think of it as the Hippy/left wing consciousness) the left brain is the seat of the religious experience, the intellect, mathematics and government (think of it as the Fascist/right wing consciousness).
The cortex of the human brain, as most are aware (since the pioneering work of psychologist John Sperry), is arranged into functionally different left and right hemispheres; the left hemisphere has general control of the right side of the body and the right hemisphere takes care of the left side of the body. The right brain is intuitive the seat of the mystical experience, the arts and poetry (think of it as the Hippy/left wing consciousness) the left brain is the seat of the religious experience, the intellect, mathematics and government (think of it as the Fascist/right wing consciousness).
Another layer of meaning is added to this composition by the right to left-hand disposition of these figures. Traditionally, the left side of the body, and left-handedness, had profoundly negative connotations. In Latin word for pocket is ‘sinistra’, togas had a pocket on the 'left' and 'left became synonymous with 'sinistra which took on meanings of ‘evil’ or ‘unlucky’ by the Classical Latin era. This double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, and in the English word ‘sinister’. The French word gauche (left) means clumsy, graceless or awkward, and adroit (related to droit, right) means ‘dextrous’. These secondary meanings have entered English common usage. This negative/positive attribution seems to be universal; in Chinese culture, for instance, the adjective ‘left’ sometimes means ‘improper’ or ‘out of accord’ with the phrase ‘left path’ stands for unorthodox or of immoral means. In Hebrew, and other ancient Semitic and Mesopotamian languages, the term ‘left’ is associated with misfortune, natural evil, or punishment from the gods. This was integrated into mainstream Christianity by early Roman theologians and continued into Protestantism. In the Middle and Far East the left hand is reserved for aspects of personal hygiene and the right for eating. Michelangelo was quite obviously aware of the cultural significance of left/right handedness and therefore it was not without deliberate purpose that this composition (arguably, the focal element of the Sistine Chapel) was arrayed thus.
This strict left/right role cerebral demarcation oft times causes internal conflict because no one is all left or right brain. But then again no one has a perfectly equal balance of both hemispheres. So humanity is made up of individuals with a greater or lesser bias in one direction or the other. And extreme left and extreme right brainers are not natural allies. Not unexpectedly in the highly organised structures of western society (church, government, the military and corporations) extreme left brainers dominate. By controlling the means of enforcing their will left brainers are the prosecutors and persecutors and for the most part right brainers make up the ranks of the outcasts and martyrs. The irony being that our predominantly left brain western society desperately needs extreme right brainers; they are the leaven in the dough of civilisation, and all the great leaps in human progress have resulted from flashes of inspirational right brain activity.
In 'The Creation' fresco the surrounding imagery, the colour, the attitude, the pose of the Creator are all dramatically left brain; and most significantly of all the figure of Adam is reaching out with the right hand. Don't you think that it would be natural when greeting someone of great importance extend your right hand to meet his? But oh no, here's Adam languidly reaching out with his left hand, his 'sinister' hand. Adam, as depicted by Michelangelo, is all right brain (yin) to the Creator's left brain (yang).
In 'The Creation' fresco the surrounding imagery, the colour, the attitude, the pose of the Creator are all dramatically left brain; and most significantly of all the figure of Adam is reaching out with the right hand. Don't you think that it would be natural when greeting someone of great importance extend your right hand to meet his? But oh no, here's Adam languidly reaching out with his left hand, his 'sinister' hand. Adam, as depicted by Michelangelo, is all right brain (yin) to the Creator's left brain (yang).
Zone of proximal development
Universal duality (such as in the left and right hemispheres of the brain) has been likened in esoteric symbolism (Kabbalistic/Alchemical/Masonic) to a pair of columns. The left column (Boaz) denoting; intuitive, passive, yin, lunar, fluid right brain state interacting with the right column (Joachim) denoting the positive, intellectual, active, yang, solar, structured left brain state; with the force of Creation expressed through the balance of their mutual polarity. Interestingly the esoteric Hebrew doctrine enshrined in Kabbalistic writings identifies evil as an unbalanced state (termed Quilothic) - too much left or too much right. Elsewhere on the Sistine Chapel ceiling you will find possibly the most dramatic and powerful representation of polarity in the history of art - 'The Creation of the Sun and Moon'. Note: right hand (left brain) pointing at the sun, left hand (right brain) pointing at the moon.
It is speculated that the animal/non human state is what in humans would be given right hemisphere attribution; and that up to a certain point in human evolution we were all of us exclusively right-brainers (picture: groups of hippy dippy proto-humans roaming the African savannas). Carl Sagan likens the relationship of the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere to a nation which has won a war, but only just. Nevertheless, regardless that their victory was by a very slim margin, they still get to write the history books, name the streets etc. The majority of adults only acknowledge the existence of the left brain; but it's not hard wired. Children are born without this conditioning and they develop left brain dominance through exposure to established societal values. Maybe Yeshua Ben Yosef was counselling against left brain domination when he proclaimed "...unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3). Indeed, the point in human evolution at which left brain dominance was acquired may well have been mythologised as the 'The Fall'.
The papal 'message', as articulated in the Sistine Chapel, is purposefully imposing and predictably 'left brain'. "Look, these things are above you (literally), you won't be able to understand them, but you can see from what surrounds you that we do understand it, not only that, we have a direct line to the Almighty, so stick with us, do as we tell you without question, and you'll be all right." Contrast this with two less well known chapels where art, not religion, mediates the experience of divinity - the quietly meditative, and hemispherically balanced Rothko Chapel and Matesse's masterpiece the Chapelle du Rosaire. I don't think that it was the money changers per se to whom the firebrand rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef objected to cluttering up the temple, it was 'left brainers' - the bread heads, bean-counters and control freaks who hi-jack the spiritual experience.
The last word goes to that same young rabbi (as reported in the Gospel 0f Thomas). "If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders."
Quite conceivably humanity is this "wonder of wonders".
It is speculated that the animal/non human state is what in humans would be given right hemisphere attribution; and that up to a certain point in human evolution we were all of us exclusively right-brainers (picture: groups of hippy dippy proto-humans roaming the African savannas). Carl Sagan likens the relationship of the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere to a nation which has won a war, but only just. Nevertheless, regardless that their victory was by a very slim margin, they still get to write the history books, name the streets etc. The majority of adults only acknowledge the existence of the left brain; but it's not hard wired. Children are born without this conditioning and they develop left brain dominance through exposure to established societal values. Maybe Yeshua Ben Yosef was counselling against left brain domination when he proclaimed "...unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3). Indeed, the point in human evolution at which left brain dominance was acquired may well have been mythologised as the 'The Fall'.
The papal 'message', as articulated in the Sistine Chapel, is purposefully imposing and predictably 'left brain'. "Look, these things are above you (literally), you won't be able to understand them, but you can see from what surrounds you that we do understand it, not only that, we have a direct line to the Almighty, so stick with us, do as we tell you without question, and you'll be all right." Contrast this with two less well known chapels where art, not religion, mediates the experience of divinity - the quietly meditative, and hemispherically balanced Rothko Chapel and Matesse's masterpiece the Chapelle du Rosaire. I don't think that it was the money changers per se to whom the firebrand rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef objected to cluttering up the temple, it was 'left brainers' - the bread heads, bean-counters and control freaks who hi-jack the spiritual experience.
The last word goes to that same young rabbi (as reported in the Gospel 0f Thomas). "If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders."
Quite conceivably humanity is this "wonder of wonders".
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."
PABLO PICASSO
PABLO PICASSO
All images enlarge