"If we subject a work of art, say, or even the human body, to detached,   
   analytic attention, we lose the sense of the thing itself, and its being in   
   all its wholeness and otherness recedes. But the result of such attention,   
   PROVIDED IT IS THEN    
   RELINQUISHED, so that we stand in a state of openness and receptivity before   
   the thing once again, may be a deeper and richer 'presencing'. The work of the   
   left hemisphere done, the thing 'returns' to the right hemisphere positively   
   enriched. The best    
   criticism of works of art produces just this result, and the study of medicine   
   at its best achieves it, too, in relation to the human body. Again it is the   
   analogy of the necessary analysis carried out by the pianist in learning a   
   piece, an analysis that    
   must be forgotten during performance. The 'danger' inherent in the process is   
   the potential arrogance of the left hemisphere, which may not allow the   
   return: it may come to think of itself as all in all."   
      
   Yes. It reminds me of the popular back-and-forth notion of cybernetics   
   (regarding the Publius Enigma)in both its similarity and dissimilarity.   
      
      
   RELINQUISHED...   
   arrogance...   
      
   even Master and Emissary are best understood as metaphors, part of a narrative   
   of opposition and competition.   
      
   McGilchrist hasn't actually established that those metaphors of opposition and   
   competition are appropriate. It's not at all clear that the left hemisphere's   
   activity is an act of 'will'. Even the notion of 'inhibition' is narrative   
   driven. The act of '   
   will' is on a different level.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)