Do You Believe in Magic?

Maybe. Recall that in the previous post we were discussing enchantment, synonyms of which include allurement, bedazzlement, splendor, wonderment, mystical, and magic. 

Sounds like the same old warmed-over romanticism to me.

Perhaps, in the sense that romanticism itself was a kind of intuitive right-brain reaction to a rationalistic left-brain hegemony. I just looked up what McGilchrist says about this in The Matter With Things, and it checks out:

It will come as no surprise, then, that a disposition toward God is largely dependent on the right hemisphere, the hemisphere we already know brings us closer to the truth than the left. 

In particular, I'm looking at chapter 28, The Sense of the Sacred, in which he discusses the ineffability of God, or whatever we choose to call this ultimate principle or ground of being:

there is almost certainly more here than we have words for, or can expect ever to understand using reason alone. Such an expectation itself would be irrational.

McGilchrist continues: "The proper response to this realisation is not argument, but awe." And "To be human" 

is to feel a deep gravitational pull towards something ineffable, that, if we can just for once get beyond words and reasons, is a matter of experience...,

This realm of vertical experience is  

something outside our conceptual grasp, but nonetheless present to us through intimations that come to us from a whole range of unfathomable experiences we call "spiritual."

Call it romanticism if you like, but the ineffable something toward which we are pulled is O, the thing pulled is (¶), and the intimations between are (↓). These are like abstract left-brain symbols for concrete right-brain knowledge and experience.

You have to outsmart, as it were, the left hemisphere, because it tends not to know its own limits. It is very much beset by a neurological Dunning Krugery, whereby "it has no sense of the limits of its own understanding":

It operates inside a framework, within which all questions are referred back, and all answers form part of a reassuringly familiar schema; if they don't they are simply pronounced nonsense. 

It's a closed loop, so anything outside the loop is nonexistent or imaginary. It doesn't have an appropriately humble meta-view of itself:

it doesn't see the bounds of its own world view; in order to to that, it would have to see there is something beyond the bounds -- and that is something it cannot do.

Or, cannot do in the absence of its complementary hemisphere. 

Now, I have no idea whether this is "neurologically true," but it's true in every other way, so it might as well be. Humans are forever confining themselves to their own ideological matrices. It's been a permanent temptation since Genesis 3. 

Well, that's a coincidence. David Bentley Hart pops up in this chapter, on p. 1199, in the context of a discussion of the poverty of physics to account for existence below and everything above, AKA the whole problem of verticality and transcendence. 

How about that. A precise explanation of the need for the symbol O:

The problem is that if we are to say anything about it [the ground of being], we still need some sort of placeholder, within language, for all those aspects of Being that defy direct expression, but which we sense are greater than the reality which language is apt to describe, almost certainly greater than whatever the human mind can comprehend

 McGilchrist, adds that

What we need, in fact, is a word unlike any other, not defined in terms of anything else: a sort of un-word.

O is precisely such an un-word. McGilchrist further explains the need for this un-word:

Here is the dilemma, and why I speak of an un-word: if we have no word, something at the core of existence disappears from our shared world of awareness; yet if we have a word, we will come to imagine we have grasped the nature of the divine, pinned it down and delimited it, even though by the very nature of the divine this is something that can never be achieved.

It seems to me that he's describing an illicit left-brain misappropriation of what properly belongs to the right. McGilchrist again perfectly describes the problem for which O is the answer: 

[T]he word God is obfuscated and overlaid with so many unhelpful accretions in the West that it is not surprising that people recoil from this idol.

Back to the beginning of this post, we're just trying to review the last chapter of All Things Are Full of Gods, called The Voice of Echo. Which in fact echoes what was said above about left-brain disenchantment and right-brain re-enchantment, and about the human need for the latter:

The proper habitat of a living soul is an enchanted world..., where one believes one can always find places of encounter with immortal -- or at least longaevous [long-lasting] -- powers; and in the absence of those numinous or genial presences human beings feel abandoned, and very much alone.

Here again, the proper human habitat must be a place where both left and right brains are at home. Because it is not as if one can ever actually eliminate the latter, rather, it will return in some form, whether spiritually silly or ideologically toxic. 

Whatever the case, after four centuries of mechanistic dogma, the inability to view the natural order as a realm of invisible sympathies and vital spiritual intelligences is very much the essence of the late modern human condition.

To which a couple of aphorisms come to mind:

The nominalist lives among facts. The realist lives among gods.

“Intuition” is the perception of the invisible, just as “perception” is the intuition of the visible.

The Gagdad melon is running out of steam and glucose. We'll try to wrap it all up in the next post...