There is a parable, drawn from Nietzsche, that sits at the heart of one of the most important intellectual projects of our time.

A wise spiritual master ruled a small but prosperous domain. He was known for selfless devotion to his people. As the domain grew, he needed emissaries to govern its distant parts. He trained them carefully. But the cleverest of them — his most trusted vizier — began to see himself as the master. He mistook his master’s temperance for weakness. He adopted the master’s mantle as his own. The master was usurped, the people were duped, the domain became a tyranny, and eventually it collapsed in ruins.¹

Iain McGilchrist believes this story describes something happening inside our brains — and, through our brains, something happening to our entire civilisation.

Before he was a psychiatrist or a neuroscientist, McGilchrist was a literary scholar at Oxford, where he was three times elected a Fellow of All Souls College. He was troubled by a problem that seemed small but wouldn’t let go: why did the things we valued most in a great poem turn to dust the moment you tried to explain them? The uniqueness of the work, the thing that made it live, seemed to consist precisely of what could not survive analysis. Inspect it closely and the life drained out. Put it into explicit language and what you were left with was accurate, perhaps, but dead. Something was being destroyed by the very act of trying to understand it.

He spent twenty-five years tracing that intuition to its source. He trained in medicine, became a psychiatrist, served as Clinical Director at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital in London, and conducted neuroimaging research at Johns Hopkins. What he found was that the problem was not literary. It was neurological. It was built into the structure of the brain itself.

His argument, developed across three books totalling some 3,000 pages, is that the two hemispheres of the human brain deliver two fundamentally different versions of reality — and that the wrong one has taken charge.²

McGilchrist writes long books. Almost nobody reads them. This is a problem, because what he has to say may be the single most illuminating framework available for understanding why the modern world feels the way it does — mechanistic, fragmented, increasingly captured by systems that cannot see what they are destroying.

What follows is an attempt to introduce his most important ideas to a reader encountering them for the first time.

Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to all books I’ve written plus 1-2 new ones per month. e.g.

The DMSO Book
The Kitchen Remedies Guide
Chlorine Dioxide
The PSA Trap
Breast Cancer
Drilling for Profit
What Your Vet Can’t Tell You

Plus: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions regularly added. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

unbekoming@outlook.com

Give a gift subscription

Forget Everything You Think You Know About the Hemispheres

The first obstacle is that you think you already know this story. Left brain: logical, verbal, analytical. Right brain: creative, emotional, artistic. Men are left-brained. Women are right-brained. Management consultants have built careers on this cartoon.

McGilchrist demolishes it. The pop-culture version of hemisphere difference is wrong in almost every particular. Both hemispheres are involved in reason, language, emotion, creativity, and logic. There is no task that one hemisphere does while the other sits idle. Brain imaging confirms this: virtually every human activity lights up both hemispheres.³

Neuroscience, embarrassed by the pop version, largely abandoned the question. If both hemispheres do everything, why bother asking how they differ?

Because neuroscience asked the wrong question. The difference between the hemispheres is not what they do. It is how they do it. Not the tasks they perform, but the manner of attention they bring to the world.⁴

This distinction is the key that unlocks everything else.

Two Kinds of Attention, Two Kinds of World

Why does the brain have two hemispheres at all? The organ whose entire purpose is to make connections is split almost completely in half. The division goes deep into evolutionary history. Birds, mammals, reptiles all have it. Whatever the two hemispheres are for, they are for something fundamental to being alive.

McGilchrist finds the answer in a bird eating seed.

A sparrow pecking grain off gravel has to solve an impossible problem. It needs to focus sharply on the tiny seed among the grit — one wrong peck and it gets a mouthful of stones. At the same time, it needs to keep broad, open awareness of the whole environment — because a hawk is watching. These two kinds of attention are neurologically incompatible. You cannot do both with the same neural machinery at the same time.⁵

The solution is hemispheric division.

The bird uses its right eye (connected to the left hemisphere) to focus narrowly on the seed. It uses its left eye (connected to the right hemisphere) to watch for everything else: predators, mates, threats, the world as a whole.⁶

This is the template. It is preserved all the way up the evolutionary tree, and in humans the same asymmetry holds — vastly elaborated, but structurally the same.

The left hemisphere deploys narrow, focused attention. It isolates things from context. It categorises, labels, makes things explicit, breaks wholes into parts. It is the hemisphere of grasping, literally (it controls the right hand) and figuratively. It deals in what it already knows, the familiar, the re-presented. Its purpose is to help us manipulate the world, to render it useful.⁷

The right hemisphere deploys broad, open, sustained attention. It sees things in context, as part of a living whole. It understands the implicit, the ambiguous, the unique. It is attuned to whatever is new, to other living beings, to the embodied and the relational. It does not grasp the world but receives it. Its purpose is to help us understand the world — to see what is actually there.⁸

These are not two styles of information processing. They are two ways of being in the world. And they deliver two different versions of reality, both necessary, but not equal.

One further detail. The corpus callosum — the thick band of fibres connecting the hemispheres — is assumed to be a bridge for sharing information. It is. But that is not its primary function. It contains 300–800 million fibres, yet only 2 per cent of cortical neurons are connected by it. The main purpose of a large number of those connections is inhibitory — their job is to stop the other hemisphere from interfering. Several neuroscientists have proposed that the entire point of the corpus callosum is to allow one hemisphere to suppress the other.⁹

And the suppression runs asymmetrically. The left hemisphere is better able to silence the right than the right is to silence the left.¹⁰ The emissary can shut the master up. The master has no equivalent power.

Explaining It to a Six-Year-Old

If all of this sounds complicated, it isn’t. You can explain the core of McGilchrist’s argument to a child.

You have two helpers in your head. One helper is really good at picking things up, sorting them into boxes, and giving them names. It likes things to be still so it can look at them closely. It likes to take things apart to see how they work. It’s the helper that lets you tie your shoes, count your marbles, and remember the word for “tree.”

The other helper is good at seeing everything at once. It notices when something feels wrong, even if it can’t say why. It’s the helper that lets you recognise your mother’s face in a crowd, understand that a friend is sad before they tell you, and feel what a piece of music means without needing to explain it. It sees the whole forest. The first helper sees the individual trees and counts them.

You need both. But the helper who counts the trees has come to believe that the forest is nothing more than a collection of trees. It’s wrong about that. And it doesn’t know it’s wrong, because the ability to see the forest is the other helper’s job.

Now scale that up to an entire civilisation.

What the Left Hemisphere Cannot See

Each hemisphere, when dominant, produces a characteristic world. The left hemisphere’s world is explicit, abstract, fixed, fragmented, decontextualised, and ultimately lifeless — but clear and amenable to control. The right hemisphere’s world is implicit, embodied, flowing, interconnected, contextual, and alive — but never fully graspable, always imperfectly known.¹¹

The relationship between them is not symmetrical.

The right hemisphere sees the whole — left and right visual fields, the entire body, the full context. The left hemisphere attends only to the right half. In split-brain patients, the right hemisphere covers the entire visual field; the left hemisphere sees only its own side. After a right-hemisphere stroke, patients may deny the existence of the entire left half of their body — refusing to wash, shave, or dress the left side, sometimes insisting it doesn’t exist. This is not blindness. The visual system is intact. It is a failure of attention, of the kind only the right hemisphere provides.¹²

After a left-hemisphere stroke, this mirror phenomenon does not occur. The right hemisphere still provides a complete world.

Sit with that asymmetry. One hemisphere, damaged, and the patient still inhabits a whole world — diminished, perhaps, but whole. The other hemisphere, damaged, and half of reality simply ceases to exist for the patient, who will insist, with complete conviction, that nothing is missing.

The right hemisphere grounds our experience. It delivers the raw, lived encounter with reality that all further processing depends on. The left hemisphere operates on this material, unpacking, analysing, categorising, and in a functioning brain, its work is returned to the right hemisphere, reintegrated into the wider context. Right, then left, then right again.¹³

The left hemisphere is not wrong in what it sees. But its vision is limited. And it has no awareness of this limitation. McGilchrist puts it directly: the left hemisphere “is filled with an alarming self-confidence.”¹⁴

The Emissary’s Peculiar Pathologies

The clinical evidence is where McGilchrist’s argument moves from theory to observation. When the right hemisphere is damaged and a person must rely on the left hemisphere alone, a distinctive pattern emerges.

Confabulation. The left hemisphere, unable to recall something or make sense of a gap, makes up a plausible story and believes it completely. It prefers fabrication to admitting ignorance. Gazzaniga’s research on split-brain patients calls this the left hemisphere’s “interpreter” — a module that constructs post-hoc narratives to explain behaviour it did not originate and does not understand.¹⁵

Anosognosia. Patients with right-hemisphere damage deny that anything is wrong with them — even when an entire side of their body is paralysed. They produce absurd explanations for why they cannot move a limb, all delivered with complete conviction. This denial can be temporarily reversed by activating the right hemisphere, and it can be induced by anaesthetising the right hemisphere. Insight into one’s own condition requires the right hemisphere. Without it, denial is structural, not a choice.¹⁶

Loss of the living. The left hemisphere is drawn to the mechanical, the inanimate, the constructed. It codes for tools and machines. Patients relying on the left hemisphere alone lose the ability to perceive living things as alive. Faces become masks. People become mechanisms. The animate world drains of vitality.¹⁷

Unrealistic self-appraisal. The left hemisphere is over-optimistic, unreasonably certain it understands things it barely knows, and disinclined to change its mind. The right hemisphere is more self-doubting and more attuned to what it does not know.¹⁸

Read that list again. Confabulation. Denial of disability. Mechanistic perception. Unrealistic confidence. An inability to see what it can’t see.

These are not just clinical phenomena. They are a portrait of a civilisation.

And this is not loose analogy. The cognitive characteristics of left-hemisphere dominance at the individual level — observable, measurable, replicable in clinical settings — map directly onto patterns visible at the civilisational level. A culture dominated by left-hemisphere attention will confabulate rather than admit ignorance. It will deny problems that fall outside its frame. It will model living systems as mechanisms. It will project unwarranted confidence. And it will lack the insight to recognise any of this, because insight — the capacity to see your own limitations — is a right-hemisphere function.

One more clinical detail. When the right hemisphere is damaged, the left hemisphere doesn’t just fail to notice the missing information. It actively denies that anything is missing. It generates explanations — confident, fluent, wrong — for things it cannot perceive. And it resists correction. This is not ignorance. This is ignorance that believes itself to be knowledge.

The psychiatrist John Cutting, whose work on the right hemisphere McGilchrist credits as foundational, observed that patients with right-hemisphere damage have worse overall outcomes than those with left-hemisphere damage — even though left-hemisphere damage typically affects speech and the dominant hand. Lose speech and you still know something is wrong. Lose the use of your hand and you seek help. But lose the right hemisphere’s broad contextual awareness — its capacity to see yourself as others see you, to sense when something doesn’t add up — and you lose the ability to recognise you have lost anything at all.¹⁹

Think about that for a moment. Not as neuroscience. As experience.

You have almost certainly been in a room with someone who was confidently, fluently wrong — who could not be corrected because the correction required a kind of perception they did not have. You have almost certainly watched an institution double down on a failing strategy, producing more data to prove the data was right, unable to step back and see what was obvious to anyone standing outside the system. You have almost certainly felt, at some point, that the people running things were not evil but blind — that they could not see what they were doing because seeing it would require a faculty they had somehow lost or never developed.

McGilchrist is telling you what that faculty is. And he is telling you that it is being systematically suppressed.

The Coup

The master needs the emissary. The emissary’s gifts — narrow focus, abstraction, manipulation, explicit language — are essential. The problem comes when the emissary believes it is the master.

The left hemisphere has three structural advantages in any contest for dominance.²⁰

First, it controls the voice. Language, logic, and linear argument are all left-hemisphere specialities. The right hemisphere has no speech centre. It knows things it cannot say. In any contest where verbal articulation sets the rules, the left hemisphere wins by default. McGilchrist compares this to a political heavyweight who controls the media.

Second, the left hemisphere’s world is self-consistent. It is a closed system — a hall of mirrors where all attempts to escape are deflected back in. The very tools you would use to question its version of reality — analysis, formal logic, explicit reasoning — are its own tools. The system validates itself.

Third, positive feedback replaces negative feedback. The dominance of left-hemisphere modes generates more of the same. Narrow focus produces narrow knowledge, which produces narrower focus. The corrective — broad, contextual, embodied understanding — is what the left hemisphere cannot value or perceive.

The forces that historically counterbalanced left-hemisphere dominance worked outside the system of explicit, verbal, analytical consciousness: the embodied nature of our existence, the natural world, the arts, religion, inherited cultural wisdom. Each has been progressively hollowed out.²¹

What a Left-Hemisphere Civilisation Looks Like

In Ways of Attending, McGilchrist runs a thought experiment: what would the world look like if the left hemisphere became the sole purveyor of our reality?²²

The whole picture would be unattainable. The world would become a heap of bits. Meaning would come only from utility. Specialisation would advance relentlessly. Information would substitute for knowledge, and knowledge for wisdom. Embodied skill and experience would become suspect, replaced by formal credentials, paper qualifications, bureaucratic tokens.

The living would be modelled on the mechanical. Bureaucracies would deal with human situations through inflexible either/or categories. Morality would be judged on utilitarian calculation or enlightened self-interest. Social bonds, between person and person, between person and place, would be disrupted, as both inconvenient and incomprehensible. Exploitation would become the default relationship between individuals and between humanity and the rest of the natural world.

The left hemisphere cannot trust and is prone to paranoia. Government would become obsessed with security and control above all else.

Reasonableness would be replaced by rationality, and the concept of reasonableness would become unintelligible. Common sense would fail. Insight would be lost while optimism remained unwarranted and untouchable. Awe and wonder would be resented and undercut. Art would be cerebralised. Beauty would be ironised out of existence.

Tacit knowledge would be discarded. Non-explicit communication would be downgraded. An ever-expanding web of explicit rules and legislation would attempt to replace the shared moral intuitions that once governed behaviour without being stated — what Tocqueville called “a network of small complicated rules” that would strangle democracy.²³

McGilchrist asks: does that ring any bells?

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

In The Matter With Things, McGilchrist identifies the deepest error of our time. We take our success at manipulating the world as proof that we understand it.²⁴

This is a logical fallacy. To exert power over something requires only that you know what happens when you pull the levers. It does not require that you understand the system those levers are embedded in. The fallacy is memorialised in the myth of the sorcerer’s apprentice: the ability to activate a process is not the ability to comprehend or control it.

We have coerced the world to our will to an extent unimaginable a few generations ago. And we have wrought havoc on it precisely because we have not understood it.

The mechanisms that simplify reality enough to subject it to our control actively militate against a true understanding of it. And the success of the control is taken as evidence that the understanding is adequate.

Consider how this plays out in practice. A pharmaceutical regulator approves a drug on the basis of short-term randomised controlled trials — the narrowest possible evidentiary window — and takes the approval as proof of understanding. The narrow focus that enabled the approval actively excludes the broader context: long-term effects, population-level signals, interaction with other interventions, the lived experience of patients. When problems emerge, the system that created them cannot see them, because seeing them would require a kind of attention the system is structurally unable to deploy.

Or consider a modern hospital. A patient arrives as a whole person — a living being with a history, a context, a felt sense of what is wrong. The institution receives them as a collection of data points: blood values, imaging results, diagnostic codes. Each specialist sees one system. Nobody sees the patient. The fragmentation is not a failure of the system. It is the system. It is what left-hemisphere attention produces when applied to living things.

Or consider scientific publishing. The mechanisms that determine what counts as knowledge (peer review, impact factors, funding allocation, institutional prestige) select for the forms of knowing the left hemisphere produces: explicit, quantified, decontextualised, reproducible in isolation. What falls outside this frame (clinical intuition, pattern recognition, patient testimony, practitioner judgment) is not refuted. It is rendered invisible. The system is not corrupt in the conventional sense. It is captured — not by money or malice, but by a mode of attention that cannot recognise what it excludes.

McGilchrist provides the neuroscience behind a pattern many people have already sensed but lacked the framework to articulate: modern institutions are simultaneously more powerful and more blind, more controlling and more fragile, more data-rich and more wisdom-poor. His explanation does not point to bad actors. It points to the structure of attention itself.

The Primacy of the Right

McGilchrist is not arguing that the left hemisphere is bad and the right hemisphere is good. He is arguing that the relationship between them is asymmetrical, and that the asymmetry matters.

The right hemisphere’s version of reality is primary. It comes first in every sense: developmentally, experientially, epistemically. New experience of all kinds, music, words, objects, skills, arrives first in the right hemisphere and is only later processed by the left. Broad attention precedes focused attention. We see the whole before the parts. The unconscious will operates ahead of conscious awareness.²⁵

The left hemisphere’s contribution is valuable but intermediate. It unpacks, analyses, makes explicit. In a healthy brain, its products are returned to the right hemisphere for reintegration into the experiential whole — like a pianist who fragments a sonata in practice but reintegrates it in performance at a level where the fragmentation is no longer conscious.²⁶

McGilchrist calls this the “right–left–right” progression. All experience begins in the right hemisphere — raw, embodied, contextual, alive. The left hemisphere does essential work on it: categorising, analysing, rendering it available for use. But this intermediate product must be returned to the right hemisphere and reintegrated into the fullness of lived experience. If it is not — if the left hemisphere’s processed, abstract version is treated as the final product — then what you have is not knowledge of the world. It is knowledge of the left hemisphere’s model of the world. A map mistaken for the territory.

This is what has happened.

Language itself is like a general’s map at headquarters: a re-presentation of the world, delivered after the fact, in simplified and codified form. Not the territory. Not a photograph of the territory. A schematic that enables manipulation of certain features at the cost of everything else.²⁷

The danger is not that we use this map. The danger is that we forget it is a map. That the emissary — who works only with maps — comes to believe the map is the territory, that the re-presentation is the reality, that what cannot be mapped does not exist.

The Hall of Mirrors

The deepest structural problem McGilchrist identifies is that left-hemisphere dominance is self-reinforcing.

The left hemisphere creates a virtual world — a self-reflexive, self-consistent model built from its own categories. Within this model, everything checks out. The data support the theory. The theory generates the data. The instruments confirm the measurements. The measurements calibrate the instruments. Internally coherent. And the exits are blocked.²⁸

The things that once provided access to a broader reality — embodied experience, the natural world, artistic and spiritual practice, inherited cultural wisdom — are each reinterpreted, commodified, or dismissed in the terms of the closed system. Nature becomes a resource to be managed. Art becomes a concept to be explained. Religion becomes an error to be corrected. The body becomes a machine to be optimised. Tradition becomes an obstacle to be cleared. Each is redescribed in terms the left hemisphere can process, which strips it of exactly the quality that made it a corrective.

Take music. The right hemisphere is far more important for the appreciation of music — melody, harmony, timbre, complex rhythm, the sense of a flowing organic whole. Music is among the purest forms of right-hemisphere engagement: embodied, implicit, temporal, relational, resistant to verbal pinning-down.

You know this already. You know it because you have had the experience of a piece of music meaning something to you that you could never put into words — and you know that if someone demanded you explain what it meant, the explanation would be true and the meaning would be gone. That gap between the explanation and the experience is the gap between the hemispheres.

What has happened to music in the age of left-hemisphere dominance? Commodified, quantified, algorithmically served, stripped from its communal context, reduced to a consumer product measured in streams. The lived encounter between listener and sound, increasingly replaced by metrics about the encounter. The map displaces the territory.

Each of these was a way out of the hall of mirrors. Each has been walled off.

The result is what McGilchrist describes as “an increasingly mechanistic, fragmented, decontextualised world, marked by unwarranted optimism mixed with paranoia and a feeling of emptiness.”²⁹

The emissary, insightless as ever, believes it can see everything, do everything, alone. On its own it is, in McGilchrist’s words, “like a zombie, a sleepwalker ambling straight towards the abyss, whistling a happy tune.”³⁰

What Can Be Done

McGilchrist is not offering a programme. The impulse to create a plan, implement a system, devise a solution — that is itself a left-hemisphere reflex. The master’s wisdom cannot be reduced to action items.

But he is not counselling passivity. He is offering something more fundamental than a plan: a shift in understanding that changes the way you see everything else.

Start by recognising the water you swim in. Our culture rewards and enforces one mode of attention — narrow, explicit, analytical, decontextualised — and treats it as the only serious mode of engagement with reality. This is not a neutral stance. It is a choice, made so long ago and so thoroughly absorbed that it no longer registers as a choice. Its defining characteristic is that it does not feel like a choice. It feels like the way things obviously are.

Then notice what this mode of attention systematically excludes. Context. Embodiment. Relationship. The implicit. The particular. The living. These are not soft add-ons to hard knowledge. They are the ground on which all knowledge stands. Without them, knowledge becomes a closed loop — internally consistent, disconnected from reality.

Then recover the kind of attention the right hemisphere provides — not as a replacement for analytical thinking, but as its necessary foundation and corrective. McGilchrist holds “absolutely no brief for those who wish to abandon reason or traduce language.”³¹ His quarrel is with “an excessive and misplaced rationalism which has never been subjected to the judgment of reason, and is in conflict with it.” He is not asking us to stop thinking. He is asking us to stop mistaking one kind of thinking for the whole of thought.

In practice, this looks like a doctor who listens to the patient before reaching for the diagnostic code. A scientist who takes anomalous observations seriously instead of filtering them out. A regulator who weighs long-term signals alongside short-term trial data. A culture that treats wisdom as something real rather than something quaint.

None of this requires abandoning rigour. It requires expanding what counts as rigour. The discipline of staying with complexity rather than simplifying it away. Of holding the whole in view rather than collapsing into the part. Of attending to what is there rather than to what the model predicts should be there.

There is a moment, sometimes, late in the afternoon, when you step outside after hours at a screen and the world suddenly hits you — the weight of the air, the particular slant of light, the sound of wind in a tree you had forgotten was there. For a few seconds you are not processing the world. You are in it. The tree is not a concept. It is a living presence. You are not observing from behind glass. The glass is gone.

That moment is the right hemisphere, reasserting itself against the day’s accumulated narrowing. It is brief because the habits of focused attention will close back over it within seconds. But while it lasts, you know something you cannot say. You know that the world is larger, more alive, more deeply interconnected than anything your analytical mind can hold. You know it the way you know a face, or a piece of music, or the feeling of being home.

McGilchrist’s life work is an attempt to explain why that moment of knowing is not a soft indulgence but a truer apprehension of reality than anything the other mode of attention can deliver — and why a civilisation that has lost access to it is in grave danger.

The master has been led away in chains. The question is whether we can recognise what has happened before the domain collapses in ruins.

References

All page numbers refer to: McGilchrist, I. The Master and His Emissary (TMAHE). Yale University Press, 2009. Additional works cited in full where they first appear.

1. TMAHE, pp. 14–15. The parable is drawn from Nietzsche.

2. The three books: The Master and His Emissary (Yale, 2009); Ways of Attending: How Our Divided Brain Constructs the World (Routledge, 2019); The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (Perspectiva, 2021).

3. TMAHE, pp. 2–3.

4. TMAHE, p. 4.

5. TMAHE, pp. 16–19; Ways of Attending, discussion of lateralised attention in birds.

6. TMAHE, pp. 24–26; Ways of Attending, “The nature of attention.”

7. TMAHE, Chapters 2–4 (pp. 40–93); Ways of Attending, summary passages.

8. TMAHE, Chapters 2–4; Ways of Attending, summary passages.

9. TMAHE, pp. 17–18.

10. TMAHE, pp. 42–43.

11. TMAHE, p. 174.

12. TMAHE, pp. 39–40.

13. TMAHE, p. 42.

14. TMAHE, p. 6.

15. TMAHE, pp. 80–81. See also Gazzaniga, M.S. The Mind’s Past. University of California Press, 1998.

16. TMAHE, pp. 82–83.

17. TMAHE, pp. 55–57.

18. TMAHE, pp. 80–83; Ways of Attending.

19. Cutting, J. The Right Cerebral Hemisphere and Psychiatric Disorders. Oxford University Press, 1990. McGilchrist credits Cutting throughout and describes attending his lectures as a pivotal moment; see Ways of Attending.

20. Ways of Attending, “The primacy of the right hemisphere.”

21. TMAHE, p. 7.

22. Ways of Attending, “The triumph of the left hemisphere.”

23. Tocqueville, A. de. Democracy in America, trans. H. Reeve & E. W. Plaag. Barnes & Noble, 2003, pp. 723–724. Cited in Ways of Attending.

24. McGilchrist, I. The Matter With Things. Perspectiva, 2021, Introduction.

25. Ways of Attending; TMAHE, Chapter 2.

26. Ways of Attending, “The primacy of the right hemisphere.”

27. Ways of Attending.

28. TMAHE, p. 7.

29. TMAHE, p. 7.

30. Ways of Attending, final paragraph.

31. TMAHE, p. 9.