This is a paper that I presented at a 2024 conference in honor of author Iain McGilchrist at the Center for Process Studies in San Francisco. It argues that the Western intellectual tradition, despite its many accomplishments, is critically deficient not only in modes of thought naturally associated with the brain’s right hemisphere but also in a mode of understanding naturally associated with the Yin element of Taoist philosophy.
The Quantum Master and its Classical Emissary
Published
Transactional Interpretation 
As a long-time follower and friend of Iain McGilchrist, and a retired brain injury rehabilitation physician who dealt with individuals dealing with the impact of various injuries to the brain, I am very convinced that Iain’s ideas expressed in ‘The Master and His Emissary’ and in ‘The Matter with Things’ are quite correct, deeply insightful and fundamentally important to understanding the human condition and what might be seen as the human predicament. I could not make it to the conference where you presented this paper because I was in Japan at the time, but I watched your presentation on the Zoom broadcast and I realized just how much there is important alignment between the relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Physics (rTIQP) and Iain’s theory regarding the differential function of the left and right hemispheres. I have to admit that because of the circumstances involved in my watching your presentation, I did not get as much from it as I had been hoping. But this paper makes the ideas clear and explicit. There seems to be quite a degree of compatibility between rTIQP and Iain’s hemispheric theory. One might call it a form of parallel complementarity in which the perspective of classical Newtonian Mechanics corresponds to the general nominalistic worldview of the left hemisphere and the perspective of rTIQP corresponds to the relational, ‘possibilist’ worldview of the right hemisphere. In his book, ‘The Matter with Things’, Iain has a chapter on ‘Time’ (chapter 22) and how it is dealt with quite differently by the two hemispheres. I can only summarize here what is obviously a much more complicated picture. Time for the left hemisphere is discontinuous. Because its fundamental form of attention is focal, it operates in time the way it operates in space, narrowing down attention to distinct events just as it is narrowed down to focus on distinct objects. The left hemisphere thus tends to see the world as sequences of ‘frames’ and movement is perceived through the cinematographic process that relies on the phenomenon of apparent motion. The left hemisphere sees things as sequences of snapshots which has a powerful influence on how we think nominalistically about our perceived physical actuality. I think of time for the left hemisphere as ‘Chronotic’ in that it is similar to how we perceive ‘physical time’ as the counting of oscillations of a material oscillating system that counts sequential cycles. The right hemisphere operates very differently in relation to time in that it relates to time, I think, as a flowing continuum, as a relational construct and as a continual stream that relates to the idea of an experiential, subjective form of time along the lines of what Henri Bergson called ‘Duration’ and Csikszentmihaly called ‘Flow’. I think of this form of time as ‘Kairotic’ in the way that it relates to the precise timing of intersubjective coordinating relational scenarios like dance and music. I am wondering how these parallels might inform each other, potentially open up into new insights that relate to quantum physics as well as to cognitive neuroscience, and if there might be any way to formulate hypotheses that might be testable through selective studies of brain function?
Thank you for providing access to this important and enlightening paper. It provides an interesting window on how to think about the rTIQP from a brain science perspective.
In addition, this distinction between quantized space-time as a constructed ‘container’ of the ‘interface’ that our species has acquired over billions of years of evolution, and the continuum of time that is the nature of ‘real’ time, corresponds quite nicely with the philosophical theory and process metaphysics of Charles Sanders Peirce who made a clear distinction between ‘Nominalism’ which he associated with the philosophical position of Descartes, and ‘Synechism’ which he proposed as the nature of a ‘hidden’ relational reality that operates in the context of a temporal continuum–a ‘Peircean continuum’ which is ‘supermultudinous’, cannot be ‘broken apart or ‘interpolated’ and which is formed from inseparable overlapping infinitesimal segments. This is the nature of the ‘Primordial Continuum’ that Peirce proposed as the foundation of the hidden relational reality of ‘possibility’ out of which manifest physical actuality materializes. I would connect the hidden relational reality of possibility to what you are calling the ‘quantum substratum’ in which the transactions of ‘exchange’ occur through a process of resonational wave exchange. It has taken me some time to realize that the process of ‘negotiation’ between a potential emitter and a potential absorber is actually a form of ‘resonance’ involving a mutually reinforcing connection between the ‘offer wave’ and the ‘confirmation wave’. It is not simply an exchange of ‘signals’ between two entities, but it is a type of resonation in which the two signals end up coming into conjunction and reinforce each other–which is a resonance phenomenon. I think there is a very deep connection to Peirce and particularly Peirce’s category of ‘Thirdness’ which implies Mediation. Without mediation, there can be no interaction and this leads one to wonder how this process of mediation and connection between the ’emitter’ and the ‘absorber’ develops and whether it can be viewed as building into a resonance phenomenon that then triggers the process of actualization. The relationship to Iain McGilchrist’s ideas then also becomes clear, I think. The left hemisphere operates in the context of Nominalism and ‘focality’ that sees the world in terms of separate pieces. It is the system in which language is based and metaconscious thought mediated by language develops. It provides an inherently Nominalistic ‘construction’. It creates an ‘abstract’ constructed world that has evolved to maximize embodied survival–ie. survival in physical form. But it is the right hemisphere that connects to the world through global relationship and continuity. So the while the left hemisphere is dominant for language which has a piecewise structure, the right hemisphere is dominant for affect which is a more generalized holistic experience that responds to the detection of inherent experiential ‘concrete’ meaning that is not language-mediated but is, by definition, ineffable. So while the left hemisphere ABSTRACTS in order to support physical embodied survival through a thought-based process that is aloof and distinct from the body, the right hemisphere CONCRETIZES in order to support ‘relational survival’ that is fundamentally and relationally embodied. This corresponds to the distinction made by the neuropsychiatrist, Kurt Goldstein, between an ‘ABSTRACT’ attitude and a ‘CONCRETE’ attitude. And it also corresponds with Merleau-Ponty’s late work on making a distinction between the materially ‘visible’ and the relationally ‘invisible’ aspects of existence, with the former being ‘object’ while the latter is ‘subject’. And the ‘flesh’ operates as a ‘chiasm’ in which these two orientations are integrated and interchangeable. The body can be both ‘subject’ AND ‘object’, ‘invisible’ AND ‘visible’. For example, for the left hemisphere, the hand is ‘subject’ that engages with a separate external object. This is the generation of a language-based ‘egoic I’ that spectates–it is the ‘spectator’ in the context of action. For the right hemisphere, on the other hand, the hand is ‘object’ which is the ‘actor’ that is inherently directly connected. And, as Neils Bohr maintained with his Principle of Complementarity, we are BOTH spectators AND actors on the great theater of life. Personally, I think this is huge and deeply fundamentally existential for the living ‘organism’.
As Iain McGilchrist points out, the kinds of problems that develop with right hemispheric damage are far more disabling than those involving the left hemisphere even if language –ie forms of aphasia–may be affected in the latter situation . What happens with right hemispheric damage is that the relational interconnection of the parts of the body–the ‘body schema’– is affected with the development of difficulties with the integration of body parts and inattention to the opposite side of the body (ie. the left hemi-body). In some instances, the person denies that there is any kind of a problem with the left side of the body even though it is clearly paralyzed. And there are significant problems with not only with inattention and denial but with a lack of insight into the nature of the deficit the damage has produced–a condition called ‘anosognosia’ which can be quite striking in its clinical presentation and presents difficulty with motivation for rehabilitation.
A little background: I am 72 years old, retired from 30+ years of doing intensive in-home family counseling with families with children at risk of removal, and have had a life-long interest and curiosity about quantum physics, having practiced air-raid drills in elementary school during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and wanting to know and understand this aspect of the world that could promise so much, and cause so much destruction. I have already expressed my extreme gratitude for the work you have done in a previous email, and after recently reading (and re-reading) The Master and His Emissary, and currently reading McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things, I was wondering if you had read, or heard, McGilchrist, as I saw, and felt, a connection between your books and his, a synchronicity, and here I find that the answer is “yes”. I am overjoyed. Thank you for this paper. I am grateful to have lived long enough to have found your books and McGilchrist’s, bringing together two seemingly different, but ultimately interconnected fields of knowledge and wisdom that have been, and still are, important threads of my life.
Thank you Joseph! I’m so glad to hear that this was valuable to you. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the recent celebration of McGilchrist’s work at the Center for Process Studies and it was a joy to meet Dr. McGilchrist. I’m continuing to explore the connections between my work and his, along with insights from Taoism, in a new book project.
Thanks again!
I first encountered Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation in John Gribbin’s book, “Schrodinger’s Kittens” several years ago, and thought, “This is it! Finally an interpretation that makes sense; if photons do not “experience” time, then they can’t “live” in spacetime!”, and have searched off and on, for any follow-up on this idea that was accessible and understandable to me. I did not go past first year of calculus in math, went in a different direction, but always had the idea that it was crucial to understand what quantum physics was telling us, physically and philosophically, about the nature of the world. And I, too, have been drawn to the Tao-te-ching as a means of expressing the incalculable.
By the way, I am right-handed, but left-eye dominant, which made for some interesting initial experiences when I took an archery class in college and followed explicitly the instructor’s instruction to “aim the tip of the arrow at the center of the target.” I have not been able to find any statistics on how frequently this combination of dominance occurs, how not-normal I really am…
I look forward to your new book project, and continue to be grateful for your old ones. Like reading McGilchrist and thinking, “This just feels right.”
I have been thinking a good deal lately about the distinction between continuity and discontinuity as it relates to the structure of space-time in connection to the idea that the fine structure of space-time is fractal. I have recently reread the PhD thesis of Kerri Welch that addresses the ‘fractal topology’ of time. The thesis appeared as a book published 5 years ago…https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349608298_A_Fractal_Topology_of_Time_Deepening_Into_Timelessness What I have been wondering about is whether there may be a difference between the two hemispheres in terms of the ‘fine structure’ of space-time where it is relatively ‘coarse’ as far as the left hemisphere is concerned, and arbitrarily ‘fine’ as far as the right hemisphere is concerned. Would this help to shed some light both on this distinction between left and right hemisphere ‘worldviews’ with the left being aligned with classical mechanics and the right being aligned with quantum physics? That is, in relationship to the degree to which space-time is fractionated?
One other interesting point that correlates nicely is the connection of these ideas to the process scientific metaphysics of Charles Sanders Peirce. Using Peirce’s approach, one might identify the left hemisphere worldview with a Nominalistic, unmediated ‘Necessitarianism’ that views the world as a machine that can be modeled as a formal mechanism–ie. complying with and confined to the mechanistic formalism. This fits nicely with the left hemisphere’s need for certainty and knowing exactly what is going to happen next–ie. the ability to anticipate with full accuracy with Laplace’s daemon on its side! You could say that the left hemisphere clings to the dream of strict determinism in a world without ‘Thirdness’, without ‘Evolutionary Love’–which is how Peirce identified Thirdness in his metaphysics. Which would be perfectly fine if the Universe operated in complete compliance with the mechanistic formalism. But it certainly doesn’t! Because, in fact, Peircean ‘Thirdness’, which implies Mediation, is quite real. The universe is NOT a ticking clock, not a mechanistic contraption. It is a living organism that is filled with myriads of different types of living organisms each of which has a degree of independent agency, with each species having evolved its own specific ‘interface’ with reality–or what Donald Hoffman would call its ‘headset’ that gives it specific ‘readings’ on what is ‘out there’ or ‘down there’ below the surface. Which is quite consistent with Karen Barad’s ‘agential realism’ with the idea that free-willed agency is ubiquitous.