The So-called “Cerebral Hemispheric culture wars”
The So-called “Cerebral Hemispheric culture wars”
Audio version:
Though the above link is the popular narrative we laymen know about
our brain, there are articles which play to my take on the cultural social wars that are more cogent factors to the phenomena we call Left brain-Right brain orientation.
Our cultures and society are structured around we having a tangible, economic focus on categorized detail manipulation and placement,
than a more aesthetic and emotional appreciation of what’s in our
sensory field. In the former-mentioned ‘categorized detail manipulation’, being able to have an effect on what’s in one’s sensory field is the point, while in the latter ‘aesthetic and emotional appreciation’-the
affectedness of the sensory field upon the person is the experience.
Some states, such as autism or a psychoses, could be called stereotypical
of an affected person at the extreme. A person of some specialized
kinetic craft of the secular vocational world could be that of an effectually-minded person. Both types are products of habits and
formal-informal training, than what we assume to be the result
of the genetic processes of our fetal gestation period. The serendipity
of place and time of one’s birth are equally important incidental occurrences in being the determinative factors.
Whether by obligational necessity of time and place or the graces of a facilitated fortuity, we exist in that spectrum of a regimented focus
to a random, elective engagement with the moment’s stimuli of
interest. Having a degree of cognitive space and time to have the
liberty to choose a more favorable option would be a definer for
either ends of the spectrum.
How much does the background and prior, learned knowledge
influence that liberty or lack-of choice? Does the structure of one’s
cultural environment present a fertile field of harvest for a
subconscious acquisition of subtle and subliminal signals or a
more didactic learning experience? I can see that occurring in both
a lower or upper income environments. The mixture of personality
types in a dense per capita location of a lower income neighborhoods would allow for a high frequency of cognitively attention-getting
stimuli. In a similar manner in a more affluent income level, the
greater number of second and third hand resources available for engagement would be the equivalent of the first-hand dense per
capita personality encounters.
My own unique experience gave me the time in my toddler-Pre-K
years to whimsically reflect, as I was left to my own devices in
solitude quite often. Though I didn’t have the resources for gaining
any special skills, I had enough visual material for my limited
reading skills for me to get a literal encyclopedic sense of things.
I’m aware that many did not have the solitude for such reflective
ventures, as well as those who had more resources to use for their
reflecting upon things. By the time I was finishing high school,
what I had gained by the resources of public education and the
informal exposure to a broader set of others’ exhibited knowledge,
my set of skills provided me a set of options by which I was able
to pursue more abstract themes of my interest than the more
vocationally oriented skills-since I had a prospective military
service in my immediate post-graduate future with my too low
draft number.
Even when I saw that I should’ve taken more commercially and job-oriented course work, it was in a situation of having the cognitive
space to have such thoughts. My embracing of the disparaged astrology system of a ‘Virgo’ added to my learned biased prejudices for the
abstract and the reflective, over the menu directed how-to accomplish detail-demanded skills. Economic circumstances brought me to the necessity of more mind-regimented and directed sensory environments
for my income needs. Even in those decades of having my attention
more obligated to others detail needs and concerns, there still was the dormant and latent abstract, affected thought mechanisms awaiting
my dilettante, recreational return to them.
Now in an earlier than planned retirement, I have the cognitive space
and time to indulge in abstract reflections. I interpret my ways as divergent from the quantitative and more to the qualitative things of existence. Since I do not have a quantitative imperative for judging myself, the different tangible and intangible measures I’d be using to
define and identify myself (and possessions) are quite minor and
casually incidental to me. The qualitative character of my means and
ways is a constant focus.
By this experience, I would assert that the so-called “left brain person”
is more quantitatively biased by choice of background or their present social conditions, as their present circumstances demands of them the
more detailed manipulative regard for what they will face. Those
“right-brain persons” are more qualitatively biased as their back
ground and circumstances gives them the cognitive space and time, especially, for abstract connections of the whole, than the practical manipulation of the granular, component parts.
Those whose concern is the practical manipulation-kinetic or mental-
of things will have a short-term focus on the detailed navigation of
things or ideas from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, while those with a
qualitative outlook will be less concerned about the arrival to point
‘B’, as they’d be concerned about their affected impressions and feeling about the movement from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Having the cognitive space to focus
at a more obligational or at an elective mode would appear to be a sociologically based factor, since the economic necessity to which the individual has been afforded that space over time would determine
the kind of cache of knowledge, either consciously or subconsciously,
to respond with any efficiency or style to the moment.
The ‘culture wars’ of social contrast come with the degree of latitude
given for innovation and improvisation. The so-called ‘left brain syndrome stress on following the details of the form, tradition, or institution is necessary for the acquisition of materialistic, tangible
and intangible rewards. On the other hand, the ‘right-brainers’
greater fascination and satisfaction in they being the affected subjects
of experiences, gives them a contentiously inherent state of
comparative valuing of the behaviors with the left-brainers. For the
left-brainers, the ends are the point, and at many times justify the
ends and the point of the goal. Whereas the right-brainers have a
greater appreciation for the affecting factors of the journey.
This dichotomy goes back to the cognitive space in which those known
for traits of left or right brain have existed, habituated, and trained. Also, as earlier stated, this being a material-trappings oriented world
in its social and political structure, the need for structural forms for
the maintenance and sustenance of the different traditions and institutions would have its subordinates well regimented and
disciplined in their mental focus for the efficient maintenance and sustenance of those paradigmatic forms, and the social pride and bias
for those means.
Contrastingly, the so-called right brainers revel in the aesthetic innovational and improvisational short (or long) term effects possible
from ‘the given’ status quo. Instead of more urgently seeking the opportunities and aggrandizements of following within the parameters
of the given regimens and disciplines for the society’s or culture’s
reward and fame, these persons seek their individual cognitive space
for the exploration and investigation of the esoterics of the
improvisational innovation possibilities of the given order.
Those improvisations and innovations produce heterodoxies that can
be perceived as audaciously unconventional to dangerously heretical
or seditious to the social structure’s extensive branches. That tension
in perception of state and operational difference makes those of
regimented thought and improvisational thought at-odds with
defining the purpose of ‘what is’ and its prospective social or cultural function.
Just following the branches of music: from classical, to the popular
forms, then the subset of cultural forms and their derivationed
branches of country, folk, rock-n-roll, hard rock, blues, rhythm
-n-blues, jazz, hip-hop; the chronology of the different forms reveals
how the cognitive space of their origins was crucial in they being the innovation and improvisation from the original discipline of
thinking and its intended ends of use.
I’ll conclude that whether on a societal macro-level or an individual micro-level, the nature of the social cognitive-space, along with the personal habits and learned disciplines will create the regimented, disciplined mind for material manipulation and acquisition,
in contrast to the contrasting mindset of the sensitive, affected
mind to improvisational innovations of the forms in their cognitive
field.
=====================OP’s solicitation=================
Your donations of appreciation for this work may be done
by making a payment to this link at my PayPal account
(paypal.me/j2e595)
Comments
Post a Comment