The Wider Consequences of Brain-Hemispheric Clash
Lenore's writing is mostly an exploration of the wider consequences of brain-hemispheric clash--especially, its wider consequences in public discourse.
She paints the main clash as between J and P attitudes. Her top four function attitudes always come either all from the J set or all from the P set. The word-oriented, discrete, one-thing-at-a-time approach (J) leads people to form their sense of morality and identity along one pattern. The gestalt, contextual, all-at-once approach (P) leads people to form their sense of morality and identity according to a completely different set of unidentified rules.
Most writers who talk about left-brain/right-brain stuff emphasize drawing upon one hemisphere or the other to bring out capabilities to suit a certain task--e.g. shutting off verbalizing in order to allow yourself to "see" shapes and draw them, in Betty Edwards' writing, or Jonathan Schooler's research on how verbalizing can shut down creativity and problem-solving skills but only for certain kinds of tasks. Lenore, however, focuses on how word-oriented vs. gestalt-oriented forms of thought shape personal identity and public discourse.
The basic J/P clash in public discourse is as follows. Seen from the word-oriented approach (J), the public sphere is shaped by chosen, agreed-upon categories and criteria, which ensure that people know where they stand. These categories and criteria are seen as human inventions, the results of negotiation, and not as matching natural categories inherent in the world. People need to feel accountable to them: to understand that there are consequences for violating the rules, and that no one may unilaterally change the rules. The publicly accepted rules of right and wrong are continually up for renegotiation, but the only rules that can work are those that disregard context and provide a consistent set of boundaries that you can apply to any situation to judge whether people have behaved correctly or incorrectly.
Seen from the gestalt-oriented approach (P), right and wrong always emerge from the situation, even as there are universal principles of right and wrong at work. The principles of right and wrong are not matters of negotiation or human choice. They must be understood directly, by understanding the nature of life and the Earth (or the cosmos in general). For example, it is right for a person's talents to flourish in that person's own, unique way. And it's wrong to stifle someone's talents or pigeonhole them, regardless of what is culturally acceptable. Exactly how principles of right and wrong play out in any given situation varies according to the situation. There is no way to judge a person's actions except by understanding the specifics of the situation and how those actions arose out of it.
In Lenore's theory, there is a never-ending battle between J and P ways of structuring society. The P way (actually, the Ji way) really doesn't lead to any particular structure. It's oriented by matters of unconditional value: principles that apply regardless of the specifics of any culture, and transcend matters of negotiation and convention. A culture oriented in a completely P way would have no structure at all, but would have unlimited individuality and anarchy. There would be no clear way to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The J way (actually, the Je way) creates a structure where everyone can know what is expected of them, and what is in bounds and what is out of bounds, and can ensure that the rules get applied fairly (or at least consistently). But the Je view of things cannot provide the perspective to see when the official rules are unjust and merely serve to keep the powerful in positions of power and prevent other voices from contributing or being heard.
Compare: King on the Mountain.
Last updated