We think more than we can say. We feel more than we can think. We live more than we can feel. And there is much else besides (Eugene Gendlin). Perhaps the soul is what we mean when we reflect on that 'much else besides'. - Iain McGilchrist
Monday night's event in the RSA Great Room, "What Happened to the Soul?" by Iain McGilchrist, can be viewed above in all its unedited grit and glory.
This was the third event of six in the spirituality series, following from events one and two. Some more considered analysis on this third event will follow when we can quote from the full transcript currently being prepared, but for now, here goes:
It is always hard to judge the success of public events, especially when you're part of them, but there have been many positive responses ('tremendous', 'extraordinary', 'fascinating') from people whose judgment I respect, and the people watching had plenty to say on Twitter, though I suppose that might just represent moral support or twitchy fingers.
My impression is that the questions and answer session (from c35 mins in) was particularly spirited, and may be worth cutting to directly to get animated and engaged by the ideas, before returning to the more intricate substance of the talk, which of course contained lots of wonderful material to think about too.
I think the biggest issue, and one I hope to come back to, concerns the scope to think about some mental health problems (perhaps mild to moderate forms of depression in particular) as a form of 'soul sickness'. This reframing is informed by Iain's account of the role of suffering in 'growing a soul'(though he was emphatic that nobody should suffer acute mental ill health for a moment longer than necessary) and what might follow for the appropriate use of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs. Perhaps we might say that a little bit of suffering that we can recover from is necessary for the growth of the soul, but too much suffering threatens to extinguish it entirely.
Perhaps we might say that a little bit of suffering that we can recover from is necessary for the growth of the soul, but too much suffering threatens to extinguish it entirely.
This is a big and complex issue, and a large part of the potential practical value of reconceiving spirituality, as indicated by our three research workshops(the content of which will be shared in our final project report, due in October.). Iain is clearly by no means the only person working in the broad mental health domain to think something resembling 'spirituality' may be important it not essential for mental health.
As a Psychiatrist, Iain would not be so facile as to say such a reframing is always appropriate or that it always helps significantly. However, if thinking in terms of the soul helps to make the experience of meaning a more fundamental aspect of human life and health, then it may be one the best reasons to talk about 'the soul' in public life.
A fuller account of that argument will follow, but for now, if you find time to watch the video, look out for:
"Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul..." (A perennial quotation of uncertain provenance!)
The need for 'the soul' as a concept - why the substitutes don't cut it as a way of capturing certain qualities of experience.
The joke about the poor man repeatedly praying to win the lottery, whom God finally speaks to by saying: "Meet me half way, buy a ticket."
Iain's intensely metaphorical (almost - but not quite!- to a comical extent) answer to the very direct question from our Head of Business Development Esther McCarthy about whether the soul (if we have a soul!) survives bodily death.
The value of 'deliberate ambiguity' - is the vagueness of terms like the soul part of their value? Is there something about trying to define them too precisely that misses this point? Does that feel right and appropriate, or still somehow evasive?
What can we learn from 'soul splitting' in Harry Potter?
Body and soul: "duality does not entail dualism."
When we remember a person, are we really remembering their soul? A question from John Field FRSA that wasn't answered; is this a good way to grasp what the soul is?
If thinking in terms of the soul helps to make the experience of meaning a more fundamental aspect of human life and health, then it may be one the best reasons to talk about 'the soul' in public life.
Iain has earned a deserved reputation as a thoughtful polymath with a sound grasp of sciences and humanities, but occasionally I feel he over-reacts to the fear of being thought to be a reductionist. His resolute 'no' in response to my question of whether science could ever help us make sense of the nature of the soul struck me as an overstatement.
We didn't quite establish the connection between belief in/acceptance of the soul and belief in/acceptance of 'God', and it would have been good to probe that important if obvious question a little further. Clearly Iain's account of the soul is no ghost in the machine, but is there any sense in which a more dispositional perspective on the individual soul is isomorphic with respect to a universal soul?
In response to the classical musical clip from the 16th century, one guest later told me that while it was assumed we were all touched, move and inspired, he personally didn't feel it moved his 'soul' particularly, and wondered whether there was a presumption of cultural identification with meaning that was misplaced for those who don't share the cultural tradition (he's a highly intelligent Australian).
Iain's education and disposition makes his thought hyper-nuanced, but it can feel like the boundary between nuance and obscurity requires a third-party arbiter at times! Personally, I am never quite sure when it feels appropriate to press for further clarity. Perhaps this desire is what Iain would call 'left hemisphere overreach' - asking for too much precision- but there is something Protean about Iain's thought that I, as one of his biggest fans, sometimes find frustrating.
With hindsight, I should have tried harder to focus on the issue of 'What happened to the soul?' rather than what became the focus: 'what is the soul?' The questions are closely connected, but the result was that we heard from Iain the philosopher and I could perhaps have done more to draw out the Scientist; it felt to me, perhaps wrongly, like having the two together would give the fullest picture of the soul.
Relatedly, I am very familiar with Iain's bestseller 'The Master and his Emissary', which connects an analysis of neural anatomy and function to a theory of cultural history, but I should perhaps have taken more care to share some of the main ideas with the audience, which we examined closely for an RSA report last year: Divided Brain, Divided World: Why the best part of us struggles to be heard. These ideas were implicit in much of the discussion, but a little unpacking of them might have helped to sharpen the key issues at stake.
In any case, I am pleased we have managed to draw attention to the cultural neglect of 'the soul', and I left feeling very glad we had hosted the event. Iain and the audience significantly moved along our thinking and opened up areas for further inquiry, not least on mental health.
On the other hand, and this is a positive point, there is something about these spirituality events that always leave me wanting more, as if the life changing revelation you naively hoped for is forever postponed until next time.
Dr Jonathan Rowson is Director of the Social Brain Centre at the RSA, and tweets @Jonathan_Rowson.
We are currently considering ideas and speakers for our 4th and 5th (of 6) public events in this series, so do get in touch if you have any suggestions on questions or speakers.