Quantum Drummer

As it is mentioned on a previous writing, according to Jung, the “polaristic structure of the psyche” shares with all natural processes the characteristic of being phenomena of energy, and there is high similarity between electricity and magnetism with the pairs of opposites. As we know, both electricity and magnetism have negative (-) and positive (+) polarities, and north (N) and south (S) polarities respectively, and the higher the difference between the polarities, the higher the energy, the same way that the higher the tension between the opposites, the higher the energy.

If we use the example of magnetism, when we take any magnet we will have the two opposite poles present, and if we break the magnet in half, we will end up with two smaller magnets, each one having their two opposite poles present. We cannot (given our current level of technology) break the magnet into two independent poles, and have north (N) or south (S) separate poles. The magnetic monopole does not exist in nature as far as we know. Similarly, in order to have an electric flow we need two points at different levels of charge in order for current to appear. If two points are at the same level of charge, there will be no electric flow between them.

If we consider that a thought is energy, we could imagine that thoughts are generated by our psyche as a result of the energy that exists between two pairs of opposite elements, one in the conscious and one in the unconscious. So the argument could be: does this mean that every thought consists of two opposite elements, one conscious part and another unconscious part?

If this is the case, can we also assume that thoughts can have different levels of psychic energy depending on how high the polarization is? And we could try to analyze if is possible to have a purely neutral thought. It seems that following the energy principle application to thoughts, any thought could be polarized, and we can always find an opposite to counter-balance it, the same way that we will always end up with smaller and smaller magnets with two opposite poles each.

It appears that the way that the flow of thought and the breakdown of issues in opposites could be different when we have a left hemisphere or a right hemisphere dominated paradigm. If we recall one of the main differences among the two hemispheres is that the left hemisphere looks at nature with an individual and reductionistic lens, while the right hemisphere looks at nature with a lens that prioritizes the whole and focus on collaboration. With this in mind, the flow of thought could be defined as follows:

Left Hemisphere Flow:

1 – Issue presents itself

2 – Issue is observed by the brain

3 – Issue is divided into two opposites, one acceptable per the individual’s mental model (positive polarity) and one is rejected by the individual’s mental model (negative polarity)

4 – The acceptable opposite thought is sent to the conscious part of the individual’s psyche

5 – The rejected opposite thought is sent to the unconscious part of the individual’s psyche and remains unreachable to the conscious (is totally unknown by the conscious)

 6 – The individual’s conscious builds reasoning arguments to support the validity of the acceptable opposite

7 – If individual receives an argument that counters his/her argument supporting the acceptable opposite, the conscious part of the psyche will continue to build support ideas to defend the acceptable opposite and to counter the rejected opposite.

8 – Since the rejected opposite went directly to the unconscious, it remains away from the individual’s conscious mind, therefore rejecting any possibility to consider the rejected opposite

9 – Ongoing argument will result in the polarization of the individual’s conscious, since it is now a priority for the individual to compete and win the argument

10 – Since the left hemisphere tendency is highly competitive, the individual will continue to polarize both opposites, the build-up of the acceptable opposite and the elimination of the rejected argument

11 – The individual does not understand the reason for the counter argument, since the rejected opposite is out of his/her conscious and is therefore invisible

12 – The conflict between the two different arguments remains and grows. Each individual will maintain his/her own polarization and will continue to strengthen their opposing views.

Right Hemisphere Flow:

1 – Issue presents itself

2 – Issue is observed by the brain

3 – Issue is not broken down into opposites but is maintained whole

4 – The complete thought is sent to the conscious part of the individual’s psyche

5 – The individual reflects on the issue as a whole, and may or may not see the need to divide it in parts

6 – The issue is kept whole on the individual’s conscious, and no part of the issue is sent to the unconscious

6 – The individual might receive an argument from another person who used the left hemisphere mental model. The argument will include the polarization of an opposite element of the issue

7 – The individual keeps the issue whole in his/her psyche and might find difficult to understand the reason why the second individual is only considering one side of the issue

8 – The individual is able to reflect on the complete issue, and can offer a complete opinion, but the second person is polarized to one opposite

9 – The right-brain oriented individual might be able to provide arguments that could solve the differences since is having a total look of the issue, otherwise the second person might stay polarized since only one side of the issue is visible to his/her psyche

These two flows might explain the difference in the processes held by left hemisphere and right hemisphere approaches. If we consider that in Western cultures the left hemisphere approach is dominant, we can see that the first flow is found in the majority of situations. If we add the fact that the left hemisphere approach is also highly competitive, we can understand why polarization and conflict are prevalent.

If we were to consider a solution to the polarization problem we could look at two important elements:

Level of Energy

As we have seen, thoughts have levels of energy similar to electromagnetic fields, and the higher the polarization, the higher the energy. Therefore if we wanted to reduce the conflict generated by polarizing ideas we should consider to make an effort to lower the level of energy and lower the level of polarization during debates and arguments. In order to do this, we first need a level of self-awareness and emotional intelligence that can help us manage the intensity of our energies. We should keep in mind that our goal does not have to be winning all arguments, and that contrary to left-hemisphere tendencies, it is better to reach out and get a win-win situation. A win-win is always better in the long term, since making other people lose will result in less communication, resentment and affected relationships.  We must understand that when reading these recommendations, our left-hemisphere thinking will say: “But I am right and the other person is wrong, is not my responsibility to fix things, is the other person’s responsibility to see that they are wrong and agree with me”. The issue with this approach is that in almost all cases will result on an ever-growing polarization, and total breakdown in communication between the two sides. Particularly if both individuals have left-hemisphere domination, the conflict will grow with little possibility of solution.

Awareness

Now that we know the way that ideas and thoughts work in our brains, we should keep this in mind in our interactions with others. We should maintain an awareness during conversations and engagements such that we can sense when polarization is happening. If we recognize that we are left-hemisphere oriented we should keep self-awareness that can help us identify when we are polarizing situations, and try to reflect if there are blind spots and issues that we are missing to understand and the other person might be seeing. The same awareness needs to occur for us to keep in mind that the other person might not be seeing some part of our argument, not because they want it that way, but because their cognition is breaking apart the thoughts and sending some parts to their unconscious. If either side is sending parts of the arguments to their unconscious, blind spots will be generated and maintained, with the potential to escalate the conflict, unless we are aware of this condition and unless we make the effort of trying a different way of explaining the argument.

Rather than focusing in building up the polarization, being aware that escalation is happening we can try to stop and reflect that both sides of the argument are seeing different things, and have a conversation to clarify if one of the parts is missing some details. The earlier in the argument the better, since once the polarization energy is high, it will be more difficult to de-escalate the conflict.

In any case, it is important to be patient with ourselves and with others. As much as we think we are rational beings and we maintain highly efficient cognitive processes, our brains work in ways that might blindside us, resulting in everybody seeing the world a little (or much) different. This is more important every day, since our left-hemisphere focused culture has given us high levels of polarization in most community activities, and conflict is present in most human affairs.