Beneath the Cortex Level: A Bit of Philosophy
by J. Burton LeBlanc
April, 2006
The Enlightenment changed human history dramatically.
Plato and Aristotle, particularly Plato, had recommended that human reason could furnish a method of solving a multitude of the problems encountered by human beings. Their recommendations had only minor influence during the period when the Romans maintained the most powerful government in the world. Only with the period referred to as the Enlightenment were their doctrines inculcated and embellished.
Newton was the pillar on which the Enlightenment was built. With his establishment of a logical pattern for the planets that encircled the earth, as well as mathematical descriptions of the movements of the earth itself and the predominance throughout the known universe of gravitation, all fit very well into a body of knowledge that could not only be rationally understood, but which provided a basis to make predictions of planetary movements that were later proved accurate.
From the heavens the scientists descended unto earth and began to analyze the human body and microscopic matter. This systemic analysis led to much greater understanding of the human body parts and their functions and an understanding of the interaction of the world’s existing chemicals.
This leap in understanding and registry in the human cortex of the inner workings of many natural phenomena led to an optimism about the control of human beings over their bodies and the natural environment.
One of the most obvious areas of over-optimism was in the field of government, referred to presently, ridiculously, as “political science”, where following upon the predictions of Locke, Rousseau and others, including to some extent Jefferson, more slaughterous wars have occurred. As far as the quality of governments are concerned, post-Enlightenment we have seen governance by Hitler and Stalin. The coupling of power with abysmal governance has resulted in the death or lifelong tragedy of millions of human beings.
If a list were made today of the various governments existing it would probably be found that there are a larger number of inefficient or tyrannical ones than efficient and humane ones. Which all leads to a point that has overwhelmed my mind for a long time. It has to do with the importance of the subcortical level of human intelligence, which has long been neglected in the scientific and even ordinary literature.
Start off with sports. I was not very good in golf, and was a better tennis player, particularly at net, and a good skier which I learned rather later in life at Aspen. But I was intrigued by what separated the good players from the indifferent ones.
When the PGA tournament came to our town I got to know some of the leading players. I was walking down the fairway with Julius Boros and said to him, “Julius, I think if I were putting for you today, you would probably win the tournament.” He said, “You’re probably right!” Because he was great from tee to green. but was an indifferent putter. He swung without thinking.
Alongside Lloyd Mangham, I asked who among the young players were the up and comers. He said, “I like Arnold Palmer.” Shelley Mayfield was leading the pack. What instinct prodded Mangham’s response? Palmer’s swing was not a particular pretty sight.
I followed Sam Snead and filmed him. He was back of a live oak tree which separated him from the green some two hundred yards away. He said, “This calls for a low rising hook.” He reached in his bag and pulled out a three wood. He addressed the ball and swung. The ball stayed low until it had passed the oak tree, then it starting rising and hooking to the left and landed a few feet from the pin.
I talked with Byron Nelson. I asked him the difference between his game and Snead’s. He said, “He will make more bogies than I do, but maybe more birdies.” Nelson would shoot nearly all pars and some birdies. He implied that they were comparable.
Tiger Woods illustrates what I am getting at. How do you explain his prevalence statistically?
There is only one explanation: his first shot off the tee is not determinative. His record in that regard is not better than that of other top players. It is the second shot which may have an indifferent lie. It is at that point that Wood’s subconscious takes over and controls the muscles with little or no input from the cortex. The players who cannot accomplish this feat do not score as well.
In the field of medicine this analysis is even more pertinent.
My wife’s uncle was a medical student at Magill. He was making the rounds in the hospital as an intern accompanied by various doctors. They encountered a patient that the doctors could not figure out what he had. Jay, the uncle’s name, who had been reading the textbooks, said, “Why, he has leprosy.” The doctors had never encountered a case of leprosy before. After checking, it was found that the patient had recently arrived from Hong Kong.
Medical technology, in general, uses antique methodology. It almost entirely uses the “scientific method,” which means essentially a mode of thought that excludes solutions which leap into the mind without explanation of details.
Inventions are a category of mind processing that often are not the result of methodical approaches as they are an unexplained mental leap that arises from a background of assimilated experiences which lodge in the depths of the brain.
Medicine is the field where the principle is most manifest. Medical diagnosis relies on scientific methodology to the extent that it divides diseases into numerous categories and redivides them nto into subcategories. An attempt is made to treat each category as an end it itself, with the belief that an understanding of the miniscule part of the anatomy will lead to a solution of the problem.
It is beginning to be understood at some levels of medical study that a more holistic approach is in order and that the problem cannot be grasped without regard to the interplay between organs and the role of the body as a whole in harmonizing its parts. An example of the new trend is found at the University of Pittsburg, where a clinic treating spasticisity has invoked many branches of medicine to work in unison, with promising results.
In the book Blink, the author is striking at the problem and he emphasizes the subcortical regions of the brain and its efficacy in solving problems immediately, drawing spontaneously from those recesses of the brain in which many impressions are stored.
The clearest example of the efficacy of this type of neural exercise is found in the field of music. The modus operandi of the brains of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are almost unfathomable. Beethoven was able to compose after he was deaf. Richard Strauss composed at a desk, away from any musical instrument. Mozart heard long-secret music at theVatican and it entered the public domain overnight.
I know a family that has about a dozen members who can play by ear. There are many instances of youths who, without training, could hear a song and repeat it accurately on the piano.
It is in the arena of jazz music that these phenomena are the most intriguing. Louis Armstrong had little formal training. In fact, formal training seems to be a hindrance in this regard. Winton Marsalis probably plays a better symphonic trumpet than a jazz one.
Most Thursday nights I listen to an excellent jazz group, led by a fine pianist, who always plays without music. Which reminds one of the instance at Lucky Pierres, a famous bar on Bourbon Street, where one evening I noticed that the piano player who happened to be a white woman, but obviously a New Orleans native, would turn a page on the huge album she had in front of her, after each piece. I went behind her to look at the album, and in it there was no music, only titles of pieces. I asked her what she used the book for. She responded, “to tell me what to play.”
There is no doubt in my mind that musicians, and particularly jazz musicians, who are noted for their improvisation, have brains that are constructed differently from the typical cross section of human beings. I have expressed this thought to Larry, the fine jazz pianist referred to, and he is in agreement. When the JazzFest occurs in New Orleans he brings in the finest jazz players in the world to play in his combo, with some of whom I have communicated.
A grant should be made for the purpose of studying the brains of these musicians. It should be determined whether there are anatomical differences, and if they exist, as I believe they do, then the differences should be determined. I believe that we may be on the threshold of exciting neurological discoveries and innovative brain analysis.
What is the relation to this subject to oil discovery?
I personally knew quite a number of oil discoverers and read about many others including Hunt, Dry Hole Smith and Colonel Lucas. What they had in common was a mental attribute sometimes referred to as instinct.
Similar to the art expert referred to in Blink, who looked at the piece the Getty had paid many millions for, and after a glance said, “It’s a fake!”, which, of course, proved correct. Registered deep down in his brain is the accumulation of art objects the expert has examined over a busy lifetime. The spontaneous exclamation is hard to explain rationally, because it includes aspects of the brain that are not normally included within the concept of rationality.
The oil finders could look at a prospect and say with almost certainty, “There’s oil there.” It is because of these mental attributes that most of the oil discovered in our country has been found by independents. The majors, with all of their resources, usually assign geologists or petroleum engineers who have been subjected to the usual scientific methodology and who toil away at minutely dissecting prospects from that point of view. It is a different mental approach that is, in fact, less productive.
We find the same the same mental failure in the treatment of foreign affairs. It is hard to explain, but there are those who have a “feel” for foreign affairs and those who don’t. I am now reading the biography of Benjamin Franklin. He had a feeling for this subject and John Adams didn’t.
It is obviously not simply a question of scholarship. Where does the intuitive knowledge of a George Marshall come from? Who knows? But any inkling we can derive on the acquisition and perfection of desirable mental traits would be welcome. Although the anatomical may not provide the answers, it is a good place to start.