With it likely I will have the aneurysm operation soon, and with my writing about events leading to the operation without the 90 day delay, the time scales of my writing and then posting have gone awry. Life of late has become so peculiar that a time shift almost fits right in.

The book came out on April 1st. I emailed friends yesterday, on Easter. Many came by the site and many have sent me touching comments. The juxtaposition of the book release and the aneurysm reemergence has created an environment difficult to describe. I wake most mornings with an upset stomach. Fear feels familiar.

I’m still muddling through the neurologist evaluation of my asymmetrical temporal lobe brain structure that explains the occasional passing outs, and now the spontaneous emergence of unconscious content into a normal waking day. If, indeed, the content of my evolutionary theory is a partial result of a unique brain structure that encourages the emergence of hallucinatory content in the everyday, and the unique content emerging from my unconscious is not particularly hallucinatory but actually represents reasonable structural evaluations of how humans evolved (particularly brain structures), then I am in the midst of a deeply peculiar experience.

It’s just hard to say whether the story here makes my theory particularly remarkable because my theory’s origin is connected to anomalous brain structure or whether the story is that this has just been a truly strange life, unrelated to the usefulness of the theory because the theory actually isn’t useful. And then there is the aneurysm. The neurologist says the aneurysm is unrelated to my unique asymmetrical brain, but may be exaggerating experiences that my brain structure encourages. Will the operation diminish my frequent conversations with my unconscious? Or, because the intervention itself will exaggerate the asymmetries as doctors cut tissues on the side where the aneurysm sits, will I emerge from the operation with increased communications from my unconscious. And, if so, will those communications continue to be the kind that feel intimate and satisfying or the kind that brought me to the neurologist that involved either passing out or having dreamlike states superimposed upon waking actions?

The aneurysm operation feels terrifying. With these issues regarding my anomalous brain structure, and my having developed a theory of evolution revolving around an exploration of brain structure, the aneurysm operation feels like its happening in an almost cinematically mysterious context. This feels particularly so with the book having come out on the same day as I was told the aneurysm likely required immediate medical intervention. My brain is about to be operated on. It’s not clear who exactly I will be when I awake.

The doctor behaved excited and delighted to have a patient that fit into this unique category. He was clearly grateful for the opportunity to work with me further. He gave me his email address expressed a desire to maintain an email connection.

The neurologist said I exhibit an unusual highly asymmetric brain structure in sections of my temporal lobe, a particular structure featured by other people that exhibit unusually close connections to their unconscious, with unconscious content emerging in waking states, sometimes leading to a grand mall seizure or passing out. The doctor said that sometimes people with this condition value so highly the interactions with the hallucinations (many are fully functional people) that they choose to go on no condition inhibiting drugs.

He is suggesting that the aneurysm is exaggerating the asymmetry, possibly encouraging the experiencing of unconscious content while awake, possibly leading to grand mall seizures. I have been prescribed a low dosage of Keppra XR (levetiracetam), decreasing likelihoods of seizures.

When I write mornings, often about evolutionary theory and autism, I wait for ideas to emerge from my unconscious, and then I record them. There now seems the possibility that my peculiar brain structure in combination with my cerebral aneurysm, meditation, and an artistic temperament have combined to encourage the emergence of my alternative evolutionary theory.

It is my experience that I work in cooperation with my unconscious to produce the words that explain human evolution and autism. I integrate direct communications from my unconscious to decide how and what to theorize. From what the neurologist is saying, there is the possibility this is a result of a unique brain structure that tends to plant unconscious content into daily life. A question, of course, is what I am experiencing only metaphoric or even totally unrelated to shared reality, or is there enough in common between my unconscious guidance and conventional perceptions to make my theory useful to people living in conventional shared reality.

Next, I meet with the neurosurgeon to evaluate an aneurysm surgical intervention.

Successful surgery may diminish my conscious access to unconscious creative states.

I see the neurologist this afternoon to get details. From there, I connect again with the surgeon that explored my brain from inside my veins last summer. After those explorations he suggested I have direct surgery from the side of my head, as opposed to the planting of channeling devices through my blood vessels.

It looks like the question will be when will the operation happen.

Today is April 2. My book, Evolution, Autism and Social Change, posted for download and purchase yesterday. I’m a little confused about the timing of the online marketing schemes I’ve been designing. It is deeply odd that the book released yesterday, the same day I discovered the aneurysm was growing requiring intervention.

This week of book release and aneurysm Marcia has been in St. Louis taking care of grandson Nils while the usually day care person, his other grandmother, is gone this week. Marcia is leaving St. Louis early, coming back up to Evanston today (Friday) to accompany me to the neurologist appointment. This is good. This has been a deeply weird week. Accompanied by Marcia I’ll feel better. Though I’ve been running my meditation mantra much of the time, and am particularly awed by the very early spring with leaves coming out on trees weeks early, the anxiety I was feeling before the aneurysm diagnosis, related to the book becoming available, has now been joined by the medical issues. Both things are contributing to a roller coaster of emotions that include anxiety, reverence, fear, appreciation, and more fear.

I wonder what other odd or unexpected things will emerge from this brain operation.

After the two first times this happened where I was feeling some anxiety, the other times I just let myself relax. The tingling then was powerfully experienced as my feeling accompanied by my unconscious or my greater self. I felt loved. This also reminds me of the character’s experience in the Dostoyevsky novel. Dostoyevsky was an epileptic. That characters experience was supposed to have reflected Dostoyevsky’s personal experiences as an epileptic.

Last night passing out of Jewel food store, between the two automatic doors, I experienced a wave of sweet fragrance. I suspected it was emerging from my imagination. I felt some anxiety about what would happen next. Then, as I walked I was accompanied by a powerful experience of remembering something from about two years ago. Except, I couldn’t quite grasp the details. It felt like a dream. That lasted about 6-8 seconds. Then, looking around, noting the stunning beauty of early spring, I felt positively influenced by the beauty. No tingles.

I’ll call the doctor today as Jane, my group therapist, recommended. This may be related to the stress of the book posting on the website. This might be related to the cerebral aneurysm. This might be epilepsy. It could be part of my creative process. The tingles, the vibrations that course through my body are closely associated with experiences of joy, of my feeling accompanied by that which is larger than my self. I have that experience fairly often. The emergence of unconscious experiences is quite common. Meditating since 1972, I find it very easy to move to just listening to my unconscious, often taking less than 10 seconds after sitting in meditation. Dreamlike chattering and unconscious imagery just begin. The strong smell? That is weird. The three things together, smell/unconscious/tingles, it’s difficult to say what exactly is happening.

We’ll see what the doctor says.

“In spite of abundant evidence documenting intergroup conflict over the past 10,000 to 15,000 years, there is no evidence of warfare in the Pleistocene. Such absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it helps to explain why many of those who actually study hunter-gatherers are skeptical about projecting the bellicose behavior of post-Neolithic peoples back onto roaming kin-based bands of hunter-gatherers, and why anthropologists refer to the Pleistocene as the ‘period of Paleolithic warlessness.’” (Hrdy, Mothers and Others, pp. 19-20.)

For the last few years, I’ve reveled in the indulgence of reading several books at the same time, and often they were books seemingly unrelated. Sometimes synergies result. Exploring details regarding the endocrinology of relationship in primates in one book and the power of social structures that encourage alloparenting, resulting in cooperative evolution, in another book leaves me feeling like I’m reading about the same process from two different perspectives.

Central to understanding Hrdy’s work focusing on humans evolving in response to females raising children cooperatively, and the evidence that supports these conjectures, is the understanding that males, not females, are often moving to where they can procreate. Females are relatively stationary, with sisters and mothers working cooperatively to raise the children. This is in stark contrast to post-Neolithic developments that encouraged males to form alliances with other males that would result in land and resources staying within the control of a male and his male progeny. Females moved away from mothers and sisters to the location of their husband.

I’ve been exploring the endocrinological implications of matrifocal evolution for 12 years. When I started these explorations, Marija Gimbutas’ work was often derided. Gimbutas hypothesized that humans evolved in matrilineal societies. It seems Hrdy and her colleagues are finding support from colleagues as they make connections between matrilineality and our aboriginal forebears.

From my perspective, central to the realization that humans evolved in a matrifocal context is the understanding that natural selection was not the primary selective process that was in play. Though it is fairly easy to intuit that hormones adjust as social structure adjusts, it is when it can be understood that it is larger patterns of maturation rates and timing that are guiding both hormone levels and social structures, with hormone levels and social structures influencing maturation rates and timing, that we achieve insight into how evolution actually unfolds.

Reading Hrdy, I’m feeling stirred that humans evolving in matrifocal societies is a concept now receiving respect. If this shift in our origin story continues to gain followers, there will be impacts on other disciplines and popular culture.

I received an email from Elaine Morgan, popularizer of the aquatic ape theory of human evolution and the author of several books on human evolution, including The Descent of Woman.  Morgan recommended that I read the work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.  She suggested I read Mother and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.

“The paradigm shift away from thinking of our Pleistocene ancestors as reared by all-nurturing chimpanzee-like mothers, and toward thinking of them as apes with species-typical shared care, has been slow in coming.  Only in the past decade has cooperative breeding’s implications for attachment theory begun to be addressed, and its evolutionary implications taken into account.”  (Hrdy, Mothers and Others, p. 113.)

Hrdy discusses the influence of the alloparent in detail, describing the profound uniqueness of the human species, where mothers share infant intimacy with other females (and occasionally males) from the first day on.  This is unheard of in other great ape species.  Many things are implied.  Hrdy concentrates on how natural selection reinforces a cooperation theory-of-mind paradigm that allows a larger number of progeny to survive in communities where child-rearing is a community event.  For Hrdy, coming from a natural selection theorizing background, natural selection alone explains how humans evolved an ability to identify with another person as compassion became a highly useful feature.

Two things jump out at me.  First, sexual selection seems to be of relatively little importance in Hrdy’s hypothesis.  Neoteny is not mentioned.  With a default assumption that natural selection is how things transform, there is no awareness that many of the features that Hrdy describes reveal neotenous trends.  Though she discusses the influence of matriarchy, this is not integrated into an understanding of how matriarchy encourages specific kinds of evolution, particularly those kinds of evolution leading to the features that Hrdy is paying the closest attention to.  Matrifocal social structure encourages cooperative societies.  Instead of exploring the conditions that support matrifocal social structure, Hrdy commits the usual sociobiological sin of assuming that only natural selection is in play.  (Geoffrey Miller’s work would be the exception.)

Placing a heavy emphasis on alloparent intervention keeping our species alive, Hrdy neglects to make the connection between neoteny and social structures that support alloparents.  In other words, Hrdy’s work supports matrifocal human evolution.

No doubt this is just the beginning of my exploration of Hrdy’s work in connection with my Orchestral Theory of Evolution.  Thank you, Elaine, for sending me in Hrdy’s direction.

Second, considering that autism features individuals exhibiting the characteristics of our evolutionary forebears, and noting that the environment and child-rearing practices of those forebears might be what current autistics are craving, I’ve hypothesized that diet, rhythm, dance, touch and performance may all be necessary to those with autism.  Reading Hrdy’s book, it strikes me that perhaps an autistic neurology requires constant multiple parents, several persons to form attachments with.  For a child to feel part of society, perhaps it is neurologically necessary that several central females be engaged from birth.  Hrdy notes that in primitive societies, though the babies may travel among several persons over the course of a day, the baby sleeps with the mother at night.  It is also possible that an autistic individual requires close contact with a central figure through the night.

As it becomes clearer how exactly we evolved, we may evolve a deeper understanding for how we can adjust the environment of particular humans having difficulty adjusting to current society.

I’ve described two neurological archetypes in my work on human evolution, autism and current social transformations. There is the male, maturationally delayed, and the female, accelerated, and both are matrifocal, often left-handed, leaning toward autism, inclined toward primary process and inclined toward being simultaneous thinkers. The other neurological archetype includes the familiar male who is maturationally accelerated and the female who is delayed (neotenous), and both are patrifocal, narrative-thinking, split-brained, normal right-handers. I’ve recently been playing with the idea that each displays a unique form of imagination, with primary process individuals exhibiting abilities to perceive and integrate larger patterns contrasted with split-brain thinkers that can easily imagine what does not exist while establishing the steps to get there.

What I’m considering at this particular moment is what might be occurring when a primary process thinker is introduced in childhood to split-brain thinking conventions, or the opposite, when a split-brain thinker is guided or propelled into how a primary process thinker thinks. For me, there is something similar to the life work of an artist, who is seeking to integrate seemingly incompatible polarities. It strikes me that by understanding the world by the way the world is perceived and processed, and offering ways that these two basic paradigms can relate, we might be encouraging a healthy integration.

It may be often the case that those artists and theorists that achieve success in their chosen avocations or professions are those individuals that have accidentally or unconsciously found ways to perceive and interpret information considered from both a primary process and a split-brain perspective. I have hypothesized that our society evolved from a matrifocal to a patrifocal frame and is now headed back to matrifocal, though in many ways what we are experiencing currently is integration. I’m hypothesizing that one way to approach how unique thinkers think is to consider that some individuals experience and exhibit an integration of both primary process and split-brain thinking processes.

It is my guess the integration is often not without stress. In just the way the artist in the West often acts as an example or symbol of the difficulty of synthesis between community and self, or the other ways of describing the existential polarities that we as humans wrestle with, those individuals that discover an ability to live in both primary process and split-brain worlds probably often experience the relationship as a struggle.

An example of two forms of imagination integration might be aboriginal children with natural primary process thinking inclinations that are raised in a Western home by split-brain parents, except that the parents are artists, and the home features an extended family with a mother’s sister and a mother’s mother living in the house. A net result might be an environment somewhat neurologically (and socially) familiar, with constant exposure to what may feel like a complementary opposite neurological condition. The children may become adults with a facility to intuit big picture, simultaneous, interconnected understanding with step-by-step abilities to achieve goals by imagining something that does not yet exist.

A perhaps more familiar example might be one that approximates the artist paradigm in Western culture. Consider a primary process thinker, a left-handed person, with left-handed parents. Borderline autistic, an Asperger’s candidate, this person is traumatized in early childhood and finds himself or herself withdrawing, except the world that he or she withdraws into features an enormous number of words. This person discovers that words are effective at creating a security zone isolating personal experience from a threatening environment. The person becomes an avid reader and uses his or her global imagination to fill the world up with the images his or her words create. Nevertheless, as a primary process thinker, community feels essential, resulting in a vivid imagination devoted to an imagined community, a community featuring many interconnections.

I hypothesize two neurological archetypes with few overt pathways toward integration of the two frames of reference. Some people, over the course of their life, experience various degrees of integration. Sometimes this occurs in an atmosphere characterized by love and affection. Sometimes this occurs in atmospheres featuring distress and misunderstanding. Both situations can result in individuals with enhanced abilities to serve society.

…

Proceed to author’s FREE book download on this subject. 10 minute introductory video here.

“Not surprisingly, males of pair-bonding bird species have been shown to undergo an endocrinological shift to lower testosterone levels in parallel with the behavioral shift from territorial defense and mate attraction to parental behavior. Manipulations that evoke territorial responses in nesting males, such as playing the song of an invading male, both undermine parental behavior and lead to an increase in testosterone….Recently evidence has even begun to accumulate suggesting that lower testosterone levels may be typical of human males in stable mating relationships and perhaps even lower levels in men who are fathers of infant children.” (p. 70)

“…This led to the ‘challenge hypothesis,’ which states: high plasma levels of testosterone occur during periods of social instability in the breeding season (resulting from male-male competition for territories and mates) but are at a lower breeding baseline in stable social conditions thus allowing paternal care to be expressed.” (p. 83)

“Furthermore, there is growing evidence that patterns of testosterone in tropical species that may have long breeding seasons are very different from northern species (Goymann et al., 2004). Tropical species with long breeding seasons tend to have extremely low levels of testosterone that generally do not change markedly with social challenges.” (p. 85)

In 1998, I hypothesized that when there are great apes with larger testicles, suggesting males competing with other males in an environment characterized by female choice, with sperm production becoming more important than muscle mass, the testosterone levels would decrease even though the testicles were larger. Testes produce both sperm and testosterone. I calculated that an emphasis on one would diminish the other. Gorillas have small testicles and patrifocal male control of procreation. Bonobo have large testicles with a matrifocal, horizontal social structure.

The passages above suggest a relationship between testosterone production and social structure. Even testosterone fluctuations within an individual over time suggest that different procreation strategies are accompanied by different testosterone levels. If male testosterone levels are instrumental in the choices made at any time regarding degrees of cooperation or family orientation, and testosterone levels inform maturation rates, then there is a direct connection between social structure, maturational delay and acceleration.

For reasons I do not really understand, there seems to be little academic attention directed toward the possibility that testosterone manages rates of maturation. Testosterone is associated with handedness, and left-handedness is associated with low testosterone. Left-handedness is associated with maturational delay. Yet, testosterone is rarely visited as related to maturational acceleration and delay. Even further from the minds of theoreticians is the possible influence of estrogen on the timing of the rates of maturation. Grasping that seems to require an understanding of how maturation rates change under the influence of testosterone.

Human and nonhuman endocrine systems are moved by countless different variables in turn influenced by myriad environmental effects. Nevertheless, it seems central that social structure, which deeply influences evolution, is guided by a balance between testosterone and estrogen levels. These levels change according to the season, the environment and the circumstances of life. As these changes occur, maturation rates and timing transform and evolution happens.

Thirty years ago I studied with John Grinder and his colleagues, becoming a licensed practitioner of Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP). We integrated the insights of language theorist Noam Chomsky, hypnotherapist Milton H. Erickson and family therapist Virginia Santir to be able to understand how exactly people exercise imagination. We explored the exact sequence of senses that people used when processing information or using their imaginations. Specifically, we explored when and how internal senses of feeling, hearing and sight were engaged while either remembering or creating content while integrating old with new experiences.

Sixty of us went through the licensing program in a western Chicago suburb in 1981 and 1982. Learning how exactly people processed information, we learned a lot about ourselves. For example, I discovered that I began almost all imagination strategies by talking to myself, with almost no awareness that I was doing so. Almost all internal auditory experience was occurring outside of my conscious awareness. That was valuable information. Over time, as I became aware of how influential my internal dialog was to my emotional and cognitive experience, I learned to accompany that part of me that speaks. A result is that I feel less alone, less split.

Meditation, nonjudgmental self attention, was integral to that process.

Let’s consider the benefits of understanding that there are two different kinds of imagination. Let’s call them primary process and split brain. Are the two kinds of imagination associated with relatively unique cognitive strategies? For example, does a split brain imagination often begin by talking to the self, exercising internal dialog, with created imagery being integral to the result? Would a primary process thinker rely upon something visual that is remembered (as opposed to something visual that is constructed), with feelings inside the body being integral to conclusions that “connect”? I have no idea. But it would be interesting if the two kinds of imaginations were associated with specific strategies. If so, specifically learning the strategies of the other kind of imagination might result in an individual feeling like he or she has more choices in life. A society engaging in teaching children both forms of imagination might experience far less dissonance.

If, indeed, there are two different kinds of imagination with two different neurological foundations, we have a new way of understanding societal splits. Accompanying the understanding of how these splits occur are strategies individuals can use to integrate the splits. This could result in more peaceful societies. This blog’s new way of understanding how humans evolved is central to what we are discussing here.

Understanding imagination, we understand ourselves.

“If it’s the split brain, smaller corpus callosum and left hemisphere dominance that make us self-conscious and able to exercise imagination (pretending to be someone else, somewhere else, some other time), then how come imagination is associated with those leaning towards ancestral brain wiring, that is, less split brain and a better integrated right hemisphere?”

Let me start off by saying I’ve wondered about this in connection with two very different kinds of male left-handers that I come in contact with. Then there is the third group of left-handed males, who are autistic. One group is filled with social, talkative, articulate, focused, smart, imaginative males. The second group tends to be easily annoyed, gruff, focused, somewhat obsessed, smart and imaginative. Imagination seems to be closely associated with left-handedness in males. I don’t know why there are two kinds of nonautistic males (if my observations are at all useful). Perhaps one is high in estrogen and the other low, with both low in testosterone.

With females, it’s a bit different. Offering attention to left-handed females over the last ten years, I have noticed a very strong clustering of the classic matrifocal archetype, with many brilliant, commanding, discerning, focused females being left-handed. Creativity seems not necessarily related.

So where am I going with this? Marian Annett discussed the balanced polymorphism that makes up a society in the context of the UK, where she is a practicing neuropsychologist. Those in the center are the right-handed, but not the extremely right-handed. These people, Annett believes, retain a language facility advantage yet avoid physical and mental maladies by not being at the right extreme. The extremely right-handed, she believes, retain several disadvantages with few natural talents. Those at the left end–the left-handed and extremely left-handed–experience a different variety of disadvantages. Yet, Annett noted an astonishing number of extremely talented people appearing at the extreme left end, out there where a number of unique physical and mental conditions plague those people. Those conditions include autism, dyslexia, stuttering, allergies, Asperger’s and perhaps obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and bi-polar personality disorder.

Side note. Annett discovered that dyslexia actually comes in two forms, a phonetic version mostly retained by lefties and a visual dyslexia that mostly affects extreme right-handers. It is possible that several conditions that are assigned one name actually have two separate etiologies composed of these two very different neurologies. For example, schizophrenia may come in both nonlateralized and highly cerebral-lateralized versions with additional narrow and wide corpus callosum variations. OCD may also come in these two very different variations.

With the current neurodiversity movement and the writing of Dr. Michael Fitzgerald, there is now a focus on a number of historical figures who offered world-changing paradigms and who seemed to feature traits of those with autism. Astonishingly creative imaginations with an ability to tease out interconnected wholes and brains with difficulty integrating the thoughts of other humans seem paradoxically closely related.

I think the answer to the question “How come imagination is associated with those leaning towards ancestral brain wiring, that is, less split brain and a better integrated right hemisphere?” has to do with two very different types of imagination engaged in by the two kinds of brains. The old, less split, more integrated, left-handed, autistic-leaning brain has a more direct access to holistic, interconnected, simultaneous, multilayered understanding, except with less grasp of the relationship between those connections and a self. On the other hand, the right-handed, split-brained person with a smaller corpus callosum, who is a narrative thinker, can far easier imagine what is not, and estimate, step by step, how exactly to manipulate time and space to arrive there.

Whereas the lefty with relative ease grasps what is, the righty can fairly effortlessly make up what is not.

Both exercise imagination. One has less self awareness in the context of a self’s relationship with others, but nevertheless he or she has a relative easier access to the existing, supporting, interconnected infrastructure, in no small part because of there being less distraction from a self. The other, with heightened sensitivity to self and self’s relationship with others, is acutely aware of differing perspectives, able to estimate much that does not exist, often failing to understand what is real.

Some male left-handers seem to travel in both worlds. This results in an almost separate class of individuals with abilities both to integrate and separate. Four of the last five presidents were perhaps these kinds of lefties. I believe part of what society is wrestling with today is some kind of synthesis or integration of the two paradigms leading to these kinds of individuals. We need both an ability to imagine what does not exist and the power to perceive and adjust to what does exist. These two usually separate forms of imagination merge, at the societal level, in the societal balanced polymorphism hypothesized by Annett.

I hypothesize these two imaginations are starting to merge in the neurologies of certain individuals, particularly in the matrifocal/patrifocal hybrid society that is developing. Another way of saying this is that the balanced polymorphism intuited by Annett is shifting leftward, exhibiting a different kind of center. A net result may be a wiser, more grounded, less ambitious, less competitive culture with an ability to integrate into its multiplace, multitime, creation-of-opposites imagination an understanding of how exactly we are interconnected with the world as it really is.