Crazy For You: Western Culture’s Majority Vote Based ‘Reality’



“The majority has no monopoly on the Truth” 

– Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake in 1600 for his prescient modern physics beliefs and other heresies).


BOTH WESTERN and EASTERN cultures substitute SORCERY for TRANSFORMATION as an expedient for REDUCING the ineffable-because-nonlocal to the local-and-thus-effable.  For example, the resonance phenomenon of DUNING born of NONLOCAL influence can be reduced (as Nietzsche points out) by the DOUBLE ERROR

The DOUBLE ERROR is comprised of (A) NAMING (reducing the resonance phenomenon to a notional LOCAL name-instantiated thing-in-itself) it ‘a DUNE’, and (B) GRAMMAR (conflating the first error of NAMING by imputing to the LOCAL NAME-instantiated thing-in-itself the POWER of SOURCING action and development.

THUS, the NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon of DUNING, thanks to the DOUBLE ERROR, is reduced to ‘the DUNE’ which is given (with GRAMMAR) its own notional powers of SORCERY (e.g. ‘the DUNE is growing longer and higher and is shifting across the desert floor’).



The DOUBLE ERROR is an expedient for ‘effable-izing’ the ‘ineffable’.  Instead of the unbounded NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon of ‘DUNING’, the DOUBLE ERROR reduction gives us the LOCAL mechanical phenomenon of ‘the DUNE with its own (GRAMMAR-given) powers of SOURCING action and development.

The archetype for this DOUBLE ERROR reduction is ‘the SELF’ made into the grammatical SUBJECT, the ‘I’.

As Nietzsche points out, this invention of the SUBJECT as a purported LOCAL SORCERER of actions and developments is TRICKERY (Unart).


“Unsre Unart, ein Erinnerungszeichen, eine abkürzende Formel als Wesen zu nehmen, schließlich als Ursache, zum Beispiel vom Blitz zu sagen: „er leuchtet“. Oder gar das Wörtchen „ich“. Eine Art von Perspektive im Sehen wieder als Ursache des Sehens selbst zu setzen: das war das Kunststück in der Erfindung des „Subjekts“, des „Ichs“!”

–Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht

(Note: Ursache – sourcing agency, cause).


“Our mischievousness, to take a symbol of remembrance, an abbreviated formula as a being, and finally as a cause, to say, for example, about ‘lightning: “it flashes”. Or even the word “I”. To set a kind of perspective in seeing, again as the source of seeing itself, that was the trick in the invention of the “subject”, the “I”.” – Nietzsche, The Will to Power



The Usurping of Transformation by Growth, Topology by Geometry



We are born with an intuitive sense of topological discrimination of FIGURE and GROUND as ONE, but in WESTERN CULTURE are quickly taught to supersede TOPOLOGY with the lesser concept of GEOMETRY, a substitution that radically reduces our understanding of the natural world dynamic, replacing TRANSFORMATION with GROWTH.   Instead of understanding a loaf of white bread turning blue as ‘TRANSFORMATION’, we speak of the GROWTH of a ‘SPOT’ of ‘MOLD’.

This is the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar pointed out by Nietzsche; the first error is NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING to a form that we observe by way of our voyeur visualizing sense, while the second error of GRAMMAR conflates the first by imputing the power of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself.  This double error approach of language and grammar would have us speaking in terms of GROWTH OF BEING; for example we speak of THE GROWTH OF BLUE MOLD ON A PIECE OF BREAD.



Once we employ this double error in constructs such as ‘The spot of mold is growing larger and darker’ we have focused in on the ‘spot’ and imputed to it ITS OWN LOCAL POWER OF GROWTH.



Sorcery Versus Transformation



WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is characterized by giving the abstract concept of LOCAL SORCERY a foundational role in the intellectual (language and grammar based) construction of reality.  ‘SORCERY’, the notional ‘double-error’ concept of ‘local’ ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments as in the common WESTERN CULTURE ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT concept, is the intellectual concept that is used, in WESTERN CULTURE, to articulate and understand the social dynamic.   The ‘double error’ used to create the notion of ‘sorcery’ is; (first error) NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself existence to VISION-ACCESSIBLE relational forms ‘out there in front of us’, conflating this with (second error) GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the LOCAL NAMING-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF.  Thus, for example, the visual appearance of LOCAL plant sprouts ‘pushing up and out of the ground’ in spring is THUS captured in language and grammar within such double error based representation that substitutes the effable psychological-intellectual impression of LOCAL SOURCING, in place of the actual ineffable NONLOCAL Wave-field based transformation.

THE VISUAL SENSING of FORMS (as in TRANSFORMATION) REDUCED TO EFFABLE EXPRESSION with LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR allows us to employ intellectual DOUBLE ERROR based constructions of REALITY in terms of LOCAL SORCERY.  While our sensory experience is of inclusion in relational fluid-turbulence that, for example, features a water-spout or ‘twister’ out there in front of us (the VOYEUR-VISIBLE ASPECT OF THE RELATIONAL PHENOMENA WE ARE IMMERSED IN), we are able to intellectually SPLIT OUT the visible aspect ‘on its own’ and by name-labelling forms; e.g. Katrina, and animating them (intellectually-conceptually) with grammar, we construct a FUNDAMENTALLY REDUCED pseudo-reality based on binary FIGURE AND GROUND dynamics; i.e. ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger and is devastating New Orleans’.

In our intellectual engineering of this language and grammar VOYEUR VISUALIZATION based DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION, we DROP OUT the understanding coming with our fullblown SENSORY EXPERIENCE of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  REALITY, on this basis of VOYEUR VISUALIZING and double error reduction to terms of things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments is REDUCED to ‘something going on out there’ that is sensed ‘in here’, SPLITTING ‘self’ and ‘other’ into two mutually exclusive realms, AS FAR THE INTELLECT GOES, BUT AS FAR AS OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE GOES, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE STILL “ONE”.

The subject-object split, meanwhile REDUCES the ineffable Tao to something ‘effable’ such as our voyeur visualizing of flow, the flow-forms in which we can intellectually ‘trap’ and intellectually ‘label’ (NAME) and intellectually ‘animate’ with GRAMMAR, creating in the intellectualizing mind, an synthetic double-error based pseudo-reality BASED ON LOCAL SORCERY, REDUCED FROM NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

This reduction from NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION to LOCAL SORCERY renders that which is ineffable in REDUCED but ‘effable’ terms.  The double error tool of reduction, meanwhile (as pointed out by Emerson and Nietzsche), has in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.


This REDUCTION from TRANSFORMATION to SORCERY employed not just as a tool of inference but as THE OPERATIVE REALITY has become the WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKING ‘NORMAL’ as R.D. Laing and others have pointed out.


How God Left the Earth and Got Up in the Sky


How God Left the Earth and Got Up in the Sky

Man arranged God’s relocation when man switched from grounding his understanding of the dynamics of reality from TOPOLOGY to GEOMETRY.

To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat,

When did GEOMETRY overtake TOPOLOGY?

It’s not likely that you can remember when you were first taught ‘language and grammar’ but as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, we start working on our children soon after they are born to teach them the ‘names’ of “every THING”.

Naming DISTINGUISHES ONE FORM FROM ANOTHER FORM as in MOUNTAIN and VALLEY, a separation that passes over TOPOLOGY and has us thinking in terms of GEOMETRY as in the GEOMETRY of FORMS which exist as THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  In Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum (1597), the five Platonic solids dictate the structure of the universe, giving a role of fundamental to geometry in understanding ‘reality’;

“Geometry existed before the Creation. It is co-eternal with the mind of God… Geometry provided God with a model for the Creation… Geometry is God Himself.” Thus said Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi, The Harmony of the World (1619), book IV, Ch. 1

Once popularized among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, this imputed primacy of GEOMETRY did an ‘end run’ in our minds, around the natural precedence of TOPOLOGY.  Can we not see ourselves as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT parents, pushing this geometry of solids down our children’s receptive psychological intakes like force-feeding geese by cranking food down into them through a worm-gear for our own pleasure-purpose (to produce some thing delicious as ‘foie gras’ to please ourselves).

Whatever was the startup incentive for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, we sure as hell managed to wean our children OFF OF TOPOLOGY (the purely relational understanding of reality) and get them exclusively oriented to GEOMETRY with its abstraction of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES identified by NAMES.


The TRAP-DOOR Entries to Our WESTERN Flatspace Reality




(‘FORGIVENESS’ is a backhanded means of affirming BINARY (perpetrator-victim) TORT while ‘COMPASSION’ embraces NONDUALITY as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger

The reality of sensory experience of inclusion in relations naturally precedes the  binary self-other splitting of rational intellection.

* * * * * * * * * *

EASTERN sanity comes from understanding that we are included in the GREAT HARMONY (the Tao, the Wave-field) while WESTERN craziness comes from belief that we have powers of SORCERY.  This belief is called EGO.

COMPASSION for self and others within relations wherein we experience pain is natural since there is no such thing as LOCALLY INSTANTIATED SORCERY (such developments are relative). (e.g. for the unloved child there is no JOY and this can manifest as the NONLOCAL origin of abusive conflict as acknowledged in ‘mitakuye oyasin’, as develops WITHIN the web of relations).

FORGIVENESS mistakenly confirms the CRAZY-MAKING belief in LOCAL SORCERY and BLINDS us to the reality of NONLOCALITY.

Beware the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar!  It gives us SORCERY as a tool of inference that, if taken literally, can run away with the workman, making him believe the power of SORCERY is incipient in him and in relational forms in general that we objectify with our act of assigning names to relational forms.

Thus, in our psyche (in our intellectual pseudo-reality constructions), we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use NAMING AND GRAMMAR to brew up double error based SORCERY and eclipse the relational reality of mitakuye oyasin, the reality of our common inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

COMPASSION is the Bodhisattva ethic that dissolves the self-other split, UNLIKE FORGIVENESS, which is born of ‘noblesse oblige’, concretizing the BINARY guilty-innocent self-other split as it imputes magnanimity to the FORGIVER and a debt of gratitude to the FORGIVEN.

* * *


The sensory-experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) is INEFFABLE and we are thus challenged to; (a) Come up with a REDUCTION of the ineffable to employ it (a necessarily deficient reduction) as an effable substitute/surrogate-reality to help us INFER the ineffable reality that lies innately beyond explicit/objective capture, and (b) NOT FALL INTO THE TRAP of employing the effable surrogate-reality as if it were the ‘actual reality’.

While EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS (and modern physics) achieve these two aims, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS typically achieve ONLY the first and FAIL to achieve the second.

* * * END OF FORWARD * * *


It is possible  to start with a fluid space and to use naming to populate the fluid space  with notional things-in-themselves.  These names can be embellished with grammar to make their imputed objects appear to AGE and SUBMERGE, and new names can be added to simulate emergence of new naming-instantiated objects that ‘have their own grammar-instantiated powers of’ GROWTH and DECLINE within an abstract binary interval bounded on one end by BIRTH and on the opposite end, by DEATH.   Thus any ‘naming-instantiated objects’ such as a ‘person’, ‘nation’, ‘organization’ or ‘organism’ can be created and associated with a relational form-in-the-NONLOCAL flow (‘the Tao’, aka the Wavefield) making it out to be a LOCAL, independently-existing THING-IN-ITSELF; … then using such abstraction to REDUCE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION … (the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion therein)…  to terms of LOCAL things-in-themselves manifesting binary (ON/OFF) BIRTH to DEATH LIFE-CYCLES that INHABIT an otherwise empty HABITAT.  The combination of BIRTH and DEATH and HABITAT and INHABITANT is a ‘double error’ twice over that is the ‘price’ of coming up with an effable rendering of the ineffable Tao.  If we were to understand the whorl in the flow in terms of FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE as in modern physics, we would need NEITHER the binary INHABITANT-HABITAT SPLIT NOR the binary BIRTH AND DEATH of the INHABITANT.  The phenomena of emergence and subsuming of flow-forms becomes EXPLICIT in the psyche with the intellectual double error of language and grammar.

Instead of the NONLOCAL, UNDIVIDED transforming relational continuum, which is INEFFABLE, we can use flatspace visualization to REDUCE this to a LOCAL, DIVIDED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES-BASED surrogate pseudo-reality which is EFFABLE.

“CHANGE” is a synthetic (UNREAL/ABSTRACT) pseudo-phenomenon that shows up as an artifact in our intellectual reduction of the transforming relational continuum (the Tao aka the Wavefield, the Heraclitean flow) to the abstract LOCAL, DIVIDED ‘double error’ pseudo-reality of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (first error) with notional grammar-endowed POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

With these reductions built into our language and grammar, we are well on our way to accommodating the construction of a pseudo-reality that we can visualize ‘out there in front of us’, and thus MAKE AN END RUN around the obstacle of INEFFABLE-NESS of the all including transforming relational continuum.  Since we are included in the ‘flow’ aka the transforming relational continuum, visual portrayals of things as if they are out there in front of us are a radical reduction of our sensory experience of inclusion.  The DUNE that we can see ‘over there’ (out in front of us) as ‘it grows longer and higher and shifts across the desert floor’, as if on a movie screen is imagery that is taking our awareness out of a sense of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum.  We are instead building ‘knowledge’ of a world that we can understanding by ‘gazing into it’ as if it is ‘a world OUT THERE’, rather than a transforming relational continuum in which we are included which, admittedly, is an effable experience EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE PRIMARY REALITY.

Once we apply the ‘double error’ of language and grammar to reduce OUR NOTION OF OUR SELF to terms of a VISIBLE LOCAL thing-in-itself with POWERS of sourcing actions and developments, we have lost touch with our sense of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  Sure we can think of the TORNADO as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, but it is much more than that!  In order to understand it we must not limit our understanding to the visual aspect.  The TORNADO may be ‘coming towards us’ as far as visualizing it is concerned but it is behind us at the same time as it is in front us, in fact, and as far as wavefield energy goes, we and the whorl we are watching ‘out there in front of us’ are all included in the wavefield.


Topological Meditations



Topological Meditations

To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat,

My feeling is that ‘topology’ plays an important role in shaping our understanding of ‘realty’, yet it is IMPLICIT in the language we use, helping to shape our understanding UNCONSCIOUSLY.  For example, we commonly employ the word GROWTH as if it refers to a reality, but the ‘growth’ on some thing (e.g. a town) on the surface of a sphere is NOT POSSIBLE since the concept of ‘growth’ is innately incomplete in its failure to capture the simultaneous reciprocal shrinking of the undeveloped land.  Only if the growing town were on a plane of infinite extent would the term GROWTH (which is one-sided in that refers to the thing-in-itself that is ‘growing’) be appropriate.  In the case that the surrounding undeveloped land is shrinking by the same amount the town is growing, we would have to use a terms like TRANSFORMATION rather than GROWTH to capture this.

Such understanding is in the realm of TOPOLOGY and while we are born with this tool of understanding at the ready, … it is, in our WESTERN CULTURE, soon ‘trained out of us’ as we are taught language which orients us to name-instantiated things-in-themselves.  This is the realm of GEOMETRY rather than TOPOLOGY and as is the thesis explored in this note, the reduction of TOPOLOGY to the GEOMETRY OF THINGS, is a WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKER.


The Soleimani Affair vis a vis Adodarho



There is much that is common to EAST and WEST such as in our natural intuition of “letting the soft animal of our body love what it wants to love”.  We can see this natural intuition play out in nature generally and not just in the ‘humanings’ in the Great Resonance aka the Tao aka the Wave-field aka the Transforming Relational Continuum.  So, the intuition of ‘letting the soft animal of our body love what it wants to love’ is something common to people of both WESTERN and EASTERN INTELLECTUAL HABITS.

It is the difference in intellectual habit that distinguishes EAST and WEST, so that one might never ‘detect’ this difference so long as one’s relational interactions within a mix of EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS AND WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are constrained to the playful ‘soft animal of the body’ variety.  Only if that stern and penetrating crows-eye intellectual scrutinizing comes into play does the difference between EAST and WEST become manifest.

That is, EAST AND WEST DIVIDE when we leave behind INTUITIVE UNDERSTANDING and shift gears to INTELLECTUAL REASONING and the division comes about due to the WEST’s LITERAL interpretation of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, the double error of REASON wherein the first error is ‘naming’ that imputes abstract ‘independent thing-in-itself existence’, conflated by the second error of grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-in-itself.

This ‘double error’ is where INTELLECTUAL REASONING based on the abstraction of LOCAL jumpstart SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS shows itself.

This ‘double error’ is where the belief in SORCERY comes from which is secured in the intellectualizing mind by FORGIVENESS and/or BLAME.  In BOTH cases, there is an affirmation that an action or development is being LOCALLY SOURCED by some or other THING-IN-ITSELF.


The Double Error and the Buddha’s Smile



There is an intriguing topology in a ‘smile’ or ‘puckering up’ and it is called NONLOCALITY.  Like the ‘whorl’ in river flow, it seems to demand our obedient attention as it says; ‘READ MY LIPS: I AM COMING FROM MY OWN CENTRE!”.    But that is just a lie.   The LOCAL voice has hijacked the NONLOCAL reality.  If we INVERT our gaze and turn it upwards, we see the brilliant sun, and what’s more, we FEEL the radiating warmth that we intuitively know is the REAL SOURCE of the river-whorl.

In spite of the APPEARANCES, the whorl’s egotistical claims of LOCALITY is just self-centered make-believe.   The whorl, like all forms in the flow, is inherently NONLOCAL, like the Buddha’s smile.

How did we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS reduce the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL?  We did by way of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, as Nietzsche pointed out.  The first error is NAMING.  We invent a ‘name’ for whorl, and because the name persists without changing, even though the whorl is ‘made of continual change’ (We cannot step into the same river twice for it is not the same river, and we are not the same person stepping into it).

Naming decrees the persisting thing-in-itself being.  This ‘decree’ is an intellectual decree since our sensory experience is clearly informing us that the whorl is relational form in the flow that we cognitively freeze by our intellectual act of naming it.   Which should we believe?  Should we believe our intellect that, having named the flow-form, insists on its persisting thing-in-itself LOCAL BEING, or should we believe in our sensory experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is in flux?

Well, it is clear that if we want to use language to share our experience of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum, we need a scheme to refer to forms that shares what we are referring to as we are continuing to discuss it; i.e. hurricane Katrina may, in its basic nature be as NONLOCAL and thus as elusive as Mona Lisa’s smile, a special smile that binds us together as if we are both inclusions in ONE transforming relational continuum, which we are.  This is impossible to capture ‘on its own’, without actually experiencing it, but that is the artists talent to work away at trying the capture that which is impossible to capture; i.e. fixed imagery of our lived experience of inclusion in the Tao.

“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu

(sound of trumpets announcing the ENTRY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR).


A Christmas Message to the ‘Little Ones Still in the Earth’




Hello little ones still in the earth seven generations out’!  We continue to try to adjust our ways in the direction of cultivating harmony for your experience of emergence from the implicit and pre-manifest potentiality of the Tao into the explicit and manifest expressing of the Tao.  We know that seven generations can bring forth a wholotta transformation and that the way of nature is not all harmony-and-no-dissonance even if harmony is eternally returning.

So, we are thinking of you as we continue to observe what is emerging, most of which comes as a surprise in spite our attempts to shape the unfolding.  In spite of the fact that we haven’t been good at anticipating what unfolds, … we do want to adjust course in such a manner as to try to cultivate harmonies in the environment that you will be emerging into.

I would not be being truthful if I did not share with you that we have some puzzles and disagreements here in the unfolding now, not only with respect to what we need to do to improve the harmonies of the reality you will be emerging into, but more seriously, with respect to what actually is the current reality, something that it would be good to know by those of us who are currently in our ‘emergent’ phase since we tend to see and understand things quite differently.

So, I certainly ‘cannot speak for everyone in our currently emergent phase’ so I will have to share with you my ‘good faith minority report’.

I have been encouraged, … by others who have contemplated expositing on how things are currently unfolding, and deliberating on ‘needed adjustments’, insofar as how these may influence what is unfolding for y’all seven generations out, … to be as blunt and straightforward as I can be, NOT to signal any belief that reality can be so simply reduced to an effable explicate, since the Tao is ineffable and implicit anyhow, … but just to share a few observations on how we, the current diverse human social collective, are articulating different understandings of the ineffable reality we all share inclusion in, and how those differing understandings may be dividing us and pulling us into different patterns of relational activity.

So, I am not claiming that my views and actions, which I would wish to be supportive of your smooth and harmonious entry seven generations out, are in any way, ‘the most true’, but I can assure you that they are ‘honest’ in the sense that I have made an effort to penetrate beneath at least the outer layers of superficiality as far as I am able to discern them.

So here goes with my (bluntly stated) assumptions as to what ‘needs adjusting’ on your behalf.

And an advance welcome to you!

* * *


What is Reality? (subtitle: The ‘Cuckoo’s Egg of ‘Growth’)



‘GROWTH’ is a ubiquitous and effective ‘cuckoo’s egg’ that hatches crazy-making understandings in Western minds. 



There is often an unresolved ambiguity in how the word ‘growth’ is generally used due to the differing ‘figure and ground’ concepts that arise in ‘standard logic’ (EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium) vis a vis ‘quantum logic’ (BOTH/AND logic of the included medium).  In terms of FIGURE AND GROUND, there is ontological independence of FIGURE and GROUND in the first case, and the separateness is only APPEARANCE based in the second case.  When we speak of ‘growth’ of a ‘figure’, we do not usually specify whether we are picturing that growth in Cartesian space or in spherical space; e.g. the growth of a figure such as a storming or a duning on a flat space would deliver the understanding of ‘growth’ as the enlargement of a ‘thing-in-itself’, however, the growth of a figure such as a storming or a duning on the spherical surface of the earth would entail the reciprocal shrinkage of the ‘ground’ in the figure and ground couple so that instead of ‘growth’ we should be talking about ‘transformation’.

A confusing ambiguity arises where we speak of ‘growth’ of a ‘figure’ without declaring whether there is a corresponding ‘shrinking’ of the reciprocal ‘ground’.   This ambiguity can in turn inject the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’ where a LOCAL producer-product dynamic is inferred.  This ‘double error’ based injection of the concept of ‘sorcery’ is problematic in Western culture language and grammar. While these ambiguities are ‘managed’ in THIS DISCUSSION, they are, in many philosophical discussions left as ‘loose sheets flapping in the breeze’ and can be the source of ‘petitio principii’ errors of logic.

For example, where one starts using figure and ground in the flat space sense where they are ontologically separate and in the course of the discussion switches to using the same figure and ground as if they are distinguished merely by ‘appearance’ and are without ontological separateness (as would equate to switching between Newtonian physics and modern physics and back).  For example, on a flat space, it is fair to speak of a boil ‘moving across that space’ since figure and ground are TWO separate ontological entities while in the curved space on a sphere, we must speak of relational transformation since ‘figure and ground are only ONE’.  (Talk that is in ‘figure and ground’ terms of ‘dunes that grow larger and shift across the desert floor’ invokes LOCAL 3 dimensional ontology while talk in ‘figure and ground’ terms of ‘duning’ invokes NONLOCAL resonance that is 4+ dimensional). Mixing these two representations and their logics indiscriminately in language and grammar constructions is not uncommon and leads to confused (aberrant) understanding. [see Poincaré’s discussion on Cantorians and pragmatists in Dernières Pensées’, Ch. V, ‘Les Mathematiques et la Logique’]

The following note takes care to keep the discussion grounded in the most general framing (relational transformation) and to avoid inadvertent mixing of EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium with BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.




The WEST’s Crazy-Making Reduction of the Dimensionality of Reality

The WEST has laid a Cuckoo’s egg into the global collective consciousness, and it is called GROWTH (formerly known as SORCERY).


The Cuckoo’s egg of ‘growth’, when incubated in the psyche, liberates the abstract concepts of both ‘being’ and ‘time’.

‘Being’ and ‘time’ had to be foisted on the intellect in order to render the ineffable effable because relational transformation that is all-including, known as the Tao, is ineffable (“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu).

That is; … the reduction of transformation to the producer-product concept of ‘growth’ … had to be done to provide a ‘tool’ for rendering the ineffable effable; i.e. for inserting a notional LOCAL jumpstart sourcing agency to do an ‘end run’ around the ineffability of NONLOCALITY that characterizes the Tao aka the Wave-field.

BUT, only the WEST has employed the reduction of NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION to LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT GROWTH as “The Way it Really Is”.  That is, while the EAST employs the tool of REDUCTION (from ‘relational transformation’ to ‘producer-product growth’ as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’; i.e. a tool we can use to trigger an intuitive leap beyond its explicit (effable) meaning to its implicit (ineffable) meaning.

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus



Go to Top