Archive for year 2019
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche
I doubt that the reader who is already a Western culture adherent such as myself will (at least initially) agree with these following findings from my (and others’) philosophical investigations, which point to why ‘East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet’.
Nietzsche’s above quote, along with his identification of the infusing into the Western intellect of ‘the -double error’ speaks to a psyche-prepping-intellectual-‘habit’, a habit that has long ago dropped below the coverage of our Western culture intellectual radar screen; i.e. the VISUALIZING apparatus of our intellectual reality constructing has hijacked center stage, while our sensing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (which is beyond voyeur visualization) has been ‘eclipsed’ by the strong visual impression characteristic of language and grammar based INTELLECTION. What ‘goes missing’ in this hijacking of understanding triggered by language and grammar-based visualization is the ineffable (intuitive) understanding of the all-including relational transformation (the Tao) that defies visual representation.
OVERVIEW of TWO VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO ‘CONSTRUCTING’ AN ‘EFFABLE’ VERSION OF OUR INEFFABLE REALITY, SHOWING HOW THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OPTION THAT IS IN COMMON USE IN WESTERN CULTURE IS A CRAZY-MAKER.
OPTION 1: INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION: THE RELATIONAL INFERENCE (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta)
OPTION 2: INEFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION; THE DOUBLE ERROR OPTION (the Western culture ‘standard’)
HEREDITY IS A ‘FOLLOW-UP LIE’ THAT KEEPS AFLOAT THE FIRST TWO LIES OF ‘BEING’ and ‘CREATION’ (GENESIS).
***N.B. For us as Western culture adherents who accept ‘reality’ in terms of the abstractions of ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments, this note may be summarily dismissed due to it’s basic rejection of ‘beings’ with notional producer-of-product powers, which set up the intellect for belief in ‘being’ with powers of ‘creation’ which in turn sets the stage for the derivative concept of ‘heredity’. There is no ‘heredity’ in a transforming relational continuum, the reality of modern physics. The abstract concept of ‘genesis’ is set up by a ‘double error’ of language and grammar, as Nietzsche points out. There is no ‘genesis’ in the ‘Tao’ of Taoism/Buddhism, or in the ‘Great Mystery’ of indigenous aboriginal cultures, there is only the wave-field aka the transforming relational continuum. Our concept of ‘genesis’ derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar. ***
How the hell are we supposed to explain the orderly nature of the world once we invent the intellectual abstract notions of ‘being’ and ‘genesis’? This problem does not arise if we start off assuming the Tao, the world (our experiencing of reality) as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, … but once we jumpstart an intellectual-conceptual reality based on ‘genesis’ of ‘things-in-themselves’ such as ‘human beings’ with notional powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’ (the ‘double error so-called by Nietzsche) then we have abandoned our understanding of reality as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, … AND, … we have as a result, as Pre-Socratic philosophers point out, inherited ‘the burden of concreteness’.
The folly of Western culture belief in the double error of sorcery and in using it as a basis of reward and punishment.
“IN A NUTSHELL”, … the nuttiness bred into Western culture adherents lies in (1) the inability of the intellectual tools of language and grammar to capture the ‘ineffable’ sensory experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (i.e., inclusion in the ‘wave-field’ aka the Tao); (2) the development and use of language in human cultures to reduce the ineffable to effable, so as to enable ‘sharing’ and ‘comparing’ (of language-based reductions of our ineffable experience); and (3) the ‘double error’ whereby our language based reduction usurps the natural primacy of our unreduced ineffable sensory experience based reality (i.e. the tool [of language based reduction] runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’ (Emerson) Note: The ‘double error’ is (first error) the use of ‘naming’ to impute ‘independent-thing-in-itself being’ to relational flow-forms, conflated by (second error) the grammar based imputing of powers of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself.
The above-described language-and-grammar based ‘hatchet job’ on the Tao, to render our ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao ‘intellectually effable’, sets the stage for deploying intellectual double-error based reduction as our ‘standard Western culture operative reality’. This reductive ‘double error’ substitution is an overly simplistic ‘tool’ that, however useful as a supportive tool, is, in Wittgenstein’s terms, an expedient ‘ladder ‘to facilitate a leap to an understanding that lies innately beyond explicit reach. Meanwhile this ‘double error’ based language has been employed in Western culture, NOT AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE (which is all that explicit language can be), but as our Western culture ‘normal’ means of constructing an EXPLICIT INVENTED REALITY that is used as our ‘operative reality’ and therefore shapes our ‘normal’ individual and collective Western culture adherent behaviour; … a ‘normal’ that is far from ‘natural’.
While the intellectual reduction of the ineffable Tao (1) to effable (shareable) language (2) by way of the ‘double error’ (3) is something we can get used to using NOT AS A LANGUAGE-AND-GRAMMAR SPRINGBOARD TO THE INEFFABLE TAO that lies INTRINSICALLY BEYOND LITERAL EXPLICIT MEANING, but rather as THE ARTICULATION OF AN EXPLICIT REALITY-IN-ITSELF.
THIS IS THE “DOUBLE ERROR” ; i.e. first to use ‘naming’ to reduce pattern in the flow to notional ‘things-in-themselves’ and conflating this with the second error of imputing powers of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated (abstract) thing-in-itself. To use this double error as a ‘springboard’ to infer thing-less (relational) transformation (the Tao) that lies beyond language based ‘explicit’ representation is one thing, but to use the double error based ‘explicit reality’ NOT as a springboard but as as a direct substitute reality is Western culture craziness. It is a case where; The tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine” as Ralph Waldo Emerson captures it in ‘The Method of Nature’
The use of language merely for relational inference is ‘poetic’ usage, and it is only such ‘implicit’ forms of language that can get by the fact that ‘the Tao that can be (explicitly) told is not the true Tao. To employ language as if it were, in its EXPLICIT RATIONAL-INTELLECTUAL MODE, CAPABLE OF CAPTURING AND SHARING REALITY, MAY BE ‘NORMAL’ WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT PRACTICE, BUT SUCH ‘NORMALITY’ IS ‘CRAZINESS’
What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” — R.D. Laing
It is impossible for the explicit voyeur views of ‘reality’ (i.e. views that deliver double error based constructions) , … to ‘synch up’ with the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao). Western culture adherents popularly opt to employ the ‘reduced-to’ double error (things-in-themselves-with-powers of sourcing actions and developments) INVENTED REALITY as the ‘operative reality’ while modern physics, Indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta instead opt for giving sensory experiencing of relational transformation first dibs on our understanding of ‘reality’. This involves the use of language only in a ‘supportive role’; i.e. in a NON-EXPLICIT (implicit/inferential) manner, avoiding the reduction to EXPLICIT double error based terms and instead using IMPLICIT INFERENCE as in ‘poetic’ usage and as in ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.
WATCH OUT! because in this inferential (relational) reality, there is no such thing as ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments and no such thing as ‘producer-product’ dynamics; there are only relations as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’.
THE SHOCKER IS THIS! … Western culture ‘operative reality’ employs the double error based ‘producer-product’ pseudo-reality AS IF IT WERE “REALITY”. In other words, our Western culture adhering practice is to use the double error based (‘producer-product’ based) INVENTED REALITY as our PRIMARY REALITY, effectively ‘demoting’ our sensory experience based reality of inclusion in the Tao (the transforming relational continuum) to secondary status, which is like ‘wallpapering over’ our naturally primary reality, with a superficial pseudo-reality. This intellectual double-error based superficial pseudo-reality is what we Western culture adherents are employing as ‘reality’, and this is a crazy-maker.
WHAT is there about our Western culture cultivated habits that gives us Western culture adherents a superficial understanding of reality that is crazy-making?
Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others have suggested that our language is the source of superficial understanding of reality; i.e. that language cannot ‘go the distance’ to reality (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao), and that language can only be used as a kind of ‘springboard’ to infer an understanding of reality that lies innately beyond the LITERAL understanding-giving capacities of language. (Language usage in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta cultures is more in the sense of ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions of modern physics’; i.e. as is required in approaching an understanding of the reality of an energized wave-field wherein ‘everything is in flux’).
Since language constructed with explicit concepts (name-based objects), is incapable of conveying understanding of the fluid reality we are included in, when we confuse the literal meaning conveyed by language, for ‘reality’, this delivers to the psyche an INVENTED REALITY that is a superficial and unreal pseudo-reality. Using this superficial reality as our ‘operative reality’ is a crazy-maker that has become our Western culture ‘normal’. As R.D. Laing has pointed out;
What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”
Resonance ‘is’ Reality
Resonance is the ineffable relational sensory experiencing of inclusion in the Tao that cannot be told (The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ — Lao Tzu).
The understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures AND modern physics is that resonance (the wave-field) is the primary reality. Resonance is something we can ‘feel’ but which is beyond capture in language-based intellection. “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” is a precautionary reminder of the pitfall of letting the surrogate ‘reality’ constructed with the tools of language-and-grammar and the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche) ‘run away with the workman’. Emerson issues this same warning and Nietzsche elaborates on it, but it is nevertheless a pitfall that manifests in Western culture’s embrace of an INVENTED REALITY that is far from the reality of our sensory experience.
Inspiration fills the heart, … Ego swells the head
‘Bipolar Disorder’ is endemic among Western culture adherents, and the ‘conservative’ – ‘liberal’ division is its manifestation on the scale of the social collective, while schizophrenia aka ‘the divided self’ is its manifest form within the most sensitive ‘miner’s canary’ individuals that are among those who have fallen into the Western culture adherence trap.
It is NOT possible for one member of the community to rise up and kill other members of the community where ‘community’ implies relational interdependence, … that would be an ‘error of grammar’ . But is IS possible for dissonance to emerge together with harmony, within a transforming relational continuum.
UNDERSTANDING THE RISE OF MASS KILLINGS
Understanding mass killings requires an understanding of why psychological studies of the mass killers do not reveal that these individuals (many of whom are white Western culture males) are NOT significantly different from the NORMAL Western culture adherent. There is a problem with what we hold to be ‘normal behaviour’ in our Western culture.
What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” – R. D. Laing, author of ‘The Divided Self’;
A prime example of Western culture aberrant thinking is the belief in the ‘producer-product’ dynamic, this is a linguistically re-upholstered version of the medieval belief in ‘sorcery’.
Inspiration ain’t never been narrativized.
Inspiration fills the heart, ego swells the head.
One’s personal narrative or ‘life story’ does not exist (it can’t be unravelled from the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao).
But a ‘personal narrative’ can be fabricated using the ‘double error’ aka the ‘ego’ where we use naming to invent an ‘independent being’ and notionally animate it with grammar (the ‘double error’). By making ourselves out to be the sorcerers of our own actions, we get to build a narrative about ourselves starting from ourselves.
“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531
Our actions may be inspired. That is, the relational circumstances we find ourselves situated in may inspire our movement (e.g. the child has fallen into the rapidly moving stream. “We act swiftly” … so we say. Or is it correct to say that ‘we act’? In the transforming relational continuum the restoring of harmony and resonance is always pulling things (includigg ‘us’) together, as in ‘duning’. There is no ‘dune’ that is the author of its own action, even though language and grammar spell it out this way (e.g. ‘the dune is growing longer and higher, the dune is shifting to the south, etc. etc.) ‘Duning’ is a relational, resonant dynamic within the Tao, … i.e. within the transforming relational continuum. The ‘humaning’ is like the duning. When the little girl comes into the world, … in her prelingual, relational sensitivity, she is open to inspiration that fills her heart. She is enthralled by the beauty of nature that she is included in, it is inspiration that fills her heart and inductively shapes her movements in infancy.
As she is taught language, she learns the technique of the ‘double error’ that replaces, through her ability to speak, the ‘inspiration that ain’t never been narrativized’, and she begins to articulate the inarticulable, very crudely at first and becoming less crude as she develops her language skills. That is, she learns how to use language to articulate (crudely), the Tao that can’t be told, the relational continuum that she is innately included in. Such articulation is so crude, that as Wittgenstein suggests, we can only use as a stimulus to ‘leap beyond it’, and after attained an ineffable understanding, tossing away the effable pogo-stick the supported the leap from the effable to a sentient intuition of the ineffable Tao.
There persists a simple disagreement based in the foundation of thought and language that divides WESTERN CULTURE from — MODERN PHYSICS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURES, TAOISM/BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA VEDANTA
As Schroedinger argued (to no avail since the modern physics popular consensus went ‘the other way’), resonance (as in wave phenomena) is the primary reality and it is NOT simply equivalent to particle based reality as the majority vote by modern physicists decided. (Bohm, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are implicitly in the same camp with Schroedinger).
In terms of a simple example, one can think of the resonance associated with the ‘duning’ of beach sands in terms of (a) some coordinating forces among the sand particles, and/or (b) in terms of a field of energy-resonance giving rise to particles. Can we start with ‘resonance’ as a field of influence that manifests in the particles becoming organized and building a dune? Or, do we start with ‘resonance’ that is more basic even than a ‘particle-organizing influence’?
That is, could it be that resonant energy is all there is and the name ‘particle’ simply opens the way to a double error based means of picturing and talking about the inherently ineffable transforming relational continuum? Schroedinger’s view was that ‘field’ is a sufficient foundation and that we did not need to insert particles in any foundational role. In other words, the concept of wave-particle duality was for him, language-based befuddlement.
Language and grammar are behind how we ‘think’ about this. When one says that ‘love (resonance) makes the world go round’, could this explain the unexplained celestial ‘harmony of the spheres’? The point is that if we first assume the existence of things-in-themselves, we are then obliged, by the logic of language and grammar, to explain their movements and developments. THIS IS THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR POINTED OUT BY NIETZSCHE.
Why not avoid the first error (imputing the existence of name-instantiated things-in-themselves) in which case there will be no need for the second, conflating error wherein we endow the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with the power of sourcing actions and developments (i.e. the power of ‘sorcery’). By introducing the double error, we give ourselves the foundation for ‘talking about’ reality but it comes at a price; i.e. if we can talk about reality in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves and their powers of sourcing actions and developments, we can no longer understand reality as the Tao (the transforming relational continuum). As Wittgenstein points out in his final proposition in Tractatus Logico Philosohicus;
“Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein
If we reduce reality to something we can speak about, it is no longer the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the Tao. As understood in modern physics (Bohm, Schroedinger), indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, reality is beyond capture by language, however, language can be employed in an inferential mode, to ‘jog our sensibilities into leaping beyond the explicit intellectual meaning-giving capabilities of language to bring forth an implicit intuitive understanding of the ineffable Tao (the all-including, transforming relational continuum).
The direct and explicit meaning that language and grammar ARE capable of, can only provide the makings of an INVENTED REALITY, and this is problematic since Western culture is employing this INVENTED REALITY as its ‘operative reality’. In what way this is problematic is the subject of this essay.
* * * end of introduction * * *
-1- Western culture adherence is a ‘crazy-maker’. We, the Western culture collective ask ourselves to subscribe to the ‘double error’ which is essentially ‘sorcery’. Yes, it’s the same abstract concept that Western culture adherents embraced in the middle ages. The psycho recipe is simple; First, use language to formulate a ‘name’ that imputes some ‘thing-in-itself’ with persisting existence and conflate this with grammar that psychologically endows the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.
By ‘naming’, a relational flow-form we psychologically impute persisting thing-in-itself being (an intellectual abstraction) to the named flow-form (flow-forms are all there is in the Tao of our actual sensory experience). The ‘duning’ becomes ‘a dune’ at which point we inherit the ‘burden of concreteness’ in that we have to invent grammar to explain the relational transformation in which the form is an appearance. Here comes the ‘inhabitant’ – ‘habitat’ split and the rest of the double error accoutrements that associate with ‘sorcery’ aka ‘the producer-product dynamic’.
In other words, by ‘naming’, we create an abstraction that connotes persisting thing-in-itself existence. e.g. the ‘dune’ is no longer understood as a resonance-based ‘duning’ in the Tao/flow (an appearance or apparition or phantom-form within the Tao/flow). Whereas ‘motion’ and ‘development’ were included in the ONE DYNAMIC of relational transformation, our move to ‘abstract out’ a form by ‘naming’ the form and thus abstractly endowing it with persisting thing-in-itself existence, has earned us that psychological overhead that Pre-Socratic philosophy terms ‘the burden of concreteness’.
The point is that when we Western culture adherents psychologically objectify flow-forms in the flow by naming them and thus imputing persisting thing-in-itself existence to them, we inherit the psychological overheads of having to speak to their movements and developments, overheads which we don’t have when we intuitively accept forms as appearances within the ONE-FLOW or Tao.