Archive for July, 2019
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.
There are no ‘people’, peopling is an appearance within the holodynamic (the Tao).
* * *
-1- The world of our sensory experience is an energy flow-field; it is a transforming relational continuum that has been termed the Tao (Lao Tzu) and/or the Logos (Heraclitus).
“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu
The world is an ineffable flow-continuum; i.e. a holodynamic. As Wittgenstein observes,
“Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein
-2- The world as a flow-continuum (holodynamic) cannot be captured by language since language consists of names or nouns and names signify persisting existence and there are no things with persisting existence in the Tao. Since the flow continuum cannot be captured DIRECTLY by language since everything is in flux, the work-around is to use the names and animating verbs as ‘Wittgenstein ladders’ to conjure up an impression of the transforming flow-continuum (holodynamic)
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
-3- Western culture reality is unique in its use of sorcery IN AN EXPLICIT SENSE. In the transforming relational continuum; i.e. in reality understood as the transforming relational continuum, there are IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE no name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e. this is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar as pointed out by Nietzsche. This language and grammar based double error conjures up a psychological impression of a ‘thing-in-itself’ that ‘eclipses’ and ‘occludes’ the understanding of our natural experience wherein there are only relational forms without persisting being’ (as expressed by ‘mitakuye oyasin’).
Western culture is a crazy-maker, as R.D. Laing author of The Divided Self succinctly points out.
The pseudo-reality promoted by Western culture as the ‘operative reality’ is based on the ‘double error’ that is chronic in Western culture thinking, as pointed out by Nietzsche;
First Error: Using ‘naming’ to impute the persisting existence of a thing-in-itself
Second Error: Conflating the first by imputing powers of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself
This double error of language and grammar conditions the intellect so as to think of dynamics NOT IN TERMS OF RELATIONAL TRANFORMATION as implied by our sensory experience, and as constitutes the ‘reality’ of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Buddhism/Taoism and Advaita Vedanta, … but in terms of ‘sorcery’.
The world experienced through our sensations of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is ECLIPSED by language and grammar stimulated intellectual construction that reduces reality by means of the double error to synthetic terms of picturable things and the notional actions and developments of these things, eclipsing our sensation based understanding of reality in terms of the all-including Tao or Logos or ‘field’, and substituting in its place, an empty space locally populated by name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’, intellectual abstractions arising by way of the ‘double error’.
Naming makes a powerful impression on the mind. For example, the name ‘Poland’ (see ‘The Changing Borders of Poland’ ) does not depend on the existence of some explicit entity since ‘naming’ creates, in the mind, the notion of a ‘thing-in-itself’ that can then be used in language and grammar based ‘story-telling’. The ‘boil’ in the ‘flow’ has us thinking of the ‘boil’ as a real ‘thing-in-itself’ but the boil is simply the way that ‘flow’ appears to us; i.e. the boil is an ‘apparition’. The same is true for the hurricane and the same is true for the human and for all name-instantiated thing-in-themselves abstractions.
Western culture continues to foster belief in sorcery, whether in the systems sciences terms of the ‘producer-product dynamic, or the old fashion alchemical sense of ‘sorcery’. In either case, it is pure abstraction ungrounded in the reality of our actual sensory experiencing of inclusion in the ineffable Tao, the ‘field’ of modern physics.
‘Sorcery’ is sustained in the Western psyche by the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (Nietzsche) and it abstraction that presents to the psyche in two mutually opposing ways captured in the title ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ (English title ‘The Two and the One’) by anthropologist Mircea Eliade.
The double error is the language and grammar technique we Western culture adherents are employing that sustains the illusion of ‘sorcery’, the same sorcery as believed in in the Western culture’s medieval era, which has never ‘gone away’ (Newton ‘embedded it’ in Newtonian physics); i.e. modern Western culture continues to cultivate belief in ‘sorcery’ that feeds the ego.
The belief in sorcery divides Western culture adherents into opposing camps that we call ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’. ‘Sorcery’ does not arise in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, all of which understand reality as a relational energy field or flowing continuum (the Tao).