Archive for December, 2019

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



The WEST’s Redacted Concept of ‘Reality’


The following POSTSCRIPT to, and COMMENTARY on, ‘The WEST’s Mistaken Concept of Reality’ is reposted here starting with the POSTSCRIPT since the POSTSCRIPT summarizes the contents.of the original COMMENTARY.

The COMMENTARY explores the very different concepts of ‘REALITY’ that arise in the cultures of EAST and WEST, showing how the reality of the EAST coincides with the modern physics reality wherein ‘everything is in flux’



In retrospect, I think it would have added clarity to my ‘WESTERN CULTURE’S MISTAKEN CONCEPT OF ‘REALITY’, … to  have pointed out that BOTH WEST AND EAST use short-cuts or ‘reductions of the ineffable Tao to effable’ such as the double error that exploits the simplicity of the abstract concept of LOCALITY in spite of the reality of NONLOCALITY.   In other words, the problem is not PER SE, in reducing the ineffable to the effable by way of the ‘double error’, the problem is only in the WEST where, instead of using the reduction as INFERENCE of something that lies beyond the effable, the reduction to effable is employed, in the WEST, as the ‘operative reality’

This is not difficult to understand, but for a WESTERN culture conditioned intellect, it is an ‘automatic intellectual habit’ that is difficult to ‘let go of’; i.e. the ‘reality’ of our actual sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, a WAVEFIELD reality that is NONLOCAL, ALL-INCLUSIVE and RELATIONAL and thus INEFFABLE.   THIS IS WHAT WE DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE; I.E. INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, … but we WESTERN CULTURE adherents have EGOs and we like to talk in PRODUCER-PRODUCT terms about ‘building houses IN THE PLEASANT VALLEY as if THIS were the REALITY, and we proceed in great detail REDUCING everything to LOCAL terms, describing WHAT WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED, and all the while, we experience, IN REAL REALITY, inclusion in a transforming RELATIONAL SPACE aka WAVEFIELD aka TAO.

How can we talk in PRODUCER-PRODUCT terms about ‘constructing a town in the valley when we dig holes all over the countryside mining it for stone and sand and gravel for construction, chopping down woodlands for lumber for construction, digging aqueducts to deliver water and to get rid of our sewage, excavating coal and mining iron ore to produce steel for our high-rise buildings, and generally PARTICIPATING with bears, birds, termites and other forms, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, sandstorms, in the dynamic of RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION …. AND THEN WE REDUCE AND CAPTURE THIS WHOLE INEFFABLE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION THAT WE ARE INCLUDED PARTICIPANTS IN, IN TIME-ABASED ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT TERMS’ such as “We began the construction of this town in in 1776”.   WHAT???!!! WHERE DID THE ALL-INCLUSIVE, TIMELESS TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM DISAPPEAR TO IN OUR LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR ARTICULATIONS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PASS OFF AS ‘REALITY’?



EAST: Employs language and grammar to reduce the ineffable to effable as a TOOL OF INFERENCE  (e.g. the PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstracting tool) that constructs an IMPLICIT reality as in Bohm’s IMPLICATE ORDER and as in the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ and as in Wittgenstein’s LADDER … where the utility of the tool is to construct EFFABLE INFERENCE which the ‘user’ can employ as a kind of INTELLECTUAL launching pad for making an INTUITIVE LEAP to the ineffable reality that lies innately beyond it. . In this case, the ‘town in the valley’ is useful intellectually imagined pseudo-reality that does not ECLIPSE the ineffable reality of inclusion in the Tao (Wave-field).

WEST: Employs language and grammar to reduce the ineffable to effable as a tool of EXPLICIT REALITY CONSTRUCTION (e.g. the PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstracting tool) where the utility of the tool is to construct EFFABLE SURROGATES which the ‘user’ can employ to INTELLECTUALLY CONSTRUCT AN EXPLICIT OPERATIVE REALITY.  This is the READ-MY-LIPS explicit “effable reality” of the WESTERN rational intellectual thinker where one comes to ‘take explicitly and for real’ producer-product reality constructions, so that we WESTERN culture adherents come to believe that the ‘town we are construction, producer-product fashion, on the hill’ is MORE REAL THAN the ‘transforming landscape’ (transforming relational continuum).


EAST and WEST Effable-izing of the WAVE-FIELD aka ‘Tao’


PROLOGUE: The all-inclusive wave-field aka ‘the Tao’ is ineffable as it is the all-including ‘flow’ that is purely relational and ‘all there is’ so that there is nothing LOCAL to give us a ‘fixed reference point’ that we can start to give grounding to relational references on and thus construct a reality that will be EXPLICIT rather than IMPLICIT.  There is nothing LOCAL or EXPLICIT within the wave-field continuum or ‘Tao’ wherein ‘everything is in flux’.  But there are ‘resonances’ in a wave-field and resonances can APPEAR to be LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  For example ‘duning’ is a resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum (wherein everything is in flux).  All of that is available to our sensory experience, but in order to make it intellectually shareable so that we can share and learn from our respective experiences, we need some sort of ‘language’ for referring to forms in the flow, and once we adorn a form with a ‘name’ we make it out to be a ‘fixed thing-in-itself’ that we can ‘talk about’ without it transforming into something else while we are opening our mouth to use a ‘name’ to refer to it.

Language and grammar are tools that allow us to ‘effable-ize’, in a very imperfect LOCAL (identity-fixing) way and thus to share crude (because-reduced-to-name-instantiated-abstract-things-in-themselves) re-presentations of our fluid sensory experience. While the culture of the EAST has not forgotten that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, the WEST, as Emerson has put it, has allowed the tool (of language based effable-zing of the ineffable Tao) ‘to run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.

In other words, the WEST employs language and grammar based reductionist representations of reality as EXPLICIT representations as if that which is LOCAL is REAL, …  while the EAST employs language and grammar representations of reality as IMPLICIT representations that merely INFER a reality that is in continual flux and that lies innately beyond capture in explicit terms.

The following is a copy of a message shared with friends and family to point out the aberrant thinking that is being propagated by adherence to Western culture language-based conceptualizing of reality, distinguishing this aberrant WESTERN reality conceptualizing from sensory experience grounded EASTERN and modern physics reality conceptualizations..

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Why the REALITY of the EAST is MORE REAL than the REALITY of the WEST


Why the REALITY of the EAST is MORE REAL than the REALITY of the WEST

Or, to be more blunt, ‘How the REALITY of the WEST is a Crazy-Maker

The following ‘observations’, in my view, support this proposition that the ‘REALITY OF THE EAST ‘makes sense’ while the ‘REALITY OF THE WEST’ ‘makes no sense’ and is a ‘crazy-maker’.

By the ‘REALITY OF THE EAST’, I mean the view of reality in terms of the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium where the difference between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ (inhabitant and habitat) is APPEARANCE.

By the ‘REALITY OF THE WEST’, I mean the view of reality in terms of the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium where the distinction between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ (inhabitant and habitat) is ontological.

(-1-) The BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’ would have us understand the distinction between FIGURE AND GROUND as ‘appearance’ as with relational forms within a common flow-field or transforming relational continuum where everything is in flux.

(-2-) The EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium of the ‘WEST’ would have us understand the distinction between FIGURE and GROUND in terms of two mutually exclusive ‘things-in-themselves’ (each one an independent ontological ‘thing-in-itself’).


While the understanding of REALITY as in (-1-) is fluid and without dependency on the abstraction of ‘being’, the understanding of REALITY as in (-2-) depends on the abstraction of ‘being’ (the notional existence of ‘things-in-themselves’).

In my view, the one ‘sensible’ understanding of REALITY is the understanding in terms of the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’.


EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST… an explanation in brief



Modern physics supports the understanding of reality of the EAST.


The simplest way of describing this difference between reality as understood in the EAST from reality understood in the WEST, that I can find, is the following;


EAST:   the EAST employs the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.  In other words, if I am using my EAST mindset, I will understand ‘FIGURE’ and ‘GROUND’ as ONE.


WEST: the WEST employs the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.  In other words, if I am using my WEST mindset, I will understand ‘FIGURE’ and ‘GROUND’ as TWO separate and independent things.


EXAMPLE:  the ‘duning’ in the ‘desert’ seen  in terms of FIGURE AND GROUND.  This example is to illustrate how we can see the relationship between FIGURE and GROUND according to the BOTH/AND logic of the EAST versus the EITHER/OR logic of the WEST.



EAST: Duning is a NONLOCAL dynamic (resonance phenomenon) that has NO LOCAL sourcing agency.  Nonlocal phenomena include the dynamics of iron filings that come together in the NONLOCAL influence of a magnetic field.


WEST: The ‘dune’ is a LOCAL phenomenon (material dynamic) wherein grammar imputes to ‘the dune’, its own LOCAL sourcing agency; “The dune is growing larger and longer and shifting to the south”.



EAST: the FIGURE in the GROUND is one means of understanding ‘humanings’.  The ‘ing’ suffix indicates that the humaning is an included dynamic FIGURE within the transforming relational GROUND.


WEST: the ‘human’ is a FIGURE in the GROUND as understood as an INHABITANT in the HABITAT.  There is no ‘ing’ suffix on ‘human’ here because the ‘human’ is understood as a separately existing ‘thing-in-itself’ whose actions and development are understood as locally instantiated.


Go to Top