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.

Of course, we do this ‘break-out’ for a reason; i.e. so we can talk (albeit obliguely or by inference) about the ‘ineffable’ all including Tao aka the transforming relational continuum, even though it is ‘ineffable’ … which implies that, whatever we end up talking about, it is not the Tao; i.e. it is not REALITY, but some kind of language and grammar fabricated, abstract-but-effable INVENTED REALITY that ‘alludes to’ the ineffable.  This is where the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions is invoked by physicists Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler.

Of course, we doctored up our expositing of our relational experience of inclusion in the Tao, in our reducing it to linguistic articulation, by invoking ‘naming’ which comes packaged together with the inhabitant-habitat split, since when we impute persisting existence by ‘naming’, the named ‘inhabitant’ can no longer be part of the transforming ‘habitat’.  Instead of the ‘duning’ as a descriptor for how resonance manifests within a transforming relational continuum, the ‘duning’ is reduced to ‘dune’ ‘the dune’ and the name ‘dune’ is like taking a snapshot with a camera to freeze-frame the resonance-based flow-feature and psychologically ‘excise’ it from the relational continuum, whereupon we can make it the subject and add some grammar to impute to it ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.  That is the ‘double error’ that Nietzsche alerts us to, and what the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar does, is to set things up in our psyche so that we can think of relational transformation in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (first error) with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error).

Hey, we have just, with this ‘double error’, constructed the psychological impression of having re-invented relational transformation in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (inhabitants) with powers of sourcing (habitat-transforming) actions and developments.  Grammar allows us to give ourselves God-like powers (sorcerer’s powers) by way of the ‘double error’.

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche

That is, we have used grammar so that we can psychologically (abstractly) break into the flow-continuum and insert a local jumpstart thing-in-itself ‘stub’ from which to launch causal agency, as if to explain relational transformation in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (aka ‘sorcery’ aka ‘producer-product developments).


THIS IS HOW WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ‘SWAP OUT’ THE ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM OF OUR SENTIENT EXPERIENCE FOR AN INVENTED REALITY , … which would be fine as a helpful but acknowledged-as-crude support tool, but we are now shooting ourselves in the foot by letting ‘the double error support tool run away with the workman’ (Emerson).

As Nietzsche puts it, this language and grammar double error based  INVENTED REALITY is where ‘ego’ comes from; i.e. the belief in ourselves as independent beings with powers of sorcery;

“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

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


In other words, it is possible for us, as relational forms in the flow (e.g. human forms), to OPEN UP OUR IMAGINATION, but just for the expedient purpose of trying to inferentially articulate the explicitly inarticulable (ineffable) by using language and grammar to objectify ourselves as independently-existing thing-in-ourselves beings (inhabitants within a separate, containing habitat) notionally with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  That is an intellectual abstraction based means of alluding to the ineffable ‘Tao’ or ‘Logos’ (all-including field aka transforming relational continuum)

This ‘double error’ based reduction is certainly taking some liberty with the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the transformation relational continuum, but since that reality is ‘ineffable’, why not invent an ‘effable reality’ as a rough go-by that will at least enable us to use language based communicating to share A CRUDE IMPRESSION of our experiences and understandings with one another.  It is not as if we are capturing the ineffable in effable terms, it is that we are constructing a language and grammar based INVENTED REALITY so that we can share, by inference, our impressions of our experiences of inclusion within the ineffable Tao.

The problem is not with the inventing of the tool of language so as to render the ineffable (in some incomplete sense) effable, the problem is with the tool, which works by making us voyeurs of that which we are intrinsically included in.  This inventing of of a voyeur view of that which we are included in comes at the expense of abstractly splitting apart ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’. That is, voyeur visualization’ of ‘what is going on out there’ is kind of intellectual disembodiment of ourselves since we are inextricably included in what is going on out there.  That we can become voyeurs of our supraselves (as if the boil can become a voyeur of the flow in which it is included (an appearance that is not, but which appears to be, a separate entity).  This psychological separating on the basis of an ‘appearance’ is the origin of ‘the divided self’ where we can become voyeurs of our disembodied habitat (a habitat we can study with a crows eye voyeur view as if it were independent of we, the inhabitant).  On the basis of sensory experience, on the other hand, we feel included in the world and we were asked to choose, intuitively, the type of inclusion; i.e. as a boil in the flow whose movement neither sources flow nor is sourced by the flow…. since boil and flow are not two things-in-themselves, each with their own powers of sourcing actions and development, but are just how flow can appear.

‘Boiling’ is like ‘duning’; just as there is only ‘duning’ and no ‘dune’, so also is there only ‘boiling’ and no ‘boil’.  To make the boiling into a ‘boil’ and/or the duning into a dune and impute to the objectified form its own powers of sourcing actions and developments is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.   So, there is no ‘dune’, only duning (a relational resonance in the flow), … no ‘boil’ and only ‘boiling’ (a relational resonance in the flow) and and by the same token, no ‘human’ only ‘humaning’ (a relational resonance in the flow).

The grammatical-psychological confusion here is all thanks to the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  To finish my sentence, the problem is not with the inventing of the tool of language, the problem is in letting the tool run away with the workman; i.e. in letting the expedient language and grammar based INVENTED REALITY that is out there in our voyeur’s eye view, become NOT JUST A TOOL OR ‘WITTGENSTEIN LADDER’ FOR MAKING INFERENCE TO TRIGGER UNDERSTANDING OF AN INEFFABLE REALITY THAT IS BEYOND EXPLICIT CAPTURE, … BUT THE ‘OPERATIVE TRUTH’.  That is, the INVENTED REALITY is explicit while the actual reality of our sensory experience is ineffable (we can only use inference to induce understanding of it).

The ‘double error’, meanwhile, offers us an explicit understanding of reality wherein we are NOT INCLUDED IN THE WORLD OUT THERE BUT ARE SEPARATE INHABITANTS DISTINCT FROM THE HABITAT WE ARE INCLUDED IN, … INHABITANTS ENDOWED WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  To believe, literally, in this double error based INVENTED REALITY is a crazy-maker.  It is a crazy-maker that infects the Western culture adherent psyche.   The tool we invented, which over-simplifies the reality of our experience, can work as a ‘throw-away’ tool that we can use as a rough go-by AND NOT TAKE LITERALLY.  As Wittgenstein puts it; we must approach the surface of reality from that which is obviously not real, moving in the direction of that which is NOT SO OBVIOUSLY NOT REAL.  One can’t go directly to the ‘explicitly real’ since there is no such thing in the reality of the transforming relational continuum.  As Wittgenstein observes, we can only use a web of inference;

  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

IT’S NOT ‘THE TOOL’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR THAT IS THE PROBLEM, … WE KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE TOOL WAS INCAPABLE OF OVERCOMING THE PROBLEM OF INEFFABILITY OF THE TAO so that we could never discard our sensory experience in favour of language and grammar based rational intellection, … THE PROBLEM IS IN CONFUSING THE TOOL BASED ‘INVENTED REALITY’ FOR REALITY (BYPASSING THE ACCESSING OF OUR MORE COMPLETE SENSORY EXPERIENCE, OR IN OTHER WORDS, LETTING OUR TOOL of language and grammar RUN AWAY WITH WE WHO ARE DEPLOYING THE TOOL, and in the process, occluding and effectively over-riding our more comprehensively real sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, an experience that is ‘ineffable’ and WHOSE INEFFABILITY was thus the stimulus for us inventing an ‘effable’ SURROGATE that could at least ‘infer’ by ‘implication’ or ‘suggestion’ the not-directly effable reality.  That is, while we couldn’t overcome the ineffability of reality, we could develop language and grammar capable of CONSTRUCTING INTELLECTUALLY TRACTABLE INFERENCE LADDERS (WITTGENSTEIN LADDERS) TRIGGERING INTUITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR INEFFABLE REALITY. The key proviso would be to ‘not let the intellectually tractable effigy of reality, which would have to redefine who we were so as to fabricate a voyeur view of ourselves, hijack our sensation based (ineffable and beyond visual picture capturable) understanding of reality.

You can see how tempting it is to treat our effable language and grammar talked-up pseudo-reality (our voyeur reality) as our ‘operative reality’.  Otherwise, we would have to acknowledge the innate incompleteness of the visual voyeur perspective and burden ourselves with sharing circles and the like to recover the intrinsically higher dimensional experience of inclusion in the Tao, which is ‘holographic’ and beyond capture in ‘pictures’; i.e. the inhabitant is not split apart from a notional ‘containing space’ or ‘habitat’, the inhabitant is innately included in the Tao as would merit the term ‘holodynamic’ for such imagery wherein the inhabitant and habitat (figure and ground) are not separate but are one.

We Western culture adherents HAVE NOT ADOPTED THE SHARING CIRCLE APPROACH to recover the holodynamic (inclusion of ourselves as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum) understanding that is without the language and grammar based inhabitant-habitat splitting, … but we are instead letting ‘the tool of double error based language and grammar’ retro-define who we, the user of the tool, ‘really are’.  This is where the big head of ego-based sorcery hijacks the helm of our understanding .  That is; this is where rational intellection hijacks the natural primacy of relational intuition, thus obscuring our inspiration-informed resonance based understanding.  The vibrant resonance inspired duning can be intellectually frozen and reduced to the fixed and explicit ‘dune’, following which we can use grammar to mechanistically re-animate the dune, representing it as an ‘it’ that is the author of its own shifting and shaping.

This is what we Western culture adherents do with our psyche-tools of language and grammar, to resonances in the transforming relational continuum.  Instead of preserving flow-induced forms like dunings, these tools of language and grammar reduce and deliver up to our psyche name-instantiated things-in-themselves (“dunes”) notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments”  … “the dunes are growing larger and longer and they are shifting across the desert floor”.  The dunes are thus portrayed in double error form and are no longer included within the transforming relational continuum; i.e. language and grammar has made them over into ‘inhabitants’ within a containing ‘habitat’.

This is where the modern physics understanding of reality is reduced by language and grammar to Newtonian physics aka ‘alchemy’ [double error based sorcery].

In modern physics, there are no more ‘dunes’ on ‘beaches’, there are only relational features in the flow;

In Newtonian and special relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities – particles and fields – what remains is space and time. In general relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of one of the fields, the gravitational field. This implies that physical entities – particles and fields – are not all immersed in space, and moving in time. They do not live on spacetime. They live, so to say, on one another. It is as if we had observed in the ocean many animals living on an island: animals ‘on’ the island. Then we discover that the island itself is in fact a great whale. Not anymore animals on the island, just animals on animals. Similarly, the universe is not made by fields on spacetime; it is made by fields on fields.”   — Carlo Rovelli, in ‘Quantum Gravity’

 * * *



-2- Western society has a social values (respect and recognition) and rewards and punishment schema that builds on belief in the double error abstraction of ‘sorcery’.   This is all bullshit based but it persists because of the nonlinear dynamic known as ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’.  For example, if you acquire a computer with the comparatively inferior operating system known as Windows, and you and others invest huge amounts of money to ‘port’ complex software to that Windows operating system platform (mostly because the operating system is simple enough to work on inexpensive hardware that makes computing accessible to many people, an important early-on consideration),

After you have spent big bucks to ‘port’ applications software to Windows, when a newer and better and cheaper operating system becomes available (and is able to fit onto a small and inexpensive hardware platform), one would think that it would be snapped up, but even though the new operating system may be far better and far cheaper, migration to the new platform will be deterred by the ‘high switching costs’; i.e. the costs of converting the applications software to run on a new platform.

The same ‘catch’ applies to ‘correcting’ the mistaken Western culture building of social values and status on the basis of belief in ‘sorcery’.   Those who have been identified as the most high performing ‘sorcerers’ in Western society  (the concept of sorcerer-sorcery or producer-product is of course ‘double error’ bullshit) who are not only the highest paid and among the most admired and respected, they have ACCORDINGLY been vested (based on their assumed powers of sorcery) with far more than average authority as to what changes should be made to the existing production-based social values system, which includes honoring and differentially rewarding the most productive sorcerers.

The abstract concept of sorcerer-sorcery is also known as ‘producer-product’.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRODUCER-PRODUCT ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR ACTUAL RELATIONAL EXPERIENCE (these are just language and grammar imputed abstract intellectual concepts.  That is, THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION in our actual sensory experience.  As prelingual infants, we have our full capacities for relational understanding regardless of not yet having developed language and grammar skills.for giving crude intellectual representation to our complex relational experience.

Rewards and status/respect are, among Western culture adherents, language based.  That is, status and respect are accorded on the double error basis that is essentially ‘belief in sorcery’.  Thanks to grammar, anything that can be instantiated with a ‘name’ (human, nation, corporation) can be understood as having its own powers of sorcery.  In experience-based reality, there are no such things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments; … such abstraction arises from the double error of language and grammar.


-3- Increasing ‘producer-product actions and developments’ aka ‘sorcery’ IS DELUSION. THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.  Meanwhile, Western culture has embraced belief in the double error of language and grammar that is otherwise known as ‘sorcery’ and/or ‘the producer-product dynamic’.  To complicate matters, the Western culture social dynamic has created a value hierarchy of respect and rewards that is based on ‘sorcery’

Because ‘sorcery’ (aka ‘production’) is abstraction (i.e. in experiential reality, there is only transformation), and because rewards and recognition are set up to encourage the growth of sorcery (production), Western culture adherents are blinded to (experience-grounded) ‘reality’ because of having established the intellecual double error based INVENTED REALITY.

‘See the construction of new skyscrapers?’  Humans are the source of these new developments, so we say, using our producer-product language.  This is not reality.  Reality is the transforming of the relational continuum in which all is included.  By focusing on the production of the skyscraper complex, one ‘forgets about’ the quarries where the limestone building blocks were excavated, the sand and gravel pits that the aggregate for concrete was taken from, … the forest reduced to stumps where the wood for beams and furniture and office panelling was taken from, and so on and so forth.  The purported ‘reality’ of the construction of the skyscraper complex is a very ‘incomplete’ reality as is inevitable with language and grammar constructs.  That is why Lao Tzu is saying that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.  The transforming relational continuum is the reality of our actual experience and we are included in it.  It is not capturable in voyeur pictures.

When we are talking in terms of ‘construction’ and other ‘producer-product’ aka ‘sorcery’ initiatives, we are talking bullshit.  We Western culture adherents have been ‘raised on this bullshit.  As Nietzsche points out, this bullshit INVENTED REALITY comes from the ‘double error’ of ‘sorcery’.


-4- How does the producer-product double error impact our psyche?

The producer-product abstraction is the source of Western culture’s INVENTED REALITY wherein ‘reality’ is seen in terms of a multiplicity of producer-product dynamics rather than as a transforming relational continuum  Can you picture that?  We can picture it because we are Western culture adherents and we are thus accustomed to ‘looking at pictures’ that we take to be capturing (voyeur) views of ‘reality’.

Pictures do not represent ‘reality’.  Pictures cannot capture the Tao.   The reality of our sensory experience is the Tao and we are included in it and thus cannot see it ‘out there in front of us’. We cannot be voyeurs of a reality we are included in.

Since we ‘can see’ the producer product dynamic; i.e. since the producer-product dynamic (sorcery) is available to voyeur viewing, it is NOT reality.  Meanwhile, we can and do produce visual documentaries that we present as ‘the truth’

Of course, our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum does not support ‘the truth’ as captured in voyeur visual viewing.

What is the nature of the shortfall in visual presentations if they are not representations of ‘reality’?

Visual representations are only capturable in terms of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  This is not ‘reality’ BUT IT IS ARTICULABLE!  Capturing film footage of Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread does not show up the understanding as in Jean Valjean’s sensory experience of sharing inclusion in a social space where children are dying of starvation.

Examples of the incompleteness of the visual sensing conveyed by pictures and language include; ‘the dune is growing higher and longer’.   BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING-IN-ITSELF AS ‘A DUNE’, THERE IS ONLY ‘DUNING’ (A PURELY RELATIONAL RESONANCE DYNAMIC; I.E. AN ‘APPEARANCE’ OR ‘APPARITION’).  It is not a thing-in-itself that has the power of sourcing actions and developments (i.e. a sorcerer) as the double error makes it out to be.  This is a foundational problem in Western language and grammar INVENTED REALITY.

Similarly; ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’.  BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING-IN-ITSELF AS A ‘HURRICANE’, THERE IS ONLY ‘GYRING’ (A PURELY RELATIONAL RESONANCE DYNAMIC; I.E. AN ‘APPEARANCE’ OR ‘APPARITION’).  A hurricane IS NOT REALLY a thing-in-itself that has the power of sourcing actions and developments (i.e. a sorcerer).  That is the ‘double error’ of Western culture usage of language and grammar as NIetzsche has pointed out.




The key question here is whether ‘man’, ‘nation’ and ‘corporation’ are really resonance-based forms within the transforming relational continuum (the Tao) rather than ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing their own actions and developments’.



-5-  What  (more) to look out for!

Since we Western culture adherents are constructing a double error based INVENTED REALITY, we see things in terms of producer-product actions and developments WHILE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON (as supported by our sensory experience) IS RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.  The ‘double error’ is language and grammar based intellectual fabrication.

Thus, when we jack up our producer-product development effort, what is ‘really’ underway is transformation of the relational continuum we and everything are included in. We regard the visual pictures of new cities and housing developments going up as ‘real’ ‘developments’.  But these pictures do not show the bald patches in the forests where wood for lumber was taken, and the deepening and enlarging sand and gravel quarries where materials were taken for concrete, nor do they show the mines tunneling deep into the earth where ore was taken for steel for construction. ‘Construction’ seems to give positive and complete meaning in itself, but if one speaks in terms of ‘production’, one will not be able to see ‘transformation’.

So, is our intellectual ‘take away’ from the time lapse pictures of the housing development going up ‘real’?  That is, are the pictures of producer-product developments capturing something ‘real’?  One might ask whether voyeur viewing of any type, as reduced to intellectual description by way of language and pictures is capable of capturing ‘reality’.

How do visual and language based accounts of reality differ from our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum?  Voyeur visual scenes of the new development going up can’t capture our recollections of galloping over the undeveloped hills and meadows so, is it that we are observing new developments or is it that we are experiencing inclusion in a transforming relational continuum?  Evidently, the latter is beyond capture in voyeur visual perspectives, no matter how fine the camera lens.  It’s kind of like the line in the Bob Dylan song that suggests that some things that inspire us can’t be captured in a picture (‘Dignity ain’t never been photographed’).

THE POINT IS THAT INSOFAR AS WE BASE UNDERSTANDING ON VISUAL, PICTURABLE  PHENOMENA, AS WE DO IN CLASSICAL PHYSICS, WE ARE CONSTRAINING OUR UNDERSTANDING TO DOUBLE ERROR BASED INVENTED REALITY.  Modern physics requires a transcending of the voyeur (subject-object splitting) visualization.  As Mach says in ‘The Analysis of Sensations, and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical’

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” – Ernst Mach

The belief in the double error gives us an incomplete science (e.g. physics without psychology) wherein ‘sorcery’ (producer-product development) is substituted for transformation.

The belief in ‘sorcery’ inflates the ego, so that Western culture adherents REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE THE SOURCES OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, as in the double error of language and grammar.  The ‘voyeur view’ is used to support this ‘double error; i.e. we say ‘the hurricane or dune is growing larger and stronger’.  The reality, supported by our sensory experience is that we are included in a transforming relational dynamic.  No matter how clever our double error based rhetoric is, (i.e. no matter how clever our sorcery-based INVENTED REALITY construction is), the ineffable Tao remains ineffable and out of reach of our double error based rhetoric.

But since we Western culture adherents claim that our ‘sorcery’ is ‘real’, and since we give ourselves elevated respect and rewards for sorcery, … we are in full speed ahead ‘progress’ mode, … while what is REALLY GOING ON IS THE ALL-INCLUDING RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION (THE TAO), within which we are relational forms or ‘peopling’ and in no way ‘things-in-ourselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments, as language and grammar reduce us to.

As we push forward with what we think is (due to the way we talk about it) producer-product development (per the ‘double error’), what is really going on is relational transformation in which we, too, are included.

The double error illusion suggests that humans are sorcerers of actions and developments which in turn suggests that we ‘turn up the volume and provide for everyone via a ‘trickle-down economy’.  The reality is, instead, that we are cranking up the transforming of the relational space we are (everything is) included in; i.e. REALITY IS ‘RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION RATHER THAN PRODUCER PRODUCT ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRODUCER-PRODUCT ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT; IT IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

As systems scientist pioneer Kenneth Boulding observed; ‘The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’.  What does this imply?

It points to the fact that the concept of an ‘independent subsystem’ like an ‘independent nation’ is abstraction that becomes a ‘delusion’ when we take it for real and let it shape our relational dynamics.  Since everything is related (‘mitakuye oyasin’), our optimizing of an ‘independent nation’ is delusional.  It is like robbing Peter to pay Paul when Peter and Paul are NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES but relational forms within a transforming relational continuum.  RECALL THAT IT IS ONLY LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR THAT IMPUTES INDEPENDENT BEING AND POWERS OF SORCERY TO RELATIONAL FORMS IN THE FLOW.

Today, we Western culture adherents continue to believe (although it is beginning to bet a bit suspect, particularly when pushed to the limit by folks like Trump) in our own powers of sorcery.  We say that we construct cities and skyscrapers as if this is ‘reality’ (reality is, ‘in reality’, relational transformation) and NOT PRODUCER PRODUCT ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  If you watch new skyscrapers going up in the United States (or anywhere), you are undoubtedly not seeing, at the same time, deepening quarries being sunk in ‘foreign regions’ to supply limestone etc. used in that construction. The more construction in the U.S and Europe, the more enlarging and deepening of holes in the ‘third world’, but since our language and grammar based ‘reality’ is constructivist and has a producer-product base (sorcery-base), there is no mention of the holes that are growing larger and deeper, including those holes in terms of skilled labour that is attracted by ‘better opportunities’ in the U.S. and other ‘leading nations’ (i.e. ‘leading’ in a fictional ‘producer-product’ sense).

WHAT ABOUT THE GROWING HOLES AND ALL THE MATERIALS COMING OFF THE “NON-US” WORLD BODY? (i.e. the relational transformation that shows up when we take of the producer-product viewing lenses)

Producer-product based language and grammar is double error based which is the same as saying that it is ‘sorcery’ based.  ‘Naming’ serves the double error in defining a thing-in-itself with the power of sourcing actions and developments, whether it is a ‘human’, a ‘nation’ or a ‘corporation’.    Naming is the way to jumpstart a development, something that doesn’t occur in the transforming relational continuum which is why the continuum is ‘ineffable’ (there is no discernible beginning and end).

‘Sorcery’ or ‘producer-product logic’ is the ‘tool’ that provides the psychological ‘work-around’ to ineffability and opens the door to effable capture of reality, but only in the reduced producer-product sense.  It does not address the holes and enlarging quarries that are the flip-side of producer-product logic.  Since we say that humans, and nations and corporations are ‘independent’ producers of product that are free to maximize their producer-product actions and developments, the enlarging quarries are not included in the producer-product accounting.

As the holes and quarries increase in size in conjunction with rich national producer-product developments, people are moving out of the regions of deficiency into the regions of surfeit such as the United States (the U.S. and other rich countries are the reason for the deepening quarries and disappearing of resources in the non-U.S. regions which we say have weaker producer-product capabilities).  The loss of resources from the ‘third world’ is not comprehended in the buildup of producer-product resources in the first world since nations are ‘independent’ whether they are donors or recipients. The ‘double error’ keys to ‘naming’ and ‘naming’ provides the stub for ‘sorcery’.  Naming triggers in the psyche the binary of logic of the excluded middle where something either exists or does not exist; e.g. the name ‘Poland’;(see ‘The Changing Borders of Poland’ )

N.B.   When we name a human, nation or corporation, it is like tapping it on the shoulder with the magic sword Excalibur and saying arise ‘named human’, ‘named nation’, ‘named corporation’, you now ‘are’ and in binary logic ‘is’ or ‘is not’ are mutually exclusive.  The boil in the flow EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ and likewise for the flow the boil is in, thus we get the ambiguity as to whether the boil sources the flow or the flow sources the boil.  This ambiguity only arises from language and grammar wherein we promote the double error of beings with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Where we understand the boil as ‘appearance’ the ‘quantum logic (BOTH IS AND IS NOT) of the included middle applies.

Ok, so Western culture linguage-based reality is an invented reality that was never supposed to be taken literally, and it was not taken literally by mythopoetic cultures, but a culture of ‘literalists’ has become dominant whereby ‘the tool has run away with the workman’.

So, the rich part of the world is sucking out the resources of the rest of the world (its alter-self) without any attention to balance because there is none needed in the ‘producer-product’ INVENTED REALITY (infinite supply is implicit in producer-product logic).

The notion of the ‘independent nation-state’ is a crock, and so is the notion of the ‘independent human being’ and the ‘independent corporation’ and other binary producer product comments.

Western culture adherence is a crazy-maker and we are stewing in aberrance of our own making, and it is going to intensify so long as Western culture adherent views remain ‘locked in’ by ‘high switching costs’, and we continue to use our producer product initiatives to suck the guts out of ourselves because we are unable to understand ourselves as inclusions within the transforming relational continuum, as is the understanding of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

This rising aberrance is what happens when we assume inhabitant-habitat INDEPENDENCE when the reality is that the inhabitant-habitat division is intellectually abstracted ‘appearance’ intellectually concretized by binary logic based EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ logic that we have built into our language and grammar discourse.  In modern physics, we must use the logic of the included middle; i.e. the logic of BOTH ‘is’ AND ‘is not’ where the boil and flow are ONE (no ambiguous implication of ‘sorcery’) giving only the ‘appearance’ of ‘two’.

As infants, we understand this implicitly and we still understand it as adults (it has just been covered over and buried by our Western culture socialization) because there is no topological self-other split coming from our natural experience, it comes from our acculturation; i.e. from language and grammar by way of the ‘double error’.

* * *