PREAMBLE: The grammar-stimulated concept of ‘production’ (‘producer-product’ dynamic) is intellectual abstraction implying ‘sorcery’  [the logic of figure-excluded-from-ground].   By thinking in these terms, we obscure the reality of transformation [the logic of the figure-included-in-ground].  Thanks to ‘grammar’ that incorporates ‘figure-excluded-from-ground’ abstraction, the concept of industrial development and production takes on a seeming ‘reality’ even though, in reality, there is only relational transformation.  Once one believes in the abstraction of ‘industrial production’, ‘industrial pollution’ will eventually raise its ugly head, the ‘shadowy’ secondary aspect of the ‘double error’.  That is, ‘sorcery’  aka ‘production’ is an abstract concept arising from the invoking of a name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error) notionally with the power of sourcing actions and development (second error). 

We say that ‘factories produce products‘ which is approved as ‘correct’ (i.e. ‘approved for reality-constructing grammar service’) by the Western culture adherent intellect, however, in the reality of our sensory experience, there is only relational transformation.  Yet, after our mind is ‘gotten to’ (‘pre-occupied’) by the abstract concept of ‘production’, we cannot see the transforming landscape for the factories or ‘industrial centres of production’ that keep ‘popping up’ as if ‘SEPARATE THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE’.  These factories, with (grammar-equipped) God-like powers of sorcery, take on ‘thing-in-itself’ status in our intellect because of the double error of language and grammar. Understanding in terms of the transforming landscape is ‘eclipsed’ by our language and grammar abstraction that splits apart ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ (factory and countryside) and imputes the God-like power of sorcery to the ‘factory’ as if it were an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing the development of products (i.e this is ‘double error’ abstraction that language and grammar impress on the intellect).

Even though, in our deeper level of understanding, we acknowledge the ‘ineffable’; i.e. that everything is included in the Tao (transforming relational continuum), … we keep using language BECAUSE of its utility in reducing the ineffable to effable, to inform our intellect, for example, in the reduced, double error terms of ‘beings’ with powers of ‘sorcery’

“In Reason’ in language! … Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed. … – oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

‘Man-sourced pollution goes together with man-sourced production; i.e. both arise from the abstract reduction of transformation to ‘sourcery’.  There are no ‘factories on the hill’ as in the common language-and-grammar inferred ontological duality, there is only relational transformation.  The Western culture producer-product dichotomy is schizophrenia-cultivating.

If I say “the producer produces’, I have posited the producing 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 even but is rather fixed “is” and does not become ‘  this is the double error of which we are guilty. (after Nietzsche)      

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


The ‘climate change’ issue is just one ‘issue’ that is cropping up as part of the more fundamental issue that arises from the huge conceptualizing gap between classical and modern physics (the shift from ‘being’ based reality to ‘flow’ based reality); an intellectual re-conceptualizing that has been brought forward by David Bohm, Nietzsche (whose influences include the ‘modern physics’ anticipating works of Roger Boscovich), Wittgenstein and others.

Thus, there is a ‘fundamental issue’ that we need to address which is that the established Western culture adherent understanding of ‘reality’ that serves as the globally dominant ‘operative reality’ falls radically short of the ‘modern physics reality’ which is largely consistent with the indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta reality.  As David Bohm pointed out, the indigenous aboriginal culture is already there where modern physics is trying to take a reluctant Western culture collective.

A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

Bohm pointed out that our normal Western languages (English, French etc.) were missing the essential dimensionality necessary for capturing the reality of our experiencing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the ‘ineffable’ Tao).

The modern world’s common model of ‘reality’ is based on language and grammar which ‘dumbs down’ the more complex understanding of the ‘ineffable’ that we are capable of so that insofar as we ‘believe’ our ‘effable’ language and grammar based representations of reality, we are engaging in a crazy-making exercise based on medieval concepts such as ‘sorcery’.

That is, our language and grammar has built into its foundations a manner of representing reality through a ‘double error of language and grammar’.  The first error is our use of ‘naming’ to impute ‘independent thing-in-itself being’ (to whatever) conflated by (second error) grammar that imputes to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself, the power of sourcing actions and developments.   For example, while our sensory experience informs us of inclusion in resonance (i.e. the ‘wave-field’ aka the Tao), in the manner that ‘duning’ is the manifesting of the resonance it is included in, the ‘dimensionality’ of our language is insufficient to capture this so we REDUCE our expression of resonance to simpler, 3 dimensional terms of ‘the dune’ that ‘is growing larger and longer’ and is ‘shifting along the desert floor’.

As you can see, our language and grammar, as shown above, reduces the wave-field dynamic of ‘resonance’ by way of the ‘double error’ as just described, making it appear as if the ‘dune’ is a thing-in-itself’ with its own powers of sourcing actions and development.

So, we have a problem here in the shortfall of how our standard language and grammar represents ‘reality’ and it is this shortfall that crops up in Greta Thunberg’s view of ‘reality’, and in general, in the popular Western culture view of ‘reality’.    As Nietzsche pointed out, our common mistake is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  Why do we make this double error?  Because we are included in a transforming relational continuum and that is beyond the representational capability of the normal 3-dimensional language we are using.  That is the reason for our common practice of employing the double error; i.e. to render the ineffable effable (which entails a reduction of the ineffable).

It is this reduction that we are forced to make to render the ineffable effable that is leading to the false impression that WE are sourcing climate change.  This is a ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  We are not capable of sourcing change in that which is sourcing us (the Tao aka the wave-field).  Our impression that we who are included in something greater than ourselves are capable of changing that something that is greater is a topological error.  We only think this way because Western culture tradition has employed the logic of the excluded medium which imputes the separate existence of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ (aka ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’).  In modern physics, there is no separate existence of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’, there is only the wave-field featuring relational forms which are ‘appearances’ in the wave-field in the manner of ‘boiling’ in turbulent flow.  The ‘boiling’ and the ‘flow’ are not two separate things-in-themselves; i.e. the’boiling’ is the ‘appearance’ of the flow.

Likewise, there is not ‘duning’ and ‘desert’ as separate things-in-themselves, there is only ‘duning’ in the same sense as wavefield resonance.  Understanding this requires ‘the logic of the included medium’ or ‘quantum logic’ as it has been called by its mathematical developer Stephane Lupasco.

While modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are all in accord in this ‘logic of the included medium’ understanding of reality, Western culture is a ‘hold-out’ because Newtonian physics has deeply impressed its binary thinking (‘logic of the excluded medium’) on us because we have infused it into our language and grammar via the double error.  The ‘double error’ is a basic language and grammar concept that we keep repeating to ourselves over and over again as we use our language.  Thus, the non-binary thinking (logic of the included medium, also termed ‘quantum logic’) remains held at bay, ‘waiting in the wings’, largely because our culture has made ‘the logic of the excluded medium’  (binary logic), the basis of our cultural system of assigning respect, influence and power over making changes to our assigning of respect, influence and power.

This situation involves ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’.  To change it is like trying to change out your Windows computing system for Linux or Apple, after you have invested far more than the cost of your computer hardware in porting all your applications and data into the Windows computing system.  If computer hardware becomes available that is far superior at the the same price as a microsoft PC, you may have to forego acquiring it if the cost of switching your software over to the new hardware is prohibitive.  The ‘high switching costs’ may lock you onto a hardware base that is becoming increasingly obsolete.

This ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs is systems a theory phenomenon that applies generally in switching systems.

Greta Thunberg’s ‘system of thinking; i.e. of understanding reality’, is a Western culture ‘standard’  that remains very popular indeed, but it is not the only system of thinking; i.e. of understanding reality, …  and it is in fact the Newtonian simple sorcery-based understanding of reality that is over-simplistic relative to a modern physics understanding of reality in terms of relational transformation.  In particular, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY IN THE MODERN PHYSICS UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, which conforms, as well, with the understanding of reality of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. The problem with our ‘default’ Western culture understanding of reality lies in its use of ‘the double error’ to reduce the ‘ineffable’ Tao to an ‘effable reality’.

Nietzsche gives the following example of the ‘double error’;

“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 the grammatical expression ‘climate changes’, I have posited the climate once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being which is not one with the event but is rather fixed, ‘is’ and does not ‘become’.

The double error is, in effect, ‘schizophrenic’, it opens up a division in the Western culture collective on the basis of which brand of ‘sorcery’ one opts for; conservative (one bad apple spoils the barrel’) or liberal (it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child).  The belief in ‘sorcery’ not only splits the Western collective into two polar opposing camps, it ‘blinds’ the bulk of the Western culture adhering social collective to that fact that anthropogenic sorcery is delusional; i.e. So long as one is pre-occupied with the fight to establish one of two polar opposite understandings of which anthropogenic sorcery is the CORRECT anthropogenic sorcery, the DEEPER REALITY-TWISTING PROBLEM, … THAT ‘SORCERY’ IS DOUBLE-ERROR BASED FANTASY, … is not going to show up on the radar screen of the polarized Western culture collective.

(i.e. since the polarizing is over WHICH TYPE OF SORCERY is the “CORRECT” TYPE OF SORCERY, attention is too focused on the divisive issue to question the legitimacy of the assumption of ‘sorcery’.  meanwhile, there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in a transforming relational continuum).

THE WESTERN CULTURE BELIEF IN ANTHROPOGENIC SORCERY IS THE PROBLEM, AND IT IS OBSCURED BY THE WESTERN CULTURE DIVISION OVER ‘WHICH FORM OF ANTHROPOGENIC SORCERY IS THE OPERATIVE FORM.  Is it the conservative view that one bad apple SOURCES the spoiling of the barrel of apples, or is it the liberal view that “it takes a whole community to SOURCE the development of the [good/bad] child”.  In a physics based context (raised by the Zen koan); does the flapping flag move the air or does the moving air flap the flag?).  The modern physics answer is that wind flag and atmosphere are all included in the transforming relational continuum (i.e. the Tao or ‘wave-field’, is the embodiment of ‘resonance’ as in ‘duning’)

THE BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’ IS A WESTERN CULTURE SCHIZOPHRENIA-BREEDER THAT OBSCURES/ECLIPSES/OCCLUDES (mentally ‘wallpapers over’) the understanding of reality in terms of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.

Western language and grammar have no problem in putting into our psyche the notion that the ‘boil’ and ‘the flow’ are two separate ontologies even though this is only ‘appearance’.  Likewise, language and grammar allow us to see ‘duning’ (purely relational resonance) in the ontologically split terms of ‘the dune’ that ‘shifts across the desert floor’, splitting the one relational resonance (wave-based phenomenon) we know as ‘duning’ into ‘two separate pieces’ (the ‘dune’ and ‘the ‘desert floor’) which further imply an ‘including third’ (Cartesian space frame).

WHY?  i.e. ‘why do we have no problem in comprehending the boil and flow as two separate ontologies?


Meanwhile, the Tao aka ‘the ineffable transforming relational continuum’ remains the primary reality in modern physics regardless of the fact that it cannot be articulated. So it is also, in the indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, where the reduced-to-effable pseudo-realities of language and grammar, are understood as an ‘expedient’ to infer a reality that is purely relational, through relational inference (e.g. ‘Dances with Wolves’) that avoids the explicit name-based imputing of independent-thing-in-itself existence.  The expedient is that we are able to use language to share and discuss and learn from our respective INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE, by way of using language that reduces our ineffable experience to an effable representation.

This is where things get tricky because, as Emerson points out, our Western culture adherent MISTAKE is to ‘let the tool’ (of language that reduces the ineffable to effable) run away with the workman, the human with the divine’).    In other words, we Western culture adherents fall into the trap of using the linguistic double error based reduction of reality (an expedient for rendering some semblance of the ineffable effable), as our ‘operative reality’.  This has an ‘exposure’ like the planting of a Cuckoo egg (effable-conceptualizing) into the nest/realm of the ineffable, whereupon we cultivate the effable to the point that it pushes the ineffable ‘out of the nest’.

THE TOOL (of language that reduces the ineffable to effable) RUNS AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE.

SO, WE GET TO SHARE AND DISCUSS AND COMPARE SOME REDUCED SEMBLANCE OF OUR RESPECTIVE EXPERIENCING OF THE INEFFABLE, thanks to language and grammar exchanges.  Knowledge-wise, it is possible to more about a particular topic than others who have sensory experience based knowledge.  For example, the virgin youth can know more about sexual intercourse than their experienced parents will ever know, without ever having experienced sexual relations. Similarly, the experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is ineffable (it is beyond capture in language).  That which is effable is a reduction of such experience, typically a reduction that, instead of capturing inclusional experience, captures a reduced voyeur PERSPECTIVE of the experience.

IN ORDER TO SHARE SOME EFFABLE SEMBLANCE OF OUR INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO, WE HAVE TO RESORT TO ‘INTELLECTUAL REDUCTION’ OF OUR INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE.   The EASTERN approach to reduction to render the ineffable effable is akin to the ‘sharing circle’ or ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ while the popular WESTERN approach to reduction to render the ineffable effable is the ‘double error’ reduction.  ‘Duning’ as ‘resonance’ is a non-local, non-material wavefield phenomenon which makes it ‘ineffable’.  That is, ‘it’ is made of dynamic relations and there is no ‘persisting IT’ as the notional ‘local’, ‘material’, ‘thing-in-itself’, other than as an language based abstract ‘place-holder’ for the implied centre of confluence of a web of relations (e.g. just as there is resonance that manifests as duning, there is resonance manifests as ‘waving’ in the ocean.  While there is ‘duning’ and ‘waving’, there is, in the physical reality of our sensory experience, no explicit, local, material ‘dune’ or ‘wave’ (they are language based abstractions).  We can use ‘naming’ to signify a notional ‘it’ as a ‘place-holder’ to sit at the centre of the confluence of many relations (‘mitakuye oyasin’ = ‘all my relations’)  This is the EASTERN inference-based approach for effable rendering of the ineffable, while ‘the double error’ is the WESTERN approach for effable rendering of the ineffable.

The ‘double error’ of ‘naming the place-holder to impute thing-in-itself ‘being’ to it, and conflating this by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (second error), … delivers a different sort of ‘place-holder’.  That is, while the EASTERN place holder that effable-izes the ineffable is relationally inferred and never made out to be explicit, local and material, … the WESTERN ‘double error’ approach employs naming that imputes the LOCAL existence of a FIXED BEING THING-IN-ITSELF and conflates this FIRST error of using ‘naming’ to invent local BEING, by using grammar to impute to the invented BEING, powers of sourcing actions and developments.

EASTERN TECHNIQUE FOR EFFABLE-IZING THE INEFFABLE: So, in the EAST, we think in terms of a whole lot of relational influences INFERENTIALLY suggesting the presence of a dynamic, relational something (the duning, the humaning) which allows us to preserve an understanding of reality as fluid flow (the Tao).  Meanwhile, in the WEST, and as used by Greta Thunberg, the reduction of the ineffable to the effable is by way of the double error, described as follows;

WESTERN TECHNIQUE FOR EFFABLE-IZING THE INEFFABLE: The West employs the ‘double error’ approach, where we use NAMING to suggest EXPLICIT LOCAL MATERIAL EXISTENCE of a THING-IN-ITSELF (first error), notionally WITH ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (second error), implying a local jumpstart sorcery or sorcerer.  That’s what words and grammar can put into our mind, but don’t forget, we can get further reinforcement of this being-based reduction because we have our visual experience that we can fit this to; i.e. we may be looking at ‘duning’ (a purely relational wavefield resonance phenomenon) but once we start calling the ‘dunings’ which are purely relational resonance formings,‘dunes’ (things-in-themselves) and have grammar at hand to attribute to these ‘now-language-ized ‘things-in-themselves’’ their own powers of moving and developing, we have a double error based ‘overlay reality’ that satisfies the effable requirement, allowing us to share a crude (voyeur) facsimile of the ineffable reality that we are actually experiencing.  The voyeur view achieves the desired reduction of the ineffable to the effable, but with a significant degree of reductive distortion (i.e. the implication of ‘sorcery’).

Greta Thunberg, and many people that are using the WESTERN TECHNIQUE FOR EFFABLE-IZING THE INEFFABLE, impute the power of ‘sorcery’ to named entities, including ourselves, nations, corporations (any ‘name’ will do because this is grammatical inference that need not be grounded in sensory experience).  This is reduction of the same type as reducing resonance as implicit in reducing ‘duning’ to ‘dunes’ which we can then ‘animate’ with grammar, giving the ‘dune’ the power of ‘growing larger’, ‘shifting’ etc. so as to construct, with the double error of naming and grammar, an intellectual/psychological explanation for the visual (voyeur perspective) appearance of transformation.

THIS BECOMES THE NEW REALITY IN THE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT PSYCHE, and this is what separates EAST from WEST (so that, ‘never the twain shall meet).

Different people live within different realities and there is little point in trying to convince others that ‘your reality’ is the ‘real reality’.  Who is going to convince indigenous aboriginals that staking out a surface area on the earth and naming it and giving it a flag to signify its ‘sovereign and independent existence’ is going to be a reality that ‘everyone’ (including indigenous aboriginals who have been on that undivided ground for thousands of years)  will ‘believe exists’?  Sure, we say that we can ‘make believers out of others’ by firing guns at them  or incarcerating them when they step across imaginary boundary lines, and while this may give rise to a kind of ‘behavioural conditioning based intellectual reality’, that is only for compliant intellectuals while the winged ones and crawlers etc. can’t be ‘got at’ with intellectual infusions of purported ‘realities’ like humans can be.  How many ‘true realities’ are there?  As many as there are cultural collectives?

“What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.”  — Nietzsche, –Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne, (On Truth and Lies in an extra-moral sense).

The point is that ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ come to us by way of ‘effable’ language constructions whereas our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is ‘ineffable’.  Our ineffable understanding can’t be debated because it can’t be precipitated in language.

As Bohm pointed out with his example of the death of Abraham Lincoln, it is only the convenient reductive capability of language and grammar that has Western culture adherents thinking in terms that ‘John Wilkes Booth’ was the source of the death of Lincoln, … since the unbounded transforming relational continuum within which the web of relational dynamics associated with the death of Lincoln was included, gives an innately NON-EXPLICIT understanding, as in the EASTERN and MODERN PHYSICS view.

GRETA THUNBERG is using the WESTERN “EXPLICIT” understanding of reality in her double error conceptualization termed ‘climate change’, and such ‘explicitness’ comes from the DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  The double error provides a means of imputing local jumpstart sorcery.  As Nietzsche notes, the double error allows us to use language and grammar to inject a Deus-ex-machina or ‘sorcerer’ into our ‘reality constructions’ wherever we feel we need it.

“In Reason’ in language! … Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed. … – oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

The reality of our actual sensory experience remains ‘ineffable’ and we have, as discussed, two popular ways (EASTERN AND WESTERN) of reducing the ineffable to the effable (the reductive effable is always an inexact formulation), ONE OF WHICH IS THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED REDUCTIVE APPROACH USED BY GRETA THUNBERG, which posits ‘human sorcery of ‘climate change’

NOTA BENE: …. ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ IS ITSELF THE DOUBLE ERROR; The following ‘expanded Nietzsche quote elaborates on how we insert name-instantiated being into our rhetoric to invoke the notion of jumpstart sorcery, as in expressions like ‘climate change’.

“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’

The ‘anthropogenic climate change’ pseudo-reality is a double-error based conceptualization that has a broad (Western culture adherent) following.  Being a part of such an emotionally committed group can fuel an emotional strengthening of the belief, which, because we are included in the ineffable Tao, can only be a kind of ‘raft of an impermanent effable’ floating in the sea of the ineffable, useful for organizing the minds and thus the actions of social collectives, without ever condensing/precipitating into a ‘truth’ that is absolute and universal (there are no such absolute truths in a transforming relational continuum).

That’s why the EASTERN approach of the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions is an approach to effable-izing the ineffable Tao that gives less exposure to major deception, since it employs implicit inference without ever becoming frozen into an explicit declaration, as is consistent with ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.

This note has been longer that I had hoped, partly because of the trickiness of the subject matter, and partly because of the limitations of my skill in ‘translating’ 4 dimensional reality into  the 3 dimensions of Greta Thunberg’s ‘double error’ based world view.

On the basis of my non-belief in the claims of anthropogenic climate change, someone might want to ask me whether I believe in any sort of ‘cause-and-effect’ or ‘producer-product’ dynamic, like, if someone drives his truck through the wall of my house, is it ‘his fault’; i.e. is he fully and solely liable for what happened.  Maybe it was the fault of a dog-owner who let his dog off the leash, or the mechanic that didn’t properly tighten the bleed valve after filling his brake fluid reservoir.     My interest is primarily in the repairing of any damages and healing of any injuries.  ‘Causality’ is an abstraction that makes no sense unless one divides the ineffable Tao up into seemingly (intellectually decreed) ‘stand-alone events’.

This fragmenting of the Tao is achieved with language and grammar by way of the abstract concept of ‘the event’.  Once someone gets us to believe in ‘events’ as properly capturing ‘reality’, we are in trouble.  This is where Jean Valjean got his 15 year jail sentence for ‘stealing a loaf of bread’.  At his trial, they likely asked the witnesses (in French, of course) to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God’.  But then the witnesses proceeded to give their detailed accounts of ‘the event’ … from the point that Jean Valjean came up the street, entered the bakery, took the loaf of bread, and departed without paying for it, end of event.  He was not asked for a commentary on society wherein some were living in great abundance while others, particularly infants who, deprived of food in their development phase, … were starving to death.  Nevertheless, it was the inductive pull of what was not being acted on (and therefore invisible), something that arose within the community social dynamic and which Jean Valjean DID ACT UPON, which is where the real understanding of what transpired begins, … something that the ‘double error’ based understanding fails to capture.

Our acceptance of ‘double error’ ‘event-based truths’ serves only to ‘conceal reality’ rather than to expose reality.  It does so by REDUCING REALITY to SORCERY-BASED ILLUSIONS.  To borrow from the quote cited earlier in this note;

  “Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology’ — Nietzsche

Greta Thunberg is a very able proponent of the common Western culture adherent belief in ‘sorcery’ that originates NOT IN NATURE but in the double error of language and grammar.

The argument that we should acknowledge our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, that all things are included in, comes with the ineffable Tao.  That many of us Western culture adherents have ‘fallen from grace’ in this regard is evident.  However, by the time we reduce the ineffable to effable by the low road of the ‘double error’ reduction wherein name-instantiated things-in-themselves are understood as ‘sorcerers’, we are off in ‘lala land’, and this seduction has captivated a good portion of the Western culture adherency, including some very gifted orators, such as Barack Obama and Greta Thunberg.

I don’t doubt their belief in ‘their truth’ nor in the honesty of their commitment to what they see as the sorcery-based well-being of the world as demands an appropriately informed collective of sorcerers.

At the same time, I don’t believe in ‘sorcery’, and share the understanding of reality in the ineffable terms of the transforming relational continuum with the understandings from modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents.

Ok, I am equally confident that many people will not share the views expressed herein, but have written this because of (what appears to me as) the continuing growth of ‘double error’ based delusion in our Western culture biased global social dynamic.

* * *



“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 Analysis of Sensations And The Relation Of The Physical To The Psychical.

The ‘figure and ground’ of Gestalt psychology reminds us of the artificiality of the figure-ground split, as in duning (purely relational resonance) which we capture in language and grammar and split into ‘dunes’ and ‘desert’, reducing the wave nature of reality to material mechanics, at least in the intellectual constructions we form based on the double error of language and grammar.

This synthetic reductionist ‘splitting’ by way of the double error is implicitly flagged in the Gnostic ‘Gospel of Thomas’

“What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it…the Kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth, but men do not see it.”

This refers to the topology of the ‘two-in-the-one’  that is also found in Gestalt (figure-ground) psychology, and in modern physics generally, where the resonance (e.g. ‘duning’) is a purely relational phenomena that language and grammar allow us to reduce by way of the ‘double error’; i.e. of ‘naming-instantiated things-in-themselves’ (error 1), grammatically equipped with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments’ (error 2), … the Nietzsche-termed ‘double error’.

Here we can contemplate the ambiguity of figure-and-ground; i.e. are we included in something all-inclusive like the Tao; i.e. are we, ourselves, like resonances in the all-including wave-field?

“Again when Jesus saw infants being nursed by their mothers he said, “These infants being suckled are like those entering the Kingdom.” And the disciples asked, “Shall we, then, as little children, enter the Kingdom?” He answered them, “When you make two one, and when you make the inside the outside and the outside the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same…then you will enter (the Kingdom).” —

RESONANCE is the four (or more) dimensional wave-field reality of our natural relational experience that we reduce, with language and grammar and the ‘double error’, to the notional three dimensional constructions based on local, material things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments,.

Resonance that we articulate in the double error reduced terms of dunes shifting along the desert floor are a means of rendering the ineffable Tao ‘effable’.  This opens the way to sharing (a reduced, but ‘effable’ impression) of our experiences of inclusion in the ineffable Tao.  Unfortunately, as Emerson notes, we Western culture adherents are prone to letting ‘the tool of ineffable-to-effable reduction run away withe the workman’.

The world of 3 dimensional objects is a language and grammar reduced ‘invented reality’ which is NOT the reality of our relational experience of inclusion in the Tao, the latter being an ineffable reality in that it involves a conceptualizing ‘dimensionality’ of 4 and more, as in the example of ‘duning’ (resonance) that we reduce to three dimensional ‘dunes’ in abstract Cartesian space.


The evidence gathered together in this philosophical investigation consistently gives the impression that ‘reality’ is the ineffable wave-field wherein we are resonances, … resonances on resonances as in the BOTH-AND logic of the included medium of modern physics, as suggested in Carlo Rovelli’s Quantum Gravity;

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’

Wave-fields on wave-fields, resonances on resonances.  This understanding of reality truly is ineffable, making explicit representation impossible and forcing us to employ relational inference to ‘infer’ that which cannot be explicitly expressed.  Wittgenstein expresses this view in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophical as follows;

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.” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein

Resonance is something accessible to our sensory experience of inclusion within it, yet something this is not itself ‘visible’ (we see only the secondary material dynamics induced by resonances; i.e. ‘duning’ is NOT the dune.  In understanding figure and ground in terms of ‘resonance’, we must shift from the Newtonian EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM to the Quantum BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDING MEDIUM.

In terms of Gestalt psychology’s ‘figure and ground’, we must shift from understanding of reality in terms of figure-and-ground duality, … to figure-and-ground non-duality.  We have been using our Western culture three-dimensional language with its ‘double-error’ based ‘reality constructions’ as an expedient to render the ‘ineffable effable’, but this tool has ‘run away with the workman’, and it is time re-establish the ineffable as our base-case reality.  When we do this, the sense of ourselves as separate and independently-existing ‘things-in-ourselves’ with the power of ‘sorcery’ of actions and developments (figure and ground duality) ‘dissolves’ and we are ‘one with everything’ within ‘the resonance’ (the wave-field, the Tao).

Of course, we are back to a reality which is ineffable, the experiencing of which is at the same time unique and all-including (Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”) so that it is NOT reducible to ‘effable’ terms.  The ‘price’ of sharing some reduced semblance even, of our experience, which has been very valuable for extending (cantilevering) our knowledge of the world well beyond our personal experience, has been at the price of using language to ‘reduce’ reality to a poor copy of our actual sensory experience (to render the ineffable effable).

The result has been that, thanks the language based reduction of the ineffable to the effable, we are able to share a crude semblance of our innately ineffable experience, and thus extend or ‘cantilever’ our ‘knowledge’ well beyond the limits of our own actual sensory experience.  This language and grammar extended ‘effable’ reality, however, is in no way the equivalent of our ineffable sensory experiencing of the Tao.   This is where we encounter exposure to the potential trap identified by Emerson in ‘The Method of Nature’ wherein; “the tool runs away with the workman, the human (effable) with the divine (ineffable)”.

The figure and the ground (the human inhabitant and the habitat) are NOT REALLY understandable in terms of the LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM as language and grammar can imply, … they are more naturally understandable in terms of the ‘quantum’ LOGIC OF THE INCLUDED MEDIUM wherein ‘humans’ are no longer seen as local, independently-existing ‘sorcerers’ but as ‘humanings’, … resonances in the Tao (wave-field).

* * *