ted lumley

ted lumley

to come

Posts by ted lumley

How EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST

0

 

INTRODUCTION: In considering how; …. ‘EAST IS EAST’ and ‘WEST IS WEST’  … it is useful to recall that, just as indigenous aboriginals (‘the EAST’) have no choice (if they wish to survive while living within the WEST), but to ‘do as the WESTERNERS do’, so it is for all of us when in such a situation, creating a schism between our being informed by our intuitive sensory motor rhythms (SMR brainwaves) and/or being informed by our rational intellection (Beta brainwaves).  That is, as WESTERNERS, we split off our intellect-directed calculations of what our actions should be in our current situation, and give these actions priority over how we are being informed by sensory motor rhythms (as associate with our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum).  WESTERN culture adherence (or enslavement, as is the case for EASTERN culture adherents living in a WESTERN culture dominated social collective), may be necessary for survival .  Thus the physical dynamics of a social collective, while they may be superficially WESTERN, may conceal a spirit that is EASTERN as in the case of indigenous aboriginals who are living and working ‘off the reservation’.

“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 physical behaviour of EASTERN peoples working within a WESTERN social dynamic appears coherent but something else is going on wherein the psychical is not working in concert/harmony with the physical.  This is an aspect of reality that transcends a purely mechanical understanding.

In other words, THE EAST-WEST SPLIT IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS OVERTLY MANIFEST; i.e. the split lives in the social dynamic but beneath the visual surface level of the social dynamic.  The degree to which the visible social dynamic derives from putting experiential sensorimotor rhythms in primacy over intellectual Beta-wave rationalizations (EAST) versus putting intellectual Beta-wave rationalizations over experiential sensorimotor rhythms (WEST) is not manifestly obvious from observing the WESTERN operative social dynamic but we can be sure that such an invisible division exists where Western culture dominates within a social collective that is a mixture of EAST and WEST understandings of reality.

Outbreaks of violence can come both from those demanding less imposition of WESTERN EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium relative to EASTERN BOTH/AND (modern physics) logic of the included medium, or more of the former relative to the latter. This is NOT to be confused for the WESTERN ‘conservative’ – ‘liberal’ polar split, both poles of which are based on belief in the double error of ‘thing-in-itself based sourcing of actions and developments’, the conservatives believing that ‘sorcery’ is ‘one-to-many’ and the liberals believing that ‘sorcery’ is ‘many-to-one’.

THAT IS, THERE IS NO SUCH BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’ IN THE EAST, since there the understanding of reality is in terms of inclusion in the Tao, the transforming relational continuum, an understanding that is without need for the WESTERN double-error abstraction of invoking name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This INTRODUCTION  has been to point out that the EAST-WEST split has not simply ‘weakened’ with the WESTERN way of understanding having ‘gained ground’ on the EASTERN way of understanding.  While this may seem true, to think in this manner would imply that EAST and WEST are competitors in one and the same field, as if they are ‘birds of a feather’.  THEY ARE NOT!

The WEST sees producer-product developments based on EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium; e.g. ‘the dune can EITHER grow larger OR  shrink in size, … move EITHER forward OR back etc.”  (note the independence of figure-and-ground and the implied male-female active-passive dichotomy)… while the EAST sees transformation based on the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium; e.g. ‘duning’ can BOTH incorporate manure AND discharge gold coins  (note the non-independent [androgynous] topology of figure and ground in this case.).  Evidently, the WEST uses language in such a manner as to fabricate the abstraction of binary certainty, while the EAST uses language so as to leave in the uncertainty characteristic of nature (the Tao) as suggested in the Tai-chi symbol and captures in the following Zen story;

The Farmer’s Horse

There is a story of a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, “May be.”

The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, “May be.”

And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, “May be.”

The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer’s son was rejected. When the neighbors came to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, “May be.”

The yin-yang view of the world is serenely cyclic. Fortune and misfortune, life and death, whether on small scale or vast, come and go everlastingly without beginning or end, and the whole system is protected from monotony by the fact that, in just the same way, remembering alternates with forgetting. This is the Good of good-and-bad.

Alan Watts
Tao: The Watercourse Way

It is clear that the EASTERN way of understanding  is not simply a peer competitor with the WESTERN way of understanding which has ‘lost out’ in a fair and square competition.  Instead, the EASTERN way of understanding has ‘gone underground’ in a modern world that is dominated by WESTERN ‘double error’ based ‘visualization’, forcing those with EASTERN understandings of reality to ‘hold this understanding quietly in their heart’ while participating in the dominating WESTERN ‘sing our WESTERN song or get no supper‘ social dynamic.

In spite of complying with those physical actions and behaviours necessary for surviving within the WESTERN culture dominated social dynamic, the EASTERN ‘spirit’ burns brightly in many, even if beneath the mantle of Western culture.  While there have been WESTERN campaigns to fully eliminate EASTERN understanding, such as the WESTERN culture’s North American attempt to ‘kill the Indian in the child’ , the culture of the EAST (indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist, Advaita Vedanta) persists in the spirit of the social collective, even as the binary logic fuelled physical power of WESTERN CULTURE has risen to dominance.

One has to wonder, therefore, whether it makes sense to try to understand reality in purely physical terms, as appears to be the approach of the WEST, with its double-error based language and grammar, … while the EAST accepts the ineffable nature of the Tao, the all-including, transforming relational continuum aka wave-field.  This question recalls Mach’s earlier-cited point that understanding in physics must address the artificial separating of physics and psychology.

Did we WESTERN culture adherents ‘really’ physically construct cities and highways over the surface of the globe, or has our Western culture conditioned psyche bought in so deeply to ego-inflating voyeur viewing of ‘our works’, that we are forgetting that we are included in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao) that is innately greater than ourselves and our ‘double error’ based pseudo-powers of sourcing actions and developments?

END OF INTRODUCTION:

This EAST – WEST split in how reality is conceived represents a schizophrenic ‘malaise’ that society is not addressing or attempting to ‘heal’, but which is left alone to cultivate ferment and eruptions of violence whether by those whose EAST based actions depart from the binary values of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or by those whose WEST based actions aim to enforce the binary values of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.  A splitting of the social collective into opposing camps of Jean Valjeans, and Inspector Javerts.

END OF INTRODUCTION:

The human social collectives that are part of our planetary experience [I am intentionally avoiding the figure-ground splitting phraseology ‘that live on our planet’] are a curious mix of things.  The particular curiosity that I am discussing in this note, and sharing (for your possible interest) is the division of ways of understanding ‘reality’ into what we popularly refer to as the cultures of EAST and WEST.

My philosophical/psychological researches point to the EAST being the ‘sane’ culture and to the WEST as being a ‘crazy-making’ culture.  I realize and naturally accept that a great many people may not be interested in, or open to this type of philosophical investigation that could have the potential to ‘unsettle one’s psychological-apple-cart’.  My interest in sharing these ideas of Nietzsche et al comes with my belief that they carry important potentials for deepening our understanding of our complex social dynamics and, and thus help resolve some endemic aberrance-based conflicts.

The basics of the EAST – WEST psychological split have been identified as follows;

The EAST understands reality on the basis of the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.  This form of logic can be understood by way of the ‘Gestalt’ understanding of ‘figure-and-ground’, where this is understood NOT AS TWO but as ONE wherein the distinguishing of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ is by ‘appearance’ and NOT by intellectually assuming an ontological splitting into two.  By this I mean that the familiar ‘whorl’ in the ‘flow’ (e.g. as with a a ‘swirl’ in a river flow, it does not have to be understood as something ‘apart from the flow’, because if we do considerate it as something separate, we run into the question as to whether the ‘whorl’ is sourcing ‘the flow’ or whether the ‘flow’ is sourcing the ‘whorl’.   This is the same ambiguity as in the Zen parable (koan) of wind and flag, which moves?

In the EAST, the answer is that neither the whorl sources the flow nor does the flow source the whorl because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘THE SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS’ AKA ‘SORCERY’.  It is only the WEST that believes in sorcery, and this is where ego comes from and ‘the ‘hero’ and ‘the villain’.  Meanwhile, in the EAST, there is no such thing as binary opposites, there is only relations that can be harmonious and dissonant.

(more…)

The Western Culture ‘Double Whammy’ of History and Reason

0

-Source:  ‘The Confederacy of Locked-Ins by High Switching Costs’ , a voice from deep within Western Culture: -‘Wherein Honest and Popular Don’t Go Hand-In-Hand’

 

Reason and History are the names for two types of BULLSHIT co-contributors to the dysfunction known as Western culture.

It is significant that modern physics endorses the basic understandings built into indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, but NOT Western culture.

Western culture cultivates belief in ‘the double error’ of language and grammar which in turn plays a foundational role in both ‘reason’ and ‘history’.  Thus the leadoff statement identifying REASON and HISTORY as the names for two types of BULLSHIT.

These are not new findings, but they seem to slip away from Western culture adherents like water off a duck’s back.  First, just to cite a couple of complainants;

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” George Santayana

In Reason’ in language!  ……..(Note how Nietzsche points to ‘being’ as the underpinning of ‘reason; i.e.  … “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 (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

If you ponder these two comments a bit, I think you will find that they are pointing to the same’double error’ based flaw in Western thinking.

(more…)

An Exploration of a ‘Humilityless Twits’ Labelling

0

 

The Background to the Humilityless Twits Label Applied to top University Graduates Going into Management

This title attaches to a backwards reflection on my part to the surprising (to me) reference that some experience-seasoned (salty-dog) managers made to the best and brightest of the college graduates coming into the workforce.  I discovered that this was (and is) very much tied up in the difference between intellectual learning and experiential learning. This note is about how our understanding is becoming increasingly ‘CANTILEVERED’ by intellectual learning and correspondingly increasingly UNgrounded in sensory experience.  The confidence that modern internet-informed youth have in their intellectual understanding even though it is ungrounded in experience, is quite amazing (The inexperienced virgin youth  may know far more about sexual intercourse than her experienced parents),  And whereas youth was in prior eras more reticent than bullish in throwing their bodies behind intellectual-conceptual ‘truths’, modern youth are now, even when still on the slim end of the experience-based learning curve, … highly confident of the ‘truth’ of their intellectual convictions. This can be seen in the ‘climate change’ demonstrations by youth where their reasoned assumption is that ‘man’ is the ‘source’ of rising global temperatures.

To ‘cut to the quick’, my understanding, like Nietzsche’s, is that ‘reason’ is NOT a tool that can give us understanding of our experience of inclusion in the Tao.  However, modern Western youth tend to be confident that their ‘reason’ is delivering ‘the truth’ about ‘reality’.

In Reason’ in language!  ……..(Note how Nietzsche points to ‘being’ as the underpinning of ‘reason; i.e.  … “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 (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

“Reason” comes under full frontal fire here.

‘Reason’ may be a handy tool for loosely INFERRING ‘what is going on in the world, but it is not a capable tool for dealing with inclusion in the transforming relational continuum of modern physics (aka the Tao’).  REASON  IS INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION THAT HAS PULLED AWAY FROM ITS MOORINGS IN SENSORY EXPERIENCE.

That is; reason reduces the BOTH/AND  (modern physics) logic of the included medium to the EITHER/OR (classical physics) logic of the excluded medium; e.g. it reduces ‘duning’ as resonance-based  (wave-field-based) transformation to ‘dunes’-and-desert floor’, two ABSTRACT ontologically separate and distinct things-in-themselves that, with binary ambiguity, play off of one another, giving us the crazy-making …  EITHER figure OR ground … MENTAL impression wherein the ‘dunes’  ARE  “UNDERSTOOD” as THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES that can ‘shift across the desert floor’! (or is it the desert floor dynamic that pushes those dunes around?  How crazy-schizo is that!  How crazy -schizo does that make us as believers of either of these binaries?

As Bohm discovered, EAST IS EAST (embracing the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium aka quantum logic) AND WEST IS WEST (embracing the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium), … and Kipling was pretty much on target in suggesting that ‘never the twain shall meet’.  Because, as it turns out ‘reason’ is a psychological derivative of the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, and as Nietzsche points out, reason is anchored in place by ‘ego-that-swells-the-head‘ while the Eastern ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related) associates with inspiration that fills the heart.

We Western culture adherents brag about how we have ‘improved’ the land by constructing roads and railways and skyscrapers and modern cities.  That slips off the tongue easily, but all the while, continents are ‘drifting’ and subsiding and being ‘recycled’ and seafloors are spreading and sea-mounts rising while humans are outwellin/emerging-and-inwelling/subducting (popping out and popping back in) and everything is in a continuing transformational flux, so how do we isolate within this, an inventory of local, human sourced producer-product developments?

ANSWER: we have the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that allows us to reduce all of this ineffable-nonlocal-relationally IMPLICIT FLUIDITY/TAO, by means of language and grammar stimulated intellection, to a local, explicit and thus effable ‘INVENTED REALITY’.  (One doesn’t REALLY produce a product’ or construct a vibrant and bustling city in the wilderness).  As with ‘duning’-and-‘the-dune’, it is not the dune that ‘grows larger and longer and shifts across the desert floor’, duning is relational resonance-based transformation, and likewise, it is not ‘reality’ we are talking about when we speak of ‘the city in the wilderness’ that grows larger and more dynamic’, we are instead looking at how relational resonance manifests (“Of that which we cannot speak (the ineffable) we must pass over in silence” –Wittgenstein) and using the double error of language and grammar to ‘reduce, idealize, localize and re-cast relational resonance’ in the producer-product (locally incipient sorcery) based terms of a name-instantiated thing-in-itself notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and development.

(more…)

Faith in Reason is the Craziness of Western Culture

0

 

This is a philosophical discussion that explores the fundamental (mind-splitting) flaw in ‘reason’, as has been pointed out by Nietzsche.  This faith in ‘reason’ is the ‘craziness’ that permeates Western culture adherency.

I realize that ‘reason’ is a ‘respected concept’ in Western culture, but I am of the same mind as Nietzsche that ‘reason’ is a ‘crazy-maker’ (the source of a foundational ‘schizophrenia’ in Western culture).

* * * FIRST, … A REVIEW OF  FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS * * *

“Reason is the effable-izer of the ineffable Tao, the language and grammar splitter of the figure-ground-unum so that reason gives more  reality to the construction of a city (figure) than to the transforming of the (ground).  We and all our relations belong to the ineffable, undivided Tao.  In our Western culture adhering, the effable-izing tool of reason is running away with the worker, the effable human with the ineffable divine.  The alternative effable-izer of poetic inference is a more transparent effable-izer than reason and is without the reason-based exposure to schizophrenia that comes with reason’s hard figure-ground split and the associated ambiguity as to whether  figure sources transformation of ground or whether ground sources transformation of figure’.  In modern physics, the ambiguity does not arise because the concept of ‘sourcing’ is not necessary where there is ‘resonance’; i.e. we do not have to decide whether the dune moves by way of the peak asserting into the trough, or by way of the trough seducing entry of the peak.  That is, in modern physics there is only the resonance-dynamic (wave-field) of ‘duning’, there are no ‘dunes’ with ‘peaks’ and ‘troughts’.   The understanding of the ‘forms’ of nature as resonances within the wave-field (Tao) so that the ‘figure and ground’ are ‘one with one another and everything’, an allusion not only to the one-ness of the Tao but which also recalls the Gospel of Thomas citation;

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).” —The Gospel of Thomas

My citing from the Gospel of Thomas was simply to show that the understanding of reality in terms of what modern physics researchers have called QUANTUM LOGIC; i.e. the BOTH/AND (figure-in-ground) logic of the included medium, has been ‘around’ in early Christian philosophy and not just in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta philosophy.  However, Western culture ‘reason’ is based on the EITHER/OR (figure-and-ground) logic of the excluded medium which opens the way to the ‘doer-of-deed’ abstraction, the abstract basis of ‘reason’ that Nietzsche is rejecting, and which is the source of schizophrenia in that ‘reason’ is ambiguous where it comes to whether the figure-dynamic is sourcing the transformation of the ground, or whether the ground dynamic is sourcing the transformation of the figure.  This schizophrenia-inducing ambiguity does not even emerge in the Tao or in ‘quantum logic’, but is an artefact of our effable-izing kluge of splitting the figure out from the ground and reducing the relational dynamics of our experience of inclusion in the Tao, to voyeur observer ‘double error’ based (reason-based) terms.

Our reduction to ‘reason’ based terms is where, for example, the ineffable (non-local, non-material) wave-field dynamic of resonance (which manifests as ‘duning’) is reduced by naming to ‘the dune’ (a notional local, thing-in-itself), the first error, which is conflated by the second error of grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error).  In this ‘double error’ manner, the ineffable Tao (wave-field) is reduced to something ‘effable’, which is of great benefit in that it allows us to articulate and share at least some semblance of our unique and ineffable experiencing of inclusion in the Tao, so that we can learn from one another.

However, the reduction of ineffable to effable is a reduction of sensory awareness of inclusion in the Tao to the voyeur visualizations of ‘reason’ and while the virgin teenager may acquire a reason-based understanding of sexual relations that far surpasses the reason-based understanding of her sensory-experienced informed parents, such ‘reason’-based understanding, being a radical reduction from sensory experiencing of inclusion in the Tao, only qualifies for use as a ‘support tool’, so that it is problematic, as Emerson points out, where ‘the tool [of reason] runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’.  In fact, this problem of ‘reason’ running away with the ‘reasoner’ is the schizophrenia-breeding signature property of Western culture adherence.

* * * END OF REVIEW OF FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS * * *

(more…)

Accord re the Reality of ‘the Tao’ with a Philosopher-Friend

0

hi  xxxx,

thanks for your thoughtful response.  it is a rare pleasure for me to receive comments such as yours.  it seems that many if not most of my correspondents, while some may be interested in exploring the philosophical and psychological underpinnings of language and thought, hesitate to go there, for one reason or another (i.e. are more energized to receive and consider, than to interactively engage).

 

with respect to what we refer to as ‘reason’, I admit that there is some ambiguity here which begs for clarity in what we mean by ‘reason’ with respect to the ‘logical’ underpinnings.  since my reading is limited, I would propose this distinguishing of two types of reason by the names ‘ontic logic’ and ‘fluid logic’.   in classical physics the logic used is ‘ontic logic’ or the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium (I have chosen to change the traditional words ‘middle’ as in ‘excluded middle’ and/or ‘third’ as in ‘excluded third’ which are ‘ontically biased’, to ‘medium’ which doesn’t prejudice the mind against the fluid interpretation where ‘boil’ in ‘flow’ can be understood in the sense that the flow is the all-including ‘medium’ as in wave-field based understanding.

 

these terms refer to distinguishing between the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium and the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.  In my terms ‘ontic logic’ and ‘fluid logic’.   These distinctions become important in distinguishing between the appearance versus reality in wave phenomena such as ‘resonance’ (an example is ‘duning’ as in desert dynamics).

(more…)

The Confusion in Reducing the Ineffable to the Effable

0

 

The Western Culture (Misguided) ‘Solution’ to the Problem of Ineffabie-ness of the Tao

How do we Western culture adherents make the Tao ‘effable’ so that we can talk about and share (some semblance of) our experiences of inclusion within it?  As Heraclitus and other philosophers have noted, this is challenging because ‘everything is in flux, including we who are included in it’.

Ok, we know the Eastern approach to rendering the ineffable effable, and it is the same as modern physics; i.e. it is the poetic inference approach, as in modern physics ’Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.  As Nietzsche also points out, we need to bring into connective confluence the views of many eyes and harvest the coherencies that develop in the confluence (the ‘holographic’ understanding).  This is also the approach that is implicit in the ‘sharing circle’ of indigenous aboriginals.

NOW TO THE WESTERN APPROACH (i.e. the approach to rendering the ineffable Tao effable).

This approach, called ‘reasoning’ (popularized by Sir Francis Bacon in Novum Organum, sive indicia vera de Interpretatione Naturae), has been critiqued by Nietzsche, and well before him by Bishop Berkeley, in connection with the related development of differential calculus where we create a new foundation based on “the ghost of a departed quantity”.  One can compare this to ‘forgiveness’ which, by annulling a hypothesized ‘wrong’ establishes, in a back-hand sort of way, the existence of the ‘wrong’. ‘Right’ versus ‘wrong’ is a binary concept that, while it is the foundation of ‘reason’ , is absolutist abstraction, which is why Nietzsche identifies ‘reason’ as a major source of social-relational dysfunction in Western culture adherency.

(more…)

REALITY VERSUS REASON

0

 

“Reason” in language! …  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’

 

Reason is not ‘reality’Reality is the ineffable experiencing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (aka the Tao).

Western culture adherence has put intellectual ‘Reason’ (the bipolar EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium) into an unnatural precedence over the directly experienced sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) of our inclusion in the Tao.  This unnatural inverting which puts ‘bipolar logic’ into precedence over sensory relational experience is a psychological ‘bipolar disorder’ that manifests in the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche).  Where a social collective ‘buys in’ en masse to a belief in the ‘double error’, their understanding of ‘reality’ splits them into two opposing camps as in the Zen wind-and-flag koan, one pole of which (conservative) believes that reality is where individual-actions-and-developments are sourcing collective actions and developments, and the other pole of which (liberal) believes that collective actions and developments are sourcing individual actions-and-developments.

The Zen answer to this dichotomous koan is; ‘There is no such thing as ‘the sourcing of actions and development’, there is only the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

Modern physics has reaffirmed Zen in this matter, however, Western culture adherents have become so caught up in their bipolar arguing contention, that questioning the ‘reality’ of the double error implied ‘sourcing of actions and developments’ is being overlooked, even though it is a fundamental ‘error’ in Western culture adherent language and grammar based constructing of reality.

(N.B. The first error in the double error is to use ‘naming’ to infer local, independent thing-in-itself existence’ and the second error conflates the first by imputing the notional power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself).

So, this psychological double error based impression of ‘sourcing of actions and development’ gives rise to a ‘schizophrenic reality’ wherein the collective splits into two mutually opposing sub-collectives on the basis of polar difference in their construing of ‘what reality is’.  Both of the polarized groups with their polar opposite views of ‘what is reality’ deem themselves ‘normal’ by virtue of their agreement on ‘their reality’ WITHIN THEIR GROUP.  As R.D. Laing points out, this sort of ‘normal’ IS NOT NATURAL!

What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”  — R.D. Laing

When people agree as a group on what constitutes “reality for them”, they are able to cooperate and function harmoniously, within their polarized group, on the basis of employing their ‘commonly perceived reality’ as their ‘operative reality’. However, as Giordano Bruno observed (before he was burned at the stake in 1600 for the heresy of relativity), ‘A majority has no monopoly on establishing what is the truth’.  And as has similarly been observed by Lafontaine; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. 

Individuals (sensitive miner’s canaries who sniff something wrong in this polarization) who do not buy into joining either side of the polarization, become the ‘identified patients’; i.e. the ‘not-normals’ (i.e. those not-wanting to join in either of the polar options as the ‘normals’ are doing).  This ‘culture imposed schizophrenic pressure) shows up when indigenous aboriginals [where schizophrenic thinking is NOT the normality] come into Western culture adhering social collectives)

 ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’ by Cochrane and Sashidharan, that show that the incidence of schizophrenia in non-native born blacks in the U.K. is 3-5 times higher than native born blacks. As the researchers point out, the implication is that we are not going to discover the source of the illness, no matter how deeply and intensively we investigate the individual’s ill health as if it were the property of the individual.

“From the outset it will be clear that most of the research in this field has followed the conventional epidemiological or medical paradigm by focusing on mental ill health as the dependent variable. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a lack of empirically grounded research on mental well-being or the psychological resilience and survival of minority groups in this country” — R. Cochrane (University of Birmingham) and S. P. Sashidharan (North Birmingham Mental Health Trust) in ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’

The same conclusion was reached by Jill Astbury in ‘The Making of Women’s Madness’ in reviewing The World Health Organization statistics on the mental ill health of females which show that women have twice the incidence of ‘affective disorders’ (depression, bipolar disorder etc.) as men.  We usual dichotomous ambiguity associated with ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments (in this case mental illness) surfaces once again.  Astbury observes that there is a problem in assuming that ‘the women are ill’ rather than there is an illness-inducing dysfunction in the social dynamic which may be manifest more visibly in the more sensitive members of the social collective.  In other words, is mental breakdown due to a fault in the individual or due to in the dynamics of the collective in which the individual in included?

The research stemming from this viewpoint had a systemic blindness. It could literally not see what it was doing, as the normative quality of its own presuppositions had made them invisible.” – Jill Astbury

As expressed in Mach’s principle;” The dynamics of the inhabitants (boils) are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (flow) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat (flow) are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants (boils).  In other words, the habitat and the inhabitant are (as in the Zen koan of wind-and-flag) without ontological independence (the all-including Tao or ‘wave-field’ precludes  the ontological independence that the abstractions of language and grammar impute to relational forms are psychological impression and not sensory experience based.

The results of the philosophical investigations of Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger, Wittgenstein and others, support the understanding that ‘reason’ allows to construct abstract language and grammar reduced-reality-constructions that effable-ize’ the ineffable Tao, delivering the huge benefit of rending the ineffable Tao (a reduced version thereof) effable.  What was unshareable because ineffable becomes crudely shareable by way of ‘reason’.   That is, the ‘duning’ that is non-local and non-material because it is a resonance phenomenon (wave-field phenomenon, when it is reduced to ‘double error based dunes’ (name-instantiated local things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments) gives us the abstract intellectual ‘traction’ for ‘reason’ based ‘explanatory’ constructions.

‘Reason’ becomes problematic here in that it is an abstract intellectual reduction that constitutes a ‘dumbing down’ of the reality  of our sensory relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao). 

* * *

Reason is based on logic of which there are two types;

The BOTH/AND (quantum) logic of the included medium (e.g. boil and flow are seen as a one thing while the ‘two-ness’ is only ‘appearance’. Reason based on this  BOTH/AND logic has no exposure to ‘schizophrenia’ as does EITHER/OR logic

The EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium (e.g. boil and the flow are seen as two ontologically unique and separate things-in-themselves. Reason based on this EITHER/OR logic is ‘schizophrenia’ inducing (some say the boil is sourcing the flow and some say the flow is sourcing the boil (see also the Zen wind and flag koan – that brings forth the question; which is sourcing movement?) Answer; neither, there is only transformation, no sorcery.

Indigenous aboriginal cultures and modern physics base their ‘reason’ (remember, reason is a reduction of our ineffable experience that renders the ineffable crudely effable) on the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (boil and flow, or ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’, are only one, but are distinguishable as two by ‘appearance’, but not by ontic separateness

Western culture’s ‘standard’ mode of ‘reasoning’ employs EITHER/OR logic.  This logic is innately ambiguous as in the Zen wind/flag koan or the boil/flow topology; i.e. does the dynamic of the inhabitant source change in the habitat or does the dynamic of the habitat source change in the inhabitant?  EITHER/OR reason is innately ambiguous and leads to the ‘conservative – liberal’ polar opposition in THE WESTERN SOCIAL COLLECTIVE, … where people form groups whose reason polarizes against each other (one group takes the EITHER/OR reason branch wherein ‘one rotten apple spoils the barrel’ (conservative) and the other group takes the EITHER/OR reason branch where ‘it takes a whole community to raise a good/bad child’ (liberal).

Sensitive individuals (miner’s canaries) do not want to ‘take sides’ so they become human ‘buffers’ who embody this polarizing split in order not to ‘take sides’ (they allow the ‘sides’ to form within their own self).  ALL OF THIS COMES ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EMBRACE OF THE ABSTRACT LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM AS THE BASIS OF THEIR ‘REASON’.  (Don’t forget, our sensory experience (sensorimotor rhythms etc.) gives more basic but ineffable understanding of experience.  ‘Reason’ is only a crude tool (even though it’s explicitness impresses us) that falls innately short of our sensory experience; however, reason is effable while sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao is ineffable (not shareable by language).

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta embrace reason based on BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (the boil is the flow and only appears separate).  Reason based on BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, can be suffested in language; e.g. by speaking in terms of ‘duning’ (wave-field resonance) rather than ‘dunes-that-shift-and-grow’.  The same for ‘humaning’ (wave-field resonance).  This is the EASTERN mode of reason which is not exposed to the schizophrenia (of the collective and/or individual) as the WESTERN mode of reason is.  The Tao is nevertheless the un-reduced reality directly available to us through our senses (e.g. our innate wave-sensing or resonance-sensing which gives rise to forms in the flow such as ‘organisms’.

DON’T FORGET, THE TAO THAT CAN BE TOLD IS NOT THE TRUE TAO.  THAT IS, OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE IS OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, WHILE LANGUAGE-BASED ‘REASON’ IS A LESSER FORM OF UNDERSTANDING, THAT EMERSON POINTS OUT IS THE ‘TOOL THAT HAS RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN’.

Neurofeedback is one means of breaking the out-of-control hijacking of our understanding by ‘reason’ and put us back in touch with our sensations which are our means of understanding the ineffable inclusion in the Tao. But first we have to acknowledge that ‘reason’ is problematic, particularly the schizophrenia inducing reason that comes with the logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM, the popular logic of Western culture that splits the social collective into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and for sensitive miner’s canaries who don’t like to ‘take sides’, it splits them into mutually opposing poles as in ‘bipolar disorder’, making the ‘abnormal’ by the standards of those who accept the splitting into conservative and liberal.

REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL ‘REASON’ BASED AND ‘REASON’ COMES FROM REDUCING THE INEFFABLE TO THE EFFABLE.

Reducing ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao to an ‘effable’ ‘reason’ -based account of such ineffable experience is what gives rise to the emergence and development of the tool of language and grammar.   Western culture schizophrenia arises where we let this tool of ‘reason’ ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.

“Reason” in language! …  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’

So long as we are using ‘reason’ to try to figure out what is wrong with our thinking, we are in a Sisyphusian struggle akin to trying to bite our own nose (‘schizophrenia’) or trying to change the drive-train on our car while driving in it.

Goedel’s theorem of incompleteness of all finite systems of logic says that reason can’t be used to overcome its own innate limitations.  Reason reduces the ineffable Tao to something effable, called ‘reason’, which is no longer the Tao but something innately less.  The issue described by Emerson of ‘the tool (of reason) running away with the workman, the human with the divine’, is what Nietzsche (an admiring reader of Emerson) is talking about in regard to our Western culture practice of using ‘reason’  that imputes the power of sorcery to ourselves via the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

REASON (as in the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium) IS A CRAZY-MAKER, A BREEDER OF SCHIZOPHRENIA THAT PLAYS OUT IN THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE AS THE CONSERVATIVE-LIBERAL BIPOLAR DISORDER, OR IN THE INDIVIDUAL AS AN INDIVIDUAL ‘BIPOLAR DISORDER’ (SCHIZOPHRENIA)

IT IS ‘CRAZY’ TO LET REASON ‘TRUMP’ SENSORY-EXPERIENCE-UNDERSTANDING THAT COMES THROUGH INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (AKA ‘THE TAO’).

The ‘bipolar disorder’ that manifests in the social collective as the conservative-liberal ‘reasoning’ split comes from the same language and grammar source as the bipolar disorder that arises within the individual; i.e. the ‘double error’ of naming to impute thing-in-itself being (first error) conflated with grammar that conflates the first error by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

NOTE THAT BECAUSE THE SPLITTING OF THE COLLECTIVE GIVES RISE TO PLURALITIES OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT EACH OTHER ‘AGAINST EACH OTHER’, THE SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT ‘ABNORMAL’ (IT IS ‘NORMAL’) WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THIS SPLITTING IS WITHIN ONESELF AND IT STANDS OUT AS ‘ABNORMAL’ SO THAT THE ‘COLLECTIVE OF BIPOLAR NORMALS’ WILL TRY TO HELP THE INDIVIDUAL BIPOLAR ‘ABNORMAL’ RETURN TO THE COLLECTIVE BIPOLAR ‘NORMALITY.

* * *

In the simplest terms, Western culture has built into its language and grammar a ‘double error’ which invokes, in the abstracting intellect, an innately ambiguous bipolar splitting which, in the case of the social collective, divides the collective into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ factions, and in those sensitive ‘miner’s canaries’ who want to avoid ‘joining in such polar faction-building, ’embody’ this language-and-grammar induced psychological splitting within their own ‘self’.  REMEMBER! … this splitting is a psychological impression that comes from language and grammar, — WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, … by way of the ‘double error’ where, for example, in the relational transformation we know as ‘duning’.

In reducing resonance (‘duning’) with the double error, we (first error) use ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself existence to one of the lobes in the washboard-appearing resonance train, and conflate this with grammar (second error) that imputes to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself, the power of sourcing actions and developments (second error).  By way of superficial ‘appearance’, we can separate out (as if using a marking pen on a photograph) a ‘particular lobe’ in the ‘washboard-like’ visual pattern of the resonance-induced (wave-field-induced) multi-lobe forming (duning) of sand, dust, bio-matter etc., … and then, having outlined a single lobe in the resonance based ‘washboard’, start speaking of ITS DEVELOPMENT and ITS MOVEMENT, as if BY ITS OWN POWERS OF ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT (i.e. ‘this dune is growing longer and taller and in shifting to the East’).

THIS IS WHERE AND HOW ‘REASON’ TAKES OVER IN REDUCING THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM TO DOUBLE ERROR BASED ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN (NOTIONAL) POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

The reduction of the resonance-phenomenon (wave-field phenomenon) of ‘duning’ (as available to our sensory experience even though it is a non-local, non-material relational phenomenon), to the local, material terms of ‘the dune’ and ‘what the dune does’ illustrates ‘what is lost’ in such Western-culture-habitual language and grammar ‘double error’ based reduction.  What is ‘gained’ is our being able to share (some reduced semblance of) what is inherently ‘ineffable’ since resonance is the manifesting of the tranforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’ which is inherently non-local and non-material (non-explicit).

REASON BASED ON THE DOUBLE ERROR SERVES AS A CRUDE MEANS OF SHARING THE INEFFABLE (CRUDE BECAUSE IT ENTAILS ‘DROP OUT’ OF ESSENTIAL MEANING.).  But we win some as we lose some . THE HUGE GAIN HERE IS THAT THE EFFABLE IS EXPLICITLY SHAREABLE WHILE THE INEFFABLE IS NOT EXPLICITLY SHAREABLE (in other words, it is not the ‘ineffable’ that is being shared but some reduced surrogate.  For example, I can utter the word ‘duning’ and/or ‘resonance’ but these terms imply only non-local, non-material wave-field phenomena, relational forms of understanding that do not support REASONING.

In order to reduce our relational understanding (this which comes to us directly through our sensory experience) to make it fit for REASONING, we resort to ‘the double error’ of language and grammar.  By reducing our experiencing of the ineffable by way of the double error of language and grammar to render it fit form REASONING, we impute God-like powers of jumpstart creating to abstract name-instantiated things-in-themselves. This is nevertheless a very useful tool (it enables SHARING a crude reduction of our unique ineffable experience), but when the tool is used not simply in an inference oriented support role (e.g. as in poetic inference/allusion) but as a ‘substitute reality’, we have a problem that Nietzsche alerts us to as follows;

“Reason” in language! …  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’

 

* * *

 

FOOTNOTE:  Nietzsche quote (in English and German) on the deceptiveness of ‘reason’ in philosophy — (Proposition 5 in Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols.

 

Chapter 5.

“Reason” in Philosophy

 

At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say “we” for politeness’ sake.) Formerly, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, conversely, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error. So certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. 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 capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.

Very much later, in a world which was in a thousand ways more enlightened, philosophers, to their great surprise, became aware of the sureness, the subjective certainty, in our handling of the categories of reason: they concluded that these categories could not be derived from anything empirical–for everything empirical plainly contradicted them. Whence, then, were they derived?

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

 

(Original German)

Kapitel 5

Die »Vernunft« in der Philosophie.

 

 

– Stellen wir endlich dagegen, auf welche verschiedne Art wir (– ich sage höflicher Weise wir…) das Problem des Irrthums und der Scheinbarkeit in’s Auge fassen. Ehemals nahm man die Veränderung, den Wechsel, das Werden überhaupt als Beweis für Scheinbarkeit, als Zeichen dafür, daß Etwas da sein müsse, das uns irre führe. Heute umgekehrt sehen wir, genau so weit als das Vernunft-Vorurtheil uns zwingt, Einheit, Identität, Dauer, Substanz, Ursache, Dinglichkeit, Sein anzusetzen, uns gewissermaaßen verstrickt in den Irrthum, necessitirt zum Irrthum; so sicher wir auf Grund einer strengen Nachrechnung bei uns darüber sind, daß hier der Irrthum ist. Es steht damit nicht anders, als mit den Bewegungen des großen Gestirns: bei ihnen hat der Irrthum unser Auge, hier hat er unsre Sprache zum beständigen Anwalt. Die Sprache gehört ihrer Entstehung nach in die Zeit der rudimentärsten Form von Psychologie: wir kommen in ein grobes Fetischwesen hinein, wenn wir uns die Grundvoraussetzungen der Sprach-Metaphysik, auf deutsch: der Vernunft, zum Bewußtsein bringen. Das sieht überall Thäter und Thun: das glaubt an Willen als Ursache überhaupt; das glaubt an’s »Ich«, an’s Ich als Sein, an’s Ich als Substanz und projicirt den Glauben an die Ich-Substanz auf alle Dinge – es schafft erst damit den Begriff »Ding«… Das Sein wird überall als Ursache hineingedacht, untergeschoben; aus der Conception »Ich« folgt erst, als abgeleitet, der Begriff »Sein«… Am Anfang steht das große Verhängniß von Irrthum, daß der Wille Etwas ist, das wirkt, – daß Wille ein Vermögen ist… Heute wissen wir, daß er bloß ein Wort ist… Sehr viel später, in einer tausendfach aufgeklärteren Welt kam die Sicherheit, die subjektive Gewißheit in der Handhabung der Vernunft-Kategorien den Philosophen mit Überraschung zum Bewußtsein: sie schlossen, daß dieselben nicht aus der Empirie stammen könnten, – die ganze Empirie stehe ja zu ihnen in Widerspruch. Woher also stammen sie? – Und in Indien wie in Griechenland hat man den gleichen Fehlgriff gemacht: »wir müssen schon einmal in einer höheren Welt heimisch gewesen sein (– statt in einer sehr viel niederen: was die Wahrheit gewesen wäre!), wir müssen göttlich gewesen sein, denn wir haben die Vernunft!«… In der That, Nichts hat bisher eine naivere Überredungskraft gehabt als der Irrthum vom Sein, wie er zum Beispiel von den Eleaten formulirt wurde: er hat ja jedes Wort für sich, jeden Satz für sich, den wir sprechen! – Auch die Gegner der Eleaten unterlagen noch der Verführung ihres Seins-Begriffs: Demokrit unter Anderen, als er sein Atom erfand… Die »Vernunft« in der Sprache: oh was für eine alte betrügerische Weibsperson! Ich fürchte, wir werden Gott nicht los, weil wir noch an die Grammatik glauben…

 

* * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insight: The Conservative – Liberal Schizophrenia

0

INTRODUCTION:

Of the logos, which is as I describe it, people always prove to be uncomprehending both before they have heard it and once they have heard it. For, although all things happen according to the logos, people are like those of no experience, even when they do experience such words and deeds as I explain when I distinguish each thing according to its phusis (nature / constitution) and declare how it is; but others are as ignorant of what they do when awake as they are forgetful of what they do when asleep.

Those who hear and do not understand are like the deaf. Of them the proverb says: “Present, they are absent.”

— Heraclitus

Heraclitus’ above cryptic comment reflects the problem of shifting from the classical Western ‘EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium’ to the modern physics ‘BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (quantum logic), the latter which is implicit in Heraclitus’ flow-based (Tao-based) understanding of reality.

To understand the phenomenon that Heraclitus is referring to, consider the problem that associates with speaking about ‘duning’ in the ‘desert’.  The Western culture adherent will speak in such terms as ‘the dune is growing larger and shifting to the West across the desert floor’.   The indigenous aboriginal understands this phenomenon in the same way as modern physics; i.e. this is relational transformation as associates with ‘resonance’ (wave-field phenomena).  Western culture is using the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that reduces this resonance phenomenon by ‘naming’ to impute local, independent thing-in-itself being (first error) and conflating this with grammar (second error) to endow the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The duning as resonance based transformation becomes, by way of this language and grammar based double error reduction, the dune that is growing larger and longer and shifting across the desert floor.

In a conversation where several Western culture adherents are joined by an indigenous aboriginal, the indigenous aboriginal will understanding the statement that “the dune is growing larger and longer and is shifting across the desert floor” because this puts together a ‘picture’ that she will understand in her usual ‘mitakuye oyasin’ manner (everything is in flux).  In other words, she will make the leap from the literal meaning of the words to the understanding in terms of being included in a transforming relational continuum.  The mental leap of reduction from the 4D or higher dimensional wave-space to the lower 3D space of local closed form material objects is easy, however, however, for someone who was taught from childhood to understanding reality in double error terms of Western culture adherents, the 4D understanding is not even ‘on their radar screen’, and the 3D reality is ‘all she wrote’.

While the indigenous aboriginal and the Western culture adherent will be able to communicate very effectively on many topics, their respective sense of the nature of the world they live in and their relationship therein will be very different.  For example, while the Western culture adherent will be understanding things according to the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, the indigenous aboriginal will be understanding things according to the BOTH/AND (quantum) logic of the included medium (where the duning is NOT ‘dunes moving across the desert floor, but wave dynamics manifesting through the sandy material (i.e. not coming from the dynamics of the sandy material).  Carlo Rovelli captures this as follows in ‘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’

As in Heraclitus complaint, people hear an explanation of flow-based reality (the Tao), which is like hearing an explanation of how the splitting of the figure and the ground (whorl in the flow) where these two things are just ‘appearances’ rather than having ontological separateness.  But Western culture adherent tend to immediately ‘lose their intuitive grasp’ of the purely relational ‘wave view’ and revert to speech that assumes an ontological ‘figure-ground’ splitting since Western culture language and grammar ‘builds this ontological splitting’ in, by way of the ‘double error’  of using ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself being to a relational flow-form and conflating this with by using grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

Since this reductive binary implication is ‘built into’ our Western culture language and grammar, our comments are implicitly ‘laden’ or ‘contaminated’ with it, contaminating everything we say with its binary implication.  This problem comes about from the property of Western language and grammar of reducing the ineffable understanding of inclusion in the Tao (flow) to effable, visual representation; i.e. i.e. understanding reality in the Tao sense requires us to shift our understanding beyond visual representation as-implied by Western language and grammar’ and the ‘double error’.

A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein

 * * *

 

The following note explores the source of ‘schizophrenia’ in Western culture as in the ‘splitting’ that divides ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ .  This exploration concludes that the root source of ‘schizophrenia’ is ‘reason’ aka ‘logic’ (the Western culture EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, as  gives rise to an innate ambiguity exposed in Gestalt psychology as the ‘figure/ground dichotomy’ and in Western culture generally (by way of the double error of language and grammar) as the ‘inhabitant/habitat’ split.  Modern physics, on the other hand, has required a non-binary, ‘inclusive’ logic, the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (Stephane Lupasco et al), which has been the traditional logic of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  This BOTH/AND logic of the included medium is suggested by the Tai-Chi symbol with its ‘ambiguous non-dual dualism (viewing this symbol elicits questioning in the psyche as to whether there is just one form with the appearance of dual aspects or whether there are two separate forms.).  This opens the way to a bifurcation that seems to be where EASTERN psyches and WESTERN psyches split, and also where modern physics departs from Newtonian physics.

The findings of inquiry into this ambiguity, by Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others suggest that Western culture adoption of the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium is the source of general ‘schizophrenia’ (i.e. schizophrenia as the ‘norm’) in Western culture, making it very difficult for those ‘miner’s canaries’ living within a Western culture adherent social collective, who ‘smell a rat‘ that unsettles their psyche, an unsettling that is treated by the Western culture at large as THEIR problem, and thus administering drugs and psychiatric treatments designed to return the miner’s canaries to thinking that is firmly grounded in the EITHER/OR logic of the included medium, the Western culture way of reasoning deemed ‘normal’.

The suggestion here, supported by the works of Bohm, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Emerson and others is that EITHER/OR LOGIC IS A CRAZY-MAKER since it is inherently ambiguous and it aeads to the polarizing of views in the social collective as manifests in the conservative and liberal factionalizing, and manifests WITHIN the Western culture acculturated individual that eschews ‘taking sides’ within a split social collective, by the individual’s having to throw their own bodily self into the ‘keeping things together’, an exercise akin to having one’s opposite-side limbs tied respectively to two teams of horses pulling in opposite directions.  That is, the sensitive ‘miner’s canary’ throws their very ‘self’ into the gap the heal the polarizing split in the Western culture schizophrenic social collective they are included in.

Modern physics shows that an understanding of physical reality requires the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, wherein the separateness of the boil and the flow is understood as ‘appearance’ and THERE IS NO BINARY, ONTOLOGICAL SPLITTING in the reality of our experience of inclusion in the Tao, aka the transforming relational continuum, aka the wave-field.

It is the Western culture ‘lock-in’ to EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium as the default tool for trying to make sense out of reality hat is the crazy-maker impacting Western culture social collectives, via a ‘splitting’ (schizophrenia) which manifests at the level of the social collective (as the conservative-liberal polar splitting), and if this splitting is resisted by the individual, at the level of the individual (rather than the splitting OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE, since the individual self becomes the ‘buffer’ for splitting in the social collective, this can give rise to huge pull-apart tensions in the individual who then seeks relief by cultivating an internal psychologically buffering self-other splitting within herself, which can become very disorienting and lead to behavioral instability diagnosed as ‘disorder presumed to be ‘root-source-arising’ within her’ (e.g. HER ‘bipolar disorder’ or HER ‘schizophrenia’).

In short, the problem begins with the general Western culture social collective’s embrace of classical EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium as the basis for intellectual constructions of reality, a logic that NOTIONALLY/PSYCHOLOGICALLY splits apart the ‘inhabitant’ from the ‘habitat’, the ‘figure’ from the ‘ground’  (by contrast with the ‘quantum logic’ of modern physics which understands the distinction between ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ or ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ as ‘appearance, as with a boil in flow (e.g. a dynamic relational equilibrium) rather than a split into two thing-in-itself ONTOLOGICAL ENTITIES.  EITHER/OR LOGIC IS A CRAZY-MAKER  WHICH SPLITS THE WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE INTO CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL, WHILE THOSE ‘NOT TAKING SIDES’  ACCOMMODATE THE SYNTHETIC LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR PROVOKED SPLITTING, WITHIN THEIR SELF, which can get very confusing. The Western culture majority, having ‘split’  on a whole-self basis into conservative or liberal camps and thus seen as a ‘normal’, become the embodied definers of ‘normality’  and thus the adjudicators of what is ‘not normal’  (those not embracing one or the other of the social split into conservatives and liberals but try to buffer the split within their own ‘self’ fall into the category of ‘abnormals’  (bipolars, schizophrenics) for whom the ‘cure’  or  those the schizophrenic normals see as ‘abnormals’ lies in restoring the ‘abnormals’ the schizophrenic ‘normal’.

The problem with language is the problem with using language to ‘reason’  where we invoke the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.  ‘Poetry’ on the other hand, serves us well (it employs relational inference as a means of sharing experience of inclusion in the Tao). ‘Reason’ based on the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, on the other hand, is a ‘crazy-maker’!

“Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter! — Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being.  Among others there was Democritus in his discovery  of the atom. “Reason”  in language!  (... wherein …  Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed..…)  ….. Reason” in language! …  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’

 

* * * end-of-introduction * * *

(more…)

Are Greta Thunberg and Climate Change Activists Deceived by the Double Error?

0

 

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 DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION OF THE INEFFABLE TO THE EFFABLE

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).

(more…)

Exploring the Ineffable-Effable Relation

0

SUMMARY: There is a connection between the so-called ‘fall from grace’ and the reduction of the ineffable to the effable.  In fact, these labels are references to the self-same reduction; i.e. the  reduction of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, to the re-casting of ourselves as name-instantiated ‘independent things-in-ourselves’ notionally vested with powers of sourcing actions and developments, as in the ‘double error of language and grammar’ pointed out by Nietzsche.

The ‘fall from grace’ is what part of the ‘coming of age’ program that Western culture adherents administer to their children, convincing their children that part of ‘growing up’ includes ‘passage’ from the non-responsible era of childhood to the ‘responsible era’ of adulthood.  This is how ‘sorcery’ is introduced to children in our Western culture adhering society.  When we are 16, … or is it 18 or 21 ‘years of age’, … the so-called age of maturity, we are then, according to Western society norms (a very unnatural ‘normality’) capable of  assuming responsibility for the ‘consequences of our own actions’.

This is where ‘sorcery’ gets injected into our psyches; i.e. by way of language and grammar which allows us to ‘pinpoint’ the ‘source’ of an action or development with the help of the ‘double error’.  Language allows us to use ‘naming’ to infer ‘local, thing-in-itself existence’ and grammar allows us to conflate this first error with the second error where we impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

(more…)

ted lumley's RSS Feed
Go to Top