APN

Developing Awareness of the INVENTED REALITY of Western Culture

0

 

SYNOPSIS:

Experiential reality, as understood by the indigenous aboriginal, and/or by the ‘indigenous aboriginal within each of us’, is inherently ‘relational’ and thus very different from the intellectual-cognitive ‘being’-based reality understood by the Western culture adherent, the latter’s ‘sense of self’ being re-engineered by the intellect to incorporate the ‘double error’ described by Nietzsche; i.e. the abstract ‘reality’ that is in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with ‘their own local powers of sourcing actions and developments’; a sense of ‘self’ also known as ‘the ego’.

The pre-acculturation centre of organismic understanding is topological (relational in a manner that is independent of the abstract notion of name-instantiated things-in-themselves’) as described by F. David Peat in Mathematics and the Language of Nature‘;

To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat,

It is therefore possible for Western culture acculturated individuals to ‘escape’ from the psychosis-inducing influence of double-error based abstraction, which is language-and-grammar (intellect) based, by re-developing direct access to natural relational understanding that has been ‘covered over’ and buried by our Western culture acculturation, to restore the relational mode of understanding to its natural primacy, and thus escape from the psychosis-laden Western culture with its ‘double-error’ based INVENTED REALITY.

Our desire to restore ‘relational reality’ to its natural primacy tends to have been ‘buried’, in Western culture adherents, by one’s imagined ‘role-play’ within the INVENTED REALITY that may be delivering an ego-inflating (double-error based) sense of ‘independent being’ with powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’.

 * * *

 

 

PROLOGUE: Exploring the essentials of ‘reality’, linguistically, as I am doing here, is limited by the ‘limitations’ of language.  The language based scheme of ‘constructing impressions of reality that prevails in Western culture; i.e. the language scheme which authors Western culture INVENTED REALITY, employs the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche) wherein relational forms are given psychological/intellectual representation by (Error 1) ‘naming’ to impute ‘persisting being’, and (Error 2) ‘compounding’ Error 1 by imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’.

This intellectual, language and grammar based Western INVENTED REALITY has, by way of ‘acculturation’ during our early development from infancy, served as an intellectual ‘operative reality’ that sits over top of and occludes the natural reality of our sensory experience.  That is, the natural reality of our pre-lingual relational (topological) experience that precedes name-instantiated intellectual conceptualizing is ‘covered over’ or occluded by language-and-grammar based intellectual constructions (INVENTED REALITY).

To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat, ‘Mathematics and the Language of Nature’ (referring to Piaget).

The radical departure from the inherent primacy of relational experience over the reduction, to language and grammar based intellectually constructed abstraction that serves as ‘reality’ is characteristic of Western culture.  By contrast, indigenous aboriginal cultures have developed language, and a method of using language, that does not ‘over-ride’ the inherent ‘relational’ nature of our experience; i.e. ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (all my relations) is an indigenous aboriginal expression that reminds one that ‘everything is related’ so that the relational dynamic as implied by constructing a web of relations is understood as the primary reality, while the named forms used to weave the relational web are expedients that can be forgotten once the relational understanding is gained.   Wittgenstein has also described this process although Western culture’s mainstream mode of INVENTING REALITY treats the abstract language and grammar constructions in terms of ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments’ … as the ‘operative reality’

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.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

(Wittgenstein’s final two propositions in ‘Tractatus Logico Philosophicus)

Wittgenstein’s approach in using language is to get beyond ‘things-in-themselves’ as implied by ‘naming’, to get to purely implicit, relational understanding.  This expedient employing of naming forms (which imputes explicit thing-in-itself representation) as an expedient to get to purely relational representation is ‘built in’ to the indigenous aboriginal languages, and into modern physics representations and is termed ‘bootstrapping’;

[Geoffrey Chew]: “when you formulate a question, you have to have some basic concepts that you are accepting in order to formulate the question. But in the bootstrap approach, where the whole system represents a network of relationships without any firm foundation, the description of our subject can be begun at a great variety of different places. There isn’t any clear starting point. And the way our theory has developed in the last few years, we quite typically don’t know what questions to ask. We use consistency as the guide, and each increase in the consistency suggests something that is incomplete, but it rarely takes the form of a well-defined question. We are going beyond the whole question­and­answer framework.”

So, as newborns of any culture, we sense relations; i.e. we ‘are’ relational forms in a transforming relational continuum.

Depending on which culture we are raised in, we learn languages that we can use to REDUCE our relational experience to linguistically expressible conceptualizations.  This is where the division has emerged between indigenous aboriginal cultures, whose languages preserve the natural primacy of relational reality (mitakuye oyasin), and Western culture adherents whose languages equip them for ‘speaking with forked tongue’.  For example, English language allows one to (a) construct a reality wherein the ‘boil’ sources the ‘flow’ (the behaviours of the individuals are the source of the behaviour of the collective), and/or (b) construct a reality wherein the ‘flow’ sources the ‘boil’ (the behaviour of the collective is the source of the behaviours of the individuals).  One bad applies spoils the whole barrel ‘works’ but so does ‘it takes a whole community to raise a child’.

This ‘forked tongue’ confusion in Western culture not only ‘divides the social collective’ (into ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’), it is at the origin of ‘The Divided Self’.  For example, we may attribute the source of our successes to ‘our self’ and the source of our ‘failures’ to the circumstances in which we are situationally included, or should it be ‘the other way around’?.  Which is the real source?

The more basic issue here, which is not present in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Buddhism/Taoism or Advaita Vedanta, is in assuming the ‘reality’ of a ‘source’.  While Newtonian physics made use of the abstraction of ‘force’ as a ‘source’ of actions and developments, Newton borrowed this from the realm of the ‘occult’.

“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’ 

Included in the Newtonian physics package of concepts is the ‘sourcing force’ which has no place in the relational transformation of modern physics, except as a language and grammar based abstraction; i.e. F=ma describes how a mass is accelerated by an applied force.  The ‘bouble error’ operates beneath this by first supposing the existence of a name-instantiated thing-in-itself notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  If this double error were true, Newtonian physics can elaborate on it and ’embellish’ our understanding, in spite of it being abstraction based on ‘the double error’ from the get-go.  For example, man’s ego has us see our ‘self’ as the ‘source’ of actions and developments and Newtonian physics does not question the ‘double error’ in the reasoned proposition we Western culture adherents make, for example, the reasoning that if Fred carries a 200 pound object up a flight of stairs to a 10 foot higher elevation, in 5 seconds, ‘the power he generates’ in the process will be (200 x 10)/5  =400 foot-pounds per second (1 horsepower is 550 foot pounds per second).

What is REALLY going on, is relational transformation in which the man is included; i.e. the man is a relational form in the transforming relational continuum.  To employ language and grammar to concoct the cognitive (intellectual-conceptual) impression that the man ‘generates’ (i.e. ‘sources’) action and development is the ‘double error’ that Nietzsche alerts us to (i.e. the name-instantiating of a notional thing-in-itself, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments).

The reality of our actual relational experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  WE ARE NOT ‘INDEPENDENT BEINGS’ WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS!   THAT IS THE DOUBLE ERROR!   That is, it is cognitive misconception facilitated by Western culture style language and grammar.  Of course, it is possible for a social collective (such as the Europeans who came to live in the same space and mix with indigenous aboriginals) to persist in employing the ‘double error based INVENTED REALITY’ as THEIR operative reality, even while interspersed within indigenous aboriginal culture adherents who continue to understanding ‘reality’ in a purely relational (mitakuye oyasin) sense.

The reality of the non-indigenous Western culture adherents is the ‘INVENTED REALITY’ in which the ‘double error’ based understanding prevails; i.e. the Western culture adherent sees himself as an ‘independent being’ with his own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  His cultural belief in INVENTED REALITY  makes him egotistical in that he will claim to be the ‘source’ of ‘productive developments’, while his ‘forked tongue’ capability will have him attribute  the ‘sourcing’ of ‘destructive developments’ to others or to the collective which he sees as ‘split apart’ from himself.

Meanwhile, the INVENTED REALITY is language and grammar constructed abstraction based on the ‘double error’; i.e. the use of ‘naming’ to psychologically create notional ‘things’-in-themselves’, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e. there is no such thing as ‘sourcing’ in the real world of our relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  As Whorf stated in his above-cited comment, the abstract concepts of Newtonian science come from language and not from our experience-based intuitions of the reality we experience inclusion in.

In the INVENTED REALITY that Western man employs as the ‘operative reality’, he refers to the skyscrapers, the highways and the air transportation systems ‘he has sourced with his ingenuity’ as ‘improvements’ on the ‘raw land’.   But that is intellectual self-deception of the ‘double error’ type.  The only possible dynamic in the reality of our actual relational experience within the transforming relational dynamic is ‘transformation’ (as with transforming relational forms in the transforming relational continuum).

We are all included in ‘relational transformation’; i.e. we are all transient forms within the transforming relational continuum, but, thanks to language and grammar, we are able to use a ‘double error’ to reduce the transforming relational continuum, conceptually (psychologically) to terms of notional (name-instantiated) things-in-themselves, notionally with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.   For example, the ‘first error’ allows us to name the relational form in the transforming relational continuum ‘Katrina’  (the hurricane) to impute to a swirling in the transforming continuum ‘persisting thing-in-itself existence’ (‘the psychological effect of ‘naming’), and concatenating with this the ‘second error’ of imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the thing-in-itself we just created with ‘naming’).  We Western culture adherents then proceed with employing the double-error-based ‘INVENTED REALITY’ as our ‘operative reality’.   We enthusiastically claim authorship of positively perceived ‘sorcery’ while vehemently denying responsibility for negatively perceived ‘sorcery’.  Of course, in the reality of our actual relational experience, ‘sourcery’ does not exist, there is only relational transformation.  Of course, ‘the reality of our actual relational experience’ is not the operative reality of Western culture.  The operative reality of Western culture is the INVENTED REALITY where ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ (‘angels’ and ‘devils’) doe exist, thanks to the ‘double error’ wherein we use naming to impute persisting ‘thing-in-itself being’ to relational forms and psychologically embellish this by endowing the ‘things-in-themselves’ with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.

A cross comparison of Western culture patterns of understanding reality with indigenous aboriginal patterns of understanding reality may elucidate on the psychosis cultivating propensities of Western culture and the relational stability cultivating propensities of indigenous aboriginal cultures.

Example of Western culture pattern of understanding reality;

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

The ‘double error’ of Western culture gives the individual the impression she is an ‘independently-existing thing-in-herself’ endowed with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is the source of the ‘divided self’ which occludes the topological understanding of the relational self of our early development (infancy) as a boil in the flow where the ‘self-other’ division is ‘appearance’.

Example of modern physics and indigenous aboriginal culture patterns of understanding reality;

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’

The Western culture INVENTED REALITY would have our intellectualizing mind picture ourselves as ‘independent beings’ strolling through a ‘habitat’ that is intrinsically separate from inhabitants such as ourselves, so that such language-and-grammar stimulated psychological impressions of ‘reality’ eclipse and occlude our relational experience based sense of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  We then see ourselves as independently-existing ‘sorcerers’ of actions and developments, no longer as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.

Such a distorted ‘Divided Self’ impression of reality comes to us by way of language and grammar which empowers the intellect to take control and demote relational experience based intuition from its natural precedence.  Thus, language is a kind of nemesis of Western culture acculturated man, since it is a tool which gives us the psychological capability of dividing ourselves out of the transforming relational continuum and recapturing ourselves (psychologically) as ‘independent beings’ with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments; whereby; the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.

* * *  * * *  * * *

As has been discussed elsewhere in this ‘series’ on how Western culture cultivates aberrance in the social dynamic, those ‘miner’s canaries’ that cannot let go of their intuitive grasp of the essentially ‘relational’ basis of reality, and who ‘have trouble’ with ‘walking the talk’ of the ‘double error’ wherein they must understand themselves as ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with their own innate powers of sourcing actions and developments (i.e. where they are forced to ‘grow an ego’), this breeds schizophrenia aka ‘the divided self’ since the ‘natural self’ is NOT separate from the world one is situationally included in.   This natural relational understanding is the ‘norm’ in indigenous aboriginal culture as it is in modern physics, however, it is seen as ‘illness’ in Western culture where the ‘divided self’ is the ‘norm’.  The divided self is the Western culture ‘norm’ that is deemed ‘mentally healthy’ yet in the case of the relationally sensitive, such ‘culturally-correct’ role-play as a ‘Western culture normal’ can bring on psychosis, the Western culture treatment for which is to restore the individual to the culturally accepted aberrant state that is the source of her psychosis.  While the alternative to restoring the overall dysfunctional Western culture collective to a natural relational equilibrium is an ideal (but impractical-in-the-short-term) goal, the recovery of the sensitive ‘miner’s canary’ from psychosis brought on by the stress of immersion in Western psychosis-inducing culture can be approached by;

(a) immersion within an empathic circle of others, as in ‘rehabilitation’ where ‘recovery’ is facilitated.  However, ‘recovery’ is seen in the Western culture as something which is undergone by the individual, whereas, the ‘recovery’ is in fact the recover of the relational social environment that the ‘miner’s canary’ has been moved into.  Western culture, following the recovery perceived as the ‘repairing of the individual’ when the ‘recovery’ is the repairing of the social relational ambiance the individual is included in, encourages the ‘healed individual’ to return to the psychosis-inducing Western cultural dynamic that is the real source of the psychosis, whereupon the descent into yet another bout of psychosis ensues.  In other words, what needs to be remediated to avoid psychosis is the social environment the ‘miner’s canary’ is situationally included in, rather than something within the miner’s canary.

(b) re-situation within a social-relational environment that is not heavily invested in Western psychosis-inducing (double error based) social dynamics.  For example, in social environments where mutual caring/empathy is in primacy over competition or corporate objectives infused with belief in the individual/organization/nation in the double error sense of a name-instantiated thing-in-itself, noitionally with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.   A point to remember is that the double error manifests within organizations that cultivate ‘double-error’ based beliefs such as ‘individualism’, ‘nationalism’ and ‘corporatism’.

The ‘double error’ that is foundational to Western culture INVENTED REALITY is intrinsically tied to ‘ego’; i.e. in social collectives that would have one see oneself as an independently existing thing-in-oneself with powers of sourcing actions and developments, ego rules, whereas in empathic relational collectives ‘inspiration’ is in a natural precedence over ‘ego’; i.e. Ego is a swelled head, inspiration is a full heart’  and avoidance of ‘double error’ based psychosis requires situating oneself within a relational dynamic that ‘runs on inspiration first’, ‘ego second’.  To invert this natural order is to let the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. In other words, the individual in the reality of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal culture, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, is innately ‘relaitonal, without ‘independent being’ and without ‘powers of sourcing actions and developments’, … such abstract conceptualizations being the produce of language and grammar supported only by the calculations of the intellect, and not supported by the experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
 * * * END OF PROLOGUE * * *

 

Unless one is born into and/or raised in an indigenous aboriginal and/or Buddhist/Taoist or Advaita Vedanta culture, it is not easy to assimilate the full ‘meaning’ of the understanding that we Western culture adherents have psychologically entrapped ourselves in an INVENTED REALITY.  I have continually explored and written about the INVENTED REALITY since it has been the source of rising psychological aberrance in our Western society that manifests in mass murders, psychological imbalances, political divisions and other abnormalities that we Western culture adherents have taken to be ‘the norm’;

 

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

 

Laing endorsed the similar views of anthropologist Jules Henry, author of ‘Culture Against Man’ whose philosophical investigations, like my own, suggest that Western culture is fomenting conflict within itself, as also in Nietzsche’s ‘double error’ (the use of language (naming)) to invent ‘things-in-themselves’ with the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments).

(more…)

Western Culture Breeds Psychosis: – How to Indemnify Oneself

0

 

Western Culture Breeds Psychosis: Here’s How to Indemnify Oneself.

 

FIRST, THE BASIC SOURCE OF CONFUSION: If you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, you will know that the Western culture treats this as an ‘abnormality SOURCED within YOU’ rather than as an ‘abnormality’ ’SOURCED within the aberrant dynamics of the culture you are situationally included in’.

 

The hidden, Western culture-inbuilt ‘crazy-maker’ or ‘source of psychosis’ is the belief in “reality” as constituted by notional “things-in-themselves notionally endowed with powers of sourcing actions and developments”.  This language and grammar-abstraction-based ‘INVENTED REALITY’ is by no means the equivalent of the relational reality of our actual experience as understood in modern physics and indigenous aboriginal and Taoist cultures.

 

The ‘Western culture’ way of thinking derives from letting intellectual impressions from language and grammar ‘over-ride’ our relational experience-based (and modern physics affirmed) understanding of humans etc. as relational forms in a transforming relational continuum. This ‘intellectual over-ride’ derives from applying ‘naming’ (which implies ‘fixed and persisting existence’) to transient relational forms in the flow, so as to conjure up a cognitive impression of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’.

 

Grammar complements and extends’ the illusion of the ‘thing-in-itself’ by notionally endowing the name-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Western culture thus uses language and grammar in this way to INVENT REALITY for intellectual/cognitive deployment as the ‘operative reality’.   This INVENTED REALITY ‘eclipses’ and ‘occludes’ (‘wallpapers over’) the relational reality of our sensory experience of inclusion within the relational continuum, a non-locally contained sensory experience that eludes capture in terms of language’s explicit and local ‘constructions’.

(more…)

Western Culture ‘Reality’: —A Belief in Sorcery

0

 

‘REALITY’ …. What is it?

 

INTRODUCTION:

Ernst Mach, in ‘The Analysis of Sensations’ exposed how Western culture makes use of two ‘orthogonal’ impressions of ‘reality’ as associates with (a) Physics (classical/Newtonian), and (b) Psychology.  This essay explores how these two modes of ‘reality’ relate to one another in the manner of the ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ parts of a ‘complex variable’; i.e. physics + i*psychology.  The respective ‘realities’ that form from PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY derive from the manner IN WHICH WE POSE QUESTIONS.

PHYSICS QUESTIONS are formulated by assuming that the reality is ‘CAUSALLY SOURCED’ by the actions of material things-in-themselves (the psychological artifact of ‘naming’ relational forms in the flow [the transforming relational continuum]).  E.g. “The rotten apple is the CAUSAL SOURCE of the corrupting of the barrel of apples.

PSYCHOLOGY QUESTIONS are formulated by assuming that reality is ‘RELATIONALLY SOURCED’ through the senses; i.e. the ‘sourcing’ is NOT dependent on notional ‘things-in-themselves’ abstractly fabricated by ‘naming’ relational forms in the flow; the sourcing is instead coming from the relational influence of the collective one is included in;  E.g. “It takes a whole community to raise a child”. That is, the child’s development is not simply inside-outwardly sources as in PHYSICS and ‘genetics’.

‘Reality’ in the Agatha Christie thriller is all about asking questions in the PHYSICS manner where unfolding developments are assumed to be CAUSALLY SOURCED.  The investigation ENDS once the ‘source’ that lies at the very beginning of a causal chain of events has been discovered.

‘Reality’ in the Victor Hugo novel ‘Les Miserables’ as also in the classic ‘Robin Hood’, are all about how the tensions of relational disparities are the INDUCTIVE SOURCE of developments, which are nevertheless explored by a line of questioning that seeks to discover the CAUSAL SOURCE to what would, INSTEAD, be more fully understood ‘RELATIONALLY’ (PSYCHOLOGICALLY)’; i.e. nature is innately balance-seeking.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF LANGUAGE plays an important role in how we formulate questions; i.e. languages that reduce relational forms to notional ‘independent things-in-themselves’ offer different forms of ‘traction’ in posing questions.  For example, indigenous aboriginal languages preserve the relational nature of reality, by employing a web of relations (naming is only an intermediate step for alluding to an inherently relational reality’.  Modern physics reaffirms this as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ (Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler).   By the same token, Wittgenstein, in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, speaks of employing a web of relations as a ‘ladder’ to induce a relational understanding that lies innately BEYOND the explicit language instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ animated by grammar, to imply it.

What comes out of this abstract system of language-instantiated (i.e. ‘naming-instantiated’) EXPLICIT things-in-themselves with grammar instantiated “powers of sorcery of actions and developments” is an INVENTED REALITY that serves Western culture as an OPERATIVE REALITY.   The ‘REALITY’ of our sensory experience, as Mach points out in ‘The Analysis of Sensations’ is relational and it runs deeper than the abstract ‘INVENTED REALITY’.

As Western culture language and grammar users, we are intrigued by, as in an Agatha Christie mystery, the manner in which a cleverly constructed web of questioning can ‘home in on the ‘truth’, in a PHYSICS BASED CAUSAL SENSE, where the climax and end-point of the inquiry lies in the exposing of the CAUSAL SOURCE of the EVENT whose ‘SOURCING’ is ‘IN QUESTION’.   But who says that there should be a causal ‘source’ that is ‘responsible’ for some or other emergent development?

THIS EXPECTATION DERIVES FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH WE USE LANGUAGE TO FORMULATE ‘QUESTIONS’.   THIS IS THE ‘PHYSICS’ BASED APPROACH TO FORMULATING QUESTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE ‘PSYCHOLOGY’ BASED APPROACH TO FORMULATING QUESTIONS.

WHAT IS INTENDED BY ‘PHYSICS’ IS ‘NEWTONIAN PHYSICS’ since modern physics understands emerging phenomena as innately relational in origin; e.g;

PSYCHOLOGY, on the other hand, as in Mach’s ‘Analysis of Sensations’, understands ‘reality’ in IMPLICIT terms of relational influence.  INQUIRY IN THIS PSYCHOLOGY ORIENTED VIEW opens the way into an infinite web of relations, as in the case of moving deeper into the question of ‘sourcing’ of the child’s behaviour. Meanwhile, in PHYSICS, by having ‘named the child’ (i.e. by having named the relational form in the transforming relational continuum) and thus having notionally imputed ‘thing-in-itself existence to him, there now exists a notional EXPLICIT, locally anchored JUMPSTART SOURCE for actions and developments; … at least this is so in the language and grammar interpreting mind.  How do we reconcile these very different understandings of ‘reality’; i.e. the EXPLICIT reality of PHYSICS and IMPLICIT reality of PSYCHOLOGY?

 “In the book ‘Causality and Chance in Modern Physics’ Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”  –The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality: Michael Talbot:

Clearly, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND “REALITY”, … “PHYSICS” (Newtonian), and “PSYCHOLOGY”.

As it turns out, WHICH type of understanding of reality we get, is determined by the type of questions we pose.

Both the physicist and the psychologist, therefore, have to work with ‘two worlds’ that are ‘heterogeneous’, the physical and the psychological because of this ‘mutual dependence’ of each one on the other, … but this situation is not inevitable, it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms – Mach

In the Agatha Christie ‘Whodunnit’, our ‘detective inquiry’ aims to ‘detect’ and ‘unveil’ the wellspring or ‘jumpstart SOURCE’ of a notable action or development.  The excitement and tensions build as the reader follows the ‘detective’ in his quest to ‘detect the SOURCE’ of an action or development in question. This is the REALITY OF PHYSICS and it is just ONE WAY OF POSING QUESTIONS, where the reader/listener tends to ‘lock-in’ to the trail of investigation and discovery that aims to ‘dis-cover’ the SOURCE of the ACTION OR DEVELOPMENT ‘IN QUESTION’.

The quest of discovering the ultimate EXPLICIT JUMPSTART SOURCE of an event or development is central to the investigations of PHYSICS.  It is like searching for ‘the source of the Nile’.  English is one of those languages that captures relational reality in the abstract terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ and their grammar-imputed ‘actions and developments’.   Such language and grammar delivers an ‘INVENTED REALITY’ that does not arise in relational languages wherein ‘reality’ is purely relational.  ‘Dances with Wolves’ is exemplary of linguistic portrayals of reality that ‘bottom out’ in webs of relations as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.  In this approach, one employs language for articulating a purely relational reality based on IMPLICIT SOURCING.

The reality arising from the QUESTIONS POSED BY PHYSICS assumes the reality of ‘material things-in-themselves’ with the notional powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’ as in the Agatha Christie thriller.  The reality arising from the QUESTIONS POSED BY PSYCHOLOGY assumes the inherent primacy of RELATIONS over the notional existence of ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ WITH THE NOTIONAL (GRAMMAR-GIVEN) POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  The suggestion of ‘sourcing’ is operative in the ‘reality’ formulations of both PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY, however, the SOURCING is EXPLICIT IN PHYSICS AND IMPLICIT IN PSYCHOLOGY,

Agatha Christie’s way of posing questions induced us to follow her in a PHYSICS like quest to discover an EXPLICIT SOURCE.  Victor Hugo’s way of posing questions took our inquiry into a deeper level; i.e. it did not stop with PHYSICS’ EXPLICIT SOURCE as a response to the question ‘who stole the loaf of bread’ (Jean Valjean), … but without even considering such abstraction (based on notional things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments), but homed in on the deeper level of understanding in terms of relational imbalances; i.e. the IMPLICIT SOURCE.

As Mach has pointed out, even though, in Western culture, people are DIVIDED in their conceptualizing of ‘reality’ in terms of …. ‘nature’ (explicit sourcing) of PHYSICS, or, …. ‘nurture’ (implicit sourcing) of PSYCHOLOGY, there is no need to employ the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third.  Instead, we can employ the AND/AND logic of the included third which is also referred to as ‘quantum logic’ by Stéphane Lupasco;

“To every phenomenon or element or logical event whatsoever, and accordingly to the judgment which thinks of it, the proposition which expresses it, to the sign which symbolizes it must always be associated, structurally and functionally, a logical antiphenomenon, or anti-element or anti-event and therefore a contradictory judgment, proposition or sign in such a fashion that the former can only be potentialized by the actualization of the latter, but not disappear such that either could be self-sufficient in an independent and therefore rigorous non-contradiction – as in all logic, classical or otherwise, that is based on an absoluteness of the principle of non-contradiction.”

The point half-way between actualization and potentialization is a point of maximum antagonism or ‘contradiction’ from which, in the case of complex phenomena, a T-state (T for “tiers inclus”, included third term) emerges, which is capable of resolving the contradiction (or ‘counter-action‘), at another, higher level of reality. “  – Lupasco, Stéphane., Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie, 1951.

[see also; ‘Stéphane Lupasco et le tiers inclus. De la physique quantique à l’ontologie’, by Basarab Nicolescu]

Thus, in Victor Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables’, THE DIVIDED SELF associates with the optional BELIEF in these two different levels of reality, where the IMPLICIT (RELATIONAL) REALITY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THE EXPLICIT (RATIONAL) REALITY OF PHYSICS seem to be on a collision course.  As Mach points out, the conflict arises by way of posing this question to ourselves, as regards the true nature of the sourcing of actions and developments [whether EXPLICITLY AS IN PHYSICS, or whether IMPLICITLY as in PSYCHOLOGY]. Mach, in ‘The Analysis of Sensation’ points to the false premise underlying both.  The false premises are termed the ‘double error’ by Nietzsche, … (1) the name-instantiating of notional ‘independent beings with (2) the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments’.  These errors are resolved by ‘going beyond language and grammar’ and understanding the dynamics of ‘reality’ in terms of the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in.

 

* * * END OF INTRODUCTION * * *

 

 

Here’s a ‘simple representation’ of the understanding of ‘reality’ [a representation common to Mach, Bohm, Nietzsche et al] that I have been working on.   It is ‘simple’ to present, but maybe ‘not so simple’ to open oneself up to accepting as ‘a reality’ that is more ‘real’ than our current ‘operative version’ of reality.

 

Ernst Mach’s ‘Analysis of sensations’ is ‘right on target, in my view, and supports a whole raft of philosophical investigations, such as those by Nietzsche, Bohm, Wittgenstein

 

Philosophers of ‘physics’ such as Erich Jantsch have a very similar understanding of ‘reality’ as Ernst Mach (as in Mach’s ‘Analysis of Sensations’), and have described ‘reality’ in term of ‘three levels’.  Later philosophers such as Jantsch have an advantage in the means of expressing the same thing as Mach, since Mach’s writings preceded holography (theory in 1948 by Dennis Gabor, demonstration with lasers in mid 1960’s, Nobel prize for Gabor in 1971).  That is, the concept of reality of images being included within an energized space (not as separate entities’ but as flow-features or ‘appearances’ within a transforming relational continuum was not easily conceivable by Western culture adherents who use vision of ‘naming-reified relational forms out there in front of us’ as the basis for our ‘Invented Reality’.

(more…)

Why Western culture language-based Invented Reality ‘appears to work’ and how its psychosis inducing influence is concealed.

0

Author’s Prologue:

 

Ok, all I really need to say to capture the psychosis built into Western culture is to point to the ‘double error’ which sets up the abstract (aberrant) concept of ‘naming-instantiated being’ as the stem for notional powers of sourcing actions and developments’.

 

If one believes in this ‘double error’, one is a Western culture adherent, who believes in the ‘reality’ of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ (beings) with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This psychological ‘double error’ comes in the form of ‘humans’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’.

 

I understand that most of the people I know and have ‘grown up with’, including most of my immediate and extended family, ‘buy into’ this Western culture psychosis inducing belief system, as I too, have formerly done.   Ok, nothing new as far as the world social dynamic goes, other than I now find myself in the position of a Mahavit as the Advaita Vedanta adherents call it.   What may be different in my case is that the psychosis-inducing influence of Western culture hits very close to home, and that makes me more sensitive to the overall damage being done and more in resonance with efforts such as those of ‘Mad in America’ to pick up where R. D. Laing left off in pointing out that what is called ‘normal’ in Western culture is the source of psychosis.

 

I personally believe that anyone who takes a serious experience-grounded look at the Western culture beliefs in name-instantiated ‘humans’, ‘nations’ and ‘corporations’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments will have to call ‘bullshit’!   Meanwhile, I can also see that the ‘lock-in’ due to ‘high switching costs’ is phenomenally large.  The ‘big lie’ as written about by Hitler and used by him has nothing on the ‘humongous lie’ of Western culture’s being-based ‘sorcery’.

 

So, where did this ‘humongous lie’ giving us humans and our nations and our corporations the powers of sorcery come from?

Wherever it came from, it seems to me that Benjamin Whorf is correct in pointing out that Newton put it into physics and physics became the quasi-religious basis for understanding ‘reality’.  That is, Newton, by way of (matter-sourced) gravity, invented ‘material bodies’ or ‘things-in-themselves’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Modern physics ‘backs out of such beings-with-powers-of-sorcery’ ‘reality’, dissolving it within the larger understanding of ‘field’ as energy-based relational influence. The ‘field’ based reality with its relational forms in the flow, is a reality WITHOUT any binary ‘inhabitant’ – ‘habitat’ split which thus avoids the dichotomous ambiguity as to whether ‘the inhabitant dynamics are sourcing transformation of the habitat, … or whether the habitat dynamic is sourcing transformation of the inhabitants (or, whether the binary splitting into ‘inhabitant and habitat’ is the psychological artifact of language and grammar as associates with the ‘double error’).

 

Today, we remain hung up on the Western culture belief in ‘beings’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.   This got ‘locked in’ via language and grammar that has us speaking in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ with the powers of sorcery such as humans, nations, and corporations.  As Nietzsche shows, we incorporated this concept into our intellectual conceptualizing of ‘reality’ by way of a ‘double error’, so now, when we speak and write in English and similar languages, we slip this ‘double error’ into our language-based conditioning of the intellect.

 

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

 

What we actually experience is relational transformation but we use language to articulate this in the abstract terms of ‘beings’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  ‘Lightning flashes’ is a case in point as is ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger, … Katrina is ravaging New Orleans, … Katrina is weakening and dissipating’…. This is a language based reduction of purely relational phenomena to depictions in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is the double error.  The lightning and the hurricane are relational forms that are appearance/apparition as associates with the transforming relational continuum.  In physical-experiential reality, there is no ‘thing-in-itself’ (a notional independent inhabitant that forces the intellect into a house-of-cards game-play of inventing a separate ‘habitat’ to give the ‘inhabitant’ a place to exist); i.e. there is no ‘thing-in-itself that ‘sources actions and developments’.  The same applies to all such language-based abstractions of ‘independent things-in-themselves’ such as human, the nation, the corporation, but language and grammar facilitate our making a ‘double error’ (circular reasoning aka petitio principii) and that’s the basis of the ‘Invented Reality’ that we (Western culture adherents) build into our intellectual reality-inventing rhetoric.  It is an ego-driven Invented Reality since ego is the psychological belief in locally incipient powers of sorcery.

 

In Western culture, there is no ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (relationall understanding) thus no matter how extreme the non-locally developing relational tensions may become, a violent elastic-band snapping rebalancing (as in Nietzsche’s lightning example), will be captured as Western language-and-grammar based ‘double error’ and brought into play to intellectualize purely relational phenomena in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally endowed with powers of sourcing actions and developments, thus giving rise to a sorcery oriented culture that celebrates and rewards ‘the sorcerers of good’ and punishes ‘the sorcerers of bad’ .

Note: ‘Sorcery’ (abstraction) based concepts give rise to the ‘double error’  innate ambiguity as in the ‘nature’ – ‘nurture’ dichotomy; i.e. ‘attenuating ‘the sorcery of bad’ is equivalent to ‘amplifying ‘the sorcery of good’. (arguing over which approach is best makes no sense since ‘sorcery’ is an unreal artifact of the intellectualizing imagination)  That is, what is ‘missed’ in both cases is the non-reality of ‘sorcery’ in the real (relational) world of our actual experience. (‘sorcery’ is the abstract product of language and grammar which is not found in our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum).

 

 * * * end of Prologue * * *

 

Why Western culture language-based Invented Reality ‘appears to work’ and how its psychosis inducing influence is concealed.

 

“English compared to Hopi is like a bludgeon compared to a rapier.” – Benjamin Whorf

 

Language seeks to capture and report on our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  However, its ability to do this constrains it to ‘voyeur’ views from the outside.

 

Our real-life experience is not constrained in this manner since we are relational forms within the transforming relational continuum.   This constraint of logical language was formally affirmed in Goedel’s Theorem of Incompleteness (of systems of logic) in 1931.

 

In ‘topological terms’, this is a problem akin to not being able to bite one’s own nose.  Nietzsche warns us of the ‘dodge’ that we use to ‘try to’ get around it which incurs a ‘double error’ which is what is infusing psychosis into the Western culture-adhering mind, since Western culture has put language-based intellection into an unnatural precedence over relational experience.  An example of this is the public panic over Orson Wells radio dramatization (1949) of ‘War of the Worlds’ which listeners mistakenly took for ‘reality’.  That is, the reality that was coming to people by way of language and intellect was over-riding their own natural relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  This language-based ‘reality’ is ‘Invented’ as we put together our own impressions, based on our translating the language into ‘psycho-visual imagery’.

 

In other words, it is not only possible, but it has become ‘routine’ for Western culture adherents to put language-based ‘Invented Reality’ into an unnatural precedence over their natural relational experience.  Of course, the ‘Imagined Reality’ of what it’s like to be in Bergen, Norway or etc, on the basis of film imagery etc. is no substitute for the experience of being there.  The difference can be compared to the difference in giving one’s child ‘sex education’ and ‘sex lessons’ (sex experience).  The film imagery, and visual imagery in generally, is understood by the intellect.   It is ‘perspectival’ while experience is ‘inclusional’.

(more…)

The psychosis-inducing Invented Reality of Western Society

0

 

Included contributors to this psychosis-inducing ‘Invented Reality’ are the Western systems of government, commerce, justice, education, medicine, and science (pre-modern physics) which, together, form a mutually supportive ‘house of cards’.

 

It has been said, for example by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, that the ‘big lie’ can be so big that the ordinary person lacks the audacity to ‘call it out’.   The phenomenon has also been found, in nonlinear dynamics, where patterns of activity, once established, ‘dig themselves in’ so that they are ‘locked in’ by ‘high switching costs.   Furthermore, in the Systems Sciences, investigators such as Martine Dodds-Taljaard, and György Jaros, co-authors of The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’, draw our attention to this same ‘big lie’ phenomenon permeating Western socio‐economic, political, educational and managerial practices, in general.

 

The suggestion is that something went awry with Western society thinking, ‘bigtime’, roughly 300 years ago, in the form of an invasive new mindset’ which was termed, in the systems sciences ‘suboptimization’ which refers to the arbitrary declaring of ‘independence’ of a system simply by ‘naming it’ and dividing it into ‘components’ by ‘naming’ the components, and thus psychologically reducing purely relational dynamics to terms of named ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Once this language-based psychological deconstruction of purely relational phenomena has been accomplished, the ‘split out pseudo-pieces’ are re-assembled with language and grammar and reconstituted as an ‘independent system’, notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This humongous lie has become a foundational truth in Western Invented Reaity.

 

The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’

“The above aphorism, attributed to Kenneth Boulding, points to the inherent weakness characterizing the mindset and socio‐economic, political, educational and managerial practices of Western Industrial society as it developed over the past 300 years. It has its basis in the analytic‐reductionistic scientific paradigm, which, despite the remarkable technological applications it spawned, is inappropriate, conflict‐generating and dysfunctional in a world characterized by global interconnectedness and mutual interdependence …” — György Jaros and Martine Dodds-Taljaard

 

The ’big lie’ is the cultivating of belief in an ‘Invented Reality’ created by ‘naming’ relational forms within the transforming relational continuum, to impute ‘thing-in-itself being’ to them, and then employing grammar to psychologically endow them with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

 

This Invented Reality’ is the ‘big lie’.  It is nothing like the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  This Western ‘Invented Reality’ has NOT been ‘bought into’ by indigenous aboriginals, Taoists, adherents of Advaita Vedanta, and Western culture sceptics among whom I count myself.

(more…)

Western Culture Belief in the Binary of Life and Death is Psychosis Inducing.

0

 

Author’s Prologue:

Dear Reader; Imagine for a moment that you have been born and raised in the indigenous aboriginal culture.  You know that you ‘understand reality differently’ than a Western culture acculturated person.  But you also know that modern physics has shown your ‘relational understanding’ to be very much in accord with modern physics.  If you can hold this understanding in your mind, as you read this, and thus remain open to the understanding that there is a relational (modern physics) world view that is more comprehensive than, and which ‘includes’ as a reduced representation, the ‘beings-wiith-powers-of-sourcing-actions and developments based Western Invented Reality, the option will then be available to reflect on which of these ‘realies’ merits primacy over the other.  In fact, if one puts the relational reality in primacy, the being-based reality is still accessible as a reduction of the relational reality, however, if the being-based reality is given primacy, the relational reality is ‘eclipsed’.

My philosophical researches (exploring the philosophical researches of many others) have turned up the following;

-1- Western culture ‘reality’ is nothing like indigenous aboriginal culture reality, which I guess is obvious, but the important point, to me, is this observation by David Bohm in this regard, which my own personal researching affirms (i.e. the foundational role of ‘relations’ as understood in indigenous aboriginal cultures);

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’

-2- Western culture reality in an INVENTED REALITY THAT IS BASED ON LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR

The important [understanding-inverting] point to pick up on here is that Newtonian physics is a simplified construction of reality based on the structures of language and grammar.  NOTA BENE! The point is that Western language and grammar CAME FIRST and Newton extracted his (Newtonian) physics from the structures of language and grammar; i.e. the noun (name) became the basis for ‘thing-in-itself beings’, and the ‘name-verb grammatical contribution because the basis for the concept of ‘thing-in-itself-based sourcing of actions and developments.

That is; the very basic foundations of Newtonian physics have become the foundations of the ‘Invented Reality’ that serves as the ‘operative reality’ of Western culture. Benjamin Whorf studied and compared the mapping between languages and cognitive impressions and came to the following conclusion; i.e. that Newtonian physics, and the Western understanding of ‘reality’ that comes with it, derives from language which first came up with the abstract notions of the existence of things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments;

“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’ 

Thus, it is not the case that Newtonian physics is ‘capturing’ ‘the way the world works’, … Newtonian physics is capturing the way people talk about the world; i.e. Newtonian physics is constructing an INVENTED REALITY based on the way that Western Europeans ‘express themselves linguistically’.  For example, humans are NOT REALLY things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments, that is an impression that comes from Western language based ‘talk’ that has been ‘codified’ as (Newtonian physics).   As modern physics informs us there are no ‘things-in-themselves’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments; … that is abstraction brewed up by language and grammar.

-3- ‘Lock-in-by high-switching costs’ is a common nonlinear dynamic that explains why Western culture, which serves as the dominant culture in the world (indigenous aboriginal cultures and Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta REALITIES are not the dominant ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’ in the modern world social dynamic). The ‘INVENTED REALITY’ based on the abstract notions of ‘beings’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments is the globally dominating ‘operative reality’ IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS THE PRECIPITATE OF EARLY WESTERN LANGUAGE STRUCTURE THAT WAS CAPTURED IN NEWTONIAN PHYSICS AS A FORMALIZED CODIFICATION OF THE SIMPLIFIED/ABBREVIATED WAY THAT WESTERN PEOPLES ARTICULATED THEIR OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIENCES’ i.e. in terms of notional ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves notionally with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The ‘Lock-in’ comes from incorporating in the social dynamic, for example, the rewarding and punishing of people or nations or organizations based on seeing them as ‘beings’ (things-in-themselves) with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is language-instantiated madness!   But it is the ‘INVENTED REALITY’ of Western culture that has been implemented as the ‘operative reality’ in Western social dynamics.  What this has produced is; (a) a comprehensive positive hierarchy of people elevated in social status and showered with honours and rewards [those perceived as beings whose powers of sourcing have given rise to actions and developments perceived in a favourable/exceptional light], and; (b) a comprehensive negative hierarchy of people demoted in social status and dumped on with abuse and punishments [those perceived as ‘beings’ whose powers of sourcing have given rise to actions and developments perceived in an unfavourable light.]

The ‘elevating’ of favoured people into positions of power and influence over changes to (evolving of) the social system and the dis-empowering of disfavoured people so as to remove their influence on changes to the social system constitute ‘lock-in’ that perpetuates the deploying of an archaic language-based ‘Invented Reality’ as the ‘operative reality’ of the Western culture social dynamic.

As ridiculous and ‘psychosis-inducing’ as this Newtonian physics based (early Western language-based) Invented Reality is, it continues to be the globally dominant ‘operative reality’ because of the massive lock-in it enjoys. People are elevated to positions of authority on the basis of their proficiency in ‘sourcing actions and developments’ deemed ‘beneficial to society. But in modern physics, there is no such thing as ‘beings’ with the power of ‘sourcing’ actions and development!     

One can thus see lock-in in terms of having given higher authority or even veto power to those who are most benefiting from the policies of elevating people like themselves.  The emperor does not want to hear that ‘the new clothes of Emperorship that he is wearing’ are ‘all in his head’.  In other words, the basis of his being rewarded and elevated in social status; i.e. his independent-being-based sourcing of actions and developments, …  is ‘imaginary’].  The concept of ‘being-based sourcing of actions and developments is the imaginary cognitive construct of language and grammar, as becomes evident in the relational view of modern physics and indigenous aboriginal cultures.  However;

We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.  – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’

To conclude this Author’s Prologue,

If we can summon up the audacity to consider it, Western culture has ‘piled up’ a massive ‘lock-in-due to high switching costs’ which is preserving the Newtonian physics based ‘Invented Reality’ featuring belief in name-instantiated ‘beings’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  The dimensions of this ‘lie’ that the Western social collective tells itself have grown so big that it would be unthinkable to acknowledge it.  It is like the ‘big lie’ described by Hitler in ‘Mein Kampf’ that is so big that most people don’t have the audacity to question it.  That is, there are no ‘beings with powers of sourcing actions and developments’, … such mind-hijacking grammatical fabrications are abstract reductions of the transforming relational continuum of our included experience. The boil and the flow are one and NOT two.

* * * * * * * * * * END OF PROLOGUE * * * * * * * * *

 

The concept of binary opposites (life and death being an exemplar) are the abstractions of language and grammar that the Western culture psyche tends to employ as a foundational ‘logical truth’ in its ‘Invented Reality’.  As Benjamin Whorf has shown, the ‘truth’ of binary opposites is not something that goes on in nature that we express with language, but something we express with language that contributes to our Western culture ‘Invented Reality’;

“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’ 

Modern physics does not see the ‘boil’ in the ‘flow’ in terms of binary [action=reaction] opposition as Western culture with its aberrant ‘Divided Self’ does [i.e. where language splits apart ‘habitat’ and ‘inhabitant’ as with ‘human’ and ‘environment’.  The distinction between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ is RELATIONAL APPEARANCE and not BEING-BASED.   The DIVIDED SELF of Western culture is the product of language and grammar; it is a corollary to the language and grammar based binary opposite of ‘life’ and ‘death’. (more…)

Recovery of Western Culture from the Problem of the Double Error

0

The ‘Double Error Problem’ is Western culture’s use of language and grammar to reduce purely relational experiential reality to the abstract combination of ‘beings’ (things-in-themselves’) with the power of ‘sourcing action and development’, in an ‘Invented Reality’ that ‘occludes’ and ‘takes the place of’ the natural reality of our relational experience.

“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 this commentary I would like to make the ‘double error problem’ and its psychological effect, overtly obvious.   The ‘double error problem’ is perhaps best described by Nietzsche, who ties it to ‘ego’.   It is the problem of ‘sorcery’, i.e. of linguistically pushing a notional ‘being’ underneath an action so as to suggest that the action is ‘sourced’ by a ‘sourcing agent rather than being purely relational as in the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in.

Nietzsche used the example of ‘lightning flashes’ where the lightning ‘is’ the flashing but in using Western language and grammar to articulate what is going on, we split the relational action into two parts; i.e. the ‘source’ and the ‘action’, as if the source is the author of the ‘action’;

The metaphor of the ‘boil’ and the ‘flow’ may be better in bringing forth fluid impressions which tie to ‘field’ in modern physics and to ‘the Tao’ in Taoism/Buddhism.

(more…)

Western Culture’s ‘Invented Reality’ – A Design for Dysfunction

0

 

Introduction:

Suboptimization of the human condition within the global diversity would only make sense if ‘humans’ were ‘independent beings’ (an abstraction that is NOT grounded in experiential reality).   But there are no ‘independent beings’ in a transforming relational continuum, ‘reality’ as understood by modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  Nevertheless, Western culture not only embraces such ‘suboptimization’, it celebrates the continuing advancement of the conditions of living enjoyed by ‘human beings’ irrespective of ‘the rest’.

The ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ is a concept wherein ‘independent existence’ arises from ‘difference’, in the manner of the ‘constant’ (persisting thing-in-itself) in mathematics that replaces continuing change/transformation, by means of the process of ‘differentiation’.  In human social dynamics, while the inter-relating activities of many people may manifest as relational webs, there may be no explicit separation from the larger web of relations in which a local human relational web is included (i.e. the relational-social system that is included within a relational-social suprasystem may be a purely relational phenomenon). Local polarized opposition may be the development that establishes a new ‘apparent’ ‘stand-alone’ entity.  The new entity arising ‘out of division’ may provide ‘psychological traction’ as a base for the sourcing of actions and developments.  The fact that the self-declared independence of a new thing-in-itself nation may have internal political poles (e.g. conservative and liberal polarization) suggests that that the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ can provide the psychological base for ‘independent being that can serve as a notional (psychological) ‘launching-pad’ for the sourcing of actions and developments; i.e. a notional ‘difference-based’ thing-in-itself.

The ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ thus appears to be a ‘means’ of  instantiating ‘being’.  As Carl Jung said;  “The self is made manifest in the opposites and the conflicts between them; it is a coincidentia oppositorum.”.  The opposition of ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ may not simply be ‘within the nation as pre-existing thing-in-itself’ but may instead be the coincidentia oppositorum that is the very basis of the persisting ‘thing-in-itself’.  As in the mathematics of differential calculus, the persisting ‘difference’ gives birth to a ‘constant’ (persisting thing-in-itself) that hijacks centre stage’ while the transforming continuum it was ‘abstracted’ disappears from view. Could the Western concept of an ‘independent nation’ acquire its ‘self-hood’ from a political coincidentia oppositorum?  Is the conservative – liberal split the psychological source of persisting ‘thing-in-itself being of the Western nation as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments?

But there are no such things as ‘beings’ outside of the language-based ‘Invented Reality’ of Western culture so this ‘suboptimization’ of the social dynamic, custom-tailored for humans seen as independently-existing beings (things-in-themselves), is a ‘design for dysfunction.

The aberrant thinking of Western culture that manifests in the ‘suboptimizing’ of planetary living conditions for the ‘human’ is the source of rising dysfunction given that there is no ‘independent being’ that associates with the intellectual abstraction that language identifies by the name ‘human being’.  As modern physics would have it (and indigenous aboriginal belief tradition), ‘everything is in flux’; i.e. we are relational features that form and unform within a transforming relational continuum.  Western culture language and grammar may ‘cover this story’ with the reductionist abstractions of ‘beings’, notionally with powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’, but such Invented Reality construction is not to be confused for (but is being confused for) the ‘reality’ of our experience of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum.

The fallout out from this Western culture confusing of ‘Invented Reality’ for ‘reality’ is the illusion of human engineered ‘suboptimization’ of living conditions for the convenience and benefit of ‘humans’.   The transformation of the world as we see it (intellectually understand it) based on a human convenience-oriented design, is a ‘design for dysfunction’.  The essential condition necessary for ‘suboptimization’ to ‘make sense’, is missing; i.e. the ‘independence’ of the ‘subsystem’ that is being ostensibly ‘optimized’.  Only in a language-based ‘Invented Reality’ can humans be considered ‘independent beings’, inhabitants of a ‘habitat’ that is ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that feed on it.

In the reality of our actual experience (rather than in the Invented reality of language and grammar constructions), the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum and there is no ‘inhabitant’ – ‘habitat’ dichotomy, other than that ‘invented’ by the intellect on the basis of ‘language and grammar’ constructions. (more…)

The Deception of ‘The New Year’

0

Do We Want to Liberate Ourselves from the ‘Deception’ of ‘New Year’?

Ok, one can understand the Chinese ‘Spring Festival’ that celebrates cyclic renewal, but ‘cyclic renewal’ does NOT connote an ‘ending’ to something and the subsequent ‘new beginning’ to something else.  Of course, if we decide to name an ‘epoch’ and at some point decide that ‘that epoch’ has run its course and name a ‘new epoch’, we can make it ‘sound’ (in linguistic discourse) as if the continuing relational transformation is being ‘pre-empted’ by the ‘death’ of one period of time and the ‘birth’ of a new period of time.

Is an ‘epoch’ ‘real’?  Epoch: … An extended period of time usually characterized by a distinctive development or by a memorable series of events.

Western culture seems to embrace the notion that the various ‘epochs’ are ‘real’, but surely they can only be Invented Realities’ since what is ‘really real’ (as validated by our actual relational experience and by modern physics) is the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in, which does not ‘break down into separate parts’.

Our ‘experiential reality’  is the ‘more comprehensive ‘relational reality’, and it is unlike our abstract language-based ‘Invented Reality’ . There is cause for concern here since Western culture employs ‘Invented Reality’ as its ‘operative reality’. (more…)

My Personal Foray Into Western Culture’s ‘Invented Reality’

0

 

My story is this.  I have been undertaking philosophical investigations since my ‘retiring’ from working as a geophysicist’ on my 55th birthday (feb. 28, 1996).  I was ‘champing at the bit’ to refocus my ‘philosophical physics’ investigations on understanding natural complexity (‘the way things work in a relative or relational reality).  This was partly inspired by my sense that Western culture based ‘organization’ is dysfunctional, and by studies of ‘exceptionally performing teams’ that I had undertaken on behalf of the organization I was working for, and which I was charged with putting into a ‘course’ for ‘managers’ (this was completed and received good reviews but was soon washed away by reorganization as the company was acquired and absorbed into a larger company.

What I was investigating in parallel was the link between Western culture and psychological distress of the type labelled ”bipolar disorder’ and/or ‘schizophrenia’, both of which involve struggles with a ‘split sense of self’.

I have continued these investigations over the past 22 years, and the findings along the way have continued to come into ‘connective confluence’ which, for me, provides a more comprehensive ‘relational coherence based’ understanding; i.e. the relational mode of understanding of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta.  This relational understanding is as described in modern physics (Geoffrey Chew, and John Wheeler) in terms of ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’. That is, this relational understanding has no dependency on abstract notions of ‘beings’ with notional powers of ‘sourcing’ actions and developments (aka ‘sorcery’).

I have looked for ‘consistency’, in the relational confluence of these ideas, with and ‘across’ the understandings of Nietzsche, Bohm, Wittgenstein, Lao Tzu (Taoism) and Advaita Vedanta.  An additional phenomenon that I felt had to be included in ‘solving for reality’ consistent with the relational confluence of these understandings was the notion of R. D. Laing that Western culture’s ‘normal’ is psychopathology in its adherents; i.e.;

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

(more…)

Go to Top