Exploring the Ineffable-Effable Relation
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.
Instead of the ineffable Tao or transforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’, that is ‘ineffable’ (an all-including relational flow-field filled with purely relational wave-field resonances), the double error of language and grammar allows us to ‘effable-ize’ our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao. This challenge of effable-izing the ineffable also arises in modern physics and has physicists resorting to oblique inference such as ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’. This approach to effable-izing the innately ineffable Tao aka ‘all-including wave-field’ is, broadly speaking , the approach of the EAST (indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta) while the WEST has chosen the ‘double error’ of language and grammar based abstraction that aspires to the same goal of rendering an ‘effable’ version (reduction) of the ineffable. ‘Sorcery’ is a double error based abstraction that allows us, within our intellectual conceptualizing capacity, to invoked local incipience of actions and developments so as to ‘effable-ize’ the ineffable Tao (the all-including wave-field or flow-continuum).
This reduction, for the purpose of effable-izing the ineffable, has been called ‘the fall from grace’. This fall from grace is reviewed in On the Marionette Threatre by Heinrich von Kleist at https://southerncrossreview.org/9/kleist.htm .
As Western culture adherents, we engineer this ‘falling from grace’ in our children by teaching them to accept their ‘coming of age’ at which point they become ‘responsible adults’ which means that they must believe in ‘sorcery’; i.e. in their own powers of sourcing actions and developments. This power of sorcery is accorded to any ‘name-instantiated entity’ thanks to the double error of language and grammar. Whether or not the naming is done ceremoniously with the magic sword of Excalibur tapping you on the shoulder, or whether by a crowd calling you a hero or villain, such naming is where the abstract concept of being endowed with powers of sorcery is brought into play in our ‘INVENTED REALITY’. It is an ‘INVENTED REALITY’ since there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in the sensory experience based reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao or wave-field) or the Great Mystery or THE RESONANCE).
Anyhow, the ‘age of majority’ is where we Western culture adherents have to accept, psychologically, the burden of our own explicit thing-in-itself existence and our being equipped with the powers of sourcing actions and developments (THANK YOU SO MUCH, LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, FOR INFUSING SUCH ABSTRACTION INTO OUR PSYCHE, A VERY USEFUL TOOL INDEED, SO LONG AS WE NEVER FAIL TO FORGET THAT IT IS ONLY A THROW-AWAY ‘WITTGENSTEIN LADDER’ THAT RENDERS THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE THROUGH AN INTELLECTUAL REDUCTION OF THE TAO TO LOCALLY INCIPIENT SORCERY). In other words, this tool that reduces the ineffable to the effable could get us into a lot of trouble if we start employing the reduced-to-effable intellectual understanding as our means of dealing with the ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao. For example, we would really screw ourselves if we redefined ourselves as ‘sorcerers’. This would bring on he replacement of ‘Inspiration is a full heart’ by ‘Ego is a swelled head’.
Some of the complications of our language and grammar (double error) based ‘fall from grace’ are discussed in this note, an overview of which is as follows;
THE FALL FROM GRACE: The terms ‘ineffable’ and ‘effable’ are needed in such a discussion.
INEFFABLE: Included Inhabitant Inspiration (the inductive animating influence in the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao)
Language and grammar are used to reduce the INEFFABLE to the EFFABLE as follows;
EFFABLE: producer-product pride/shame-paranoia are the light and dark faces of ‘sorcery’
The ‘fall from grace’ is where we use the EFFABLE not just as an expedient tool or Wittgenstein ladder wherein we use intellectual inference to point to the ineffable that lives innately beyond reach of the effable, … BUT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR AND REPLACE THE INEFFABLE.
The Western culture adherent’s ‘coming of age’ is the equivalent of a voluntary (actually, a culture pressured/imposed) ‘falling from grace’.
We come out of this ‘falling from grace’ as ‘reduced selves’ with our psyche’s imbued with the impression that we are separate and independent ‘sorcerers’ or ‘producers of products’ as is captured and incessantly repeated in our language and grammar usage by way of the ‘double error’.
This double error based ‘falling from grace’ (reducing of the ineffable to the effable) brings with it self-consciousness pride/shame/paranoia. This reduction of the INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE is a reduction of the relational to the explicit and binary of EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’, a reduction from inspiration to producer-product macho-pride or paranoid-shame. The latter are sorcery-based effable delusions that, within the psyche, eclipse/occlude or ‘wallpaper over’ the ineffable Tao: i.e. the sorcery-baed effable delusions wallpaper over our sensory experience of inclusion in the ineffable transforming relational continuum.
BUT WHAT A MESS THIS EFFABLE REDUCTION CAN PUT OUR PSYCHE IN! For example, it opens the door to the ambiguously unresolvable (because purely intellectually abstract) figure-ground split (inhabitant-habitat split) which sets up the abstract notion of ‘sorcery’ where the ‘figure’ is seen as an independent, self-animating agent with powers of sourcing actions and developments (the double error). This is like making the boil in the flow the notional sorcerer of the flow, which seems to ‘make sense’ but then someone else comes along (or perhaps another aspect of our self) and claims that the flow is sourcing the boil, and lo and behold we arrive at the conservative and liberal stand-off over the ‘true nature of reality’ as based on ‘the true nature of sorcery’.
The archetype for this splitting is the self-other split of Western culture adherents, which is, at the same time, the ‘double error’ of language and grammar. So long as we externalize this schizophrenia, such exo-schizophrenia gives us emotional support in knowing that there are others with who ‘split the same way we do’, and we can band together with these people who see reality in the same way we do so that we can work together on the challenges that come with that particular reality.
In other words, ‘exo-schizophrenia’ at least puts us in company with others who are on the same side of the sorcery split as us. If we ‘hedge our bets’, however, and carry this splitting around inside of us, such ‘endo-schizophrenia’ can be a very lonely and harrowing course to take, that turns us into a mental ‘chameleon’ that is continually ‘changing colours’ to match the environment one is currently situated in, to the point that one no longer ‘knows who one’s self is’, in the sense of one’s own ‘thing-in-itself’ based powers of sorcery. That is, insofar as we are going to believe in ‘sorcery’, there is stability in believing in EXO-SORCERY wherein EITHER the sorcery originates in and exudes from the individual OR that the sorcery originates in and exudes from the collective. If we withhold thinking of ourselves as exuding sorcery, perhaps because we are uncomfortable wearing the cloak of ego that goes with it (whether it is the ego pride of the individualist or the ego-pride of the nationalist or corporatist), but yet are unable to let go of the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’,
ENDO-SORCERY is not explicitly stated but is inferred by such awareness as “My father was a famous engineer, my mother had no name”. There are many references to this in regard to feminist complaint and/or in racial inequality complaint, but the general implication is that ‘sorcery’ is always over-simplification since reality is relational transformation that language and grammar tries to ‘put back together’ with the binary combination of extrusion (sorcery coming from the boil) and infusion (sorcery coming from the flow). These are both ‘producer-product allusions, but with ‘opposite signage’.
THIS IS HOW THE REDUCTION TO THE EFFABLE OVER-SIMPLIFIES THE INEFFABLE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, AND IN THE PROCESS, INTRODUCES AN INNATE POLAR OPPOSITE AMBIGUITY that shows up as the sorcery paradox of wind-and-flag, which sources the visible movement. The answer is that there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’, there is only ineffable all-including relational transformation, that we find it convenient to ‘effable-ize’ by means of the double error (imputing by name-instantiation, the existence of independent things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments, a double-error based tick to reduce the ineffable to the effable, albeit with this ambiguity that associates with the ‘splitting’ that is needed to break into the relational Tao-continuum, to insert the impression of local jumpstarting that renders the ineffable (because of the unbroken continuity of its wave-field dynamic) effable (because of its local jumpstart powers of sorcery).
Ego, pride, shame, guilt are part of the reduction package wherein we use the double error of language and grammar (the inference of ‘sorcery’) to reduce the ineffable (transforming relational continuum aka Tao) to double error based ‘effable’. The effable is a radical reduction of the sensory reality of our actual experience and therefore we get ourselves in hot water by deploying the effable as if it were the ‘operative reality’, as is the Western culture adhering way. Feminist activism has exposed the imbalance in our double error based capture of ‘reality’ in the one-sided terms of ‘sorcery’, however, the mistaken conclusion has been NOT THAT SORCERY IS A SCREWED UP INTERPRETATION OF REAL WORLD DYNAMICS, but rather than the accreditation of sorcery has been unfairly determined, so that the PERCEIVED needed revision is in regard to correcting our methods of assessing and attributing sorcery to sorcerers. This could keep us busy for a long time without coming to grips with the fact that ‘sorcery’ is a double error based abstraction of language and grammar. We can continue arguing over whether sorcery originates within the individual or within the social collective. In fact, sorcery originates from wherever we want to put a name-label together with an action verb. That is the Western culture adherent’s continuing pre-occupation.
* * * END OF SUMMARY * * *
The mental well-being of ‘sensitive miner’s canaries’ with an intuitive sense of relational interdependence, as is the case of those with an indigenous aboriginal upbringing, is going to be stressed by inclusion in a crazy-making Western culture social dynamic, where a ‘double error’ based belief in sorcery is the basic foundation of Western culture ‘operative reality’.
Imagine how the indigenous aboriginal (or a ‘sensitive miner’s canary’), who understands reality in terms of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum is going to feel as they discover that their self-worth appraisal within the Western culture is going to be based on their ‘sorcery’ achievements. They will be forced to claim ‘their rightful dues’ for ‘THEIR SORCERY’ (their so-called ‘producer-product accomplishments) even while, in their heart, they believe in ‘mitakuye oyasin’, as is also affirmed in modern physics. Not only can they NOT ‘take (or be given) credit’ for ‘their own positive sorcery achievements’, by the same token, they also can NOT ‘take (or be given) credit’ for ‘their own negative sorcery achievements’.
However, Western culture social protocols based on the Western culture understanding of ‘reaity’ will insist on imposing on them the notion of their having ‘their own personal powers of sorcery’ consistent with the double error of Western culture language and grammar. Without their compliant supporting of this foundational Western culture belief, the whole system of Western social hierarchy and its ego swollen hierarchy based reality would undergo a house of cards collapse, into, (and what could be worse for those proud and ego-swollen upholders of Western culture adherence), a reality akin to that of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, as also affirmed also by modern physics.
How hard is it for an indigenous aboriginal culture adherent to shift into Western culture adherent ‘sorcery’ based reality?
Research by Cochrane and Sashidharan shows that the incidence of schizophrenia in non-native born blacks in the U.K. is 3-5 times higher than native born blacks. As these researchers point out, this effect cannot be due to genetic difference or other sources within the individual. Their point is that a science that studies ‘mental illness’ is not going to explain what is going on in this case, a study of mental health (which extends the realm of investigation to include the social dynamic the individual is situationally included in) would instead be required.
However, ‘Newtonian science and reason’ employ an ‘operative reality’ that is based on ‘the double error’; i.e. it is an ‘operative reality’ that is in terms of intellectual noun-verb-predicate constructs [‘what things-in-themselves-do’] and it is only ‘intuition’ that acknowledges relational influence [non-local, non-visible, non-material influence as in a wave-field] as the source of physical phenomena. While such understanding of reality is available to our ‘intuition’, intuition is not incorporated in the rational investigations of traditional Newtonian science. As a result, ‘conventional science and reason’ stand in our way of understanding the physical reality of our natural experience, which includes ‘spiritual stress/distress’ as in ‘relational resonance/dissonance’;
“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’
Can we even speak of the ‘mental health’ of a sensitive miner’s canary and/or an indigenous aboriginal that finds themselves immersed in a Western culture ‘operative reality’ wherein ‘sorcery’ is deemed a ‘real capability’ of a notional (name-instantiated) independently-existing human thing-in-itself” as in the ‘double error’ of Western culture language and grammar?
For my own part (perhaps as a result of passing through a ‘dark night of the soul’), I believe the notion of ‘sorcery’ is not only a ‘double error’ of language and grammar, it is a ludicrous self-deception that is meanwhile a defining aberrance of Western culture. It is forcefully rejected by R.D. Laing and anthropologists such as Jules Henry (Culture Against Man), Nietzsche, Schroedinger, Wittgenstein and others whose ideas are unable to overcome the ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’ as associate with cultivating a power/influence hierarchy based on, what else, ‘one’s personal powers of sorcery’. In fact, the double error-based concept of sorcery is simply a grammar based abstraction that kicks off from any name-stem that we invent as the banner-carrier of our reality construction project; i.e. we use naming to inject a notional fountainhead of sorcery into our construction of reality so as to effable-ize the ineffable transforming relational continuum that, because its not having any local points of sorcery is what makes it ‘ineffable’.
Purely relational resonance can manifest as duning if the resonance gathers within it dust or sand to give it visible form, in which case we can reduce the resonance based (wave-field based) ‘duning’ to our double error based language and grammar whereupon it becomes ‘a dune’ with its own powers of sorcery; i.e. of ‘growing larger and longer and shifting the East etc.
This Western culture language and grammar based reduction of ‘resonance’ or wave-field dynamics to ‘things with powers of sorcery’ IS THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR IDENTIFIED BY NIETZSCHE AS A WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKER.
“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
‘Sorcery’ is a bullshit concept that has been given a foundational role in the Western culture approach of rendering the ineffable reality (the Tao, the transforming relational continuum, the ‘wave-field) in reduced ‘effable reality terms’. Note that the popular approach in the indigenous aboriginal culture and in the cultures of the EAST is NOT the ‘double error approach’ but is instead relational inference as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics (modern physics researchers Geoffrey Chew, John Wheeler).
While the Newtonian approach is select one perspective deemed ‘the best perspective’, the modern physics approach uses many perspectives and extracts the relational coherence. This approach develops a purely relational matrix based understanding without dependence on ‘things-in-themselves’ (as in the double error) and this purely relational inference based conceptualizing of reality is termed ‘bootstrapping’; As Chew observes;
[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 wel-ldefined question. We are going beyond the whole questionandanswer framework.”
Western culture is a crazy-maker. If you are an indigenous aboriginal or sensitive miner’s canary immersed in it, you stand a chance of becoming schizophrenic since your natural sense of reality is ‘relational’ (as in music and poetry) and your natural intuitive sense will (naturally/rightly) resist assimilating belief in ‘sorcery’ which is meanwhile the foundation of reality in Western culture adherence. You must pay respects to those who Western culture acclaims for their superior ‘sorcery’ contributions and you must join in hunting down and punishing those responsible for sorcery of negative actions and developments (purification associates with the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium of the WEST, while resonance (harmonizing) associates with the BOTH/AND ‘quantum’ logic of the included medium of the EAST and modern physics).
Obviously (to Nietzsche, Schroedinger, Bohm, Laing et al), the belief in sorcery is giving rise to endemic aberrance in Western culture adherents. This aberrance manifests as ‘schizophrenia’ as in the findings of Cochrane and Sashidharan cited above. This point that we can’t understand the behaviour of people in terms of local jumpstart sorcery as in ‘the double error’ continually crops up. For example, in ‘Crazy for You: The Making of Women’s Madness’, Jill Astbury interprets the World Health Organization study showing that women have twice the incidence of ‘affective disorders’ (depression, bipolar disorder etc.) as men, as follows;
“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
The predominating Western culture assumption is the ‘double error’ assumption wherein we use ‘naming’ to notionally instantiate an ‘independently existing thing-in-itself’ and conflate this with grammar (second error) that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.
IN OTHER WORDS, WESTERN CULTURE CRAZINESS COMES FROM THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR CONDITIONED BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’. It is NOT true that ‘the dune’ grows larger and longer and shifts along the desert floor. ‘Duning’ is a relational resonance phenomenon consistent with the understanding of reality in the ineffable terms of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum of modern physics.
* * *