From GROWTH to HOLODYNAMIC TRANSFORMATION (and back?)
Goedel’s Theorem speaks of the ‘incompleteness of all finite systems of (binary) logic”. A prime example is where we speak of GROWTH in terms of AGE.
This kind of talk, as when we ‘celebrate our birthday’, has us conceiving of ourselves as ‘another year older’, … is CRAZY-MAKING talk. If I am 30 and my children are 1, 3, and 5 years old respectively, if we measure ourselves as ‘things-in-themselves’ and I celebrate OUR BIRTHDAYS, then the next year I will be 31 years old and the following year I will be 32 years old etc. etc. But THIS IS NOT THE PRIMARY REALITY, because the change that is REALLY going on is RELATIONAL as in ‘mitakuye oyasin — ‘we are all related’. Who “I AM’ incorporates ‘all my relations’ and ‘all my relations’ are continually changing since my relations with my 1, 3 and 5 year old are very different from my relations with my 11, 13 and 15 year olds, so why focus on the ABSTRACTION called ‘my age’ and the annual celebration of MY BIRTHDAY, as if we could give meaning to me as a THING-IN-ITSELF undergoing ITS OWN GROWTH?
In the reality of our actual sensory experience, there is no such thing as GROWTH of some LOCAL thing-in-itself, there is only TRANSFORMATION and TRANSFORMATION is inherently RELATIONAL and NONLOCAL
Why say; ‘this tree is shedding its leaves’ when we are surrounded in a zillion manifestations of SEASONAL TRANSFORMATION. Talk about Goedel’s Theorem of the incompleteness of all finite systems of logical propositions, … such observations as this, and/or ‘my child is growing up’, are gross distortions of what is actually, “in treality” unfolding, which is relational TRANSFORMATION that is NONLOCAL and ALL-INCLUSIVE and we are included in it and we’d better take note of how we use the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar to REDUCE the NONLOCAL dynamics of our relational experience, to ABSTRACT LOCAL DYNAMICS SUCH AS THE “GROWTH” OF SOME “THING-IN-ITSELF”.
There are no THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, … they are just abstract concepts we create with the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar where we use NAMING (of some relational forming in the relational flowing) to impute its notional LOCAL thing-in-itself existence [FIRST ERROR] and conflate this with GRAMMAR [SECOND ERROR] whereby we impute the power of SOURCING actions and developments to the NAMING-instantiated notional ‘thing-in-itself’.
So, we had better ‘take stock’ of what we are doing here as there is a lot of language and grammar based SELF-DECEPTION going on, which has been termed ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’ of NAMING and GRAMMAR by Nietzsche. Ok, the reason WHY we reduce our fluid, relational reality with the DOUBLE ERROR is because it is a NONLOCAL reality (everything depends on its relations with everything which is how Wave-fields ‘work’). In order to reduce the INFINITE-because-NONLOCAL to the FINITE-because-LOCAL, we construct a DOUBLE ERROR based REPRESENTION. For example, DUNING is a NONLOCAL resonance based phenomenon, which is too diffuse to ‘point out’ but, if we point to one of those graceful aesthetic wave-like accumulations of sand and twigs and dust, and NAME it ‘A DUNE’, we succeed in giving BIRTH to a LOCAL entity within the ACTUAL NONLOCAL reality.
While the REAL (sensory experience affirmed) dynamic is NONLOCAL (relational), it is INEFFABLE so, we MUST PASS OVER IT IN SILENCE, as Wittgenstein, Nietzsche et al have pointed out, meaning that we can’t nail it down EXPLICITLY because language and grammar lack the capability of capturing NONLOCAL dynamics. Thus LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR lack the representational horsepower to capture the NONLOCAL because it is only IMPLICIT and not EXPLICIT, … so poetry is useful and so is ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ (suggested by modern physics philosophers Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler) both of which ‘sneak up on’ (infer) relational flow forms by employing a web of inference that suggests (implies) the fluid form without EXPLICITIZING it.
So, if we want to understand WHO WE ARE, … rather than breaking ourselves down into LOCAL material components, which from the get-go implies the REALITY of a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF which is bullshit because there are no LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES in the transforming relational continuum that is the world of our actual sensory experience.
WHO ARE WE, THEN? The experience-grounded answer is ‘mitakuye oyasin’, we are our relations with all manner of things (relational forms) in the transforming relational continuum.
To try to understanding ourselves as a LOCAL BEING is a CRAZY-MAKER and that CRAZINESS is what WESTERN CULTURE is currently cultivating in us. Consider EGO for starters, the DOUBLE ERROR based conceptualizing of our ‘self’ as a LOCAL NAMING-instantiated thing-in-ourself with GRAMMAR-given powers of sourcing actions and developments. This is where EGO comes from and it is a CRAZY-MAKER.
Ok, the reduction of our NONLOCAL self to a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself sense via the DOUBLE ERROR allows us to reduce the ineffable to the effable, but that effable is just a tool of inference of the ineffable, and that is how it is used in modern physics as also in the EAST (indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta).
If we ‘pull back’ from thinking in DOUBLE ERROR terms, which deliver up an abstract LOCALLY instantiated pseudo-reality for us to use as an EFFABLE SUBSTITUTE REALITY for the INEFFABLE NONLOCAL RELATIONAL REALITY of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, we can get back in touch with the purely relational reality of our sensory experience. So what does REALITY ‘look like’ when it is purely relational?
For example, what does ‘reality look like’ when we stop our intellectual constructing of it in terms of LOCAL things-in-themselves that we impute GROWTH to, as when we celebrate BIRTHDAYS as if they mark another year of GROWTH of a LOCAL thing-in-itself given by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.
The ‘real reality’ of our sensory experience IS NOT BASED ON GROWTH because the concept of GROWTH is ABSTRACTION that builds from the concept of a LOCAL MATERIAL THING-IN-ITSELF that CHANGES over TIME and this is ABSTRACTION based on the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar. For example, a ‘hurricaning’ and/or a ‘duning’ is a resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum where FIGURE and GROUND are ONE, … and NOT TWO and this we experience as relational TRANSFORMATION. that we are included in; i.e. this it the REALITY and it is not as if we are a FIGURE split off from the GROUND and being separate from it, are able to visually observe it AS IF IT WERE ‘out there’ in front of us and SEPARATE FROM US. We are IN IT, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE.
“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger
The REAL world of our sensory experience of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum wherein FIGURE and GROUND (SUBJECT AND OBJECT) are ONE, is a HOLOGRAPHIC WORLD. It is the transforming relational continuum we and everything are included in as pointed to by ‘mitakuye oyasin’. It is NOT the world of our voyeur visual observations where we say things ‘the tree is losing its leaves’ or ‘the tree is having another birthday, … happy birthday tree’, … because there is no such thing as ‘an individual thing-in-itself’ that GROWS OLDER in TIME (such is the DOUBLE ERROR abstraction of language and grammar) wherein we SNAPSHOT forms that we NAME-LABEL and TIME-TAG; e.g. here is Emily on her 1’st Birthday, then on her 2nd Birthday, then on her 3rd Birthday etc. etc. This fails to mention how the web of relations she is in is transforming; i.e. how her brothers were 7 and 10 on her first birthday and 8 and 11 on her second birthday and 9 and 12 on her 3rd birthday, …. so that what is REALLY going on is RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION of the relational matrix she is included in, rather than ‘HER GROWTH’ as if in absolute space and absolute time (these are abstractions concocted with the DOUBLE ERROR or language and grammar).
WE ARE OUR RELATIONS, … ‘mitakuye oyasin’, … or, in other words, we live within a holographic world that can’t be captured by a time-sequence of visual pictures as are used to imply GROWTH of a ‘thing-in-itself’. If we look at the pictures of a single person on their successive birthdays, we will get the impression of GROWTH of that person but what they are actually experiencing is inclusion in a TRANSFORMING web of relations. Our experience is thus of inclusion in a holographic reality that lies beyond visual SNAPSHOTS of the NOMINALLY “same thing” over successive intervals of time where we say we are capturing the GROWTH or CHANGE of the visual SUBJECT
But what about the subject’s relations with other things that are also undergoing GROWTH or CHANGE? This is a GREATER REALITY because it is the reality of one’s SENSORY EXPERIENCE of GROWTH or CHANGE within a relational matrix together with other things which are also EXPERIENCING GROWTH or CHANGE, so that what we actually EXPERIENCE is the confluence of all of these CHANGING RELATIONS which, taken together, constitutes our inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION. This is the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, that is not captured in a series of SNAPSHOTS of the same subject undergoing GROWTH over TIME. In other words GROWTH is NOT REAL, it is ABSTRACTION. TRANSFORMATION IS REAL, NOT GROWTH. When we and the plants and animals etc. experience the Wave of the SEASONS in which we are included, the phases being called Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall, … this web of relations, including our relations with brothers and sisters, parents and friends, … is an EXPERIENTIAL REALITY. So, if it is ‘reality’, what, then, can we say about the ‘reality’ of INDIVIDUAL GROWTH?
ANSWER: There is no such thing as GROWTH. It is a DOUBLE ERROR that associates with intellectual abstraction triggered by NAMING and GRAMMAR as applied to notional LOCAL VISIBLE forms. There is only relational TRANSFORMATION which is inherently NONLOCAL and thus NON-VISIBLE. Our sensory experience informs us of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao, but it is INEFFABLE and we can only INFER its reality through our sensory experience of inclusion within it.
The matrix of relations of our sensory experience of inclusion within them is not VISIBLE ‘out there in front of us’ but instead comes to us through a hololodynamical sense of inclusion within the dynamic. Our awareness of this holodynamical inclusion comes from bringing an abundance of visual perspectives into connective confluence and extracting the relational coherencies therein. This holodynamical experience gives us a sense of inclusion that is BEYOND THE VISUAL, as in holography. This difference between visual images and holography that comes from bring a multitude of sensory experiences into connective confluence and extracting the ‘phase relation’ coherencies is captured in the Nobel prize award presentation to Denis Gabor for his showing how the holodynamic could represented optically.
“ The photographic plate preserves for us a picture of a fleeting moment, which perhaps we may make use of over a long time period for measurements, or it transforms a wave-field of heat rays, X rays, or electron rays to a visible image. And yet, important information about the object is missing in a photographic image. This is a problem which has been a key one for Dennis Gabor during his work on information theory. Because the image reproduces only the effect of the intensity of the incident wave-field, not its nature. The other characteristic quantity of the waves, phase, is lost and thereby the three dimensional geometry. The phase depends upon from which direction the wave is coming and how far it has travelled from the object to be imaged. Gabor found the solution to the problem of how one can retain a wave-field with its phase on a photographic plate.” – Erik Ingelstam, in presenting Gabor with his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971
The ’take-away’ from this philosophical introspection is that (a) there is no such thing as GROWTH and what we CALL GROWTH is the product of the DOUBLE ERROR or language and grammar wherein we use NAMING to impute local thing-in-itself being to a relational flow-form, and conflate this with the second error of GRAMMAR that imputes to the NAMING instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself its own powers of SOURCING actions and developments, and (b) our sensory experience is of inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION which is a holodynamical experience, which, being NONLOCAL is INEFFABLE.
* * *
CRAZY MAKERS associated with NOT ACKNOWLEDGING the holodynamical nature of our sensory experiencing of reality comes from our CONSTRUCTING ABSTRACT DOUBLE ERROR BASED PSEUDO-REALITIES featuring the PRODUCER-PRODUCT concept which imputes LOCALLY INCIPIENT ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT. Once we install this DOUBLE ERROR based reality (which is effable thanks to its reducing of NONLOCAL to LOCAL) IN PLACE OF our sensory experience of inclusion in NONLOCAL relational TRANSFORMATION, we are in CRAZY-SPACE.
In modern physics as in the EAST (indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta), this CRAZY-SPACE is used ONLY AS INFERENCE of the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL (holodynamic) of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (aka the Wave-field aka the Tao). In Newtonian physics as in the cognitive habit of the WEST generally, this tool of DOUBLE ERROR CRAZY-SPACE is employed as our OPERATIVE REALITY rather than merely as A TOOL OF INFERENCE of the ineffable reality that we can only intuitively access since it is NONLOCAL and thus inherently IMPLICIT. For example, RESONANCE that MANIFESTS as DUNING of sand or dust, being NONLOCAL, does not lend itself to capture in LOCAL, EXPLICIT terms, yet our standard WESTERN CULTURE language and grammar REPRESENTATIONS do speak in LOCAL, EXPLICIT terms of DUNES, describing them as animate forms that are “… growing higher and longer and shifting across the ‘desert floor”. This is an example of a DOUBLE ERROR based CRAZY-SPACE pseudo-dynamic that is, meanwhile, useful as INFERENCE of the NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE Wave-field (resonance) phenomenon that is the basic ‘reality’. Our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT error is, and this is where we part ways with modern physics and the EAST, in our using this DOUBLE ERROR based CRAZY-SPACE as our OPERATIVE REALITY.
How does WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE MAKE US CRAZY?
To get a sense of this WEST/EAST difference, try writing your biography in terms of your personal growth over the years, … noting your personal achievements from birth to age 1 and from age 1 to 2 yrs old and from 2 to 3 years old etc.
Now try writing about the growth of your family and friend based web of relations in which you are experiencing inclusion (which is influencing and shaping your development).
One might well ask oneself whether it is even possible for a local thing-in-itself to have its own growth and development? The same seed planted on the crest of a windswept hill without shelter from the elements will grow into a gnarly and twisted ‘lone pine’ although when planted/situated within a grove on the plain where it is well sheltered within a multiplicity of neighbourns, growth will be tall and straight as an arrow. What, then, does it mean when we speak of the development of an individual?
It is popular, in our WESTERN CULTURE to split the answer into two parts; ‘Nature’ and ‘Nurture’, implying that our ‘seedstock’ sources our inside-outward asserting ‘genetic development’ while our ‘environmental conditioning’ INDUCTIVELY solicits and selectively calls forth the growth of particular potentials within us that shape our development relative to our environment-specific situational circumstances.
But this mental model depends on FIRSTLY ASSUMING FIGURE AND GROUND as TWO SEPARATE THINGS. This is the DOUBLE ERROR abstraction of language and grammar wherein we see FIGURE and GROUND as TWO.
This is already a CRAZY-MAKER (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia inducer) because we can see ourselves EITHER as a FIGURE which is influencing the development of the GROUND (the social collective) which leads to the CONSERVATIVE type-casting, OR, as a member of the GROUND which is influencing the development of the FIGURES that are being raised within the GROUND which leads to the LIBERAL type-casting.
In the REALITY of our actual sensory experience, FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE as with DUNING and DESERTING as manifests in the transforming relational continuum. What is going on here is, in reality, purely relational TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE.
BUT FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE implies relational TRANSFORMATION where interdependence is most basic and thus ‘relations’ are in an innate primacy over the forms involved in the relations; i.e. where the forms ARE relations as in the Wave-field. As with the hexagonal cells of honey bees and/or soap bubbles, the individuals (bubbles in this case) are the product of relational interdependencies. This primacy of relations over things is also the situation with DUNING, HURRICANING, and HUMANING.
The phenomenon where relations are more basic than …. THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES-notionally with their own powers of SOURCING GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT (aka ‘the ‘double error’) …. is…. HOLODYNAMIC TRANSFORMATION. In the case of HOLODYNAMIC TRANSFORMATION, the parts are subordinate to the whole or, in other words, the LOCAL is subordinate to the NONLOCAL and the EXPLICIT is subordinate to the IMPLICIT (e.g. as in the case of the honey-bee ‘celling’ and sand ‘duning’
Such understanding leads us out of the quagmire of WESTERN CULTURE DOUBLE ERROR DELUSION.
* * *