From the Ineffable to the Effable and Back
OVERVIEW of TWO VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO ‘CONSTRUCTING’ AN ‘EFFABLE’ VERSION OF OUR INEFFABLE REALITY, SHOWING HOW THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OPTION THAT IS IN COMMON USE IN WESTERN CULTURE IS A CRAZY-MAKER.
OPTION 1: INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION: THE RELATIONAL INFERENCE (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta)
OPTION 2: INEFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION; THE DOUBLE ERROR OPTION (the Western culture ‘standard’)
The mistaken shift in understanding-priority from resonance (wave-oriented intuition) to genesis (sorcery-oriented intellection) by way of the ‘double error’ is the crazy-maker of Western culture. The humaning is like the duning, it is a relational feature within the transforming relational continuum. By the double error of language and grammar we reduce the wave-field resonance (transformation) of our sensory experience to intellection based materialist sorcery (thing-in-itself based sourcing of actions and developments).
The all including transforming relational continuum is ineffable. In order to share and compare and learn from our experience, we must reduce the ineffable to an effable approximation. One means of doing this is ‘the Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions of modern physics, the indigenous aboriginal ‘sharing circle’ as also in Taoism and Advaita Vedanta where there are ‘work-arounds’ to the acknowledgement that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.
In the physical reality of our sensual experience in the Tao, there is no ‘evolution’ and there are no heredity-lineages, these are abstractions developed to give logical support to the understanding of reality where ‘genesis’ a in ‘the double error’ is the ‘stake-in-the-ground’ for constructing ‘reality’. The double error is where we us naming (first error) to invoke in the intellect, the abstract impression of the ‘existence’ of a ‘thing-in-itself’, and then we conflate this (second error) with grammar by imputing the name-instantiated thing-in-itself, powers of sourcing actions and developments.
This inserting of genesis and being into a ‘re-write’ of nature’s ineffable Tao (transforming relational continuum or ‘wave-field’ renders the ineffable effable (by way of the double error abstraction) allowing us to share and learn from AT LEAST a reduced expression of our inclusional experiencing of the ineffable.
In the wave-field understanding of reality, the ‘twister’ that is fundamental to our worm, human (Our intestinal system that runs from our mouth/input to our anus/output) must be considered as belonging to the Tao (the transforming relational continuum), and this makes our experience ‘ineffable’ since it is innately included in the transforming relational continuum, which, as Schroedinger points out, means that ‘we are God’ (we are an appearance or flow form within the transforming relational continuum).
The age-old philosophical question of ‘the two and the one’ (e.g as in Mircea Eliade’s ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ crops up here; i.e. the ‘twister’ and the ‘atmosphere’ are one thing, but it is convenient for us to speak identify the ‘twister’ with the ‘double error’ of language and grammar so that we can talk about ‘it’ and ‘share’ ‘what it is doing’. This ‘sharing’ where we reduce the ineffable Tao to something effable, by way of the ‘double error’, is very useful for CONSTRUCTING A ‘SAME-PAGE’ FORM OF UNDERSTANDING…. EVEN THOUGH WE MUST SACRIFICE ‘REALITY’ (in the sense of our unique sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao) SO AS TO PROCURE THROUGH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR A ‘SHAREABLE PSEUDO-REALITY’ BASED ON THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’.
Note that there is an alternative way of reducing the ineffable Tao to a reduced effable (language and grammar based) for the purpose of communications (i.e. to be able to at least ‘communicate’ something, that while it cannot capture the ineffable, can allude to it). This has been described in modern physics as ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’. It is also known as poetic inference; i.e. ‘
“A man’s reach must exceed his grasp or what’s a meta phor?” (-McLuhan et al)
Relational inference avoids the double error deception of invoking local origination or ‘genesis’. That is, the ‘double error’ uses ‘naming’ to impute ‘thing-in-itself existence’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments, as the basis for ‘constructing a piece-wise reality’.
Using relational inference as the foundational meaning (in capturing ‘reality’) is employed in the languages of indigenous aboriginal cultures, as also in modern physics, as noted by David Bohm and F. David Peat;
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’
WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT WAYS OF USING LANGUAGE TO ARTICULATE A (NECESSARILY REDUCED) DEPICTION OF THE INEFFABLE REALITY OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TWO OPTIONS FOR DELIVERING EFFABLE DEPICTIONS OF THE INEFFABLE;
OPTION 1: INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION: THE RELATIONAL INFERENCE of language and grammar which makes ‘throw-away use’ of names so as to end up with relational inference that is without hard dependence on ‘things-in-themselves’. This is the ‘Wittgenstein’ ladder approach to employing the effable to infer the ineffable (the Tao that cannot be [directly/explicitly] told). In this method, an imaginative leap (based on our intuition as derives from or experience of inclusion as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum) is triggered by language-based inference; e.g;
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
— Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
OPTION 2: INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE REDUCTION; THE DOUBLE ERROR OPTION of language and grammar reduces reality, by way of naming forms to impute to them thing-in-itself existence (error 1) and conflating this by further imputing to them their own (notional) powers of sourcing actions and developments. This double error based abstraction equips us for constructing an intellectual language and grammar based INVENTED REALITY. Yes, this is one way of being able to articulate or ‘render effable’ (a crude version of) the ‘ineffable’. It is a tool OF INFERENCE and not a tool that exposes ‘reality-as-it-really-is’. It is a double error to name a hurricaning or a duning and thus impute to them ‘thing-in-itself’ being’ (reduce them to ‘a hurricane’ and ‘a dune’) and then conflate this reductionist error with a second error of ‘grammar’ that imputes to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error) the power of sourcing actions and developments.
* * *
THE ABOVE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT METHODS OF RENDERING THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE. NEITHER OF THESE METHODS ‘TRULY CAPTURE THE INEFFABLE’ (The Tao that cannot be told; i.e. the all-including transforming relational continuum (wave-field) in which we are included).
HOW DO THESE TWO METHODS OF REDUCING THE INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE DIFFER? WHAT PITFALLS ASSOCIATE WITH EACH?
OPTION 1: THE DOUBLE ERROR gives the impression of ‘sorcery’ by way of the ‘naming’ of new ‘things-in-themselves’ as in a mystical act of baptism with the ‘sprinkling of ‘holy water’ or the laying on of the magic sword of Excalibur to impute some new and elevated state of being. Once the relational form in the flow-continuum is ‘named’, ‘grammar’ is used to notionally endow it with powers of genesis (its own power of self-development) and sorcery (self-initiation of creative actions and developments). This double-error based ‘sorcery’ gives us a means of ‘notionally (with language and grammar based intellectual abstraction) breaking into the transforming relational continuum so as to render it ‘effable’ through a local parts-wise decomposition accompanied by imputing the self-animation of the parts, enabling the construction of local things-in-themselves based INVENTED REALITY.
OPTION 2: RELATIONAL INFERENCE, while it also seeks to give local traction for description to the inherently nonlocal (the Tao), avoids the OPTION 1 absolutist abstraction of giving ‘explicit names’ to relational forms that imply ‘thing-in-itself being’ and then using grammar to impute to them their own powers of sorcery. INSTEAD, RELATIONAL INFERENCE avoids the abstraction of ‘explicit thing-in-itself being’ that comes from ‘naming’ as with ‘dunes’. ‘Duning’ is how resonance (wave-dynamics) manifests, and we do not need to capture ‘duning’ by reducing it to the double error terms ‘of ‘dunes’ with the notional (grammar-given) powers of sourcing actions and development. That is, ‘duning’ can remain ‘duning’ which is a nonlocal relational conceptualizing. In order to use language (which is not capable of directly capturing the ineffable Tao or wave-field flow) without invoking ‘absolute being’ in any foundational sense, we can use ‘being’ in a ‘throw-away expedient’ sense to generate understanding in relational terms. This is the approach outlined in Wittgenstein’s proposition 6.54 from Tractatus, stated above. In this approach, there is no retention of dependence on ‘things-in-themselves’ as there is in the ‘double error’ approach. While relational inference is only ‘implicit’ and cannot get to the ‘explicit’ as the ‘double error’ approach does, … it meanwhile, does NOT open the door, as the double error does, to the confusing of the effable for the ineffable; i.e. it does not give the exposure of the ‘tool running away with the workman’ .
That is, ‘ego’ arises from the double error cultivated belief that one is an ‘independent being’ with incipient powers of sorcery. This gives rise to ‘pride’ and ‘shame’ as from the belief that one is the sorcerer of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ actions and developments. Recall that ‘Inspiration fills the heart (is sensual) while Ego swells the head’ (is intellectual). Thus the double error through its progeny of ego, pride and shame, differentiates ‘beings’ on the basis of what are conceived of as ‘their actions of sorcery’ and rewards and exalts and punishes and denigrates on the basis of the double error concept of ‘sorcery’. By contrast, in indigenous aboriginal cultures, where mitakuye oyasin’ (all is related) is the understanding, dissonance is relational and where relational tensions develop and someone ‘pops off’ violently, that person is not assumed to be the ‘sorcerer’ of such development. Also, such development not seen in terms of a local cause-effect result, but as a development within the relational continuum. In indigenous aboriginal cultures, the ‘repeat offender’ may be ‘taken out’ without every being seen as the jumpstart source of evil acts, but instead, understood as someone who, by the manner in which things unfold, finds himself repeatedly in a relational tension ‘stress-box’. One might think of this in terms of navigating passage in the flow of freeway traffic or as in navigating passage as a pedestrian traversing a crowded piazza where people are entering and leaving it from all points of the compass. One may be assertive or accommodating in making passage, but such are ‘subtleties’ that are treated with less significance than the establishing of ‘perpetrator’ and ‘victim’.
It might be that the ‘victim’ had left a trail of relational chaos behind them by their aggressive navigating and it may also be that the perpetrator (habitually) rarely failed to avoid collision in traffic ‘stirred up’ and made dangerous by others, but relational systems, in Western culture, are reduced by way of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar so as to cultivate ‘understanding’ in terms of the concept of ‘sorcery’ and ‘sorcerer’. David Bohm describes the ‘unfolding’ of this reduction as follows;
“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:
THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR THAT GIVES RISE TO THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF ‘SORCERY’ IS WHAT IS BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION HERE.
MEANWHILE, ‘SORCERY’ IS THE FOUNDATIONAL ABSTRACTION FOR ‘EGO’, ‘GUILT’, ‘INNOCENCE’, ‘BLAME’, ‘FORGIVENESS’ AND OTHER WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR CONCEPTS THAT FIGURE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT ‘INVENTED REALITY’.
Grammar invokes in the intellect, the notion of a local power of ‘sorcery’ to ‘name-instantiated things in themselves (the ‘double error of language and grammar § ).
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche
A Review of How Western Culture is a Crazy-Maker
This short commentary is to share the view that Western culture is a crazy maker, in the following sense; … The world we are included in is ineffable; it is the Tao, the all-including, transforming relational continuum, the wave-field, and it is not explicitly knowable; i.e. ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. In spite of the ‘ineffable’ nature of the Tao (reality), as individuals, we feel nothing holding us back from expressing our ‘world views’ even if we admit to the innate incompleteness of our views. Since we don’t claim to have a ‘complete view of the world’, and since we contend that the views we are sharing, are ‘the truth’, we are, in effect, claiming that ‘reality’ can be delivered in a piecemeal manner by piecing together many ‘local truths’. Otherwise our admittedly incomplete ‘account of reality’ should not be regarded as ‘the truth’, but instead, as an innately limited ‘perspective’.
The implication here is that what we claim to be ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God’, as declared in Western culture courts of law, … can’t possible inform us on ‘reality’ since the ‘Tao’ reality eludes delivery in a piecemeal fashion. For example, while Western law courts will accept as the ‘truth’, the fact that Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, such a ‘truth’ is radically incomplete since Jean Valjean’s act was in the service of rebalancing an imbalance wherein many in the community were drowning in surplus while others, particularly growing children were starving to death.
Western culture language and grammar delivers ‘intellectual understanding’ on the basis of a ‘double error; the first error is our use of ‘naming’ to impute independent thing-in-itself existence to a relational form, and to conflate this (with a second error) by imputing to the ‘thing-in-itself’ its own power of sourcing actions and development. What this ‘double error’ does is that it allows us to ‘break into’ the Tao, the ineffable relational continuum, so as to re-render the ineffable Tao in effable, piece-wise terms. This double-error ‘piecemealing’ is how the ineffable Tao is rendered ‘effable’. Meanwhile, as Lao Tzu observes; ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’. The ineffable transforming relational continuum that includes both observer/subject and observed/object cannot be captured in effable terms without splitting apart the observer and the observed via the ‘perspectival’ view.
What goes missing in this intellectual reduction of the ineffable to the effable?
In the case of Jean Valjean’s trial where witness testimony was expected to be ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, … such ‘truth’ included the account of Jean Valjean’s action in ‘stealing’ the loaf of bread, but it did not include an account of the ‘greater reality’ wherein many were living in surplus while others lived in extreme deficiency. That is, Western justice employs a double error based truth, as is built into Western language and grammar expression. The ‘double error’ is what allows us to notionally (psychologically) break the reality-continuum (the Tao) down into local parts or ‘events’. This is the ‘tool’ that, in Western culture, has been ‘running away with the workman’. In other words, Western culture language-based (double error based) reduction of reality, while it reduces the ineffable to the effable, and is thus useful as a tool of inference, is inappropriately being used to construct an intellectual ‘replacement reality’, ‘over-writing’ (in the intellect) the ‘ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
As with ‘duning’, resonance-based transformation (the Tao) is ineffable since it is purely relational and cannot be reduced to ‘double error’ terms of things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments. There is no ‘sorcery’ in ‘duning’ or in ‘resonance’ as transforms the transforming relational continuum.
So, this review delves into the crazy-making role of Western double error-based language and grammar, … ‘the ‘tool’ that has run away with the workman’.
PROLOGUE: ‘Reality’ is our experience of inclusion in the ineffable Tao which ‘cannot be told’ and therefore cannot be shared and discussed. Ineffability thus blocks us from extending our understanding of reality through the experiences of others. In order to render our experiences effable so as to share them and jointly build our knowledge of reality, we must devise language that can break the Tao down into shareable, parcel form. This is also the challenge in modern physics which gives rise to techniques such as ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ which Nietzsche also describes in the context of the limited nature of single perspectives and the need to bring many perspectives into relational confluence to mine them for coherencies. Western culture, meanwhile, commonly makes use of the double error wherein, for example, ‘duning’ (resonance which is intrinsic in the wave-field), is reduced to the double error form; ‘the dune that is growing and shifting’; i.e. first error is the reduction is from ‘resonance’ to name-instantiated thing-in-itself conflated with (second error) notional powers of sourcing actions and development.
This double error based Tao is a reduction of the ineffable to something effable, for the practical value of sharing that comes with the reduction. The following discussion gets into how this can be a crazy-maker when we use the effable double error based pseudo-reality AS A SUBSTITUTE REALITY RATHER THAN AS AN ALLUSION TO THE INEFFABLE REALITY (THE TAO).
THE BASICS OF THE WESTERN CULTURE REDUCTIONS OF THE INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE.
Four modes of conscious awareness (reality variants).
-1- Ineffable (inarticulable) inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao)
-2- Effable (articulable) one-to-many sorcery based (conservative)
-3- Effable (articulable) many-to-one sorcery based (liberal
-4- Effable (articulable) one-to-many AND many-to-one sorcery (schizophrenic)
The Zen parable of wind-and-flag explores how we can argue among ourselves over enigmas such as whether the airflow sources the movement of the flag or whether the moving flag sources the airflow (understanding this enigma shows up in many ways in Western culture, such as ‘does the man make the times’ (conservative) or ‘do the times make the man?’ (liberal). People see ‘reality’ differently, because, as these examples illustrate, we think in terms of ‘sorcery’ and ‘sorcery’ is innately ambiguous.
THIS ENIGMA IS ABOUT ‘SORCERY’. WHY ASSUME ‘SORCERY’?
The point is that we tend to jump to this assumption of ‘sorcery’, as if ‘change’ must be ‘sourced’ by some ‘sourcing agency’. Right away, this erases from our consciousness (wallpapers over) the concept of ‘relational transformation’ (sorceryless change).
As Nietzsche points out, this ‘mental jump’ to ‘sorcery’ comes from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; The first error is our use of ‘naming’ that imputes thing-in-itself being to relational forms in the transforming relational continuum; e.g. ‘duning’ becomes ‘the dune’. The second error, which conflates (embellishes) the first, is where we impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error); e.g. ‘duning’ becomes ‘the dune is growing larger and shifting across the ‘desert floor’. That is how relational transformation such as ‘duning’ gets re-cast in sorcery-based terms. BUT THERE IS NO ‘DUNE’! The ‘dune’ as (thing-in-itself-that-moves and shape-shifts IS DOUBLE ERROR BASED PSYCHO-LOGICAL ABSTRACT NOTION THAT WE ‘CONCRETIZE’ WITH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR. One might call this anthropomorphism but ‘humans’ are really a verb rather than a noun; i.e. ‘humaning’ is a distinctive form of resonance in the Tao aka the ‘wave-field’.
What comes to mind here is Emerson’s ‘The tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’. In other words, the language-based effable/material (i.e. language reduces the ineffable to the effable, making it possible to ‘share’ reduced impressions of experiencing of the ineffable) runs away with the experient (the ‘effable’ takes her ineffable spiritual aspect prisoner and locks it up out of the way in the darkness/dungeon of the sub-conscious so that her intellectual reducing-of-ineffable-to-effable hijacks control of her understanding, …. the human (effable/material) [runs away with] the ineffable/divine/spiritual.
What this amounts to is an intellectual reduction of our complex sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum to a ‘lesser’ pseudo-reality, … ‘lesser’ meaning something of a ‘reduced dimensionality’ as from ‘four dimensional space’ (Mach/Einstein) to ‘three dimensional space’ (Newton). Mach describes this in terms of our splitting apart of psychology and (Newtonian) physics (see Mach’s ‘Analysis of Sensations’), neither of which can ‘stand on their own.
The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics. The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed. From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach, ‘Analysis of Sensations’ [i.e. we can’t be voyeurs of a reality we are included in, as it will neither be the ‘real us’ nor the ‘real reality’, as also noted in Heraclitus “we can’t step into the same waters (Tao) twice]
Newtonian physics is essentially, a reduction of the ineffable to the effable by way of the intellectual ‘double error’ abstraction of language and grammar; i.e. ‘naming’ to impute ‘independent thing-in-itself existence’ conflated with grammar to impute powers of sorcery to the name-instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself.
The sensations of resonance inform us and shape our individual and collective dynamics inclusionally, as with ‘duning’. However, our language and grammar based ‘double error’ reduction, imputes ‘being’ by way of ‘naming’ to ‘the dune’ and conflates this with the second error of imputing to the name-instantiated things-in-itself (the ‘dune’) the power of sourcing actions and development. Instead of understanding ‘duning’ in terms of resonance within the transforming relational continuum, the double error ‘conjures up’ the impression of ‘sorcery’ which hijacks the intellectual representation, as described above;
“…. takes her ineffable spiritual aspect prisoner and locks it up out of the way in the darkness/dungeon of the subconscious so that her intellect-on-its own hijacks her experiential helm”.
YES, language that employs the ‘double error’ reduction DOES render the ineffable effable, but THE EFFABLE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR THE INEFFABLE; I.E. THE TOOL OF DOUBLE ERROR REDUCED LANGUAGE RUNS AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE.
-1- Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta support level –1– (inarticulable) reality (relativity/relational reality) while Western culture adherents divide into the three articulable reality variants (designated 2,3,4) which are as follows;
-2- Conservative: – one-to-many sorcery based. This reality variant features name-instantiated things-in-themselves which are singular and whose powers of sorcery are imagined in a one-to-many sourcing context; This is the mythical ‘hero’ profile “one good man saves the collective” and it is the ‘villain’ profile “One bad apple spoils the barrel”. In the conservative view, ‘mass murder’ is ‘sourced’ by an ‘individual’ (rather than being understood as social-relational dissonance WITHOUT INVOKING ‘SORCERY’ AKA ‘THE DOUBLE ERROR’).
-3-Liberal: – many-to-one sorcery receptive embrace based. This reality variant features name-instantiated things-in-themselves which are pluralities whose powers of sorcery are imagined in a many-to-one sourcing context; “It takes a whole community to raise a child”. There are mythical powers here also, but they are seen as arising from the collective in ‘many-to-one’ manner, as, for example, by way of a consoling/healing/nurturing inclusion/embrace. In the liberal view, ‘mass murder’ is seen as sourced by corruption in the social collective that manifests through individual ‘sorcery’ (rather than being understood as social relational dissonance WITHOUT INVOKING ‘SORCERY’ AKA ‘THE DOUBLE ERROR’).
-4- Schizophrenic/Bipolar: – A sorcery based reality wherein the individual embraces BOTH capacities one-to-many (hero/villain) sorcery and many-to-one inclusion/expulsion based sorcery. While the conservative and liberal are both screwed up by the belief in sorcery, the ‘saving grace’ is that they avoid the splitting of their own psyche by ‘choosing’ one of the two sides of the mythical split (e.g. the one-to-many sorcery of the conservative, and the many-to-one sorcery of the liberal). While they have retracted their ‘sorcery-based blame fangs’ (or credit-anointing) as apply to others, they have not done away with the sorcery based ‘blame’ and ‘credit’ concept, yet have only themselves to serve as the ‘sorcerer’ and thus recipient of ‘blame’ and ‘credit’, which can lead to ‘delusions of grandeur’ and/or feelings of ‘guilt and paranoia’.
The schizophrenic, by owning both roles, splits her own psyche into two opposing modes of self. This happens to those of us who, while we are ‘bitten’ by the Western culture belief in the myth of sorcery, do not want to commit to one or the other of these opposing unidimensional (polar) concepts of ‘self’, and if we were an indigenous aboriginal, we would not be put in this quandary (which stems from the aberrant belief in ‘sorcery’ that arises from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar). But given that we are culturally conditioned with the belief in sorcery, through the double error of language and grammar, THREE, NOT TWO, MODES OF ABERRANCE ARISE; ‘CONSERVATIVE’, ‘LIBERAL’ AND ‘SCHIZOPHRENIC’ (BIPOLAR).
It is only because the conservative and liberal sorcery modes are considered ‘normal’, that schizophrenia ‘stands out’ as ‘abnormal’. Compared to indigenous aboriginal cultures, all three are ‘crazy-makers’ because all three are based on a belief in ‘sorcery’. In other words, Western culture ‘normality’ is a crazy-maker.
What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” — R.D. Laing
Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver’s travels, satirized the division into conservative and liberal in terms of the people of Liliput and Blefescu that polarized against one and other on the issue of whether a boiled egg should be opened from the roundy end or the pointy end. Belief in ‘sorcery’ leads directly to this binary polar opposition (does “the man make the times”? or “do the times make the man”? This ambiguity does not arise in cultures that understand reality in terms of the transforming relational continuum, rather than in the abstract terms of ‘sorcery’. It is the concept of ‘sorcery’ that brings on ‘bipolar disorder’, as this example illustrates. ‘Bipolar disorder’ manifests not only in the conservative-liberal split where that which splits can be measured in terms of ‘human units’, but in the schizophrenic where one’s ‘conservative self’ goes to battle with one’s ‘liberal self’.
In other words, there are NOT JUST TWO forms of aberrance arising from the belief in ‘sorcery’, there are three; … The ‘third’ form is where the individual, rather than drawing sorcery from within (conservative) and/or from without (liberal), draws sorcery from both ‘within’ AND ‘without’. This latter third form of aberrance eschews the ‘politics of division’ of the collective into the self-other ‘conservative’ and self-other ‘liberal’ manner of splitting the ineffable, also falls into the ‘bipolar’ category BUT ONLY IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE BELIEF IN SORCERY IS ENDEMIC; I.E. ONLY IN WESTERN SOCIETY.
The individual ‘schizophrenic’/’bipolar’ becomes the ‘identified patient’ that is a buffer for the division in the social collective arising from the conservative-liberal split, a craziness that is captured in Gulliver’s Travels in the guise of groups of people that divide and polarize against one another on the issue of whether a boiled egg should be opened from the roundy or pointy end. That is, the schizophrenic/bipolar has internalized this splitting in lieu of ‘taking sides against others’ over whether ‘sorcery’ is EITHER of individual OR collective provenance, … a moot point since ‘sorcery’ is an abstract artifact of language and grammar based intellectual reduction of relational transformation that has no support basis in the reality of our sensory experience.
* * *
§ FOOTNOTE: THE DOUBLE ERROR as pointed to by Nietzsche, the source of the abstract belief in ‘local genesis’ aka ‘sorcery’ as informs ‘ego’
“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