How God Left the Earth and Got Up in the Sky
How God Left the Earth and Got Up in the Sky
Man arranged God’s relocation when man switched from grounding his understanding of the dynamics of reality from TOPOLOGY to GEOMETRY.
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,
When did GEOMETRY overtake TOPOLOGY?
It’s not likely that you can remember when you were first taught ‘language and grammar’ but as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, we start working on our children soon after they are born to teach them the ‘names’ of “every THING”.
Naming DISTINGUISHES ONE FORM FROM ANOTHER FORM as in MOUNTAIN and VALLEY, a separation that passes over TOPOLOGY and has us thinking in terms of GEOMETRY as in the GEOMETRY of FORMS which exist as THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES. In Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum (1597), the five Platonic solids dictate the structure of the universe, giving a role of fundamental to geometry in understanding ‘reality’;
“Geometry existed before the Creation. It is co-eternal with the mind of God… Geometry provided God with a model for the Creation… Geometry is God Himself.” Thus said Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi, The Harmony of the World (1619), book IV, Ch. 1
Once popularized among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, this imputed primacy of GEOMETRY did an ‘end run’ in our minds, around the natural precedence of TOPOLOGY. Can we not see ourselves as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT parents, pushing this geometry of solids down our children’s receptive psychological intakes like force-feeding geese by cranking food down into them through a worm-gear for our own pleasure-purpose (to produce some thing delicious as ‘foie gras’ to please ourselves).
Whatever was the startup incentive for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, we sure as hell managed to wean our children OFF OF TOPOLOGY (the purely relational understanding of reality) and get them exclusively oriented to GEOMETRY with its abstraction of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES identified by NAMES.
Somewhere INSIDE EACH OF US WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, is an innocent child that still understands reality TOPOLOGICALLY aka ‘purely relationally’, escaping the CRAZY-MAKING reduction of our understanding to abstract terms of THE PERFECT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES SOLIDS OF GEOMETRY.
Like the Presocratic philosophers pointed out, by reducing the fluid relational reality of our sensory experience to the abstract logical pseudo-reality based on name-instantiated stand-alone things-in-themselves, we inherit the ‘burden of concrteness’. Not only do we have to specify the ‘geometry’ of the ‘thing-in-itself’, because we have invented a binary split between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ as part of geometry, this forces us to invent scheme for explaining ‘the movements and changing of these invented things-in-themselves’, … an abstract intellectual overhead that is not necessary in the TOPOLOGICAL understanding wherein ‘everything is in flux’.
As Schroedinger puts it, if we understand the world as one fluid transforming relational continuum, the abstract concept of the voyeur observer split off from the world he is observing (the subject-object split) disappears and ‘subject and object become ONE’ within the ONE-FLOW;
“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
HOW DOES THIS ‘FLIP’ FROM SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLITTING of GEOMETRY, …TO SUBJECT-AND-OBJECT UNITY of TOPOLOGY, … ‘PLAY OUT’ IN OUR METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY?
For starters, Addition and Subtraction along with GROWTH and DECLINE are UNREAL GEOMETRY-BASED ABSTRACTIONS of LANGUAGE and GRAMMAR that contribute to CRAZY-MAKING (unreal) conceptualizing of “REALITY”
For example, GEOMETRICAL THING-IN-ITSELF EXISTENCE is the abstract starting point for abstract thinking in terms of the DECLINE or DIMINUTION the Coastal Mountain range and its notional contribution to the GROWTH of the COASTAL DELTAIC PLANE, … or are references to DECLINE and GROWTH all just TALK, since we didn’t need to impute local THING-IN-ITSELF OBJECTS in our purely relational topological understanding.
Why don’t we admit that what is going on is continual and is in fact purely relational TRANSFORMATION!
As Heraclitus said;
“We can’t step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same ‘person’ stepping into it’.
Our splitting apart of DECLINE of the coastal mountain range and GROWTH of the coastal delta is EVIDENTLY, the same ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ of language and grammar pointed out by Nietzsche. The problem with using language and grammar to express TRANSFORMATION that is immanent in the space we are included in, is that language is not up the task since such TRANSFORMATION is PURELY RELATIONAL and INEFFABLE. That is, TRANSFORMATION is EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME (which is characteristic of wave-field dynamics) rather than being LOCAL and UNFOLDING OVER TIME as in GEOMETRICAL MOCK-UPS of topological transformation.
Of course, if one wants to think in GEOMETRIC terms of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES rather than in terms of relational forms in flow as in WAVE-FIELD TOPOLOGY, one has to fabricate the abstraction using the abstraction of LOCAL and build GEOMETRIC forms up from the abstract concept of LOCAL instantiation.
Newton established the LOCAL stake-in-the-ground (of reality) when wrote in Optics, 1704: “God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”
Once the absoluteness of LOCAL EXISTENCE is given a foundational role, NONLOCALITY as in a WAVE-FIELD is eclipsed.
So, how would we, having decided to build things up from the abstraction of LOCAL, get around this NONLOCAL, INEFFABLE nature of TRANSFORMATION? How about, for at least getting to be able to talk about it, splitting NONLOCALITY apart into TWO SEPARATE COMPONENTS that we could call “DECLINE” and “GROWTH”, as in … “the DECLINE or DIMINISHING of the Coastal Mountain range that is at the same time contributing to the GROWTH of the COASTAL DELTAIC PLANE”?. By this BINARIZING PLOY, we could reduce ‘TRANSFORMATION’ to the play-off between GROWTH and DECLINE of notional THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES; i.e. declining coastal mountains and growing deltas. Goodbye relational TOPOLOGY, Hello discretist GEOMETRY.
In other words, in order to re-render TRANSFORMATION, which is NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE, … as something EFFABLE, we could use language and grammar based DOUBLE ERROR, as we actually do, in our LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR fabrications in speaking in terms of the DECLINE of the coastal mountain range and GROWTH of the COASTAL DELTA. In this language and grammar revamping of our intellectual representation of reality, we overcome the ineffability barrier through ‘binarization’ of relational topology.
In the binary reconstruction, the words and grammar suggest that there are TWO THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES THAT EXIST SEPARATELY AND ON THEIR OWN; i.e. ‘The COASTAL MOUNTAIN RANGE’ and ‘THE COASTAL DELTA’, and that each of these have their own DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORIES OF GROWTH AND DECLINE that ’play out’ over TIME within an all-encompassing ABSOLUTE SPACE.
HEY, THAT IS A LOT OF ABSTRACTION THAT WE HAVE TO INVENT TO “REDUCE” THE INEFFABLE TO EFFABLE EXPRESSION. HOPEFUL WE WILL NOT FORGET THAT THE END PRODUCE IS RADICALLY REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL INEFFABLE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE.
THERE REALLY IS A WHOLE LOT OF INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION GOING ON HERE, including the double error reduction of NONLOCAL transformation to notional LOCAL things-in-themselves (mountains, deltas) notionally with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments; e.g. ‘the coastal DELTAS are GROWING WIDER in their lateral coastal extent as well as LONGER in their seaward pushout, and thus building their supporting mase down deeper into the abyssal depths.
What is really going on is relational transformation as in Wavefield dynamics, but since relational transformation is ‘everywhere at the same time and all-inclusive as in the overall timeless space-time continuum of modern physics, it is ineffable. This does not make it ‘less real’, just ineffable so that an intellectual ‘work-around’ is needed in order to share and discuss our experience of inclusion in the ineffable.
To render the ineffable in effable terms, a reduced-to-effable representation is necessary. The double error of language and grammar is a means of reducing the ineffable to the effable. This does not change the reality that THE REALITY IS INEFFABLE. That is, inclusion in a transforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’ aka ‘the Tao’ is ineffable. This means that the reduction to effable terms (e.g. by way of the double error) IS NOT TO BE MISTAKEN FOR ‘REALITY’. These double error-based reductions are INFERENCE of the ineffable reality aka the all-including Tao or Wave-field.
BUT AS WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS KNOW (at some level within ourselves), THE TOOL (of double error reduction) RUNS AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE (Emerson).
This is our current WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT plight. This is why Trump and the Iranians are fighting over which party is the SOURCE of conflict in the region. This dispute makes no sense because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY. That’s the whole point of the Zen koan of wind and flag, which sources the movement. There is no sourcing of movement, because reality is relational transformation as in the TOPOLOGICAL understanding. Elevating the GEOMETRY of solids into an unnatural precedence over the TOPOLOGY of the transforming relational continuum ARTIFICIALLY introduces the abstract notion of SORCERY as in the double error of language and grammar (name-instantiated things-in-themselves notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments).
Of course, among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, this double error based BELIEF SYSTEM is held in place by EGO, since EGO is the archetype of the double error fantasy, … which was devised only to do an end-run around the ineffability of realty, as the double error continues be used in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultues, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. The mistake is in employing it LITERALLY as a SURROGATE OPERATIVE REALITY. That is the mistake we WESTERN CUTURE ADHERENTS are making, as pointed out by Nietzsche. As a ladder of inference, the double error is a useful tool, but taken literally, as by WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, IT IS A CRAZY-MAKER!
How this CRAZY-MAKING conceptualizing of ‘reality’ comes about is by our elevating of GEOMETRY over TOPOLOGY which introduces the abstract concept of BINARITY so that ERODING MOUNTIANS and GROWING DELTAS are understood, thanks to the double error, as two separate geometric things-in-themselves, each with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.
WHY THE TITLE OF THIS NOTE?
How God Left the Earth and Got Up in the Sky
While TOPOLOGY allows that FIGURE AND GROUND are ONE, … GEOMETRY abstractly LIBERATES FIGURES FROM GROUND, re-presenting FIGURES as ‘things-in-themselves’ and leaving GROUND behind as a vacuous nothingness that, a Cartesian frame filled with nothingness except where occupied by LOCAL material thingfulness, the makings of BINARY pseudo-reality.
In this abstract BINARY reality based on LOCAL things-in-themselves, action and development are no longer ‘immanent’ in the conceptualization’ so that an ‘outside sourcing influence’ must be invoked to animate the FIGURES in the now-inert GROUND. This LOCAL, INTERNAL SOURCING OF ANIMATION of the FIGURES is envisaged, by WESTERN CUTURE ADHERENTS, in either the guise of THE EGO or the HOLY SPIRIT, depending on whether one is in a secular or religious mood. Neither of these abstractions are needed in the TOPOLOGICAL fluid relational reality wherein FIGURE and GROUND are one and ‘everything is in flux’.
In this latter understanding of reality, there is no such thing as the PERSONAL HISTORY of our SELF since such a notion comes with the baggage of FIGURE-GROUND splitting, not to mention the implication of an absolute (Cartesian) reference frame along with ‘the passage of TIME’. As relational forms in the flow, we are the flow we are included in. Do Canada and the United States ‘really’ have ‘their own ‘individual’ ‘histories’ just because we come up with these ‘thing-in-itself names’ and apply the ‘double error’ of language and grammar? NO!, … such personal histories are abstract illusions that may be useful as INFERENCE (Wittgenstein ladders) of an ineffable reality, but such naming-instantiated thing-in-itself grounded histories are products of the ego (a way of constructing an ‘ego’) which is fine for ‘inference’ of something innately beyond it;
‘Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind is bearing me across the sky.’ — Ojibwa saying
The point is that letting the ego write its own ‘life history’ and hijack the depiction of WHO WE ARE as if we are independent beings moving about of our own LOCAL accord in a notional Cartesian space shuts off our access to our understanding of ‘self’ as ineffable inclusions-in-the-Tao.
As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goes with”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?” —Alan Watts, ‘Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’
If the ‘GREAT HARMONY’ (aka ‘God’) is a way of inferring inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, then there is no need to split apart HEAVEN and EARTH and put the ‘animating spirit’ OVER HERE and the performing material systems OVER THERE as if in a binary pair. Employing the FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE topology for reality which brings to bear the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, … is the way of Zen, modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. This corresponds to reality understood as THE GREAT HARMONY which is entirely topologically relational and does not split into the antithetical BINARY poles of things-in-themselves that inhabit a notional absolute emptiness (abstract Cartesian space) as brings to bear the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.
In WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT THINKING, FIGURE AND GROUND are mutually exclusive, as with the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.
In EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT THINKING, FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE (mutually inclusive), as with the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium aka ‘quantum logic’.
The EASTERN CULTURE understanding is that ‘everything is connected’ , or ‘ALL THINGS ARE ONE’ (Heraclitus) . In Alan Watts words;
As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE WESTERN CULTURE “DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR” IS… JUST THAT, A COMPOUND ERROR. MEANWHILE, THE DOUBLE ERROR PLAYS A FOUNDATIONAL ROLE IN THE WESTERN CULTURE UNDERSTANDING OF ‘REALITY’ WHICH IS BASED ON BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’.
Whether I speak in terms of a ‘name-instantiated thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments’, or simply speak of SORCERY, the inference with respect to what we understand to be ‘going on in the world’ is the same. That is, WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTs BELIEVE in the existence of name-instantiated things-in-themselves, including ‘humans’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’, ‘organizations’ and ‘organisms’, notionally with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
‘SORCERY’ may seem like a word out of the medieval dark ages but Nietzsche makes the point that ‘the double error’ basis of reason is where ‘SORCERY’ (the word and its meaning of LOCAL originating of actions and developments) is coming from.
SORCERY is another word for REASON.
“In Reason’ in language.– oh what a deceptive old witch it (reason) has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’
We ‘reason’ that John Wilkes Booth was the source of Lincoln’s death, but as David Bohm points out, using that very example, such reductive reasoning glosses over the unending web of relational influences that come together in the transforming relational continuum.
“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:
REASON DELIVERS ITS ANSWERS IN TERMS OF CAUSE-EFFECT SORCERY. MUST THERE BE A REASON FOR THE UNFOLDING MANIFEST?
What was the REASON for the violent deaths of 176 people on Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 on its departure from Tehran? Was it ‘human error’? Was it “U.S. adventurism” in murdering Iranian general Qassem Soleimani? Was it outdated aircraft tracking technology? Was it an over-tired or nervous missile defense operator from sleepless nights caring for his children who had the flu? Was it the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President?
Or is Bohm on target in saying that “it [is] important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”.
Where does our ‘producer-product ‘reason’ come from?
It comes from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar which defines events in terms of LOCAL SORCERY.
* * *
Criticizing REASON is not a popular thing to do in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT company, but that is exactly what Nietzsche did, and what I am doing in this note. It is not a criticism of ‘reason’ per se, it is a criticism of using ‘reason’ to model ‘reality’, which is a crazy-maker.
‘Reason’ equates to belief in SORCERY (i.e. to belief in the double error of language and grammar where one employs ‘naming’ to impute independent thing-in-itself existence and conflates this with grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself’.
Events do not unfold from LOCAL double error abstractions. Bill Cosby is no more the source of the sexual abuse acts he was charged with than John Wilkes Booth was the source of Lincoln’s death in the understanding of reality as in modern physics.
SORCERY is a medieval form of coming to an understanding called ‘reason’. It is no more than a crude tool of inference.
NONLOCALITY as characterizes the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) is the reality of our natural sensory experience. LOCAL SOURCING is language and grammar based intellectual abstraction, the basis of ‘reason’, that derives from the double error of language and grammar. Since NONLOCALITY is ineffable (not linguistically shareable), it is expedient to reduce RE-PRESENTATION of our ineffable experience to an effable surrogate with the tool of language and grammar so as to deliver a SHAREABLE albeit reduced and incomplete pseudo-reality impression.
The ‘double error LANGUAGE-AND-GRAMMAR reduction of NONLOCAL FLUID REALITY (the Tao) to expedient, effable terms of LOCAL THINGS IN THEMSELVES NOTIONALLY WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS is a TOOL for effable-izing of the ineffable that enables SHARING of a reduced-to-abstraction, surrogate pseudo-reality. This sharing tool is, IN EASTERN CULTURE, recognized as an expedient tool, HOWEVER IN WESTERN CULTURE the sharing tool is deployed as the OPERATIVE REALITY with ‘crazy-making’ consequences. For example, WESTERN CULTURE CONCEPTS of CREDIT and BLAME derive from the psychological sweeping aside of our natural experiential awareness of NONLOCALITY and jumping ship to belief in the abstraction of LOCAL (in ‘space’ and ‘time’) SORCERY.
Note that “SORCERY” is a term like “FORGIVENESS” in that it back-handedly induces the intellect to think in the ‘double error’ terms of THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with notional POWERS of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. THERE IS NO ‘SORCERY’ IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
So, the superstitious belief in LOCAL SORCERY derives from the DOUBLE ERROR; e.g. the newly appointed ‘Boss’ in the oil exploration company (which has been PROSPECTING and theorizing for YEARS to suss out the geological complexities associated with the development of accumulations of oil) … is credited with sourcing an oil discovery that is made days after his managerial appointment. HIS NAME will ‘go down in the books’ as the SOURCE of this successful discovery and the preceding years, perhaps decades of exploratory theorizing and physical probing will be INTELLECTUALLY ECLIPSED (buried and backfilled over top of) by this LOCAL SOURCING anecdote.
It is one thing (an intelletual expedient) to NAME the emerging FIGURE in the FLUID-GROUND as a pointer for sharing what we are looking at, BUT QUITE ANOTHER for the intellect to use ‘NAMING’ and ‘GRAMMAR’ to shift the sourcing agency to the FIGURE from the FLUID-GROUND (i.e. from the unbounded NONLOCAL FLOW aka TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka THE GREAT HARMONY aka THE TAO aka THE WAVE-FIELD… to the LOCAL FIGURE). The FIGURE is NOT the SOURCE of the movement of the GROUND and neither is the GROUND the SOURCE of the movement of the FIGURE. In the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE and merely APPEAR as TWO, an APPEARANCE that the intellect ABSTRACTLY CONCRETIZES with the DOUBLE ERROR of LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.
As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. — Alan Watts — The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
SORCERY is where we use naming to impute ‘independently-existing things’ and grammar to impute the power of ‘performing actions’ to ‘independently-existing things. That is, SORCERY is nothing other than the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar, whether it is the alleged SORCERY of the oil discoverer, the SORCERY of sexual abuse of Harvey Weinstein or the SORCERY of Lincoln’s death by John Wilkes Booth. NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION IS THE REALITY, there is no such thing as SORCERY; it is intellectual abstraction triggered by the double error of language and grammar.
* * *.
FOOTNOTE RE THE DIFFICULTY WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE IN ‘SEEING HOW WE ARE SCREWING UP’.
My ‘viewing of reality’ has changed from that of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT to modern physics which is EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT. For many years I was ‘half stuck’ in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE and gradually shifted to what Schroedinger and Advaita Vedanta refer to as the Mahavit view wherein one sees and understands ‘reality’ in the EASTERN way but tries to stay more or less in keeping, when it comes to talking and behaving, with the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT practices.
I would say that the key difficulty we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have in ‘SEEING HOW ARE SCREWING UP’ is well expressed by Nietzsche in his comment on our WESTERN CULTURE CHOICE of ‘taking the high road’ of ‘reason’-based ‘idealizations’ in what we purport to be ‘reality’, instead of embracing the dirty business of relational dynamics wherein the transforming relational continuum never stops, giving us no chance to actually identify ‘things-in-themselves’ (since there are none) and forcing us to develop a ‘flow-based language’, which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS NEVER DID. Of course Bohm acknowledged the need for a flow-based language and then discovered that indigenous aboriginals had already come to that conclusion and done that.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, meanwhile, were still working with a double error abstraction based language and grammar;
And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have REASON!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “REASON” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.
As discussed elsewhere in this essay, a ‘being-based’, ‘reason-based’ language and grammar can’t possible capture what is going on in a flow based reality. But a being-based (reason-based) language and grammar can be used to build INFERENCES of the fluid reality that lies innately beyond capture in BEING-BASED, REASON-BASED (abstract) reality constructions.
In fact, that’s exactly what the EAST does with their language and grammar, uses it for INFERENCE of the fluid reality that lies innately beyond being-based language and ‘reason’; hence Wittgenstein’s mention of the technique of using networks of propositions that can develop the relational (fluid) view, and modern physics use of the Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ that employ ‘things-in-themselves’ only to build a network of relations, so that the meaning in the relations supersedes the explicit information used used to develop the relational web that can convey a fluid reality. This is called ‘bootstrapping’ by physicists Geoffrey Chow and John Wheeler.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have persisted in employing the EXPLICIT messaging capability of language which is based on abstract things-in-themselves with grammar-given powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’), and this EXPLICIT MODE OF COMMUNICATING is innately INCAPABLE of CONVEYING A FLUID REALITY. Therefore, it is only fit for use as a tool of inference that alludes to a fluid reality since using it LITERALLY to share EXPLICIT REASONED PROPOSITIONS can only fall short of conveying the dynamics of a fluid reality.
As Wittgenstein observes in his final proposition in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus,
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”)
In the discussion in the essay concerning the fashion of driving in a crowded freeway situation when a rabbit that darts across induces a cascade of braking and swerving, an interplay between intuition and reason emerges wherein the direct sensory co-cultivating of relational harmony (resonance) manifests. While reason might be good for swerving around through a field of fixed barrels, swerving around through a field of ‘swerving-arounds’ invokes tapping into the collective intuition of ‘what could be’.
Like a ‘synchronized swim team’ that is co-cultivating a lotus blossom figure with their bodies, they are swimming towards where the unfolding lotus blossom is going to be. In terms of brain waves, this puts them into the SMR (sensorimotor rhythm) band (12.5-15.5 Hz.) and out of the beta reasoning band (12-31 Hz.).
What is evident is that there is meaningful -but-inarticulable sensory experience that lies beyond our intellectual-articulable capability. This understanding makes Wittgenstein’s final proposition in Tractatus less enigmatic as well as explaining why the technique of using language in relational inference mode is needed to deal with the flow-based reality affirmed by modern physics.
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.” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein
The point is that ‘explicit language’ is insufficient for conveying the fluid reality we are included in and while WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT society has excelled in the construction (SORCERY) of explicit things, a world of explicit things is not REALITY. Reality is the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao aka the Wave-field in which we ourselves and all things are included. We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT claim we are the SORCERERS of many new things such as cities and highways but to claim this means that we can’t see the forest for the trees; i.e. we speak of our producer-product achievements such as the construction of a new city but this is words (the double error of language and grammar) and NOT reality. As with Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, let those who claim to have constructed a new city establish that they have done so with the same precision as demanded of Shylock in taking his pound of flesh.
Implicit but not explicit In the claim of having constructed a new city, forests have been cleared, quarries have been dug for gravel for concrete, mines have been dug for iron ore, smelters have filled the atmosphere with acrid smoke in making steel, and much more, suggesting that ‘transformation’ is a more fitting term than ‘construction’.
The construction (SOURCING) of a new city IS NOT REALITY, IT IS THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR. THE REALITY IS THE ONGOING RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.
* * *