How the Cat’s-paw can give us Understanding of NONLOCALITY
OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE is our primary reality, and it is ‘ineffable’ since it is our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum aka wave-field aka the Tao which is a NONLOCAL DYNAMIC.
NONLOCALITY which characterizes the wave-field (the Tao) is where the descriptor of the world-as-relational-flow, as ‘INEFFABLE’ comes from. The Tao which can be told is not the true Tao.
Humanings are like hurricanings and like all formings in the ‘flow’ (the Tao). The ‘ing’ suffix is to convey the fact that ‘everything is in flux’ and THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE AS A ‘LOCAL’ THING-IN-ITSELF. IN OTHER WORDS, ‘NONLOCALITY’ PREVAILS IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE.
The concept of ‘LOCAL’ is abstraction that we invent for the practical purpose of rendering the ineffable Tao effable. For example, the inductive forms within a flow such as a ‘cat’s paw’ that we see when the wind induces a pattern of ripples on the surface of the ocean, INFORMS US VISUALLY IN A LOCAL SENSE even though the real physical phenomenon is unbounded in space-time. The sense of LOCAL is thus VISUAL and that which is VISUAL and LOCAL is something we can share by pointing to it and developing language to describe it.
The SHAREABILITY of the LOCAL-VISIBLE opens the way to bringing our awareness to a common FOCUS and it thus tends to ECLIPSE our understanding of the physically real NONLOCAL, NON-VISIBLE phenomenon which we INTUIT is the primary phenomenon. That is, OUR SENSUAL EXPERIENCE of INCLUSION IN A NONLOCAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENON (the atmospheric wind flow) comes right after our VISUAL OBSERVATION of the LOCAL CAT’S PAW, and while the NONLOCAL windflow is the ‘PRIMARY REALITY’, the SECONDARY REALITY of the LOCAL-VISIBLE cat’s paw, because it is LOCAL and VISIBLE and thus SHAREABLE, becomes the COMMON basis that serves our communicating and organizing, … thus leaving behind, as far as our gesturing and signalling communications go, … the REAL, NONLOCAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENA.
The ‘cat’s paw’, being LOCAL in its VISIBLE aspect, has the potential to organize and connect our intellectual focus as in pointing and gesturing and the more evolved signalling such as language and grammar based discourse.
NOTE THAT this precedence of orientation to the VISUAL, which orients us to the LOCAL has great utility in that it can ORGANIZE our intellectual attention to the point that there is a ‘drop out’ of our sensory awareness in the REAL phenomenon, which is NONLOCAL, in which we are INCLUDED.
The point here with this cats-paw example is that what organizes our COLLECTIVE INTELLECTUAL focus is that which is LOCAL and VISIBLE, … leaving in the lurch, our fullblown sensory awareness of INCLUSION IN THE NONLOCAL FLOW AKA ‘THE TAO’.
OUR WESTERN CULTURE ORIENTATION TO EXTRACTING UNDERSTANDING OF THE NONLOCAL FLUID (WAVE-FIELD) WORLD ON THE BASIS OF THE LOCAL AND VISIBLE is like the story of the drunk who loses his wallet on a dark and unlit portion of the street but searches for it under the streetlight because the ‘search conditions are better there, where one can see things more clearly’.
We can all see the cat’s-paw and thus it can ‘organize our attention’ and provide us with a ‘common’, LOCAL-because-VISIBLE reference point.
BUT WHAT IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE NONLOCAL, NON-VISIBLE IS THE PRIMARY REALITY? This is the actual case since matter is a precipitate of the wave-field. This opens up for us a deeper understanding of what is going on than than the understanding based on that which is LOCAL-BECAUSE-VISIBLE.
In other words, the cat’s paw is the LOCAL manifesting of inherently NONLOCAL physical phenomena. When we illuminate-with-language the LOCAL impression we get from the visual aspect of phenomena that is inherently NONLOCAL, the lights go out on the overall extent of the real physical phenomena. In the case of the cats-paw, we can use the double-error technique of language and grammar wherein we use naming to impute ‘LOCAL, independent thing-in-itself existence’ to the relational flow-form (first error) and conflate this using ‘grammar’ to impute the power of sourcing actions and development (second error) to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error).
WE JUST OBJECTIFIED AN INTRINSICALLY FLUID FLOW-FORM BY NAMING IT TO IMPUTE LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF EXISTENCE TO IT, AND CONFLATED THIS WITH GRAMMAR TO ENDOW IT, NOTIONALLY, WITH ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. The ‘cat’s paw’ that is ‘moving across the bay’, if we understand it in double error terms, ECLIPSES THE REAL NONLOCAL “ICEBERG” THAT THE CATS-PAW IS MERELY THE TIP-OFF TO.
THIS IS WHERE THE INTELLECT STEPS IN AND ‘TAKES OVER’ (HIJACKS) OUR UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICAL PHENOMENA BY DUMBING DOWN OUR SENSORY AWARENESS, … LIMITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE ‘LOCAL’ AND ‘VISIBLE’ BECAUSE OF ITS GREATER SHAREABILITY. The ‘cat’s paw’ is a case in point.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS REDUCTION OF THE NONLOCAL TO THE LOCAL ON THE BASIS OF VISIBLE, WHILE IT RENDERS THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE (IN A RADICALLY INCOMPLETE/REDUCED MANNER), WHILE IT IS A HUGELY VALUABLE SHARING TOOL, PROVIDED WE DON’T FORGET IT IS A RADICAL REDUCTION OF REALITY, … CAN BE A CRAZY-MAKER IF WE USE THIS REDUCTIVE FORMULATION, LITERALLY, AS A STAND-IN FOR THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE. EXAMPLE: The ‘cat’s paw’ is a LOCAL, VISIBLE form that ‘naming’ makes out to be a local thing-in-itself and that grammar imputes ‘its own powers of sourcing actions and developments’ to. This is the ‘double error’ treatment that Nietzsche has pointed out.
In the reality of our sensory experience, everything is in flux and like the cats-paw, the abstract concept of LOCALITY derives from VISUAL APPEARANCE. The cats-paw ONLY APPEARS TO BE A LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF. That impression IS AN INTELLECTUAL IMPRESSION that comes from the double error of language and grammar, as in the case of the cat’s-paw. Dunings and humanings are NONLOCAL and exemplary of vision based APPEARANCES that manifest in the transforming relational continuum (the flow, the Tao, the wave-field).
‘SEEING IS BELIEVING’ speaks to the ‘trap’ or ‘self-deception’ associated with visualization. For example, would we say that ‘the cat’s paw is a real thing’?
Let’s put it this way; the cat’s paw is a VISUAL ASPECT of a NONLOCAL phenomenon; i.e. the transforming relational continuum. If we don’t talk about it, we don’t lie, but when we talk about it, we introduce the double error of language and grammar which captures the cat’s paw as a ‘LOCAL’ , ‘THING-IN-ITSELF’ and transfers ‘movement’ as associates with the transforming relational continuum, to the double-error based intellectual (language and grammar based) pseudo-reality. This ‘pseudo-reality’ serves us as a highly useful and valuable tool for SHARING a reductive visual imaging of our experience within the INEFFABLE TAO, but this visual imagery based sharing is only capable of capturing the superficial aspect, as is clear in the case of the ‘cat’s-paw’.
USING and ‘talking up’ the VISIBLE-LOCAL facilitates our making an ‘end-run’ around the ineffability barrier as associates with REAL WORLD SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN NONLOCALITY (the Tao, the wave-field). This opens the way for SHARING (a reduced voyeur visual impression of) our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao. While the ‘cat’s paw’ is spoken of as a visible thing-in-itself that we see out there, … we fail to mention our experience of being buffeted through our inclusion in it (the downdraft), since our language based articulation in ‘double error’ terms is intellectually perceived as being ‘out there in front of us’.
VISUAL IMAGES CANNOT CAPTURE NON-LOCALITY, YET NONLOCALITY IS THE BASIC REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO.
Insofar as we use visual imagery as the basis for language and grammar construction of a shareable intellectual-conceptual ‘reality’ that we employ as our ‘operative reality’, we DROP OUT our sensory experiential awareness of inclusion in the Tao. The thing we call a ‘cats-paw’ takes on a ‘life of its own’ thanks to the double error of language and grammar which imparts to it’ (i.e. WHICH IMPARTS TO OUR INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALIZING OF ‘IT’) its own LOCAL being and its own LOCALLY INCIPIENT powers of sourcing actions and developments.
SEE THE CAT’S PAW MOVE ACROSS THE BAY? Does this not make it seem as if the cats-paw is a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is ‘out there’ and is capable of ‘sourcing its own movement’ as is general in our invoking of the double error? And where we say, that ‘it has weakened’ prior to reaching the shore we are standing on, we are in effect imputing to it, its own capacity for strengthening or weakening, as is general in our invoking of the double error.
CAN WE NOT, THEN, AGREE, THAT WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE IN THE HABIT OF USING LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TO CONSTRUCT INTELLECTUAL PSEUDO-‘REALITIES’ BASED ON VISUAL APPEARANCES THAT ARE INNATELY SUPERFICIAL AND WHICH IMPLY ‘LOCAL’ EXISTENCE OF NOTIONAL (NAME-INSTANTIATED) THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’, AND ARE EMPLOYING THESE PSEUDO-REALITIES AS OUR WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’.
I am NOT saying that EASTERN CULTURES are NOT ALSO in the habit of constructing THESE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED PSEUDO-REALITIES, … but what I AM SAYING is that the EASTERN cultures (indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta) rather than employing these PSEUDO-REALITIES AS OPERATIVE REALITIES, … employ them as WITTGENSTEIN LADDERS’, effable INFERENCE of the ineffable rather than as directly employable ‘replacement realities’ as in WESTERN practice.
The example of the ‘cat’s paw’ illustrates this difference. FOR THE WESTERN MIND, THE INTELLECTUAL CONCEPT CALLED THE CAT’S PAW IS A REAL THING WITH ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ITS OWN MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, but for the EASTERN MIND, THE ONLY REALITY IS THE TAO, THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, AND ‘THE TAO THAT CAN BE TOLD IS NOT THE TRUE TAO’, … SO THAT THAT WHICH IS LOCAL AND ‘EFFABLE’ RATHER THAN NONLOCAL AND ‘INEFFABLE’, IS NOT REAL.
We could rephrase this as follows; ‘Western culture adherents use language and grammar to construct an abstract pseudo-reality based on the abstract INTELLECTUAL (double error [name-and-grammar] based) concepts of ‘local’ and ‘effable’ ‘things-in-themselves’ …. THAT OVER-RIDES, IN WESTERN CULTURE UNDERSTANDING, the SENSORY reality of our feeling experience of inclusion in the nonlocal Tao, the transforming relational continuum aka the wave-field.
In other words, as sentient inclusions in the Tao, we FEEL WHAT THE CAT’S PAW IS FEELING, AND IT IS THIS FEELING EXPERIENCE THAT SHAPES THE CAT’S PAW’S DEVELOPMENT AND MAKES IT WHAT IT IS. In the same sense, ‘dunings’ and ‘humanings’ are resonances within that transforming relational continuum just as the ‘cat’s paw’ is. Our Western language convention might have us speak of ‘interactions’ between the ocean and the atmosphere in the case of the ‘cat’s paw’ and interactions between the land and the atmosphere in the case of ‘duning’, however, from the point of view of the energized wave field where everything is flow, we would have to understand everything in terms of ‘relations’ and this would not mean RELATIONS BETWEEN THINGS but ‘relational influence’. Expressing the experiencing of relational influence without dependency on ‘things’ would have to be in terms of ‘feelings’. If we go to the level of understanding of the energy wave-field and nonlocality (i.e. beneath the description in terms of the ‘local’, then we would have to understand ‘things’, in including ourselves, as ‘feelings’).
The universe aka the wave-field (resonance-field) is a self-organizing UNUM held together by relational influence that some have suggested is that ‘feeling’ we know as ‘love’.
According to modern physics as also according to EASTERN culture understanding, everything is in flux and all forms are ‘sensation-induced-formings’ within the Tao. In modern physics, this understanding requires BOTH/AND logic of the included medium where ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ ARE ONE. However, according to WESTERN culture understanding, figure and ground are conceived of as an ontologically separate ‘duality’. This understanding requires EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium wherein ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ ARE TWO.
Whether we admit it or not, when we consider the ‘cat’s-paw’, we may understand the cat’s-paw in the flowing water in a ‘figure-and-ground’ context as an ontological duality, and among those that do, we may split into two opposing groups; the ‘conservative’ group which assumes the figure is stirring up the ground, and the ‘liberal’ group that assumes the ground is stirring up the figure.
That is how we Western culture adherents tend to split BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE FIRST ASSUME THE ONTOLOGICAL SPLIT BETWEEN FIGURE AND GROUND.
In the cat’s paw example, there is no ontological split between ‘figure’ and ‘ground’, … that is only ‘appearance’, and thus the ‘LOCAL’ aspect of the cat’s paw is ILLUSION. It is the abstract concept of LOCALITY coming from visual perspective that underlies the WESTERN CULTURE conservative-liberal split. That is, without the abstract concept of ‘LOCALITY’, the ambiguity as to whether the local figure is stirring up the ground it is included in or the ground is stirring up the local figure, does not arise. The relational understanding of the world is a NONLOCAL understanding wherein figure and ground are only 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
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: Our sense experience would have us understand that we are included in what we visually perceive as ‘what is going on out there’, as in the case of the ‘cat’s paw’. However, because we go directly from visual observations to language and grammar, we fail to take account of our inclusion in the phenomena we are ‘looking out at’.
When we acknowledge our sensory experience of inclusion, e.g. as we feel our clothes flapping from our inclusion in the resonance that is the cat’s paw, … language based articulation becomes impossible (our inclusional experience is ineffable), because our language is based on capturing a voyeur visual perspective and rendering it in language and grammar based ‘double error’ terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally ‘with their own incipient powers of sourcing actions and developments’.
Our natural sensory experience of inclusion in the cat’s paw highlighted by the resonant energy flapping of our jacket is not included in the voyeur visual impressions that we capture in language and grammar terms. Language based capture/expression of our experience of inclusion in the Tao is impossible; such experience is ineffable. “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu.
While the EAST acknowledges that ‘what we can talk about’ is not reality (is not the reality of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao), we Western culture adherents employ the effable understandings of the double error of language and grammar as our ‘operative reality’, AND THIS IS A CRAZY-MAKER…. ‘EGO’ AND ‘GUILT’ and ‘GOOD AND EVIL’ (‘crime and punishment’) and ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE follow directly from the ‘double error’ and thus highlight the WEST’s binary abstraction based reality that departs from the reality of the EAST where reality is understood in the relational terms of cultivating harmony and balance which bundles within it the overcoming of dissonance and imbalance. That is, there are no binary choice such as GOOD versus EVIL in the EAST since such choices arise from the abstract concept of LOCALITY as in SORCERY which come from language and grammar and which have no place in the reality of sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
* * *
Tips for understanding reality as inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the wave-field of modern physics’
The sensual experience mode we are in wherein our understanding is of the Tao, is our NATURAL mode of understanding. The reality of our inclusion in the Tao is ‘ineffable’ since everything is in flux (Heraclitus, modern physics). As Wittgenstein observes in his final proposition in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; ‘of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence’.
Of course, the development of language and grammar has opened the way to our articulating and sharing of our experiencing of the Tao, … although this language and grammar based articulation can only capture a REDUCTION of our sensory experience of inclusion in the ineffable, nonlocal transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.
IN WHAT WAY IS OUR EXPERIENCE REDUCED IN PUTTING IT INTO LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, … SO THAT IT IS IN A FORM THAT WE CAN SHARE IT (OR ALLUSION TO IT) WITH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR?
Our inclusion in the Tao is inclusion in transformation; i.e. inclusion in the transforming relational continuum wherein there is no such thing as LOCALITY in EITHER SPACE OR TIME. In fact, as modern physics reminds us of, the split apart concepts of ‘space’ and ‘time’ are abstractions that we have invented as part of reducing our experience to language-and-grammar terms. Example: ‘duning’ is a nonlocal RESONANCE (wave-field dynamic) phenomenon which 3 dimensions is incapable of expressing. The three dimensional object-in-space reduction, which drops out the essential wave-dynamical nature of resonance, RE-presents duning in terms of ‘dunes’ that grammar equips with their own powers of sourcing actions (the dunes are shifting) and development (the dunes are growing higher and longer).
‘The dune’ is the language and grammar reduced notional ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own (grammar-given) powers of sourcing actions and developments. This is all abstraction based bullshit invented for the very good reason that the Tao is ineffable because it is nonlocal (wave energy is inherently nonlocal). By imputing ‘local thing-in-itself being’ to one of these lobes of resonance that is gathering together dust and sand, we can turn the tables within the intellect, and have us speak in terms of ‘a dune’; i.e. one of these appearance-based ‘lobes’ in a resonance that is inductively gathering and collecting dust and sand, and in using language to portray this ‘lobe-appearance’ in the resonance as a local thing-in-itself, we have to add to this re-construction of reality, ‘grammar’ as in ‘the action verb’ to synthetically re-animate this synthetic thing-in-itself that we get by ‘naming’ one of the innately relational ‘lobings’ in the resonance phenomenon that is gathering sand and dust together in shapely wave-form mounding.
DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO REDUCTION OF AN INHERENTLY RELATIONAL WAVE DYNAMIC TO LOCAL LOBES THAT WE USE GRAMMAR TO PORTRAY AS HAVING THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT? NO PROBLEMS? (that is; … yes, of course it is very useful to have a tool like this, but watch out when we start applying it to redefine ourselves).
Reflection informs us that we had to cheat and dumb down ‘reality’ so as to use the tool of language and grammar to render the ineffable Tao (wave-field) effable.
WHAT DID WE GET IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS DUMBING DOWN? There is a reason why anthropologist Mircea Eliade titled his paper on this reduction ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ in the original French, which has been translated into English as ‘the Two and the One’. It was a kind of a ‘deal with the devil’ that we humans made in order to reduce the INEFFABLE AND THUS UNSHAREABLE reality of our sensory experience into something EFFABLE AND THUS SHAREABLE, and what a prize that has been for us humanings, to be able to share our experiences and discoveries. It is hugely advantageous to have language that allows us to avoid repeating nasty experiences and to quickly home in on valuable practices that thousands of others were FINALLY led to after being led down blind and dangerous alleys prior to discovering practices there were safe and effective and might even approach, in some sense, an ‘optimum’; i.e. Language and grammar have enabled sharing so that not everyone has to go through all that trial and error.
Of curse, there is some loss here in bypassing all of that trial and error experiencing. The Ph.D. virgin can be more of an expert on sexual intercourse than her more physically-experienced parents and thus bypass all the trial and error fooling around so as to go directly, and fully knowledgeably to the ‘optimized’ ‘best practice’. However as Heraclitus observed, ‘The knowledge of many things does not teach understanding’. Understanding can be that more robust knowledge that comes through experience-grounded understanding.
The exposure here is ‘suboptimization’ which has been described in terms of climbing the mountain, but after you get to the peak and get a better view of the countryside, it becomes clear that you are only on the peak of a ‘foothill’ and that there are much taller peaks to climb. However, you may have committed all your resources to climbing the path to the summit that you believed to be THE summit, and never expected to be dead-ended by reaching this peak that you thought was THE peak but is instead a distraction from what you were seeking which was a more overall optimization.
If the members of different nations set themselves to the task of optimizing the performance of ‘their nation’ as if it were an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’ only to discover that the community of nations is INTERDEPENDENT (i.e. that their ‘independence’ is a language and grammar based abstraction rather than a physical reality), then we have a problem wherein the self-perceived as ‘independent’ individual nations (and humans and corporations) that are ‘competing’ and trying to do better than the rest, are instead operating within one and same relational unum (as suggested by ‘mitakuye oyasin’), then the notion of one nation growing stronger and richer than the others (‘suboptimization’) is a delusion based on the double error of language and grammar (Nietzsche). Invent a new ‘country’ by ‘naming it’ and one can immediately inventory ‘its assets’ and speak of ‘its actions and developments’. This is in spite of such belief in this ‘double error’ being only a WESTERN tradition of abstract thinking, … and in spite of the indigenous peoples, and those informed by modern physics NOT buying into such blatant abstract ‘double error’ artifice. Nevertheless, people have and are continuing to swear belief in the existence of thing-in-itself nations and pledge to give their lives, if necessary, to sustain general belief in their nation’s ‘independent existence’, an abstraction-based ‘independent existence’ that comes with the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, as pointed out by Nietzsche.
REMINDER: This double error based scheme is what opens the door to ‘sharing’ of a reduced expression of our ‘experience’ of inclusion in the Tao which is otherwise ineffable, being inherently ‘nonlocal’. The ‘double error’ is what synthetically ‘localizes’ the ineffable, nonlocal reality of the Tao by reducing it with language and grammar to local and effable expression. ‘Duning’ as in nonlocal relational resonance is thus reduced to ‘dunes’ that grammar endows with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.
THE SHARING OF INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING THAT IS ENABLED BY LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR IS A GREAT CAPABILITY THAT DISTINGUISHES HUMANINGS FROM OTHER ANIMALINGS IN THE TAO (THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM), … but IT IS JUST A REDUCTIONIST TOOL THAT HELPS US INFER THAT WHICH WE ARE INCLUDED IN, AND IT IS A MISTAKE TO USE IT AS A FULLBLOWN OPERATIVE REALITY; I.E. IT IS A MISTAKE TO LET THE TOOL RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE, as Emerson observes that we Western culture adherents are in the habit of doing.
Our Western culture ‘success stories’ are all cast in these ‘double error’ based (ego-based) terms; i.e. they are in terms of the reductionist scheme that allows us to reduce the ineffable Tao to effable inference as with ‘duning’ reduced to ‘dunes’, name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar-given (notional) powers of sourcing actions and developments. Likewise with ‘humaning’ and ‘nationing’.
Ok, this is a useful tool in that it can be used to reduce the ineffable nonlocal Tao to effable INFERENCE in terms of local beings with local powers of sourcing actions and developments, as with the reduction of NONLOCAL wave-field dynamic (resonance) that is ‘duning’ to the LOCAL thing-in-itself-based material dynamic of ‘dunes’ notionally with self-resident powers of sourcing actions and developments (the basis of ‘ego’). As Wittgenstein points out, this tool does not REALLY REDUCE THE INEFFABLE TO THE EFFABLE, it reduces the ineffable to an effable ‘springboard’ that can suggest to us the ineffable that lies innately beyond it, and that we can ‘intuit’ if we use the effable NOT IN ITS LITERAL DOUBLE ERROR BASED MEANING, but as a suggestive inference that can stimulate our intuition of understanding that transcends the limited capabilities of language and grammar.
Without the intuitive leap which is of the type suggested by; ‘A man’s reach can exceed his grasp or what’s a meta phor’, the literal or effable meaning, is not going to give us a realistic understanding of the primary reality which is the nonlocal, relational reality of the ineffable Tao.
In short, I would put it this way; … while language and grammar can give us a tool for inferential suggestion to trigger intuitive understanding of the ineffable Tao that we experience inclusion in, Western culture has encouraged direct and explicit use of language and grammar in ‘constructing pseudo local realities’. This Western culture practice of reduction of the nonlocal to the local not just as a tool of inference, but as an abstract surrogate ‘reality’, is a crazy-maker; i.e. it is a case of ‘the tools running away with the workman, the human with the divine’ . — Emerson
Since the reality of the Tao is ‘nonlocal’, ‘figure’ and ‘ground’, ‘subject’ and ‘object’ become ONE (the abstraction of ‘local’ is the psychological underpinning of their binary status). In acknowledging nonlocality, the ‘figure’ loses its ‘double error’ (Godlike) powers of local Creation/Sorcery.
“In Reason’ in language! .– oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’
* * * END OF POSTSCRIPT * * *