The Aboriginal Physics Newsletter explores how our rarely questioned fundamental assumptions influence our worldview. It delves into a radically different-because-archaic-and-forgotten manner of viewing the world. We are all fully ‘equipped for’ this way of seeing and understanding, but since the ‘new ways’ of Enlightenment society ‘took over’ in the West, we have been tending to substitute over-simplified representations of the visible for the sensory experiencing of the visible. Examples of such ‘mis-‘ representation’, along with the implications of how it has been inducing dysfunction in our individual and collective behaviours follow.
Insight into how ‘representation’ of the visible can be a poor substitute for the sensory experiencing of the visible can be derived from reflecting on how we represent the ‘hurricane’ or ‘storm-cell’; an example that arguably provides the general case for ‘what goes wrong’ in our Enlightment society use of ‘representation’.
Our experience is that the storm-cell, or any apparently ‘LOCAL’ system/organism/object is the RESULT of the spatial dynamic or ‘flow’ that it is included in rather than the CAUSE of it. That is, the storm-cell is a rotation that forms in the flow; i.e. the flow is the parent and the storm-cell is the child. The multiple cells that form in the flow are all children of the parent flow. This relationship is common to energy fields and energy fields appear to be the stuff that the world is made of.
Still, since the Enlightenment, it has become common to substitute ‘representations’ for ‘the visible/experienced’ such as maps, drawings, words, and when the technology arrived, ‘photographs’ (and films, videos etc.), and these have been ‘mis-‘ representing the visible/experienced phenomenon. The refusal of aboriginal peoples to have their photographs taken and the removing of the heads of statues representing people or Gods was a (short-lived) reaction to the dangers of ‘mis-‘ representation.
Today, REPRESENTATIONS RULE! And people are more likely to think in terms that ‘storm-cells’ are the CAUSE of turbulence in the atmosphere than they are to think in terms that ‘storm cells’ are the RESULT of turbulence in the atmosphere. ‘Representation’ which becomes ‘mis-‘ representation has infused in Western Enlightment society a ‘wag-the-dog’ worldview in which ‘cause’ and ‘result’ are inverted. As Pasteur and Béchamp contended, the initial idea that ‘microbes cause disease’ was inverted in the same manner that ‘storms cause atmospheric turbulence’ (‘le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout’ – ‘The microbe [inhabitant] is nothing, the terrain [habitat] is everything’ … ‘the proliferation of microbes is the result of imbalance in the body, not the cause of it’).
So the ‘inversion’ in worldview has been recognized but the wag-the-dog worldview of Enlightenment society wherein ‘representations rule’ continues to prevail. And in prevailing, it is the source of much incoherence and dysfunction in the social dynamic.
While awareness of the ‘inversion’ has not (yet) been assimilated into the social dynamic, it has been recognized in physics, in ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum wave dynamics’ wherein the ‘field’ is understood to be the ‘parent’ and the material ‘particle’ the child. Matter-energy equivalence allows physicists to understand that energy-flow comes first and that cells of concentrated energy (aka ‘material bodies’, the ‘inhabitants’ of space) are the ‘result’ of the spatial dynamics (energy-field-flow, the dynamic ‘habitat’) rather than the cause of it. Ernst Mach, who was a mentor of both Albert Einstein and Henri Poincaré, formulated a ‘relativity principle’ that captures this inversion; ‘The dynamics of space (habitat) condition the dynamics of the included matter (inhabitants) at the same time as the dynamics of the included matter (inhabitants) are conditioning the dynamics of space (habitat).
This is not difficult to visualize when we shift to a ‘fluid-dynamical view’ as is needed to put ‘energy-field flow’ into a primacy over material bodies; i.e. the Mach’s principle obviously holds for a multiplicity of convection cells or rotating flows within a parent flow. It is more difficult, because of generations of ‘habit’ wherein ‘representations rule’, to see that Mach’s principle applies to all objects and organisms including ‘humans’.
But we don’t have to study ‘physics’ in the academic sense, and understand all the complex equations etc. in order to understand this acculturated inversion. We have always understood it and we continue to understand it.
So, to be clear, the name ‘aboriginal physics’, in the intended using on this website, derives from;
‘Aboriginal’: ‘Having existed in a region from the beginning”
‘Physics’ : Greek ( φυσις ) : ‘general inquiry into nature, conducted in order to understand how the world works’.
‘Having existed from the beginning’ brings out the fact while the representations of dynamical forms come and go, the parent energy-flow-field has existed from the beginning. It is as the aboriginal peoples say, ‘the wind that was always there’.
General inquiry into nature, orienting to ‘how the world works’ comes naturally to everyone one of us and our intuitions, born of our experience and observations, are fully capable of letting us weigh and compare the relative merits of rendering the dynamics of nature in terms of local objects (representations) with their own (notional) ‘local agency’ as in Newtonian physics, and in understanding the dynamics of nature in terms of energy-field-flow in which the dynamical forms which emerge from the flow, persist and develop, and are re-assimilated in the flow, are local concentrations of energy rather than ‘local objects/organisms/systems’ IN THEIR OWN LOCAL RIGHT.
Again, there is no need to understand the mathematical equations and jargon of academic physics to understand physics in the general sense of habitat-dynamics and inhabitant dynamics and how the two relate, whether in the manner of the storm-cell in the flow of the atmosphere as befits the energy-field-flow view, or whether in the manner of the material-body that moves absolutely in an absolute fixed and empty space, populated by a diverse multiplicity of material bodies, each (notionally) with ‘their own local agency’ that act/interact in empty space. Aboriginal people who have retained their traditional understanding, wherein, man, wolf, bear, tree, river are all ‘strands in the interdependent web of life’, are essentially opting for the energy-field-flow view wherein THE MANY ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE ONE.
For those of us habituated to the ‘mis-‘ representations of our Western Enlightenment society, our view is the wag-the-dog view that THE MANY ARE THE PARENTS OF THE ONE. We call that ‘teamwork’ or ‘cooperation’ or ‘the dynamics of nations’, as if a multiplicity of storm-cells (inhabitants) could get together to really ‘stir up’ our living space (habitat).
This world view transforms ‘organisms’ (such as humans) from ‘sailboaters’, ‘inhabitants’ that derive all of their form, power, direction and steerage from the dynamics of the habitat in which they are situationally included, … to ‘powerboaters’, ‘inhabitants’ that we impute to have their own ‘onboard’ power, direction and steerage (i.e. their own ‘locally originating behaviour’).
This habitual inversion would have us believe that a walk to the office is something that we are in control of, which we affirm to ourselves by reasoning that it is our vision, mission, values, strategies, goals and objectives that underlie the walk to the office. In thinking this way, we ignore the obvious, that ‘things don’t start from us’; i.e. we are inextricably bound up in ‘our life’s dynamic’ and wherever we are, the habitat we are included in keeps changing, and though we are not in control of it, we must respond to it. The mean looking dog that we encounter on the way to the office, the traffic accident, or the old friend that we bump into, the rainstorm etc. all shape our behaviour, so that it is a bit much to say that our actions derive from ourselves and that they cause results (changes in the habitat) and more reasonable to say that our actions are the result of changes in the habitat (the habitat-dynamic) that we are uniquely, situationally included in.
A ‘visual aid’ to help remind the reader of his (our general western enlightenment society) ‘habit’ of inverting ‘cause’ and ‘result’ is as follows;
When we apply this re-inverted-to-natural geometry to humans, we don’t need to interpret ‘result’ in terms of our being and behaving as ‘fully determined’ since we are part of the flow, and what is intended by ‘result’ can be seen in Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the habitat conditions the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat’.
That is, like the storm-cell, we owe our emergence and our dynamical behaviour to the flow we are included in, which we are at the same time helping to change. This ‘self-referentiality’ is difficult for us to handle, in language and in thought, and that’s perhaps why we tend to resort to wag-the-dog ‘mis-‘ representations wherein we attribute ‘local causal agency’ to dynamical forms which are the precipitate of nonlocal causal agency (i.e. the ‘flow’ or ‘habitat-dynamic’).
Now for a few familiar examples to illustrate that this re-inverted (to natural) view is fully general and can be applied to any physical phenomenon whatsoever, including social dynamics;
Example Number One: The Team
Enlightenment society likes to start from ‘representations’ of things. So it is with the team. We might think of the team in terms of a photograph of all the team members that identities the captain or team-leader and all of the characters on the team, the roles they play etc. This focuses on the ‘team’ as a ‘local inhabitant’ in the ‘powerboating’ sense of it having, onboard, its power and steerage; i.e. its own locally originating behaviour driven by internal purpose and direction, as in ‘mission, vision, values, strategies, goals and objectives.
But we could started out by observing the ‘habitat dynamic’, the world full of people doing various things which overall, helpts to give meaning to what the world is and to its continual innovative unfolding. From here we ‘zoom in’ on a group of people who are discussing amongst themselves something they call ‘life’. The conversation might go something like the following;
“Look you guys, whether we like it or not we are here in this mess we call ‘the world’. We are here whether we like it or not and putting a bullet through our heads is not really not that great a way to affirm our ‘free will’. All of us here have creative potentials that can only take on meaning relative to the opening of spatial possibility in the world dynamic that we are situationally included in. If we choose, we can let a team behaviour emerge and be shaped by the opening of spatial possibility that we are situationally included in. Let’s stir up the social dynamic we are included in, like the wildgeese stir up the air that they are included in, and let the resonances in that ‘stirring up’ orchestrate our individual and collective behaviour so that we sustain a continuing ‘coniunctio’ between the outgrowth of our creative/productive potentialities and the opening of spatial possibility. As with the way of the wildgeese, we can let the habitat-dynamics condition our inhabitant-dynamics at the same time as our inhabitant dynamics are conditioning our habitat dynamics. We can’t get around the fact that the environmental/social dynamic, or ‘habitat-dynamic’ for short, that we are included in, comes before us. It has been here for generations, for eons. We are just a strand in this dynamic web-of-life, or better, we are just a storm-cell in this ongoing flow. We mustn’t forget that our team dynamic is the result of the dynamics around us rather than the cause of them, just as storm-cells are the result of the atmospheric flow they are included in rather than the cause of it. There are lots of teams out there like us that are the results of the social dynamic we all share inclusion in, and like convection cells in a common flow, our continuing livelihood is interdependent with theirs, through the mediation of the common habitat-dynamic we all share inclusion in. We derive our power and steerage as team, from the habitat dynamic that we, together with our brothers, are included in. While it is convenient for us to ‘represent’ ourselves as a kind of ‘local machine’ with our various members with their various roles ‘represented’ as contributing ‘parts’ of the ‘local machine’, we mustn’t lose sight of the ‘reality’ that we are the result of the dynamic flow we are included in, and not the cause of the flow. That is, we must not let our ‘representations’ of ourselves have us confuse ‘idealisation’ for ‘reality’.
Example Number Two: – Health and Illness
Enlightenment society likes to give representations to dynamical forms by framing them against a clean blank background (empty space) so as to avoid the complication that that emergent forms are inextricably bound up in the dynamical terrain that they are included in (imposing a notional absolute space frame enables representations that synthetically ‘lift out’ and present ‘dynamical forms’ as if they existed locally in-their-own-right’.
In the history of medicine, Hippocrates started off by defining ‘health’ in terms of sustaining dynamical ‘habitat-inhabitant’ balance. This has been referred to as the Hygiean medical paradigm. But a rival ‘Aesculapian’ paradigm emerged which was further reinforced by Enlightenment representation. In this paradigm, the focus is on a ‘representation’ of the body (and all its ‘parts’) as if it were a locally existing system with its own locally originating behaviour. ‘Health’ in the Aesculapian medical paradigm is deemed to associate with ‘all internal parts working in a good orderly fashion’ with no ‘interference’ from alien biotics. This is in spite of the great majority of what is inside the body being ‘biotic forms’ whose dynamics do not respect the notional (idealisation-based) ‘boundaries’ of the body. In this, the current Aesculapian paradigm, ‘illness’ is defined in terms of the ‘failure or one or more of the parts’ or an attack by microbial pathological causal agents.
There is a fundamental ambiguity here, that has been brought up by, amongst others, Nobel laureate in medicine (for his discovery of how vitamic C works) Albert Szent-Györgyi, who points out that while we say that ‘pneumonia’ is the ‘cause of death’ and put that on death certificates, the condition of the body is always the over-riding influence. If the body’s dynamical balance is destabilized for whatever reason (exposure to conditions wherein its production of thermal energy cannot stay in balance with the loss to the environment of thermal energy), then and only then does it become fertile ground for the unbalanced (disproportionate) proliferation of microbes. As Szent-Györgyi noted, ‘pneumonia’ is a respiratory condition that can associate with a great many different microbe proliferations (there are over 100 different bacteria and viruses that associate with ‘pneumonia’). In other words, the proliferation of the virus or microbe is the RESULT of the out-of-balance body dynamic rather than the CAUSE of it.
This same conclusion was articulated by Louis Pasteur, on his deathbed, acknowledging that his contemporary and frequent adversary on such views, Antoine Béchamp, had been correct in his view, which Pasteur expressed in the words; ‘le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout’ (‘the microbe is nothing, the [condition of the] terrain is everything’). In other words, ‘the proliferation of a virus or bacterium is the RESULT of illness rather than the CAUSE of illness’.
We can think of the virus or bacterium in non-judgemental terms, as if they were like deer grazing on grass in the fields of our body without a problem when the ecology was in balance (when the wolf population kept the deer population in balance) but when some change in the environment induced the wolves to go elsewhere and/or change their diet, the deer population proliferated so that the over-abundance of deer excrement ‘poisoned’ (destabilized) the soil, and the whole ecosystem began to collapse.
If one has the habit of dealing in ‘representations’ such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as in the Aesculapian (purging evil from the body) paradigm, one can make a simplistic ‘causal correlation’ that has one see the ‘deer’ as ‘holding the smoking gun’; i.e. as being the cause of the collapse of the ecosystem. But if one starts from the balance-based Hygiean paradigm, one would recognize that the proliferation of deer was the RESULT rather than the CAUSE of imbalances in the ‘terrain’ dynamic. These two ways of seeing the same thing are always available to us, however, Western enlightenment society has developed the habit of going with ‘representations’ synthetically isolate the ‘evil pathogen’, lifting him out of his inextricable inclusion in his conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation’ (web of interdependencies) and (re-) presenting him as a locally existing organism with his own locally originating (evil-purpose-driven) behaviour.
In Paris in the summer of 1789, the establishment media would claim that the proliferation of angry trouble-makers (the equivalent of ‘evil pathological agents’) in the streets were the CAUSE of imbalances in the social dynamic; i.e. that they were pathological agents causing illness in the social dynamic. The more realistic view is that the proliferation of angry crowds in the street was the RESULT of imbalances/illness in the social dynamic (the huge have – have-not gap) rather than the CAUSE of it.
Example Number Three: Evolution
Enlightenment society likes to give ‘representations’ to the ‘dynamical forms’ in nature that break them out of their web of interdependency. We put the dynamical forms into ‘categories’ which we ‘define’ and ‘name-label’; i.e. into a system of classification, a ‘reference framework’ that we can use to give meaning to them, rather than to the interdependent web of dynamics in which they are included. This is a synthetic means of isolating dynamical forms and RE-presenting them as if they were ‘local, independently-existing systems/organisms with their own notional ‘local agency’.
Evolution is a concept that was popular in philosophy from the time of, at least, Anaximander (600 B.C.) before the Christian concept of ‘creationism’ portrayed things in terms of a God that created the world and populated it with fully-formed humans and animals. That is, the notion that different forms were emerging through a continually ongoing natural process (whether the Gods were behind it or not) was a very old idea.
The ‘new’ aspect in Darwinism starts from an accepting of all of these ‘representations’ of dynamical forms, having conveniently removed them from their web of interdependencies and re-cast them as locally-existing with their own ‘local agency’, … and goes on to formulate a ‘rationale’ for the ‘mechanics’ of this continuing change in ‘their forms’. This was done in the wake of gathering a huge amount of detailed observations of different specimens, categorizing and relating them in this ‘Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Family, Genus, Species’ organizing set of boxes and bins.
Darwin undertook his explanation of how these local forms (this was his starting point, which ignored the interdependencies) could continue to change and to give rise to new forms. The model of ‘competition’ as being a possible solution was clearly in his mind to begin with since ‘competition’ is an artifact of Enlightenment society representation; i.e. if one lifts out the representations of dynamical forms, the strands, from the interdependent relational web, then the natural starting point for what happens becomes their ‘local agency’. On the other hand, if one considers that the dynamical forms are emergent features within a continually unfolding energy-field-flow, then the habitat-dynamics prevail over the ‘inhabitant-dynamics’, hence ‘competition’ because a secondary way of viewing the habitat-dynamics, that is made possible by imputing ‘local existence’ and ‘local agency’ to the dynamical forms.
Post-Darwinian biologists; e.g. Douglas Caldwell, who have not imposed such constraining assumptions as ‘local agency’ on the dynamical forms, have performed experiments that show how the architecture of interdependence in a multi-species microbial community dominates in the development of structure within the individual (strands-in-the-web) species. Once again, the notion of ‘resonances’ that orchestrate individual and collective behaviour comes to mind. Caldwell, in reporting on the findings of these experiments, observes;
“innovation also flows in the reverse direction, from the architecture of the community to the structure of the nucleic acid. In this situation, it may be the structure and architecture of the community that serves the initial blueprint.” … “….The spatial positioning (architecture) and composition (structure) of the resulting bioaggregates constrains the structural evolution of DNA. Any change in DNA structure that compromises adherence is lost through attrition. Any change in DNA structure that reinforces community architecture (bioaggregation) by increasing or improving the specificity of adherence is retained.” – Douglas E. Caldwell et al, ‘Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities’.
Caldwell’s point that Darwin ‘carried into his formulation’ the ‘representation’ based notions of local independent existence and local agency, he underscores with a statistical counting of words used in Darwin’s ‘The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’. The point is that ‘social Darwinism’, implicit in the Enlightenment society’s representation of itself, is being carried into the formulating of a general theory of evolution.
Word Count Analysis from Darwin’s The Origin of Species
|Community (monospecies)||34||Community (multispecies)||0|
Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities, In preparation for the Manual of Environmental Microbiology 2nd Edition, American Society of Microbiology (Section II, General Methodology. Chapter 6, Cultivation of Microbial Consortia and Communities). Douglas E. Caldwell, Gidoen M. Wolfaardt, Darren R. Korber, Subramanian Karthikeyan, John R. Lawrence, and Daniel K. Brannan.
By starting from the assumption that dynamical forms, rather than being born into a web of interdependencies, occur as local, independently existing systems with their own local agency, Darwin severely constrained the possible explanations of evolution.
The data Darwin used are thus ‘theory-laden’ data since the dynamical forms have been stripped out of their interdependences.
The notion of ‘competition’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are particular cases in point.
Stephen Jay Gould’s book ‘Full House’ points to this problem. The ‘fitness’ of the ‘hitters’ in the game of baseball is intrinsically tied up with the ‘fielding’. If the hitters become very productive, it is impossible to distinguish whether it is due to their ‘hitting’ (fitness) or whether it is due to the ‘fielding’ the opening of spatial possibility that is in conjugate relation to the blossoming growth of productive potentialities.
Producing results and opening of spatial possibility are always in a conjugate relationship, and it is only be artificially lifting the ‘productive aspect’ out of this conjugate relationship that one can talk about the ‘fitness’ of the dynamical form seen as a ‘productive (causal) agent’.
‘Natural selection’ is a notion that arises when, after having lifted the dynamical forms out of their conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation and RE-presenting them as local, independently existing organisms with their own local (causal/productive) agency, we observe that some forms proliferate while others fail to persist.
But as Gould pointed out, the ‘fitness’ of the hitters (the inhabitant-dynamic) is not the only thing that can evolve, the receptive/resistive opening of spatial possibility or ‘fielding’ (the habitat-dynamic) can also evolve. In fact, ‘all we get to see’ is the net of the conjugate pair. It follows, then, that the persistence of the hitter associates with the balanced coevolution of hitting and fielding. The persistence of the ‘hitters’ on the hometown baseball team is not assured if they play the Yankees whose ‘fielding’ has evolved relative to the fielding of the hometown baseball team.
In the same way, we tend to credit the ‘farmer’, who, having tilled worn out soil in an over-crowded, tightly regulated and otherwise constrained European habitat relocates in the rich and fertile, un-crowded and relatively unregulated North American lands, and sees the blossoming growth of HIS productive potentialities. Who else have to ‘credit’ if we have a reference system that represents dynamical forms in the one-sided terms of their ‘local agency’ out of the context of the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation, the conjugate ‘hitting-fielding’ relation?
There is nothing else to ‘credit’ but the ‘fitness’ of the local organism, the simplified representation of the dynamical form. We would therefore say that the poor hitter from the Newyork Yankees, when he relocates to some small town team, ‘becomes more productive’ and that the European farmer, when he relocates to the fertile plains of the Americas, ‘becomes more productive’.
Introduction to the Aboriginal Physics Newsletter – Summary;
Though we live in a world characterized by simultaneous mutually influencing interdependencies, the acculturated habit of Enlightenment society is to consider ‘representations’ as ‘reliable substitutes for the visible’. In the case of storm-cells (picture above), while our acculturated view, based on ‘mis-‘ representation, is that the inhabitant-dynamic is locally-sourced (some local source is ‘causing’ the dynamic), our experience and intuition-informed ‘vision’ gives us to understand that the dynamic of the inhabitant is the result of the habitat-dynamic, rather than the cause. But once we extract the visible ‘representation’ and ‘get on a roll’ with it, we impute to it its own ‘local, independent existence’ and its own ‘local agency’. Thus, what is, in reality, a resonance-orchestrated rotating flow, we RE-present to ourselves as a rotating pinwheel-like entity equipped with its own inboard ‘local agency’.
Meanwhile, ‘architecture’ in nature is something that proceeds from the outside inwards. As Caldwell observes, in the architecture of multi-species microbial communities;
“innovation also flows in the reverse direction, from the architecture of the community to the structure of the nucleic acid. In this situation, it may be the structure and architecture of the community that serves the initial blueprint.”
We find the same relationship in the architecture of rocks laid down along a shoreline, the dynamics of the community of grains or pebbles are orchestrated by the resonant energies in their fluid habitat, in the manner of the wildgeese. We can observe the structure of the form; i.e. the ‘V’ of the wildgeese, the uniform packing of fine grains or course grains, but such structure does not inform us of the resonances which orchestrated it. The ‘architectural blueprints’ are ephemeral (they are the resonances in the habitat-dynamic) while the resulting structures linger on. Meanwhile, our inquiry comes in after the fact and seeks to explain the structure and dynamics of the inhabitants as if their source derives from the imputed ‘local agency’ of material bodies whether purely from ‘externally-applied forces’ (so-called ‘inanimate bodies’) and from a combination of ‘external forces’ and imputed ‘local internally sourced forces’ in the case of so-called ‘animate bodies’. In this manner the orchestrating resonances in the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation are entirely ignored as a source of architectural innovation and we are then forced to explain all architecture and dynamics as if they were deriving from the inhabitants.
This ‘tail-wags-the-dog’ inversion has become a general habit in our culture, and while there is no problem if we accept that this ‘simplification’ is based on convenience and that we nevertheless keep in mind that the more general and realistic view is one in which the inhabitant-dynamic (hitting) and the habitat-dynamic (fielding) are in an intrinsic conjugate relation (we only see the net effect) and are resonant balance-seeking, we have a tendency to ‘forget’ and to impute all of the causation to the ‘inhabitant-dynamic’ and ignore its conjugate partner, the habitat-dynamic (the relative resistive/receptive opening of spatial possibility). That is Enlightenment representation substitutes for the ‘habitat-dynamic’, an absolute fixed and empty space frame which leaves us with the impression that the ‘inhabitant-dynamic’ is ‘relative to’ the ‘absolute space frame’. This has been called, in some quarters, the ‘banishment of the Goddess’ (the banishment of the female aspect in the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation).
This ‘tail-wags-the-dog’ inversion has become so common that it is almost transparent to us; i.e. we see things in terms of representations and forget what these representations are dropping out (i.e. the original architectural blueprints upstream of visible genetic structures). This has been, and continues to be, the source of incoherence and dysfunction in the social dynamic.
It is always possible to bring back to our awareness, these two ‘viewing options’, to compare their influence on our view of things and also the related influence of such a view, on our individual and collective behaviours. By doing so, it may be possible to avoid incoherence and dysfunction that is deriving from our ‘forgetfulness’; i.e. from our entrancement with the representational view.
The method of this Aboriginal Physics Newsletter website will be to try to ‘jog our awareness’ of these dual viewing options, in both the newsletter and the blog, the former keying to currently topical issues or reported news and the latter keying to pretty much anything that comes to mind.
* * *