NONLOCALITY and the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR
How we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS confuse ourselves with our language and grammar.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” – Brutus, in ‘Julius Caesar’.
If I ‘go with the flow’ in pulling the boat up onto the beach, I nevertheless say; ‘I pulled the boat up on the beach’.
Life is like that, your working associates may ‘make you look good’, particularly if you are ‘their boss’.
Can we ever ‘really claim’ that ‘I did such and such’, like ‘mow the lawn’, … or should I be giving credit to the invention of the gasoline engine?
How ‘casual’ we are with our use of language and grammar. Nietzsche speaks of ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’ of NAMING and GRAMMAR which equips us to make simple statements that imply LOCAL actions and developments. This GRAMMAR based abstract conception of LOCALLY SOURCED action and development is what Nietzsche calls ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’.
WHY DO WE MAKE THIS DOUBLE ERROR? — because we live within a transforming relational continuum which is INEFFABLE because it and us are in continual flux. This all-including reality is also known as the Wave-field and ‘the Tao’. We can’t point to something which is everywhere at the same time such as the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao that we and everything are included in. In order to ‘get around’ this ineffable-ness of the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. our inclusion in a NONLOCAL dynamic that is greater than the forms that are included in it (since everything is in flux), we employ the DOUBLE ERROR. The first error is NAMING a flowing form to impute to it LOCAL thing-in-itself existence, and we conflate this with a second error of GRAMMAR to impute to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself the notional powers of LOCALLY SOURCING actions and developments. Now we’re talking! Of course this is not without a few snags that are going to ‘catch us up’ in our tricky attempt to sidestep the ineffability of our fluid reality.
SNAG NUMBER ONE: If a gathering is forming in the flow such as a crowd of human forms, we run into the ‘there is a tide in the affairs of man’ type of complication wherein, we may find ourselves in a situation akin to someone selling iced cokes on a blazing hot day. The DOUBLE ERROR constructions of language let us simply say that ‘we sold a lot of cokes’ which is a story about us and ‘our achievement’ as we are the SOURCE of that achievement. This sort of reality construction is the most common and it defines the ‘conservative’ view of reality which is the simple and straight forward (no complications) view of reality. “I sold a lot of cokes”. Is this TRUE?
When we go to answer whether or not it is true, we run into Goedel’s theorem which says that “all finite systems of logical propositions are innately INCOMPLETE”. It’s true that Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread. Crime Scene Investigation would nail him to the cross in a second with or without the DNA supporting evidence. However, if we open up our understanding beyond the DOUBLE ERROR based constructs of NAMING and GRAMMAR, which serve up logical propositions that are radically limited in the sense of INCOMPLETE, then, while our understanding of reality is enlarged, our ability to ‘effable-ize’ it is DIMINISHED. That is, it is easy to use language and grammar to ‘effable-ize’ the transformation associated with atmospheric turbulence by inventing the EFFABLE word-concept ‘the hurricane’ by NAMING it, ‘the hurricane’ or ‘Katrina’, the hurricane, and then using GRAMMAR to animate the LOCAL thing-in-itself we have just created with the tool of NAMING. Now we’re talking! Instead of getting bogged down in the relational dynamics of TRANSFORMATION which leads us into an endless succession of relational dynamics involving sun and stars and everything else in the transforming relational continuum aka the ‘Wave-field’ aka ‘the Tao’, … this language-based tool of NAMING allows us to reduce the inherently NONLOCAL relational dynamics of TRANSFORMATION to the abstract dynamics (thank you, language and grammar!) LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF perpetrated actions and developments.
Recall when we waited for the tide to help us get our boat up into a safe spot on the beach, was anything stopping us from claiming FULL AND SOLE CAUSAL RESPONSIBILITY for our placement of the boat? The DOUBLE ERROR doesn’t bother with ‘detail’ such as that, which can go on and on (the invention of rope, the development of metal cleat to attach the rope etc. etc.). We would never finish with all the acknowledgements if we were to include such attribution in our language. It is easier just to say; ‘I pulled the boat up on the beach’, … even without mentioning waiting for the incoming tide.
This is the DOUBLE ERROR in action! It gets into our psyche and then we start thinking that our actions JUMPSTART FROM US! Let’s get real, we are not stupid. We waited for the tide to rise to secure our boat because if it were really ‘just us’ pulling the boat into a safe position high up on the beach, it might have required a dozen helpers, or maybe the cutting of small trees to use as rollers beneath the boat, or some such supportive schemes, but in any case, we are quite liable to end up saying; ‘I PULLED THE BOAT UP ON THE BEACH’, cutting into the middle of the transforming relational continuum which includes the emergence of rope etc.
Why avoid giving proper attribution? Because it would go on forever, and language that is logic-based serves us up a scheme that helps us avoid having to address our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which, while it is ‘reality’ is an ‘ineffable reality’.
Yes, while it is true that “all finite systems of logic are innately incomplete”, logic does succeed in reducing an endless complex of NONLOCAL relational developments to something SIMPLE-because-LOCAL and therefore EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, … and we GET THIS with a little bit of cheating called ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’ where we (first error) NAME a relational form in the flow-continuum to impute to it PSYCHOLOGICALLY, its own local thing-in-itself existence and conflate this with GRAMMAR (second error) to impute to the notional ‘local thing-in-itself’ “ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS”. Ok, that’s the second time I’ve pointed out the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR but it really is elusive because, right now, I am using a WESTERN CULTURE language and grammar so how the hell do I get outside of it to share a perspective on how it is limiting our understanding? That’s right, I can’t get outside of it in so far as the literal concepts I am constructing with it at this moment. I have to incite the reader to employ INTUITION to jump outside of the rational constructions I am delivering with these words.
If I say; “I moored my boat to a tree above the high tide line”, we have to remember that line of Shakespeare’s about ‘going with the flood tide’ in which case it isn’t really myself that is the SOURCE of the action and development even though the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar let’s me paint that kind of picture of what is going on, a DOUBLE ERROR NAMING and GRAMMAR picture in which I cast myself as fully and solely responsible for positioning the boat high up on the beach.
JUST HOW MANY LIES ARE WE TELLING OURSELVES with our DOUBLE ERROR based use of language and grammar?
People who have thought through this; i.e. who have not just used language and grammar in ‘normal’ discourse, but who have reflected on the psychological short-cuts and misimpressions we are throwing at ourselves with our habitual simplistic use of language and grammar, come up with a three-tiered model which explains why some people are ‘conservative’ in their outlook on ‘reality’ (i.e. in the reality they manufacture in their psyche based on their ‘psychological processing’ of language and grammar), others are ‘liberal’ and still others are of the mind that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’. This last group of modern physics informed, indigenous aboriginal traditionalists, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents DO NOT EMPLOY EITHER CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS but accept that reality is inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
Ok, before we get ahead of ourselves, it is fairly easy to understand the difference between conservative and liberal. Both of these ‘ways of understanding reality’ are based on the assumption of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments. This is already problematic in view of the world as a transforming relational continuum which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … which is the nature of an all-including Wavefield wherein ‘everything is in flux’.
As already noted, we can PSYCHOLOGICALLY create a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF by NAMING a fluid forming such as a hurricaning, and the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar can take over from this point so as to engender, in the psyche, the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, so that a swirling in the transforming relational continuum such as a hurricaning, wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, … can be reduced, thanks to NAMING and GRAMMAR, … to PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPRESSION of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO where the flow-form INHABITANT is psychologically liberated form the fluid HABITAT.
HEY! FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO IS NOT REAL! … but it is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT whereas FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE in the REAL case of the transforming relational continuum is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
Can you imagine (a) what a great invention this is that allows us to use language and grammar to reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … notionally with the device of language and grammar, … to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL and EXPLICIT, … and (b) what a disaster it could be if we were ever to forget that this reduction were just a crude tool for producing something effable and thus shareable, … something that is only an effable inference of the ineffable that is good only for use as INFERENCE of an ineffable reality that lies innately beyond effable capture. In other words, WHILE IT IS EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, IT IS NOT REALITY! BUT, it can be a highly useful effable-izing tool for INFERRING the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (the transforming Wave-field continuum). So that NO! ‘the hurricane’ only appears in our language-and-grammar informed PSYCHE to be living a life of its own, DOUBLE ERROR style, and the reality remains the transforming relational continuum in which the hurricane is an APPEARANCE such that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.
So, what could ‘go wrong’ as we play around with this tool that reduces the fluid reality of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE to the abstract language-and-grammar based INTELLECTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO?
Well, we’ve already touched upon one AMBIGUITY where we say we parked our boat in a safe place high up on the beach, when in actual reality, we sat around and waited for the dynamics of the space we are included in (tidal movements) to serve as the primary agency while we casually walked up the beach alongside the boat, bow-line in hand WAITING for the opportune time (NOT determined by us) to secure it to a tree.
How much of a lie is it to use the DOUBLE ERROR where we say ‘I secured my boat to a tree on the upper slope of the beach’? “Oh, you did that? Do it again and show me how you do it.” Uhhh, .. can you come back in a few hours and then I’ll show you how “I”DO IT.”
This example is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ as to how we use language to ‘reduce reality’ to simpler terms that reduce all that Goedel’s theory implied complexity by using a simplifying LOGIC.
In other words, it is LOGICALLY CORRECT for me to say “I secured my boat to a tree on the beach” as if it were fully and solely “MY DOING”, but there is something missing here since my powers of doing this seem to decline at ‘low tide’ and return again at ‘high tide’. Just a little something that we don’t bother to include in our DOUBLE ERROR based language and grammar constructions, because if we want to reduce the inherently INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT dynamics of nature (the all-including, transforming relational continuum, aka the Wave-field aka the Tao), to something EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, … then we have to pay the price of dropping out some of the ‘reality’ of the ineffable that we are ‘effable-izing’. For example, the endlessness of the transformation that we see as ‘the hurricane’ which circle back in and around what we call relational TRANSFORMATION (where things cycle back into themselves in a kind of ‘eternal recurrence’), is simply beyond the capability of language capture because it is a dynamic that is going on ‘everywhere at the same time” as is the nature of the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’, so we have to suck it up and impose some LOCALITY on the NONLOCAL reality for the sake of reducing the ineffable to something effable. Unbounded TRANSFORMATION that manifests as hurricaning can be ‘effable-ized’ through our use of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to come up with a LOCAL replacement for the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
Ok, we have unleashed our psyche to play in these language and grammar games to come up with effable-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT language-stimulated psychological impressions of the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT. That is, the unbounded patterns in the transforming relational continuum as in HURRICANING is something we can reduce, psychologically, with language and grammar, to an abstract LOCAL thing-in-itself with its notional LOCAL powers of SOURCING actions and developments, thanks to the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar and what we call the ‘conservative’ view of reality is the habit of interpreting this DOUBLE ERROR reduction LITERALLY so that if I say, ‘I put my boat high up the beach and tied it to a tree’, we can ‘Keep it Simple Stupid’ and interpret that literally and almost no-one will challenge such assertions even though the general case is that NOTHING ever LOCALLY SOURCED by a notional LOCAL independent agent with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments, because such things DO NOT EXIST IN THE REALIT OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE. Those things that we say are capable of locally incipient actions and developments are the abstract intellectual products of NAMING and GRAMMAR; i.e. the DOUBLE ERROR.
I am trying to get to the three ways we can interpret this, but I am also trying to lay the groundwork with sufficient accuracy and completeness so as to at least make a decent INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT which innately eludes direct and explicit articulation.
Ok, I am trying to get to the conservative – liberal split first and then go on to the relational understanding of modern physics inference of fluid (Wave-field) reality, indigenous aboriginal inference of fluid reality, Taoist/Buddhist inference of fluid reality and Advaita Vedanta inference of fluid reality.
Conservatives chop reality down to terms of LOCAL SOURCING of BOTH ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT as in this local being called JOHN constructed this local object called JOHN’S HOUSE. In this case, not only is the relational form in the flow we pin the name JOHN on reduced to a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself, the purported PRODUCT of his actions, ‘the HOUSE’ is also reduced to a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself. Meanwhile the whole landscape is littered in stumps from chopping down trees, water filled quarries from the extraction of gravel for concrete foundations and many more alterations which invites us to understand what is going on in terms of TRANSFORMATION even though our language couches things in terms of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION, such reduction making our language-based representations more ‘explicit’; e.g. I destroyed a bit of this grove of trees over here by cutting some trees out of it, and I produced this log cabin over here by assembling these logs in such a geometry as to provide me with shelter.
ARE WE READY TO INVOKE THE DIRTY WORD YET, of TRANSFORMATION, which seems to be the ‘greater reality’? Why mess around with ‘DESTRUCTION’ of a part of the forest and ‘CONSTRUCTION’ of what we say are IMPROVEMENTS to the land when ‘what is really going on’ is TRANSFORMATION?
PROBLEM! TRANFORMATION would take us out of the picture we have invented where we are the AGENTS of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION. TRANSFORMATION has that ‘no-one-is-in-charge’ kind of ring to it, even if it is the greater reality.
Maybe we could ‘soften’ the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING a bit by admitting that our actions are outside-inwardly inductively shaped as in the ‘tide in the affairs of men’ situation so that we are not doing the ‘conservative trip’ and claiming, outright, that we are the LOCAL SOURCE of actions and developments as if the SOURCING originated fully and solely from our own interior. Hmmm, … there is this belief called WESTERN JUSTICE that was kicked off by the EGO that claimed full and sole LOCAL SOURCING responsibility for constructive actions and developments, which kind of backfired because of the LOGICAL necessity of identifying a symmetrical LOCAL SOURCING responsibility for destructive actions and developments. Still, if we are a group of people looking for LOGICAL ways to organize our activities, in order to give ourselves EGO points as a reward for ‘constructing’ beneficial actions and developments, we have to be LOGICALLY consistent and come up with negative rewards or ‘punishments’ for notional LOCAL authoring of destructive actions and developments.
This sort of system of ‘optimization of the social dynamic’ through rewards and punishments should grow constructive actions and shrink destructive actions.
BUT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? If we say that growing the cultivation of land is a beneficial CONSTRUCTIVE actions, what about the corresponding reduction of the Wilderness? If we were thinking in terms of TRANSFORMATION rather than in terms of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION, as if each were operative in their own right (i.e. the FIGURE of the GROWTH of cultivated land were separate from the overall GROUND as in FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO). However, since TRANSFORMATION is the REALITY affirmed by our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE which means that the SHRINKAGE of Wilderness is in reciprocal relation to the notional GROWTH of cultivated land. It is NAMING and GRAMMAR that gives us GROWTH and SHRINKAGE (both terms depend on the concept of the existence of a local thing-in-itself that is in the first case ‘INCREASING IN “ITS” SIZE’ and in the second case ‘DECREASING IN “ITS” SIZE”. What is this ‘ITS’ business? There are no “ITS” in a transforming relational continuum, there are only relational flow-forms aka ‘appearances’.
The conservative has lifted himself out of the flow and recast himself as a LOCAL thing-in-itself with its own powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, thanks to the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar. He will tend to say; ‘I parked my boat at the high tide line’ as if ‘he did it’; i.e. as if he is an independent thing-in-himself with notional LOCAL powers of sourcing his own actions and developments.
The liberal plays an intellectualizing game that is close to that of the conservative but he puts some slack in the notion of LOCAL SOURCING as if HE HIMSELF did it, and includes in the SOURCING his mother and father and others as contributors, which muddies the waters quite a bit to the consternation of the conservative who just wants to ‘call a spade a spade’ and construct his reality on the simple basis of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR. The liberal is meanwhile adamant that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a child and so how could the child be seen to exist and operate as LOCAL thing-in-itself when its family and community has contributed so much to whatever may be superficially seen as HIS LOCAL ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. There is no such thing as LOCAL for we who share inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, … but we can get to that, because it is a matter of language and grammar architectures and usages.
GIVEN that we are using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR we can opt for the conservative simplicity wherein “one bad apple sources rotting of the whole barrel” or we can alternatively opt for the slightly more complex liberal simplicity wherein “it takes a whole community to raise a child”, … in which case the SOURCING filters out to a great many sub-sources such that if we are the ‘point man’ in some or other SOURCING of ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT, we can be ‘gracious’ and say stuff like “in doing this I am standing on the shoulders of giants”, but no go so far as to exit the LOCAL SOURCING based reality of both conservative and liberal and pass over into the reality of the modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta wherein ‘everything is in flux’ so that there is NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL SOURCING of either type, there is only RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.
This latter understanding of inclusion in the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (as flow is wont to be) captures our sensory experience of inclusion in the flow very well, however, it is INEFFABLE, so if we are going to talk about reality, it is not going to be ‘reality’ that we talk about but rather some sort of REDUCTION OF REALITY, … for example, … as in the DOUBLE ERROR reduction of NAMING and GRAMMAR. And of course, this brings us to the realization that WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have got into the habit of treating the REDUCED-to-EFFABLE pseudo-reality as our OPERATIVE REALITY, leaving aside in another reality, those who, as in modern physics, indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, continuum to understand reality as inclusion within the transforming relational continuum.
HEY, … this language and grammar thing is a great tool that lets us share word pictures of our experience even if such word pictures embody a radical reduction of the real-but-ineffable experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
Both conservative and liberal abstract operative realities make use of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments per the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR (which is where EGO gets inflated or deflated, as well), … but while conservative thinking is based on LOCAL INDIVIDUAL based SOURCING of actions and developments, liberal thinking is based on LOCAL SOCIAL COLLECTIVE based SOURCING of actions and developments. Conservatives do not like this diluting of ‘ownership’ of sourcing actions and developments, whether ‘good actions and developments’ or ‘bad actions and developments’. Liberals, on the other hand, have a bit more humility and thus give credit to the social relational matrix they share inclusion in, as possessing the LOCAL SOURCING power.
The EAST, on the other hand, does not believe in LOCAL SOURCING period, but instead believes, as in the reality understood in modern physics, in the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT Wave-field dynamic aka TRANSFORMATION.
The ongoing feud between conservatives and liberals in the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY, is thus a polarizing battle based on nothing of substance; i.e. based on a belief in the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING that derives from EGO and is given intellectual representation in language-stimulated intellection, by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.
* * *
OK, HOW WOULD I SUMMARIZE THIS?
Both branches of the CONSERVATIVE – LIBERAL split (i.e. this WESTERN CULTURE BIPOLAR DISORDER) believe in the ‘reality’ of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, per the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR (a delusion, as Nietzsche has pointed out).
This DELUSION of LOCAL SOURCING of either the CONSERVATIVE (LOCAL-to-NONLOCAL as in in “one bad apple sources rot in the whole barrel)) or LIBERAL (NONLOCAL-to-LOCAL as in ‘it takes whole community to raise a good/bad child) variety has become, in WESTERN CULTURE a source of antithetical POLARIZING of two respective views of REALITY, both of which promote belief in LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.
The first and most basic source of the confusion, which is being ignored as the two polarized factions of conservative and liberal focus on the correctness of their respective conceptualizations of reality, is the assumption of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments for which there is ZERO justification in the sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. our real life sensory experience as distinguished from our intellectual constructions of abstract, language and grammar based pseudo-real intrllectual constructions of reality via the DOUBLE ERROR.
Conservatives and Liberals are so busy trying to prove the correctness of their chosen POLE of the LOCAL SOURCING based BIPOLAR ORDER (which makes it a DISORDER since it is not ‘real’), the conservatives arguing that the INDIVIDUAL is the most basic source of LOCAL actions and developments and the liberals arguing that the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE is the most basic source of LOCAL actions and developments, that they are both forgetting that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL, … the concept of LOCAL was built into language for the practical purpose of coming up with a language-based system that could, by some or other jiggery-pokery, render EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, that which is in reality INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.
Whate we discover is that such ‘breaking into the continuum’ to insert an ARTIFICIAL LOCAL SOURCING to get around the NONLOCALITY that associates with INEFFABILITY, is ARTIFICE that injects an opposite but invisible GHOST in the same stroke as liberating a LOCAL EXPLICIT thing-in-itself. If we speak of ‘continents drifting’ as ‘reality’ then we inject, at the same time, the bipolar ghost of ‘imaginary’ seafloor spreading. We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are liberating these polar opposite GHOSTS every time we create LOCAL reality with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.
Don’t forget, in TRANSFORMATION there are only ‘relations’ (as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’), THERE IS NO SOURCING, so if I speak of SOURCING a growing area of cultivated cropland, the accompnying GHOST will be the decline of Wilderness. Neither of these is “REAL” since LOCAL BEING and GROWTH are NOT REAL, not for those of us experiencing inclusion in the transforming relational continuum wherein everything is in flux. But if we do want to MAKE-BELIEVE that the GROWTH OF BEING OF FARMLAND is “REAL”, then we had better beware because we are unleashing a compensatory GHOST which is the decline in Wilderness.
Now, these two dynamics of GROWTH and DECLINE of LOCAL things-in-themselves are both FIGMENTS of language and intellectually abstracting imagination, that can nevertheless be employed to construct logical intellectual structures (however incomplete) that serve the purpose of rendering EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT that which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, .. just for talking purposes mind you, … although a whole culture (yes, the WESTERN CULTURE) has emerged on the basis of regarding such reductions to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT as our OPERATIVE REALITY. This is the CRAZY-MAKER of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, it is the BIPOLAR DISORDER which, in order to reduce TRANSFORMATION which is nonlocal, ineffable-and-implicit (as is the nature of the transforming relational continuum), reduces FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE, with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO.
But as Parmenides argued (and sidelined Heraclitus’ understanding of ‘everything-in-flux’ in the proceess), if we have to choose between EITHER ‘IS’ or ‘IS NOT’, it makes LOGICAL SENSE (with that type of logic that considers on EITHER/OR) to go with ‘IS” and to forget about ‘IS NOT’.
Well, we are not justified in making that SPLIT that part we ‘threw away’ in order to make it comes back to ‘haunt us’ by way of the ‘sorcery’ we bought into; i.e. the LOCAL SOURCING that we infused into our language and grammar based intellectual constructions of QUOTE “reality” UNQUOTE.
Let me tell you about this LOCAL hurricane THING-in-ITSELF that is sourcing the ‘STIRRING UP OF THE ATMOSPHERE”. I have been thinking about this and have changed my mind and now understand that it is the ATMOSPHERE that is sourcing the STIRRING UP OF THE HURRICANE’, … or is it? My neighbour tells me that the latter is liberal bullshit and that I should listen to the conservatives who call a spade a spade, who insist that it is the HURRICANE that is sourcing the STIRRING UP OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
What’s that? I hear the old indigenous aboriginal elder down the way laughing and pointing at the sky and claiming that there is no fucking LOCAL SOURCING of anything in TRANSFORMATION, whether of the conservative ONE-to-MANY local sourcing or the liberal MANY-to-ONE local sourcing
* * * * *