“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche

I doubt that the reader who is already a Western culture adherent such as myself will (at least initially) agree with these following findings from my (and others’) philosophical investigations, which point to why ‘East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet’.

Nietzsche’s above quote, along with his identification of the infusing into the Western intellect of ‘the -double error’ speaks to a psyche-prepping-intellectual-‘habit’, a habit that has long ago dropped below the coverage of our Western culture intellectual radar screen; i.e. the VISUALIZING apparatus of our intellectual reality constructing has hijacked center stage, while our sensing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (which is beyond voyeur visualization) has been ‘eclipsed’ by the strong visual impression characteristic of language and grammar based INTELLECTION.  What ‘goes missing’ in this hijacking of understanding triggered by language and grammar-based visualization is the ineffable (intuitive) understanding of the all-including relational transformation (the Tao) that defies visual representation.

Meanwhile, the ‘greater understanding of reality’ as a transforming relational continuum, even though it is ‘wallpapered over’ by our visualization based linguistic representation, retains its natural primacy in our unarticulated experiential understanding.   For example, we know that ‘duning’ is a resonance phenomenon (wave dynamic) that we reduce with language and grammar abstraction to “dunes that grow large and long and shift across the desert floor”.   This latter ‘double error’ based reduction of resonance phenomena permeates Western culture INVENTED REALITY constructions which serve up the  ‘operative realities’ of Western culture.

We understand ‘resonance’ as a wave-field phenomenon as in ‘duning’, however, this belongs to the transforming relational continuum (the ineffable) and in order to make it ‘effable’ we reduce it by way of the ‘double error’ to a name-instantiated things-in-itself (first error), notionally with ‘its’ own powers of sourcing actions and development (second error).  Thus we reduce it to a ‘dune’ that we say ‘is growing larger and taller, and which is ‘shifting’ across ‘the desert floor’.


GOOD-BYE TO ‘RESONANCE’, the stuff of our actual sensory experience, since our abstract ‘double error’ of language and grammar is BURYING IT and ‘taking its place’ in our abstract ‘visual representation’ of reality (the Tao is not reducible to visual imagery).  Visual observation gives us a REDUCED TO ‘voyeur visualizing’ of the ineffable wave-field reality that includes us and everything, however, by using ‘double error’ grounded language and grammar-based rhetoric, we construct a ‘revised, abstraction-based INVENTED REALITY that becomes, for us Western culture adherents, our OPERATIVE REALITY.

Now, thanks to language and grammar, we visualize ‘the dune’ with its own powers of sourcing actions and development, so WE DON’T NEED TO SPEAK OF ‘RESONANCE’ (WAVE-FIELD DYNAMICS) any longer, and can let that understanding sink down below the surface of our active intellectualizing that we are re-rendering in the abstract double error terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (‘dunes’, ‘humans’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’), notionally with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments’ (thanks again, language and grammar).

To speak in the visualization-based terms of ‘the dune’ that ‘grows larger and longer’ and ‘shifts across the desert floor’, … wallpapers over our understanding of the ineffable purely relational resonance phenomena (wave field dynamics) as constitutes the transforming relational continuum.

HOW, THEN, DO WE RECOVER OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MORE COMPLETE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION BASED REALITY, ONCE WE HAVE ‘WALLPAPERED OVER IT’ WITH THE ABSTRACT DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION?  That which is readily available to our voyeur visualizing is what we can express in language and grammar by way of ‘double error’ reduction, making it readily shareable with one another.

If we are unable to recover what we inevitably lose in the DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION BASED VISUALIZATION, the ‘INVENTED REALITY’ that we then construct  will be radically incomplete relative to the INEFFABLE REALITY of our actual (beyond visualization) reality of inclusion in the Tao (i.e. our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’).

Once we have ‘deconstructed’ our ‘in-the-Tao’ (purely relational) reality of sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao with the tool of language and grammar and recast ourselves and other relational flow-forms using the ‘double error’, the REDUCED ‘INVENTED REALITY’ that we come up with and are using as our ‘operative reality’ is now ‘occluding’ or ‘wallpapering over’ the now submerged (into the subconscious) resonance or wave-field based reality of our actual sensory experience; i.e. ‘duning’ is now gone and in its place is the reduced abstract (double error) concept of ‘dunes’, notional ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

Of course, the resonance based (wave-based) phenomenon of ‘duning’ is NOT REALLY GONE FROM OUR EXPERIENCE OF SENTIENT INCLUSION IN THE TAO, … ‘duning’ is only gone from our intellectual grasp thanks to our double error-based re-construction of ‘reality’ (our language and grammar based INVENTED REALITY).

We ‘are heating ourselves’ by this substituting of a reduced reality based on the ‘double error’ for a good reason; i.e. we needed to re-render the ineffable in some effable form, whether or not we lost the ‘completeness’ of the Tao in our language and grammar-based reduction.  What we gain is the ability, through language, of being able to articulate the ineffable and thus share our observations and experiences so that we can learn from one another (e.g. males from females and vice versa and children from adults and vice versa).

The ineffable remains the authentic reality of our actual sentient experience of inclusion in the Tao, however, the tool of language and grammar gives us A REDUCED BUT SHAREABLE UNDERSTANDING IN VOYEUR VISUALIZATION BASED TERMS.  ‘DUNING’ AND ‘HUMANING’ ARE PURELY RELATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INEFFABLE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, however, ‘dunes’ and ‘humans’ are something we can talk about, thanks to the ‘double error’ of language and grammar which ‘breaks relational forms out of the flow’, recasting them as things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments, so that we can construct an EFFABLE INVENTED REALITY, a tool, however imperfect, that can at least ALLUDE TO THE INEFFABLE TAO, a ‘wavefield’ that is like a sea of transformation made of ‘boils’ (relational forms) that are continually forming and re-forming’.  These relational forms are not independent of the flow in which they are included but are ‘appearances’ within the flow (Tao).

OK, this ‘double error’ reduction is the WESTERN CULTURE WAY OF RENDERING THE INEFFABLE (somewhat) ‘EFFABLE’.  The double error of language and grammar constructs a pseudo-reality grounded in the absolutes of ‘independent material entities’ with ‘powers of sorcery (local, jumpstart genesis).

The EASTERN CULTURE WAY OF RENDERING THE INEFFABLE (somewhat) ‘EFFABLE’ IS grounded in relational-inference; i.e. by employing the ‘sharing circle’ and/or ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.  The inferential approach avoids any/all dependency on ‘absolutes’ such as ‘’things-in-themselves’ with powers of ‘sorcery’ (local, jumpstart genesis).  This EASTERN CULTURE WAY (TAO) accords with the wave-field reality of modern physics and with the indigenous aboriginal ‘mitakuye oyasin’, all things are related.

The reason why ‘reality’ is perceived very differently in the East (and in indigenous aboriginal cultures) from the West lies in the very different ways (described above) in which ‘the ineffable’ (the Tao) is reduced to ‘something effable’ at the cost of a reduction from the ineffable.  That is, the reduction of the ineffable to something effable; … IS;

-IN THE EAST, by means of a matrix of relational inferences as in the indigenous aboriginal ‘sharing circle’ and/or in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics (which accords with the Eastern view, as pointed out by Schroedinger and others, … and,

-IN THE WEST, by means of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (Nietzsche).  The first error is in ‘naming’ a form in the transforming relational continuum to impute to it ‘independent thing-in-itself existence’ and then (second error) conflate this by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.   Thus, a fluid resonance feature such as a ‘duning’ becomes, with the double error of language and grammar, a ‘dune’ that is ‘growing longer and larger, and is ‘shifting to the south’.

The ‘duning’ of the East is the manifesting of the relational phenomenon of ‘resonance’ which is a ‘wave dynamic’.  Resonance is a real dynamic that is ‘available to our sensual experience’.  If we pour some salt on the galley table in a ship we are sailing in, the engine excited vibrations/resonances may induce ‘duning’ of the salt.  Our language and grammar based expression of this is likely to reduce ‘duning’ (wave resonance) to the double error terms of ‘salt dunes’ that form, grow larger and shift around on the table top. That is, our language makes it seem as if the ‘dunes’ are the authors of their own development and movement.  That is the ‘double error’.


Modern physics understands ‘duning’ in a wave-dynamical sense; i.e. as a resonance feature rather than in the double error terms of a ‘name-instantiated thing-in-itself’ with powers of sourcing its own actions and development.  Indigenous aboriginal cultures have the same understanding, which why David Bohm concluded that such cultures were ‘already there’ with the leap in understanding that Western culture, with its Newtonian physics, had not yet made passage to.

A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

As modern physics researcher Geoffrey Chew pointed out, the indigenous aboriginal cultures employed a sharing circle based ‘bootstrapping’ approach to understanding ‘reality’ in a holographic sense (capturing reality as a transformation relational continuum WITHOUT DEPENDENCE ON ANY EXPLICIT BEING BASIS);

[Geoffrey Chew]: “when you formulate a question, you have to have some basic concepts that you are accepting in order to formulate the question. But in the bootstrap approach, where the whole system represents a network of relationships without any firm foundation, the description of our subject can be begun at a great variety of different places. There isn’t any clear starting point. And the way our theory has developed in the last few years, we quite typically don’t know what questions to ask. We use consistency as the guide, and each increase in the consistency suggests something that is incomplete, but it rarely takes the form of a well-defined question. We are going beyond the whole question­and­answer framework.”



-1- Western culture is a ‘crazy-maker’ because we Western culture adherents have let this ‘double error’ tool ‘run away with the workman’ (Emerson).  That is, we have let it redefine humans, nations, corporations and many other things, as ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments BY WAY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  Indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta adherents do not fall into this double error trap.

-2- Sorcery and Ego follow from the double error of language and grammar.  This shows up as ego in the Western culture individual and in Western culture collectives as ‘nationalism’ and ‘corporatism’.

-3- Concepts such as ‘rape’, ‘murder’ and ‘mass murder’ are ‘double error’ based abstractions and are NOT REALITY.  In other words, such harmful developments are relational dissonance within the transforming relational continuum.  There is only resonance/dissonance within the transforming relational continuum.  The ‘double error’ meanwhile INTERJECTS LOCAL SOURCING to take the place of purely relational dynamics (dissonance, resonance).  Just as there is no ‘dune’ in ‘duning’, there is no ‘rapist’ in ‘raping’ and no ‘murderer’ in ‘murdering’ since the physical reality of our actual sensory experience is intrinsically relational.  Raping and murdering and manifestations of relational dissonance in the transforming relational continuum.

-4- In view of -3-, the response to the emergence of raping and murdering must be the restoring of relational harmony within the transforming relational continuum (i.e. to move relationally so as to transform relational dissonance into relational harmony).  This is where ‘restorative justice’ comes into play as the ‘natural’ solution to emergence of relational dissonance.  In a relational dynamic, there is no ‘local sourcing’ of dynamics such as ‘rape’ and ‘murder’.  Furthermore, there is no ‘offender-victim’ split.  The local jumpstart notion of a ‘criminal act’ derives from the double error of language and grammar.  If a dog runs across a busy freeway, the braking and swerving may go on for a long while and, eventually, two cars, a long way ‘downstream’ from the dog-avoidance event may collide, at which point the one (crasher) may be declared ‘the offender’ and the other (crashee) may be declared ‘the victim’ on the basis of the ‘double error’.  Such ‘reduction’ or reality to double error terms is intellectual abstraction.  The ‘real’ dynamic is relational and not ‘double error’ (language and grammar abstraction) based


The ‘double error’ is one way (THE WESTERN WAY) of using language and grammar to render the ineffable effable; i.e. in this case the rendering is in explicit terms.  It reduces, by way of language and grammar abstraction, relational dynamics, to explicit, local, jumpstart genesis/sorcery terms.

The sharing circle and/or the ‘surprise version of the game of twenty questions’ is one way (THE EASTERN WAY) to render the ineffable effable. It reduces language-and-grammar-based expression of relational dynamics to implicit, nonlocal inference that stimulates a psychological ‘leap’ to holodynamic understanding.  One might say that it brings many different observations into an interferential confluence whereupon the coherence can be extracted.  The coherence is the ineffable understanding.

This is Bohm’s point in his example of the death of Lincoln;

“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:

 * * *


Do you believe that there ‘really’ ‘is’ such a thing as ‘murder’ or ‘mass murder’ wherein one person kills another person or persons?  Or is this an abstract way of capturing, in language and grammar, outwellings of dissonance within a relational dynamic?

If you do believe that ‘murder’ adequately captures what is going on, then you are, in effect, basing your belief on the ‘double error’ wherein we use ‘naming’ to impute ‘independent thing-in-itself-being’ to a relational form in the flow (Tao) and conflate this by imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated (abstract) thing-in-itself.  The net effect is to engender belief in the abstract concept of the local genesis (sorcery) of actions and developments.

In the Tao based understanding, which is understanding of reality in terms of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, there are only ‘relations’ (mitakuye oyasin) in which we can experience relational ‘resonance’ and/or dissonance’.  Our relations within the world can cultivate resonance and/or dissonance.  If dissonance is developing in the relational ensemble we are included in, we can act (relatively) so as to restore harmony or fuel dissonance.  WE ARE NOT SORCERERS OF EITHER HARMONY OR DISSONANCE; I.E. HARMONY/DISSONANCE ARE RELATIONAL, THEY ARE NOT ‘SOURCED’.  One might think of this in terms of driving within a relationally moving collective, as in a cluster of traffic in freeway flow (i.e. wherein there are no ‘fixed references’).  ‘Our move’ is not ‘our move’ in the general case where everything is already moving relative to everything, it is a contribution to the relational transformation we share inclusion in.

The so-called ‘murderer’ is like the grain of corn that can ‘pop off’ when it experiences ‘heating’ from the ambient relations in which it is situationally included.  That which manifests the popping off is not the source of its popping off.  The impression of locally incipient sorcery comes from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  The intellectual ‘backfill’ to support this grammatical ‘double error’ is the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’.


“I am afraid we are not rid of God (sorcery, genesis) because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche


The crazy-making belief in local, jumpstart sorcery is the basis of ‘ego’ (“I sourced it”), ‘acclaim’ (“She sourced something good”) and ‘blame’ (“She sourced something bad”).  Note that in the relational reality of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, there is no use of language and grammar abstraction that imputes local sourcing of actions and development to abstract name-instantiated independently existing things-in-themselves; i.e. no ‘double error’.

The ‘double error’ of Western culture adherents is a crazy-maker.

* * *



‘Binary logic’ and ‘the double error’ are mutually supportive in enabling the construction of INVENTED REALITY.  While the former (binary logic) is the logic of the excluded medium that implies two separate ontological states (EITHER ‘is’ IS NOT’) the latter (the double error) implies the conjoining of the two separate abstractions of ‘being’ and ‘locally incipient power of sourcing actions and developments’ as gives rise to ‘sorcerer’ and ‘sorcery’.  While both of the fore-described are language and grammar based abstract contrivances, together they stimulate, in the abstracting mind, the concept of ‘being-based sorcery’.  In other words, while ‘binary logic’ frees up an emptiness (excluded medium) to serve as an unencumbered stage, the double error serves up the tool of local jumpstart sorcery that now has at its disposal, the binary logic based empty ‘staging ground’  (the ‘is not’ branch of the logical dichotomy) for intellectual ‘invented reality construction’ (the ‘is’ branch of the logical dichotomy).  In other words, ‘binary logic’ ‘clears the deck’ for one-sided logical constructions while ‘the double error’ serves up such one-sided logical sorcery that make use of the binary-logic cleared staging ground.


ON THE OTHER HAND, “quantum logic’ is the logic of the ‘included medium’ as employed in modern physics and in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta in their relations based linguistic construction of reality.   Binary logic is the logic of the ‘excluded medium’, the latter being the standard (‘Newtonian’) logic that we Western culture adherents are employing in our reasoning based linguistic construction of ‘reality’.

These two forms of logic can be understood and distinguished by considering the Tao (the flow) and the question of the relationship between the ‘boil’ and the ‘flow’ or, in general, the question of the relationship between the ‘inhabitant’ and the ‘habitat’ (the ‘figure’ and ‘the ground’).


Eastern culture adherents have opted, as their standard basis of intellectual reasoning, the logic of the included medium wherein the boil and the flow  (figure and ground) are one and the same phenomenon (the Tao) and their separateness is only ‘appearance’.


Western culture adherents have opted, as their standard basis of intellectual reasoning, the logic of the excluded medium wherein the boil and the flow are two unique and separate explicit things-in-themselves.


Western culture adherent’s choice of binary logic; i.e. logic of the excluded medium, is a crazy-maker! 

In the example of the ‘boil’ in the ‘flow’, if we do not assume a common medium (the wave-field) then we are logically confronted by the question of whether the boil sources the flow, or whether the flow sources the boil, and as we Western culture adherents know, this divides the populace into opposing factions; conservative and liberal.  The conservative belief is that the dynamic of the individual sources the dynamic of the collective (“one bad apple sources the rotting of the whole barrel).  The liberal belief is that the dynamic of the collective sources the dynamic of the individual (“it takes a whole community to raise a child”).

Meanwhile, the concept of ‘sorcery’ as builds from the binary logic of the excluded medium, does not even appear in the logic of the included medium since change is understood in terms of relational transformation.   IN THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE, the boil and the flow are ONE.   In other words, the distinguishing of ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ is by appearance, and not by physical, explicit, ontological separateness.

Binary logic, … the logic of the excluded medium (excluded wave-field), is implicit in the ‘double error’ wherein we use ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself existence to a relational flow-form (e.g. the ‘boiling’ or the ‘duning’) and conflate this first error by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (the first error).

In terms of Zeno’s paradox of the arrow, the arrow as a ‘thing-in-itself’ cannot move because it is the same arrow when it is at rest as when it is in motion.  There is indeed a paradox here, but the paradox can be seen as being introduced by ‘the double error’ of using ‘naming’ to impute ‘thing-in-itself existence’ to ‘the arrow’, when we know that the arrow derives from relational transformation and it is only the ‘name’ ‘arrow’ that persists as an abstract fixed and unchanging thing-in-itself.  Furthermore, it is only ‘grammar’ that ‘moves it’, and for us to be ‘realistic’ we would have to open up our consciousness to the fullblown Tao in which we and the arrow are included.

Western culture adherent’s choice of binary logic; i.e. logic of the excluded medium (the excluded wave-field or excluded Tao), is a crazy-maker!    Without the all-including wave-field, the inhabitant and the habitat must be understood as separate and explicit name-instantiated  things-in-themselves, both of which are capable of their own action and development per the ‘double error’.  This brand of binary logic is the ‘crazy-maker’ built into Western culture.

That is, binary logic gives rise to schizophrenia as manifests in the ‘conservative’ – ‘liberal’ split which Western culture regards as ‘normal’, but which is a ‘schizophrenic normality’;

What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”  — R.D. Laing

The sensitive ‘miner’s canary’ who balks at Western culture’s insistence on accepting either one of the two ego-based beliefs in ‘sorcery’, by refusing to imposing this ‘splitting’ on the world ‘out there’, ‘swallows’ the splitting within herself by both accepting and rejecting the concept of ‘sorcery’ as in ‘ego’ and thus putting the two, internally, into conflict with ‘one-and-other’.  The schizophrenia coming from binary logic of the excluded medium is something that most Western culture adherents ‘live with’ by accepting their polarization even though it’s artificial abstract essence is exposed by the ambiguity of whether the ‘boil’ is sourcing the ‘flow’ or whether the ‘flow’ is sourcing the ‘boil’, an ambiguity that arises only because the ‘appearance’ of inhabitant-habitat separate being is concretized by the binary logic of the excluded medium that is built into Western culture language and grammar usage.  This ‘burden of concreteness as it is called in Presocratic philosophy.

“In the writings of Heraclitus, to a larger degree than ever before, the images do not impose their burden of concreteness but are entirely subservient to the achievement of clarity and precision.”— Frankfort et al, ‘The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man’


* * *



Author’s note:  The first version of this footnote , now printed agove, was lost (temporarily) and then recovered after re-writing it.  I decided to keep both and plan to review and combine.  At this point, I have not yet reviewed and combined but simply include the rewrite here-below for its possible additional clarification.


‘Quantum logic’ (see Stephane Lupasco) is the logic of the included medium while ‘binary logic’, the Western culture ‘standard’, is the logic of the excluded medium.

Consider the Tao as ‘the all-inclusive wave-field’ or ‘flow’.  Within it, we have ‘duning’ which is kind of like a relational forming in the one-wave-field. When we use ‘naming’ (the double error) to impute separate and independent ‘thing-in-itself being’ to the flow-form, we invoke the separation of the ‘inhabitant’ (name-instantiated thing-in-itself) and the ‘habitat’ (the flow or ‘ground’ in which the boil or ‘figure’ appears.  Naming, which imputes persisting thing-in-itself being, implies the splitting apart of the ‘inhabitant/figure’ from the ‘habitat/ground’/’medium’.

In modern physics, ‘quantum logic’ is required wherein ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are ONE.  This logic is BOTH/AND logic as contrasted with EITHER/OR logic (the Western culture crazy-maker).   The ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ (‘figure’ and ‘ground’) are NOT, in the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao), two explicit and separate things-in-themselves, it is only the abstraction of the logic of the excluded medium that corrupts our mind into thinking in these divisive terms.

In the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, boil and flow (figure and ground) are ONE and our relational sensing allows us to discriminate between these dual aspects of the ONE-ness of the Tao (wave-field).

The ‘duning’ is ‘forming’ appearing within the flow, but once we name it ‘the dune’, we impute independent thing-in-itself being to it, and what comes with this is the ‘burden of concreteness’ in that we must now manage, with our language and grammar, this notional ‘thing-in-itself’ that we have ‘split out’ by naming it; i.e. the thing’s sourcing of actions and development.  This is ‘the double error’ as Nietzsche has pointed out and it is a ‘crazy-maker’ that is supported by the logic of the excluded medium where we picture the ‘boil’ and the ‘flow’ as two separate things-in-themselves (figure and ground, inhabitant and habitat).

‘Duning’ in quantum logic, the logic of the included medium, understands ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ as ONE and the ‘difference’ as being ‘appearance’-based, as is supported by our sensory experience.  It is only in the abstract world of the intellect that the binary logic of the excluded medium is possible.  In modern physics, the ‘medium’ is ‘everything’; i.e. it is the Tao.

* * *