Western languages are strongly VISUAL image dependent.  Our rhetoric constructs cartoon-like depictions explaining, praising or mocking VISUALLY familiar figures and forms.  A person is something relationally complex, a ‘flow-feature’ that is continually transforming that is far too complex to be summoned to mind by a fixed symbol such as a NAME or a VISUAL ICON aka PICTURE.  In fact, how could we explain a humaning in this world without acknowledging innumerable webs of relational influence that end up ‘making the individual’ ‘one with everything’?

 A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein – Philosophical Investigations.

That’s right, draw a picture or take a photograph and then we can trap that individual inside his own picture.  Language is what we use to make ‘word pictures’ which LOCALIZE and humaning in the manner that the word ‘hurricane’ localizes an inherently NONLOCAL relational fluidity.  Our actual experiencing of the world is sensory-relations based but our intellectual understanding of the world is highly picture-based since language presents us with word-pictures, whether of the fairy princess or the big bad wolf, and the complexities of real people, as in Bob Dylan’s lyrics, … ‘ain’t never been photographed’.

This essay explores the role of VISUALIZATION in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT social collective and points out how VISUALIZATION such as reduces TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH is a WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKER.

* * *

 

This note is a brief assessment of why WESTERN CULTURE is a CRAZY-MAKER and how one may extract oneself from the grips of WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKING even while one is immersed within it.

The single point that one may remember NOT to forget that encapsulates the essence of WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKING is the LUNACY of belief in GROWTH.  This LUNACY derives from our given a foundational role to VISION which isolates instead of FEELING which includes.  Innate in our sensing experience is our ‘inertial guidance’ where we don’t need VISION to inform us of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  Blindfold us and give us a ride on the back of a motorcycle, up town and down town and all around the town and the likelihood is that, blind-folded or not, our sensory experience will  be informing us in terms of our relative spatial relational sense.  Is this an embellishment that ‘adds to’ our visual sensing?  NO!  Our visual sensing is an embellishment that adds to our gravity-informed sense of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

Gravity gives rise to ‘inertial guidance’, a kind of ‘gut feeling’ or ‘intuition’ that is implicit and less deceptive than visual sensing.  It would be more ‘telling’ to weigh visitors to the gold mine before and after their visit then doing a visual body search.

VISUAL observation of the GROWTH of a volcano is something we will talk about as if it is a ‘reality in itself’ but extrusion over here is implies ‘intrusion’ elsewhere and thus the reality of TRANSFORMATION and illusion (delusion) of VISUALLY perceived GROWTH.

There is no such thing as GROWTH, not of children, not of towns, not of corporations, not of populations, not of the incidence of COVID 19, because GROWTH, as Nietzsche has quite rightly pointed out, is a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The first thing we need to support the abstraction of GROWTH is a notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF which we can say is ‘undergoing GROWTH’.  THis ‘thing’ could be a person (a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself), a town (a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself), or a business (a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself).  These notional (NAMING-instantiated) things-in-themselves are said to GROW, but this is only a WESTERN CULTURE abstraction based on the notion that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO which means, for example, that the TOWN can grow larger and take up more space in the countryside; i.e. we say that THE TOWN ACTIVELY GROWS while the countryside plays the role of a PASSIVE-SUBMISSIVE ‘holding tank’.  In modern physics as in the indigenous aboriginal culture, we would instead speak of TRANSFORMATION wherein the Wilderness SHRINKS in reciprocal relation to the GROWTH of the TOWN (cultivated area).

This choice of how we interpret APPEARANCE, in the very different terms of GROWTH or TRANSFORMATION pivots the cultures of EAST (belief in TRANSFORMATION which is purely RELATIONAL) and WEST (BELIEF IN GROWTH as in CREATION of ‘something not previously existing’ and DESTRUCTION of something ‘previsously EXISTING’: e.g. the GROWTH of a FOREST or the GROWTH of area burned by a forest fire).

While the EAST opts for TRANSFORMATION as ‘the dynamic of reality’, the WEST opts for CREATION and DESTRUCTION as ‘the dynamics of reality’.

For a brief discussion on the difference between GROWTH and TRANSFORMATION see the following;

http://goodshare.org/wp/the-usurping-of-transformation-by-growth-topology-by-geometry/

The simple TWO PART THESIS being advanced here is that;

-A- There is no such thing as GROWTH since there FIGURE and GROUND are ONE and the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR does not liberate the FIGURE from the GROUND, allowing the FIGURE to GROW in its own right.  When the town is said to GROW, the Wilderness reciprocally shrinks and what we have instead of GROWTH is TRANSFORMATION.

-B- THERE IS ONLY TRANSFORMATION (that is the nature of the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.

What I am calling WESTERN CULTURE MADNESS is the common belief in the REALITY of GROWTH, … a belief that substitutes GROWTH in reality construction, IN PLACE OF TRANSFORMATION.

The reason for substituting GROWTH for TRANSFORMATION is that while TRANSFORMATION is ‘ongoing everywhere-at-the-same-time’ (NONLOCAL) and thus INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … GROWTH is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  In other words, we can talk about the growth of a volcano

For example, DUNING is resonance based relational TRANSFORMATION that is INEFFABLE because NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … however, if I switch to DUNES that GROW and shift across the desert floor, … I am able to LOCALIZE or LOCALLY VISUALIZE the dynamic, and therefore say much more than ‘there is DUNING’ in the transforming relational continuum.  The DUNE being, being local, has finite and LOCAL and has EXPLICIT dimensions and physical properties while the resonance phenomenon of DUNING is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT ane while it happens to be the PHYSICAL REALITY, it is INEFFABLE-because NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT: i.e. it is just an observable within the ONE transforming relational continuum.

The example of HUMANING as resonance in the transforming relational continuum makes this choice very ‘personal’ since while cultures of the EAST feel ‘at home’ with the notion of ‘being one with everything’ in the sense of being a resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum, WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS feel more comfortable thinking of ONESELF as an INDEPENDENT BEING with one’s own LOCAL, INTERNAL powers of SOURCING actions and developments.   This representation requires the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.  It is an abstract representation but it is something we can talk about, thanks to the DOUBLE ERROR based abstraction of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  ‘DUNING’ is an ‘appearance’ associated with the tranforming relation continuu, it is not a process that ‘produces DUNES’  ‘DUNE’ is a NAME and NAMING is the first step in the DOUBLE ERROR process of NAMING and GRAMMAR that we use to abstractly ‘break into EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT) pieces’ the transforming relational continuum.

As far as APPEARANCES go, a DUNING in the DESERTING and a HUMANING in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM  are the sort of APPEARANCES that are open to being VERY DIFFERENTLY language-captured; (a) -in terms of TOPOLOGY (the EAST) or in terms of GEOMETRY (the WEST).

That is what this essay is about, how it is possible to capture the same physical/gravitational/TRANSFORMATIONAL phenomena by way of VISUAL APPEARANCES in very different systems of language and grammar.  If things tend to VISUALLY APPEAR to you in the EASTERN manner (as relational forms in the flow) your language will employ FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE construction devices such as Wittgenstein describes.

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”),

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

This bootstrapping technique has, in modern physics, been described in terms of the ‘Surprise game of Twenty Questions’

in modern physics as in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ wherein LOCAL THINGS that we speak about DO NOT REALLY EXIST AS LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, but simply APPEAR to be LOCAL THINGS’ in the manner that resonance features we call DUNES are in reality purely relational resonance features in the flow-continuum.

For us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, the humaning is understood as LOCAL (NAMING-instantiated) thing-in-itself, with its own (notional) local powers of SOURCING actions and developments, such that the FIGURE (humaning/inhabitant) and GROUND (habitat) are TWO.

For our EASTERN CULTURE counterparts and also for MODERN PHYSICS, the humaning is understood as a resonance-based relational form in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.  In this case, FIGURE-and-GROUND-are ONE or in other words, ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ are ONE, so that GROWTH IS IMPOSSIBLE since the INHABITANT cannot ‘GROW’ independently of the ‘HABITAT’ since in the EASTERN CULTURE understanding as in modern physics, FIGURE-and-GROUND (INHABITANT-and-_HABITAT) ARE ONE, and NOT TWO, as is the way things are in the Wave-field aka the Tao.

Mitakuye oyasin, means ‘we are all related’ in this sense; i.e. that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (INHABITANT-and-HABITAT-are-ONE).

This means that there is no such thing as GROWTH where the FIGURE is said to GROW independently of the GROUND as if FIGURE and GROUND are TWO.  In physical reality, there is only TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as affirmed in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  The notion that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO comes from the DOUBLE ERROR of GRAMMAR (‘NAMING’ to impute local thing-in-itself being, and ‘GRAMMAR’ to impute the power of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments to the NAMING-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’ thus ‘setting it up’ an a FIGURE-in-its-own-independent-right)

To believe, as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS believe, that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO is a CRAZY-MAKER.

RECOVERY from WESTERN CULTURE MADNESS will involve restoring TRANSFORMATION as REALITY in place of GROWTH.

This is a major challenge since GROWTH is VISUALIZABLE WHILE TRANSFORMATION is something beyond VISION that we intuit INCLUSION in, in the manner of INERTIAL GUIDANCE

TRANSFORMATION has been ignored by WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS largely because of the inordinate emphasis on visual sensing.

The SHARING CIRCLE, rather than being a visual-intellectual apparatus, is the INERTIAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM of a social collective.

* * *