Resonance ‘is’ Reality 

Resonance is the ineffable relational sensory experiencing of inclusion in the Tao that cannot be told (The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ — Lao Tzu).

The understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures AND modern physics is that resonance (the wave-field) is the primary reality.  Resonance is something we can ‘feel’ but which is beyond capture in language-based intellection.  “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” is a precautionary reminder of the pitfall of letting the surrogate ‘reality’ constructed with the tools of language-and-grammar and the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche) ‘run away with the workman’.   Emerson issues this same warning and Nietzsche elaborates on it, but it is nevertheless a pitfall that manifests in Western culture’s embrace of an INVENTED REALITY that is far from the reality of our sensory experience.

We experience resonance as harmony and love and inspiration and such experience is ‘beyond words and language based intellectual capture’.  This points to an endemic Western culture problem; i.e. our Western culture psyches are always searching for understanding via language, and language is fundamentally limited (the limitation is a sacrifice that has to be made to reduce the ineffable Tao to something that is ‘effable’).   Resonance (the wave field, the Tao, love, inspiration) is beyond the reach of the intellect’s abstract informing tools of language and grammar which deal in surrogate pseudo-realities that arise from psychologically chopping the Tao into ‘manageable pieces’ with the ‘double error’.

For example, ‘duning’ as in a windswept desert environment is a manifestation of ‘resonance’.  ‘Duning’ is a non-local relational phenomenon that we cannot capture in words conveying discrete meaning.  In order to render the ineffable effable, we employ the ‘double error’; i.e. the double error of (first error) using naming to impute the local existence of a thing-in-itself, and (second error) conflating this with by imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.   By means of the double error, we are able to reduce the ineffable experiencing of resonance, the sensation of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (wave  field), to ‘something local with its own local powers of sorcery’.

In other words, the double error of language and grammar enables us to ‘break down’ the ineffable Tao, the transforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’, into ‘effable’ pieces where flow-forms are captured in language and grammar and recast as local ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  For example, ‘duning’ is how resonance manifests visually, whereas our full-blown sensory experiencing of ’embodied resonance’ as in ‘love’ ‘inspiration’ etc. is beyond the explicit (finite thing-based) expressive capabilities of language and grammar.

The tool of language-and-grammar gives us a means of snap-shotting the Tao and using the ‘double error’ to render the ineffable effable by using the intellect to chop the flow into pieces, and arming them with their own local ‘being’ based action-jumpstarting mechanism, and thus concocting a local, finite and ‘independent’ ‘event’, so as to render the ineffable transforming relational continuum (the Tao) effable.  In the reality of our actual sensory experience, there are no ‘local events’, there is only the transforming relational continuum, but in our abstract language and grammar based intellectual constructions, it is possible for us to ‘chop up the continuum’ into local developments with local beginnings and endings, … or not.

-1- continental drift is something we can conceive of as involving only the continent (our psychological grasp can ignore content-container interdependencies; i.e. we see only the continent moving as if within a Euclidian plane or grid.

-2- seafloor spreading is something that the psyche conceives of if the continent is moving relative to other continents on the surface of a sphere.

-3- if the continent is an outwelling from the interior of a spherical earth as the first part of a life-cycle in which it later subducts into the interior of the earth, then speaking in terms of ‘what continents do’ is insufficient and we open up our conceptual framing still further; e.g. to something more like the transforming that might go on in a drop of oil in boiling water.

This is like the language and psyche interplay in ‘duning’ where support for the concept of a ‘thing-in-itself’ simply by way of ‘naming’ (i.e. ‘the dune’) fails to capture the blurriness between the ‘solid rock’ (which is continually weathering and crumbling) and the sand that is pulled into graceful shapes by influences in the environmental it is included in.  As with seafloor spreading in the case of ‘continental drift’, there desert-floor spreading in the case of duning.  For consistency, ‘continenting’ might be a more apt term since the concept of ‘the continent’ is blurred in its conjugate relation with the ‘sea floor’.

The point to be made here is really Heraclitus’ point that ‘everything is in flux’, so that however convenient the ‘double error’ is (i.e. naming formings like dunings and continentings so as to reduce them, in our abstraction-loving intellects, to abstract things-in-themselves ‘dunes’ and ‘continents’ and then (as the second error in the double error ploy) imputing to them their own powers of sourcing actions (e.g. ‘drifting’) and development (e.g. ‘growing and shrinking’), … such convenient language and grammar based abstracting distracts us from understanding reality in more realistic terms of relational transformation; i.e. in terms of the Tao aka ‘the transforming relational continuum’.  Running counter to, and blocking the shift to acknowledge the Tao reality is the ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’.  That is, the double error is where ‘ego comes from’.  That is the double error casts us as ‘sorcerers’ of actions and developments.

Nietzsche was making this all clear in the late 1800’s so Western culture double error ‘ego’ has been a very effective ‘lock-in’ force.  In fact, we continue to watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, all based on how society attributes credits for ‘sorcery’, and the scheme for making that assessment is handed over to the most powerful sorcerers.

Emerson, whose philosophizing was much admired by Nietzsche, had pointed pointed out that language was a tool that, while it opened the door to ‘sharing’ experience of inclusion in the all-including transforming relational continuum (the ‘field’ or the Tao), … was unable to capture the Tao directly and explicitly (the Tao is a flow-field which ‘cannot be told’ because it is in continual flux), but constituted a tool of inference which, while it could not ‘go the distance’, could take us far enough (e.g. as in the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’), to make a mental leap ‘on the back of the effable inferences of language to an intuition of the ineffable.   

For example, while ‘duning’ is a non-local and purely relational  ‘appearance’ or ‘apparition’ that is suggestive of an all-including deeper reality of the energy flow field or Tao, our visual sensing supported by language is limited to ‘double error’ expression in terms of name-instantiated ‘existence’ of things-in-themselves (first error) notionally with grammar-given powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error).  The ‘named thing’ is thus created, in our mind, with language and grammar, in the guise of a ‘sorcerer’ of actions and developments, thus giving us the ‘traction’ needed to ‘break up the Tao’ into ‘effable’ and thus intellectually manageable ‘pieces’ or local-in-space/time ‘events’, hence ‘John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln’ wallpapers over , with such piecemeal reduction, the reality of the flow-continuum.

The language and grammar based instantiating of a local-in-space-and-time ‘sorcerer’ enables us to reduce, in a piecemeal fashion, the ineffable to the effable.  That is, while the Tao is a continuum that gives us no ‘local footholds for piecemeal (and thus effable) reflection’, language gives us the capability of, for example, reducing ‘duning’, … an appearance within the transforming relational continuum, … to ‘dunes’ and re-inserts an ‘animating source’ lost in this piecemeal reduction, with ‘grammar’ that imputes notional power to the linguistically created ‘things-in-themselves’ of ‘doing their own thing’.  That is, language not only breaks the Tao into linguistically and thus intellectually and manageable ‘effable pieces’ (notional ‘local, independently-existing things-in-themselves), but uses ‘grammar’ to reconstitute ‘flow’ to impute to the ‘effable pieces’, their own powers of sourcing actions and developments!   As Nietzsche puts it;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

The ‘tool’ of language and grammar then, opens the door to reducing, to shareable and discussable (effable) terms, inference of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao.  The potential benefits of language and grammar, in opening the way to sharing, by effable inference, allusion to our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao, are huge, although accompanied by the pitfall of forgetting that language and grammar are only capable of making effable inference to our experience our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao.  The key point NOT TO FORGET, but unfortunately too often (in Western culture adherence) being forgotten, that that which is explicit and ‘concrete’ in our language and grammar ‘capture’ of ‘reality’ (the Tao is not reducible to that which is explicit and concrete) is not to be taken ‘literally’, but understood only as a means of inferring the Tao (the field, the flux) that lies innately beyond explicit capture.

“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’

There are languages, evolved within cultures such as the indigenous aboriginal cultures, that avoid the pitfall getting hung up in the the absolute and explicit; i.e;

“English compared to Hopi is like a bludgeon compared to a rapier.” – Benjamin Whorf [i.e. Whorf is speaking of ‘English’ employed rationally rather than poetically, delivering content in terms of the absolute and explicit]

The tool of language, while its capability, with respect to alluding to our ineffable experiencing of the Tao, is innately limited to relational inference, nevertheless delivers its goods via explicit constructs which are not to be taken literally, but only as throw-away expedients that can infer (stimulate our intuitive grasp of) that which lies innately beyond the explicit).  Nevertheless, the error of taking EXPLICIT meaning from language is endemic among Western culture adherents.  The use of the tool of language and grammar to, for the purpose of intellectual capture and shareability, breaking apart of the Tao into manageable ‘producer-product’ pieces, brings with it the exposure that such piecemeal reduction for sharing purposes may not be used merely as a tool for inference based understanding but may be (inappropriately) ‘taken literally’ and used to construct an explicit, piecemeal INVENTED REALITY’ that is (inappropriately) employed as the ‘operative reality’.

Using language and grammar to reduce the ‘self’ to ‘the producer of products’, the ‘means’ to an ‘end’, … is abstraction that is a tool for inferring the ineffable (implicit) by way of the effable (explicit).   “Means and ends’ (preducer and product) is abstraction-based intellectual contrivance that is no more than a tool for ‘inference’ to render the ineffable (or some reduced facsimile thereof) ‘effable’; i.e. to enable an innately ‘incomplete’ sharing of one’s unique experience of inclusion in the Tao.  That which is effable cannot be more than inference; i.e. the reduction of the ineffable to producer-product (means-and-ends) abstraction delivers only inference of the ineffable.

 A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’

No, we are NOT the producers of products or the means to ends, that is intellectual abstraction triggered by the tool of language and grammar.  The ‘dune’ is not a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is the source of its own action (shifting) and development (growing larger than its neighbouring dunes).  There are no ‘dunes’, there is only ‘duning’, a purely relational resonance within the transforming relational continuum.  The ‘dune’ is just a ‘name’ that we attach to an intellectual snapshot secured/perpetuated in the mind and filed in the memory by ‘naming’; … a momentary ‘end’ within the ongoing ‘duning’, a resonance within the transforming transforming relational continuum aka the ‘wave field’ aka ‘the Tao’.

The language and grammar based chopped up idealization, an abstract intellectual reduction of ineffable reality (resonance, wave-field) serves the purpose of rendering the ineffable, effable, but not without ‘error’, and the ‘errors’ in this reduction are two-fold as described in the ‘double error’ comment above.

The dysfunction that is endemic among Western culture adherents presently, is that which is warned of by Emerson, … the tool CAN run away with the workman, the human with the divine.  That is, the double error base reduction that makes the ineffable effable, which is only a crude allusion to the resonance based (wave based) reality of our actual sensory experience, is, by us Western culture adherents, being put into an unnatural primacy over our intuiting of the ineffable Tao (the all-including wave-field).  Intuition allows us to make an inference-based leap beyond the effable to the ineffable, as in a ‘sharing circle’ wherein the language-enabled sharing of a diversity of heartfelt experiences brings to the circle participants understanding (coming from bringing the various accounts of experiences into connective confluence so as to extract understanding in the purely relational coherencies) that is intuitive and beyond language capture and beyond articulation.  Although ineffable, such intuitive understanding can reshape our individual and collective behaviour in such a manner as to cultivate and sustain an overall relational harmony.

Conversely, the unnatural promoting of the intellectual abstractions of language, as a means of constructing an INVENTED REALITY, into an unnatural primacy over the ineffable reality of our inclusion in resonance as our intuition informs us of through our experiencing of sensory relations, …is what Emerson, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are picking up on.

This is what Emerson intends by ‘the tool running away with the workman, the human with the divine’, and this is what Nietzsche intends in his critique of our Western culture habit of employing the ‘double error’ based (reduction to piece-meal) INVENTED REALITY as our Western culture ‘operative reality’.

Continents do NOT drift and Seafloors do NOT spread.  These ‘producer-product’ constructs are the intellectual ‘double errors’ of language and grammar that bring to our psyche a radically reduced, superficial impression of ‘reality’.  Belief in the producer-product dynamic is belief in ‘sorcery’. As the core belief of Western culture adherents, it establishes superficiality as the salient feature of the Western culture social dynamic.





Problems arising from our putting the tool of language-based intellection into an unnatural primacy over our resonance based relational experience.

-1- Belief in ‘sorcery’: i.e. the basing of rewards and punishments on the double-error based notion of the existence of (name-instantiated) things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments that are judged EITHER good OR bad.  Note that ‘sorcery’ already contains the abstract concept of binary logic, the sudden beginning of ‘something’ where there was ‘nothing’ (thanks to ‘naming’) and a corresponding sudden beginning of ‘nothing’ where there was ‘something’ (thanks to flagging the name-instantiated entity as having ‘expired’ or having been ‘annulled’).

If we give names to relational features in a transforming relational continuum, as with the visible (surfacing) ‘boils’ in turbulent flow, we say that the existence of these boils is of finite duration (a duration of ‘is’ bounded by before and after by ‘is not’) and we refer to this interval of ‘is’ between the ‘is not’ before and the ‘is not’ after, as the ‘life-cycle’ of the name-instantiated flow-feature, which is essentially an ‘appearance’ or ‘apparition’ within the transforming relational continuum or flow-field.

Once we name ourselves and apply the double error mode of intellectual abstract thinking, we start seeing ourselves, as we talk about ourselves (in our intellectual talk stimulated mind’s eye) as ‘sorcerers’.  “I built this house” … is a double error based intellectual construction that jumpstarts the action of local house construction.  This is like subjectizing the ‘dune’ and imputing to the dune its own thing-in-itselfness and its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  GONE from our understanding, in this case, is the transforming relational continuum within which the resonance manifests.

For example, … ‘the dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the south’. This is a case of reducing a resonance feature in the transforming relational continuum to a thing-in-itself, notionally with its own powers of sourcing action and development (the ‘double error’).   By the same token, “I built this house” is a piecemeal abstraction, by way of language and grammar triggered intellection, that ‘borrows’ from developments within the transforming relational continuum (the Tao).  Just as boils ‘boil up and out’ (take form) in the flow and are never not still included in it, so it is also with the builder and the home; both are included, transient relational forms or ‘resonance’ features’ that language and grammar enable us to ‘separate out’ in our minds via the ‘double error’ and become ‘sources’ of ‘their own actions and developments’; “The builder is producing a fine product”, … “the housing development is steadily progressing”.

The same double error abstraction applies for developments within the Tao such as ‘humans’ and ‘dunes’.  That is, ‘humaning’ can be understood in the same sense as ‘duning’; i.e. as a resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum.  It is only the double error of language and grammar (i.e. … ‘naming’ that instantiates a notional thing-in-itself conflated with, …  grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself) …  that reduces this resonance and allows us to chop it up into stand-alone pieces that we refer to as ‘events’.  The event suggested by “I built this house” says nothing about the greater reality of the Tao, wherein the ‘house construction’ is understood in the larger terms of the transforming relational continuum.

Once we ‘lock on’ to this language and grammar based ‘double error’ reduction based INVENTED REALITY, … which could be a very useful ‘tool’, … we screw up if we use this simplified and reduced double error allusion to reality’ as our ‘operative reality’, TREATING IT AS IF IT WERE ‘EXPLICIT REALITY’.  We screw up because we are then letting the reductive, abstracting tool of language ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.  That is, we are NOT REALLY independent beings with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  That is a ‘double error’ of language and grammar and the INVENTED REALITY we construct on the double error basis is not to be ‘taken literally’.  The dune is not the source of actions and developments; … there is no ‘sourcing’ and ‘no ‘sorcerers’ (no ‘producing’ and ‘no products’) in the transforming relational continuum (the resonance or wave space that is also known as the Tao).

We can drive ourselves crazy if we try to understand ourselves in double error terms, which is where the tool of language and intellection takes us.  Sure, this tool makes it possible for us to share our voyeur visual observations associated with our inclusion in the Tao which bypasses the roadblock of ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, but our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao can’t be reduced to EXPLICIT language and grammar, that is why Lao Tzu warns that the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.  We will therefore drive ourselves nuts by trying to understand what is really going on with us, using language and grammar based intellectual introspection; i.e. the intellectual voices in our head will never get to the answers we are searching for that associate with the complexities of life, … it is impossible to get the answers using our Western culture language and grammar double error based reduction.

We must ‘cease our intellectual (language-based) thinking attempt to understand and recover the non-double error based intuitive sensing of our infancy, … something that is always with us, and it is only the access to it that we Western culture adherents lose, by ‘wallpapering over’ the portal with analytical thinking that we have Western culture adherents have grown to believe conveys the ‘primary reality’.   Understanding that language and grammar based intellectual analytics is a reduced secondary tool is never lost to aboriginal culture adherents, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, and they thus escape having their mind hijacked by their intellect, abandoning the naturally primary intuition and banishing it to the darkness that lies behind the bright coloured wallpaper of language-based intellectual abstraction.

Of course, this means we have to let go of (understand as a secondary supportive tool) our ego-based belief in our own powers of sorcery, and in fact, let go of the abstract notion that naming instantiates independently-existing things-in-themselves and our habit of conflating such with grammar that gives such ‘namings’ powers of sorcery.  This is all language and grammar based abstraction (non-reality/potentially useful inference/bullshit) that underpins Western culture belief in sorcery and in the related concepts of reward and punishment, admiration and revulsion that target particular name-instantiated things-in-themselves, … all of which are abstractions born in the intellect with the same recipe as reduces the resonance form of ‘duning’ to ‘dune’ and re-mobilizes this name instantiated thing-in-itself, in the language-pumped intellectualizing mind, by way of the double error, as an independent being with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

Yes, of course we are ‘locked in by high switching costs’ to this way of thinking by way of its being tied to individual oriented or named-thing-oriented (human, nation, corporation) rewards and punishments and admiration and revulsion, all of which, in Western culture, has been eclipsing and hijacking our natural sensory understanding of ourselves as resonances within the transforming relational continuum.

This hijacking of our understanding by language, to the point that language based intellection is eclipsing and occluding our access to our natural sensory resonance based selves, is now preventing our natural resonance basis of understanding from resuming its natural primacy in bringing us understanding.  We are now faced with inventing tricks and devices to wrest the hijacker of language-based intellection from its crazy-making grip on our helm that blocks/occludes the feed from our sensory experience.  Neurofeedback is one means of re-establishing the access of resonance based sensory experience to the ‘helm’ of our self.

That is, our Western culture exposes our ‘helm’ of self to hijacking by language-based analytical intellection, a means of supplying us with a reduced surrogate form of understanding that can’t possible equip us for dealing with the complex relational realities of our actual experience, but which our Western culture has put into an unnatural primacy over our naturally primary sensual-intuitive (resonance) mode of understanding.  Since language based intellectual abstraction (the tool that is running away with the workman) is innately incapable of delivering understanding of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, yet we have put it into an unnatural primacy over our sensory relations based intuition, we have put locked ourselves into a Sisyphusian pursuit of language based understanding of our inclusion in the ineffable Tao that cannot be told, … which is a crazy-maker for Western culture adherents.

While Western culture adherents have the option to go with the craziness and commit to belief in a double error based operative reality featuring belief in sorcery and a corresponding values hierarchy, the sensitive ‘miner’s canaries’ intuitively sense ‘something amiss’, yet seek to understand what it is, through their tools of intellection which are not only innately incapable of resolving the problem, are themselves the problem, in the sense that we have elevated them into an unnatural primacy over our resonance based intuition.  The ‘way out’ of this Sysiphusian trap is by restoring sensory experience based intuition to its natural primacy over language-based intellectual abstraction as in the ‘double error’.  This might be compared to having to tear away the brightly coloured wallpaper of picturable intellectual abstraction that is occluding access to our un-picturable pre-lingual relational intuition.

* * *


How can the aberrant Western culture ‘normal’ be accepted as ‘normal’ within Western culture adhering social collectives?

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

-1- THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT FICTION.   Belief in the producer-product dynamic as a real dynamic [IT IS PURE FICTION] stems from the double error of language and grammar (i.e. the name-instantiated belief in the existence of an independent thing in itself (first error) conflated by (second error) imputing to the thing-in-itself the powers of sourcing actions and development.  Western culture ‘normal’ embodies rewarding and embracing producers of positive product, punishing and eschewing producers of negative products and ignoring those not seen as producing products.

This aberrant ‘producer-product’ (double error based) belief leads not only to an ethic of rewarding and punishing on this basis, but to gender equality initiatives that reconcile the disproportionate acknowledgement of male producer-product actions and developments (which tend to be highly visible) relative to female producer product actions and developments.

The problem here is not the inequity of rewarding for producer-product contributions, the problem is that the producer-product concept is a pure fiction, the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

* * *

“My father was a famous engineer, my mother had no name’ (Claribel Alegria, El Salvadoran poet) need not be interpreted as a plea for gender equality for producer-product contributions.  It can be understood as the blindness of Western culture adherents to the reality of relational transformation.   We speak of the avalanche in terms of the pile of rocks that slides down the mountain slope without mentioning the associated ‘hole’ or ‘concave depression’ on the mountain flank.  In other words, while relational transformation is the more complete understanding, our standard use of language and grammar reduces relational transformation to producer-product dynamics.  Tracking production is something we can measure while resource depletion is obscure.  We see the stone building of the newly constructed city rise up, but we are not, at the same time, conscious of the deepening of the quarries from which the rocks are taken; i.e. we are only dimly conscious of the real dynamic of relational transformation, because our Western language and grammar has a producer-product (sorcery) orientation.


The Western culture sense of justice is based on belief in the ‘producer-product’ dynamic (the double error of language and grammar).  The ego stems from the same source; Transformation entails conflict, as Heraclitus pointed out conflict need not be understood in simple terms of binary opposition.  We may speak of ‘continents drifting’ (the flatspace view) or we may speak of ‘seafloor spreading’ (the spherical space view), or we may drop the stake-in-the-ground of ‘the continent’ and speak in terms of relational transformation as in a wave-field.   Language and grammar can lead us into these different ways of understanding reality.

“Ego swells the head’, ‘Inspiration fills the heart’ is an expression that helps to explain how differing emotions can contribute to differing forms of social organizing.  While ‘ego’ associates with inside-outward asserting, producer-product or ‘sorcery’ energized social dynamic, ‘inspiration’ associates with the outside-inward inductive actualizing, as where the beautiful valley induces the entrance and inclusion of the settlers.  There are not two but three visions of change, as the drifting of continents, the seafloor spreading and the wave-field relational transformation.

Western culture’s use of language and grammar in ‘double error’ reduces relational transformation to producer-product dynamics, inspiration to ego, and resonance/dissonance to ‘surcery of good’, ‘sorcery of evil’.

Reality can be understood in two ways; i.e. in terms of relational transformation and in terms of sorcery.  ‘Sorcery’ further breaks down into the two options of ‘asserting’ (conservative) and ‘inducing’ (liberal).  Asserting: –  (One bad apple spoils the barrel) and Inducing  – (‘It takes a whole community to raise a child’).  The incessant Western culture arguing over which mode of sorcery is the ‘true mode’ is not only futile inquiry as there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ (it is language and grammar based abstraction), it is a distraction from our deeper understanding that there is only relational transformation as comes to our sensory awareness through inclusion in the resonance (the Tao).

* * *


“In Reason’ in language! … Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed. … – oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

My experience informs me that we are prone to letting the tool (of language) run away with the workman’.  For example, Ivan Illich is on target in pointing out the problem that comes with the invention of the loudspeaker in (Silence is a Commons); i.e. language-based communicating/sharing of visual representations of ‘reality’ may deliver the result that our collectively agreed impression of ‘reality’ IS NOT ‘GROUNDED’ IN SENSORY EXPERIENCE.   Language can only allude to our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  While our SENSORY EXPERINCE informs us of our inclusion WITHIN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, our LANGUAGE-BASED INTELLECTUAL MENTAL MODELING reduces such experience to voyeur visual pictures of ‘what is going on out there’, making our experience (a drastically reduced version thereof) SHAREABLE.

We Western culture adherents commonly employ a double error based (producer-product based)  INVENTED REALITY.  Since the Tao cannot be told; i.e. our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is beyond the expressive capability of language and grammar, the INVENTED REALITY that construct with language and grammar can only obliquely allude to our ‘real reality’ of the inclusional sensory experience; e.g. as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics (Geoffrey Chew, John ….’.

This Tao THAT WE ARE TELLING, we construct using words as a device for ‘naming’ relation forms in the flow (appearances) which imposes the notion of independent existence on the named flow-forms (e.g. a ‘hurricane’ that we name Katrina).  This is ‘the first error of the ‘double error’ built into the ‘producer-product’ abstraction.  The first error of ‘naming’ is conflated with a second error of imputing powers of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated (abstract) things-in-themselves.

Language and grammar can be used to trigger in us three different ‘levels’ of picturing/sensing ‘reality’.  These ‘three levels’ of reality, have been pointed out by Erich Jantsch (Austrian physicist and systems theorist).  For example ‘continent’ is a name we give to a slowly changing form in the overall ‘wave-field’ (in the transforming relational continuum).  The primary reality is that this ‘wave-field’ is the universe; i.e. the transforming relational continuum (the Tao) within which relational forms are continually ‘outwelling’ and ‘inwelling’.  Language and grammar allow us to ‘abstract’ relational formings in the flow by naming them, as in the case of continents.

There is no ‘traction’ for language and grammar to capture and articulate unending flow (relational transformation), the primary reality.  However, just as in turbulent waters, relational forms are continually ‘outwelling’ and ‘inwelling’.  Even though these ‘boils’ in the flow, rather than being actual ‘things-in-themselves’, are ‘how flow appears’.   Language and grammar allow us to ‘name’ these ‘appearances’ to give them (in our abstraction-capable intellectual minds) notional persisting thing-in-itself being.  Thus we have ‘the continent that drifts’, or is it ‘the seafloor that preads’?  This ambiguity arises from the manner in which we use language and grammar to ‘effably’ capture (a reduced version of) the ineffable (the Tao, the transforming relational continuum).

The Western culture adhering public ‘splits’ into binary opposing camps on whether it is EITHER “one bad apple that spoils the barrel’ (conservative reality) OR  whether “it takes a whole community to raise a (good/bad) child”.  While Western culture adherents divide into two opposing camps on such SORCERY-BASED questions, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents understand reality in terms of a transforming relational continuum.  Is continental drift the source of the changes on the surface of the earth, or is it ‘seafloor spreading’ the source of these changes?  In modern physics, as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, reality is the transforming relational continuum and ‘seafloor’ is just a name we tag a relational form with, there is no ‘seafloor’ that ‘spreads’.  Likewise, ‘continent’ is just a name we tag a relational form with, there is no ‘continent’ that ‘drifts’.  These expressions are ‘double errors’ where we, with our first error, use naming to impute thing-in-itself existence to relational forms in the flow, and conflate this by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-themself (first error).  The net effect is to put into the psyche the ‘producer-product’ impression aka the impression of ‘sorcerer’ and ‘sorcery’.

We Western culture adherents construct INVENTED REALITIES with this ‘double error’ technique which is held in place by ‘ego’, and also by a Justice System based on belief in ‘sorcery’ aka the producer-product abstraction.  There are no such things in the transforming relational continuum of our actual sensory experience.  Belief in sorcery (the double error of language and grammar is a crazy-maker’, and it is considered ‘normal’, in our Western culture, to use the double error to construct an INVENTED REALITY that we Western culture adherents employ as our ‘operative reality’

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

 * *