There are no ‘people’, peopling is an appearance within the holodynamic (the Tao).

* * *

-1- The world of our sensory experience is an energy flow-field; it is a transforming relational continuum that has been termed the Tao (Lao Tzu) and/or the Logos (Heraclitus).

“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu

The world is an ineffable flow-continuum; i.e. a holodynamic.  As Wittgenstein observes,

“Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein


-2- The world as a flow-continuum (holodynamic) cannot be captured by language since language consists of names or nouns and names signify persisting existence and there are no things with persisting existence in the Tao.  Since the flow continuum cannot be captured DIRECTLY by language since everything is in flux, the work-around is to use the names and animating verbs as ‘Wittgenstein ladders’ to conjure up an impression of the transforming flow-continuum (holodynamic)

  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. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus


-3- Western culture reality is unique in its use of sorcery IN AN EXPLICIT SENSE.  In the transforming relational continuum; i.e. in reality understood as the transforming relational continuum, there are IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE no name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e. this is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar as pointed out by Nietzsche.  This language and grammar based double error conjures up a psychological impression of a ‘thing-in-itself’ that ‘eclipses’ and ‘occludes’ the understanding of our natural experience wherein there are only relational forms without persisting being’ (as expressed by ‘mitakuye oyasin’).


In modern physics, the forms in nature are resonance features within the purely relational energy holodynamic and it is only the intellectual abstracting power of ‘naming’ the imputes ‘persisting thing-in-itself existence’ to relational forms.  For example, there is only ‘duning’, there is no such thing as ‘a dune’ that gets larger and longer and shifts its shape and positioning.  ‘Duning is a resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum.

This habit of objectifying resonance features by naming them is characteristic of Western culture use of language and grammar. THERE ARE NO ‘PEOPLE’, THERE IS ONLY ‘PEOPLING’.  This is the only possible understanding within the realm of our real-life sensory experience within the transforming relational continuum.  THE TERM ‘PEOPLE’ IS PART OF AN INVENTED REALITY THAT WE CONSTRUCT WITH LANGUAGE BY WAY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR (first error is to use naming to impute thing-in-itself existence to a flow-form while the second error (which conflates the first error) imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself).


In our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the holodynamic, reality is our experiencing of the Tao, the all-including flow wherein ‘duning’ and ‘peopling’ are relational dynamics within the Tao.  There are no ‘dunes’ and there are no ‘people’ other than as the synthetic (abstract) artifacts of the intellect, as we try to capture a visual perspective NOT of our experience of inclusion in the holodynamic/Tao, … but to capture in words and language ‘what we see going on out there in front of us’, REDUCING IN THE PROCESS, the experience of inclusion in the Tao (holodynamic) to a visual (crows-eye voyeur view, rather than sensory experience) of an INVENTED REALITY ‘out there in front of us’.


The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ – Lao Tzu.

In other words, what we see (VOYEURIZE) that is ‘out there in front of us’ that we can talk about (the visual picture that we are interrogating with our invasive crows-eye scrutiny and dissecting and homing in onto capture the fine detail, like a voyeur male in a motel with a one-way mirror who studies females in their naked, private moments, using such voyeur observations to construct, with language and grammar, an INVENTED REALITY.  This voyeur viewing based INVENTED REALITY IS NOT THE TRUE REALITY.  It is, in fact, a double error based pseudo-reality that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are employing as our ‘operative reality’.


For example, while modern physics and indigenous aboriginal and Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta understanding is in terms of ‘DUNING’ AND ‘PEOPLING’ WITHIN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, Western culture adherents experiencing such phenomena see ‘DUNES’ AND ‘PEOPLE’ AS LOCAL ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ INHABITANTS WITH ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments WITHIN A SEPARATE HABITAT-COME-HOLDING-TANK-FOR-INHABITANTS.

That is, Western culture adherents use the double error of language and grammar to reduce ‘duning’ and ‘peopling’ (appearances within the holodynamic) to notional ‘things-in-themselves’ (‘dunes’ and ‘people’), notionally with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments’.  This abstract reduction comes with what philosophers have termed ‘the burden of concreteness’ since the natural resonance-based relational transformation dynamics that are innate in nature are ‘stripped out’ (‘out of mind and thus out of the ‘mind’s eye’) by the abstract language and grammar based ‘double error’ reduction of flow-forms to name-instantiated things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The abstract intellectual splitting of one’s ‘self’ as ‘inhabitant’ out of the ‘habitat’ is experienced as ‘self-consciousness’, and the burden of concreteness comes with it; i.e. no more ‘being one with the flow’ as is natural for intuitively animated resonance features (dunings, peoplings), but, now under control of the intellect that language and grammar have put into an unnatural primacy over the resonance-informed intuition, the ‘burden of concreteness’ now demands instructions for ‘how to move’ in a logical and mechanistic manner.  This usurping, by the intellect, of one’s natural, intuitive, resonance-informed inclusion in the holodynamic, gives rise to the burden of concreteness that includes having to locally manage one’s own actions, ‘double error’ style, as if out of the centre of one’s own ‘independent thing-in-itself (name-instantiated) pseudo-‘being’ (first error), by way of one’s notional ‘powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This shift into analytical double-error based self-sourced actions and developments (which, in Western culture adherents, is hijacking (pre-emptng) our natural gift of resonance-induced participation in the holodynamic, is alluded to, for example, in ‘The Marionette Theatre’ by Henrich von Kleist’ This hijacking, by mechanistic logic, of the intuitive sensing of inclusion in the relational holodynamic has also been referred to as ‘the fall from grace’.  We have all experienced this as an ‘attack of self-consciousness’ that takes us ‘out of the natural relational flow’ so that we are then lumbered with ‘the burden of concreteness’ where we lose our spontaneity and find ourselves forced to jumpstart the formulating of instructions by ourselves to ourselves for our own actions.

Obviously, for the bear in Von Kleist’s essay, in engaging with the fencer in this story, it is a ‘no-brainer’; i.e. the bear’s intuition is more effective than the fencer’s intellectualizing of the interaction.  In fact, the bear, unlike the fencer, does not have all this ‘intellectualizing talk’ going on in his mind, calculating his every next move and even calculating a sequence of moves (as if he can anticipate the bear’s responses through several ‘bear-strategy’ directed steps).  The bear is meanwhile in his natural ‘in-the-Tao’ mode; i.e. he is himself a resonating within the flow, an appearance or apparition within the Tao.  Without language and grammar, he is not exposed to his own self-hijacking wherein his intellectual aspect ‘takes over the helm’ and puts time-and space based analytical strategizing into precedence over sensory experience of holodynamical inclusion.


-1- Physical reality is our experience of inclusion within the holodynamic.  This is affirmed by modern physics.

-2- Western culture ‘operative reality’ is double-error based intellectual abstraction coming from (first error) a naming-instantiated independently-existing thing-in-itself, conflated by (second error) imputing to the thing-in-itself the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e.

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

-3- The ‘double error’ based belief in ‘sorcery’ gives rise to Western culture adherents’ ‘ego’ which ‘inflates’ in proportion to one’s notional sense of having ‘sourced’ popularly received actions and developments and which ‘deflates’ in proportion to one’s notional sense of having ‘sourced’ unpopularly received actions and developments.  WESTERN CULTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ARE PERVASIVELY DOUBLE ERROR BASED.

-4- Western culture social hierarchy is based on Western culture adherents belief in ‘sorcery’, elevating in social status and rewards those deemed to be superior ‘sorcerers’ of beneficial actions and developments, and conversely, lowering in social status and imposing punishments on those deemed to be sorcerers of inferior and/or negative actions and developments.

-5- Innate ambiguity in Western culture double-error based thinking.   Because Western culture adherents orient rewards and punishments to ‘sorcery’ (which is pure fiction born of the double error of language and grammar), a basic ambiguity arises of the ‘boil and flow’ type. The ‘boil in the flow’ is ‘appearance’ that Western culture adherents ‘concretize’ by naming both ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ and thus imputing to each (both) aspects of the double error; i.e. (first error)  the name-instantiated imputing of an ‘independently existing thing-in-itself’, and conflating this first error by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error).  The boil and flow ontology is purely appearance-based abstraction can be  thus the artificiality of the dispute between ‘conservatives’ who maintain that the boil sources the flow (the individual sources the collective dynamic or “the rotten apple spoils the barrel”) and ‘liberals’ who maintain that the flow sources the boil (the collective behaviour sources the individual behaviour or “it takes a whole community to raise of [good/bad] child”).   Meanwhile, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY.  The basis of the conservative – liberal polarizing of whether sorcery is ‘inside-outward’ (individual to collective) or ‘outside-inward’  (collective to individual) has been compared, in the Gulliver’s Travels satire, to social polarizing based on whether it is best to open a boiled egg from the pointy or roundy end.

-6- Sorcery (a total fiction), since it is an abstraction created by the double error of language and grammar, can be invoked by any double error combination.  All it takes is a ‘name’ to trigger the first error of imputing thing-in-itselfness to a named flow-form and the use of grammar to impute the power of sorcery to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.  One can make use of this double error invoked ‘sorcery’ by using naming to instantiate a human as a ‘human being’, and/or a social collective as a ‘nation’, and/or a social grouping of people such as a ‘corporation’.  Once these have been given names, the names can be used in grammatical structures that impute the power of sorcery to the name-instantiated things-in-themselves,


Physical reality (inclusion within the holodynamic) is the reality of our sensual experience, and it is nothing like the intellectual abstraction of double error based INVENTED REALITY (double error based INVENTED REALITY is sorcery-based).

We Western culture adherents have ‘locked ourselves in’ to a social system based on INVENTED REALITY which features notional ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error).  The ‘lock-in’ is by way of ‘high switching costs’ which, in our case (Western culture adherent’s case), arise from giving those seen as ‘superior sorcerers’ (exceptional producers of product) disproportionate influence over changes to the existing system.

The primary change needed to dispel the whole matrix of psychological dysfunction arising from the abstract double error based belief in ‘sorcery’ is to ‘drop’ the preposterous claim that ‘naming’ endows the ‘named entity’ with the power of ‘sorcery’.  This is Western culture medieval superstition as in the magic sword Excalibur said to bring great power to those who were ceremoniously ‘tapped’ on the shoulder while anointed with a priestly incantation culminating in … “arise, Sir Lancelot” etc. etc.  While this procedure has been ‘secularized’ in modern Western culture, the tradition persists with modernized ritual.

Western culture adherence continues to require belief, or at least support, for ritual endowing of powers to people through ‘naming’ ceremonies presided over by influential figures in the Western culture social hierarchy.  Clearly, such power as deemed to come from names and titles has taken on a reality, among Western culture adherents, that is far beyond anything that our sensory experience can inform us of.  Western culture adherents either bow and scrape or abuse and demean others on the basis of the ‘names’ or ‘titles’ that Western society has imposed on them, without any circling or sniffing or retrospection.  She/he who is named a Queen or a King, whether a reproductive issue brings her/him forth at birth as a squat wart covered toad, will be given the special treatment that their ‘name/title’ designates.  As Western culture folklore such as ‘The Pauper and the Prince’ give testimony, ‘naming’ has more influence in establishing Western culture ‘reality’ than our sensory experience. The flag on one’s backpack and/or the licence plate on one’s car, when one is on unfamiliar ground, may pre-empt sensory experience of social interaction in influencing the unfolding social relational dynamic that the Western culture adherent finds himself included in.

Western culture approach to ‘naming’ assumes a double error based understanding.  For example ‘John Dunbar’ is an abstract ‘thing-in-itself name that can be used as a ‘simple stub’ for double error based (sorcery-based) identification whereas ‘Dances with Wolves’ (the name given to John Dunbar in the film ‘Dances with Wolves”) is the beginning of a relational matrix based ‘naming’ as in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics.

James Wilkes Booth was NOT the local ‘jumpstart source’ of Lincoln’s death, but he was a lightning rod through which the killer thunderbolt channeled.

These above observations illustrate cultural differences in the manner in which ‘naming’ is used; i.e. in Western culture, naming is used to identify thing-in-itself being, the first part of the ‘double error’ that imputes the power of sorcery to a notional name-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’.   In other words, the name (John Dunbar) is a lexical ‘stub’ for ascribing powers of sorcery.   In indigenous aboriginal cultures, the name serves to point to a peopling in the the transforming relational ‘web-of-life’ continuum.  The peopling is purely relational and NOT a ‘thing-in-itself’ and NOT the ‘source’ of an action or development, the latter two entities being intellectual abstractions.

While sorcery is an abstract, intellectual falsehood, it is bound up with ‘naming’ and with the ‘truths’ that are established in conjunction with naming.  But what is truth?

As Giordano Bruno observed before being burned at the stake for heresy in 1600; ‘A majority has no monopoly on the truth’, … however, as he experienced, a majority invents something they employ as if it were  rock-solid truth, and the concept of truth as something that exists regardless of people’s personal assessment, is a nonsensical hypothesis where one is experiencing inclusion in a holodynamic (flow-continuum).

“What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms — in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all…” – Nietzsche  (On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense’)

A Western culture double-error based INVENTED REALTY can serve as ‘the truth’ for the Western culture adhering social collective in the sense that Western culture social collectives ascribe to the moral obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.

The ‘lock-in’ due to the double error based INVENTED REALITY; i.e. where we Western culture adherents ‘lie herd-like in a style obligatory to all’, … remains locked in place by the ‘high switching costs’ of our having evolved a social hierarchy of respect and influence based on the abstract double error based imputing of powers of sorcery (of good or bad actions and developments).

Although the investigators of the nature and origins of Western culture function and dysfunction have, over the past 2+ millennia (since the era of Heraclitus and Lao Tzu in 500 B.C.) shed light on why Western culture can be such a ‘crazy-maker’, Western culture adherents leave it up to ‘the authorities’ to determine if and where changes to common cultural understandings and practices are warranted.  Since the ‘authorities’ are both guardians and primary beneficiaries of the ‘double error’ (belief in sorcery), this is akin to leaving the chickens in care of the fox.

That is, Western culture adherents appoint ‘authorities’, anointing them with notional powers of sorcery (‘their’ power to ‘make things happen’).  Of course, while Western culture adherents see such ‘powers’ as originating in the ‘authority’, the same individual ‘out of uniform’ (while not wearing his ‘robes of office’) will have as much impact issuing orders to the ‘upper class’ as a clown that is mocking the social structure; i.e. he is more likely to attract laughter than obedient following.  What this underscores is the pivotal role of ‘naming’ in Western culture double error based sorcery. Western culture adherents will ‘listen’ and respond to the call to source actions and developments coming from the ‘big name’; e.g. the prince though not the pauper.

The needed development of abolishing the Western culture ‘gold standard’ of ‘sorcery’ therefore lies in the hands of administrators whose administrative authority has been given to them by the social collective on the basis of ‘their powers of sorcery’ (i.e. on the basis of ‘the double error of language and grammar’.    This is a ‘Catch 22’  (‘locked-in’) situation, pointed out by philosopher/writer Henri Laborit;

We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.  – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’

My own experience of participating in an authoritarian hierarchy has informed me of how ‘lock-in-with-high-switching-costs’ serves to entrap us within this perverting schema.  One is pressured through one’s active participation within the Western culture social dynamic to ‘wear one’s Emperor’s new clothes’ with pride and authority, or else besmirch and diminish one’s colleagues and sponsors and the entire sorcery-based ‘system’; i.e. as Ronald Laing captures this in ‘Knots’;

They are playing a game.  They are playing at not playing a game.  If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.  I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.”  – R.D. Laing

Going along with the concept of ‘sorcery’ as if it is a real and authentic power of originating actions and developments that is ‘owned’ by a ‘name-instantiated thing-in-itself’  such as a ‘human being’ (or ‘national social collective’ or ‘corporate social collective’) when it is a blatant falsehood is a game that we Western culture adherents grow up learning how to play.  It is a phony game, however, it has become the basis of Western culture social structure wherein those who benefit most by its disproportionate allocations of ‘sorcery’ based rewards and respect (to those credited with excelling at sorcery) are also given most influence over changes to such arrangements.  Thus, those entrusted with authority over the workers on the basis of their more than average sorcery contributions (managers, presidents etc.) have adjusted the estimated ratio of sorcery contributions of industrial ‘managers’ relative to ‘workers’ upwards from 7:1 in 1950 to over 1000: in 2019.   This is in spite of the concept of ‘sorcery’ being a null concept based on a ‘double error’.    This is part of the ‘game’ that has become part of Western culture adherence; i.e. the game of not seeing we see the game that ‘sorcery’ is a ‘crock’ and continuing to tug our forelock in deference to the big-name sorcerers of Western society.

To come right out in the open and declare the sorcery-based Western culture social dynamic to be ‘a crock’, while it may resonate with those suffering from its perversity, will be resented by those who feel ‘besmirched’ by such assessment; i.e. those who have been given, on the basis of their superior sourcing accreditation, authority over what changes, if any, are made to the present system (i.e. the present ‘game-playing’).

Currently, editorship of comments (flattery and critique) of the ‘system as it is’ are governed by those who support the belief in sorcery and put the focus of change only on the distracting issue of whether sorcery is individual-instantiated or collective instantiated.  This debate is in turn given public attention through the public ‘loudspeaker’ systems, which as Ivan Illich has pointed out in ‘Silence is a Commons’, … captures public attention through the technological ‘loudspeaker systems’ which are continually barking out and amplifying this trendy (double-error based) view or another.

If ever there was a time when Western culture adherents sat together in a ‘sharing circle’ and ‘passed the talking stick’ so that the social constituency could ‘share their sentient experiences and govern themselves  on the basis of sustaining relational balance harmony, it seems to be no longer accessible.  Instead, the internet serves more as an arena for intellectual-political debate grounded in the ‘double error (sorcery) assumption, and thus to an INVENTED REALITY that is explicit, logical and ungrounded in sensory experience, … a ‘reality’ that is far from the ineffable, relational reality of inclusion the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ or ‘the Logos’.

* * *

There are no ‘people’, peopling is an appearance within the holodynamic (the Tao).