Modern physics would have us understand nature in terms of a transforming relational continuum.  Newtonian physics, as Benjamin Whorf has pointed out, derives from Western culture language and grammar.  Western culture Language and grammar reduces the relational reality of our experience with the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche) SUBSTITUTING, …. BY WAY OF THE ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE INTELLECT, ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ “REALITY”, …. AN ‘INVENTED REALITY FEATURING THE LOCAL ‘SOURCING’ OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, …  IN PLACE OF RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

By means of the ‘double error’ of Western culture language and grammar, we (first error) use ‘naming’ to formulate the psychological abstraction of ‘thing-in-itself being’ and intellectually substitute it for a relational form in the flow, and then we (second error) employ grammar to conflate this by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the abstract ‘thing-in-in-itself’ (the first error).  What results is the psychological/intellectual impression of ‘sorcery’, a middle ages terms for such belief that modern Western culture has rehabilitated with the term ‘producer-product’  Whether we speak of ‘sorcery’ or the ‘producer-product’ dynamic, we are alluding to the same language-and-grammar triggered psychological abstraction of ‘something-from-nothing’.  As Nietzsche observes, rather than accept ‘change’ as relational transformation, we invent the notion of ‘an author of change’ aka a ‘sorcerer’, or slightly more euphemistically, a producer-of-product; THIS IS THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’;

“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

This is the source of endemic confusion and psychological aberrance built into the intellectual foundations of Western culture.  It is the source of the conservative – liberal split and much more.


Human cultures have been historically divided on the question of ‘the two and the one’ (see anthropologist Mircea Eliade’s ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ (titled in English ‘The Two and the One’).

Western culture adherents are divided and confused over the three ways in which a ‘flow’ based reality can be understood when we reduce experience to language and grammar based intellection.  That is, as philosophers like Bohm, Schroedinger, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche have pointed out, there is no way to capture, in language, the transforming relational continuum or ‘the Tao’ (affirmed in modern physics) that we and everything are included in. So whatever we are ‘talking about’ when we employ language and grammar, it is NOT reality as in ‘the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  This innate shortfall of language and grammar becomes the source of psychological confusion, particularly in Western culture where language and grammar have usurped the role of relational experience in informing us on ‘reality’.

We Western culture adherents live in a language and grammar based intellectual INVENTED REALITY based on ‘the double error’ which features ‘sorcery’ aka ‘producer-product’ dynamics as the inherent animating authoring agency.  Sorcery is the grammar-invented ‘God in the machine’.  That is, ‘sorcery’ is an abstract language and grammar based (double error based) concept is what facilitates Western culture adherents in (a) substituting ‘sorcery’ for relational transformation, and (b) re-casting ‘humans’ from relational forms in the flow to ‘things-in-themselves, notionally with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’).  IT IS GRAMMAR THAT HAS WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS BELIEVE IN ‘HUMAN BEINGS’ WITH GOD-LIKE POWERS OF ‘SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS’.

While modern physics has confirmed the understanding of reality as purely relational; i.e. an understanding of ourselves as relational forms included in a transforming relational continuum, as is also ‘reality’ as understood in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, … Western culture continues to fall into the trap of the regarding ‘double error’ based ‘sorcery’ as ‘reality’.  We Western culture adherents ‘lock ourselves in’ to this believe by ‘high switching costs’ (‘lock-in-by-high-switching costs’) since we have been elevating in status, influence and respect, those who the Western social collective perceives as having the ‘greatest powers of sorcery’ (God-like powers).

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

Language and grammar, Western culture deployed (double error) style, is thus ‘driving us crazy’, giving us the impression that we have the God-like power of ‘sorcery’.

This Western culture exposure to getting lifted off our feet by our usage of language has not gone ‘unnoticed’ by philosophers, as indicated in the quotes of Nietzsche and others;

The tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine – Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Method of Nature

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.

While reality of relational transformation is the understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Buddhits/Taoists and Advaita Vedanta, … as Kipling observed ‘East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet’, … i.e. Western culture adherents have bought into the abstract concept of ‘being’, not just as a useful ‘go-by’ to get to relational understanding as in modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’, but AS IF REALITY REALLY WERE ‘BEING’- BASED.

The roots of Western culture belief in ‘being’ run deep and point to a popular ‘flip’ in belief in the 500 BCE era.

“Heraclitus had declared ‘being’ a perpetual ‘becoming’ and had correlated the two concepts with his ‘hidden attunement.’ Now Parmenides declared the two to be mutually exclusive, and only ‘being’ to be real.” — ‘The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man’, — ‘Frankfort et al’

Western culture has historically had substantial reinforcement of the belief in abstraction of ‘being’, … NOT SIMPLY AS AN EXPEDIENT TO IMPLY RELATIONAL REALITY AS IN ‘THE SURPRISE VERSION OF THE GAME OF TWENTY QUESTIONS’, BUT ‘BEING’ AS A FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT IN THE INVENTING OF REALITY.  The following references point to how the abstract concept of ‘being’ has been historically infused into Western culture language-and-grammar based INVENTED REALITY (as distinguished from the relational reality of our sensory experience);

The ‘Great Chain of Being’ is a strict hierarchical structure of all matter and life, thought in medieval Christianity to have been decreed by God. The chain starts with God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals and other minerals.  This ‘scala naturae’ is a concept that draws from the writings of Plato and Aristotle (in his ‘Historia Animalium’), which was further developed in the middle ages and reached full expression in early modern Neoplatonism.” — Wikipedia

 * * *

The ‘belief in being’ goes hand-in-hand with ‘the double error’ wherein language abstractly/intellectually ‘invents man’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’ (a human BEING) notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  THIS IS ENTIRELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MODERN PHYSICS UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY IN TERMS OF RELATIONAL FORMS IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

Western culture has experienced the emergence of many influences encouraging literal belief in ‘being’ (as distinguished from the expedient use of ‘being’ cited by Wittgenstein and in modern physics, in using name-instantiated things-that-be within a web of relations where the relations can ‘take over’, as in Wittgentein’s ‘ladder’ where the explicit is merely an expedient to invoke implicit relational understanding).

The Western version of ‘God’ is the archetype for the local power of ‘sourcing’ actions and developments as psychologically expressed/inferred by language and grammar stimulated intellection.  Rational intellection (as contrasted with relational understanding) has us, psychologically, insert a ‘sourcing agency’ into relational dynamics to reduce relational dynamics to notional ‘locally sourced actions and development.  This where Nietzsche’s ‘God is grammar’ remark is coming from (;“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar”);

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 reduction from the modern physics (indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta) conceptualizing of man as a relational form in the transforming relational continuum, to a ‘double error’ based ‘thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments’, has characterized Western religious conceptualizations such as the following

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism

* * *

As Nietzsche observes, we are not rid of God (as the power of sorcery that we can attribute to man, plant, or other by way of the ‘double error’.  This continues to shape the psychological impressions of ‘reality’ in Western culture, as in the current controversy over ‘abortion’.


‘Reproduction’ and ‘genetics’ are ‘being-based’ (double-error based) abstract concepts that are a mechanistic reduction of our modern physics understanding of reality as a transforming relational continuum, … the latter understanding coming to us from our relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

We Western culture adherents are psychologically conditioned to understand the intellectual abstractions of ‘reproduction’ and ‘sorcery’ as ‘real’ within the ‘abstraction’ of language-and-grammar based INVENTED REALITY.

There is no such thing, in the experiential reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum as the ‘thing-in-itself’ (double error) based concepts of ‘birth’, ‘death’, ‘reproduction’ and ‘sorcery’.  Of course, human forms are continually coming and going like ‘boils’ within ‘flow’, … that is how relational transformation ‘appears’ to us; i.e. these forms are ‘appearances’ or ‘apparitions’ within the flow that we ‘objectify’ with language and grammar.  That is where the abstract concepts the ‘birth of beings’, the ‘death of beings’, the ‘reproduction’ of beings, ‘the powers of sorcery’ of beings’ comes from.  Meanwhile, as Heraclitus observed and modern physics reaffirmed, and indigenous aboriginal cultures have long maintained; ‘everything is in flux’.

It is only through the psychological abstraction of language and grammar that Western culture intellectual ‘double error’ based INVENTED REALITY has ‘taken over’ the helm of human understanding, wresting it from our relational experience based intuition.



The justification of abortion by a mother in terms of having natural authority over ‘her own body and its producer-product developments’ is unreal language and grammar based abstraction.  It is the ‘double error’ based abstraction pointed out by Nietzsche.


What is ‘really’ going on?  In what other way can we understand abstractions such as ‘reproduction’?

“Trees that grow from stumps grow quickly and have a good chance of success, because the trees are automatically connected to a large root system. Multiple stump sprouts from a single trunk form what is called a fairy ring: a ring of trees, with a circular clearing in the middle, because the original tree breaks down. Stump sprouts are generally genetic clones of the original tree. However, the albino redwoods are stump sprouts with a mutation (or two, or three…). The genomic research happening at Stanford will hopefully shed some light on how this mutation happens.” 

If the body of an aging tree can nurture the growth of a wind-blown seed that lodges within it, the concept of ‘reproduction’ does not really apply.  Similarly, it has become common to implant fertilized eggs in the uterus of a surrogate ‘mother’, blurring the classical concept of ‘reproduction’.

Evidently, humans are relational forms whose ‘bodies’ are fertile ground for the development of more relational forms, as in the case of the ‘nurse tree’ that serves as ‘fertile ground’ for nurturing the growth of seedlings whether or not of the same genetic make-up.

This suggests that it is a mistake to think of the ‘mother’ and ‘child’ in a ‘producer-product’ relationship, at least in the case of tree seedlings whose development is nurtured by the body of a more mature ‘adult’ that need not be thought of as having ‘produced’ or ‘sourced’ an offspring, but merely as having contributed to nurturance through a relational symbiosis.  Similarly, the Cuckoo is known to lay its eggs in the nest of other species of birds where the developing newbies will garner nurturance from their surroundings.

Clearly ‘mother’ and ‘child’ do not have to be ‘genetically related’ and even if they ‘are’ according to such genetic identifications as biology contrives, … is it not clear that a nurturing ambiance induces development of relational forms, in the manner that an ambiance of energy-rich thermal warmth and humidity induces the development of a tropical storm?  Why then, should we stick with the double error based concept of ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own powers of sourcing actions and development? [e.g. ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’, … ‘Katrina is devastating New Orleans’].  That is; such language and grammar stimulate intellectual abstraction that is radically unlike the sensual-experiential reality of relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.

The seedling drawing nurturance from non-genetically related nurse tree , like the fertilized ovum implanted in the uterus of a surrogate mother has no need of the ‘producer-product’ abstraction, suggesting that the ‘producer-product’ concept is intellectual idealization that has no basis in our relational experience based reality.

In fact, as Nietzsche points out, the ‘producer-product’ abstraction is a language and grammar based ‘double error’.  It is the same ‘double error’ as was formerly known as ‘sorcery’ that was popular psychological pitfall in Western culture that was avoided in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

THE WESTERN CULTURE MOTHER’S CLAIM THAT SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO MANAGE ‘HER OWN BODY’ INCLUDING THAT WHICH IS GROWING WITHIN IT (as if in a ‘producer-product context) has no support in the relational reality of our actual experience where ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related) applies.

The ‘producer-product’ abstraction is where ‘ego’ and ‘sorcery’ come from, … the major constituents of Western culture INVENTED REALITY.  If the human ‘boil in the flow’ develops within it a ‘boil in the flow’, there are no supportable grounds in the sensations of our actual relational experience, for the language-and-grammar stimulated producer-product [double error] understanding of this.    In fact, going with the ‘double error’ based producer-product understanding is, in effect, the constructing of an INVENTED REALITY featuring a swollen ego ‘double error’ belief in oneself as an ‘independent being’ (first error) with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error).  This is an abstract, intellectual REDUCTION of our sensory relational-experiential reality, to an abstract INVENTED REALITY.

As already mentioned, there is Western culture ‘lock-in’ to this INVENTED REALITY due to ‘high switching costs’.  The imputing of powers of sorcery to name-instantiated relational forms invents an ‘upper class’ of ‘superior sorcerers’ who are given undue influence over changes to how the current system is seen and understood; i.e. as a collective of producer-product contributors ranging from strongly positive value down through indifferently minor (near-zero) value and out to strongly negative value.

Relinquishing the bulk of change making authority in this manner (to those who have most to lose by the debunking of double-error based concept of ‘sorcery’) ‘locks-in’ the current aberrant Western culture social system;

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’

In a transforming relational continuum, ‘our children’ ARE NOT ‘OURS’ as they appear to be in the abstract double error based ‘producer-product’ reality of Western culture.

The seedling that is nurtured by the more mature tree is not PRODUCED by the more mature tree, just as ‘little boils’ are not ‘produced’ by ‘larger boils’ in fluid flow.  The ‘producer-product’ inference is grammatical abstraction based on ‘appearances’, and it leads to the confusing dichotomy in Western culture adherents between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, both factions believing in ‘sorcery’ (the double error based abstraction of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves (first error) with powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error)).

Conservative belief in sorcery: —The conservative sorcerer sees the individual/’boil’ as sourcing the dynamics of the collective/’flow’ [One bad apple spoils the barrel]

Liberal belief in sorcery: — The liberal sorcerer sees the collective/’flow’ as sourcing the dynamics of the individual’ [It takes a whole community to raise a (good/bad) child].

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta:Relational understanding wherein there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’, there is only relational transformation wherein our relational dynamics co-cultivate harmony/dissonance. Eg. Our included experience informs us in the relational dynamic of traffic flow as we slow down or speed up in such a manner as to co-cultivate continuing harmonious flow.  In other words, the opportunity to relationally co-cultivate harmony can inductively shape our collective relational dynamic. ‘Sorcery’ as in the ‘producer-product abstraction’ does not arise in this understanding of the social dynamic as inclusion within a transforming relational continuum.


The Western culture ‘double error’ propagates in the form of the abstract ‘producer-product model which in turn associates with ego, the false sense of the individual as an ‘independent thing-in-herself’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments..

In the reality of our actual relational experience, as supported by modern physics, and as is the understanding in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, everything is in flux and the ‘double error’ is just that, an error of grammar (Nietzsche).  In other words, there is no ‘sourcing of actions and developments’ and there is no ‘producer-product dynamic’.  These concepts are abstractions arising from the ‘double error’.

The emerging and subducting of relational form is an inherent aspect of relational transformation.  The producer-product concept which is essentially ‘sorcery’ is language and grammar based abstraction.   The newly emergent infant that makes its appearance through the relational form we call the human female does not imply that the human female is the thing-in-itself producer-product sorceress of the child.  As with the tree that grows from out of the body of an older tree, the language and grammar capture of such transformation need not be in producer-product terms.  Such simplification is an ‘error of grammar’; i.e. it is the ‘double error’ cited by Nietzsche.

‘Abortion’ is a concept that has divided Western culture adherents into opposing groups (conservative and liberal) both of whom understand childbirth in producer-product terms while differing in terms of where the authority/responsibility resides over the continuing sourcing or termination of sourcing of the newly forming human being.

This scenario of a ‘host body’ (parent) that is ‘sourcing’ or ‘producing’ a ‘product’ (an infant) that is independent of the host is the ‘double error’ cited by Nietzsche.  In reality understood as a transforming relational continuum, the newly emerging form is not independent of the flow it is included in; i.e. there is no ‘sourcing’ of a new form, there is only transforming of the relational continuum.  Parent and infant are relational forms within the transforming relational continuum, not two separate and independent things-in-themselves within some abstract non-connecting empty space (such as mathematical Euclidean space)..

In understanding reality as an energy-field or transforming relational continuum in which all relational forms are included, one is conscious of the radically different understanding that comes from the Western culture double error of language and grammar as regards the essence of the ‘parent’ – ‘child’ relationship.  Language and grammar represent parent and child as mutually exclusive things-in-themselves’. In the field-continuum understanding of modern physics, the field is all-pervading and all-including so that ‘relational forms’ are energy variations within the energy field rather than binary ‘is’ or ‘is not’ presences as in Newtonian physics.

The philosophical investigations of Modern physics (e.g. of Bohm and Schroedinger) and likewise the philosophical investigations of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, do not share the ‘double error’ based INVENTED REALITY view that has become the popular language-and-grammar based ‘operative reality’ of Western culture.

Reality as the transforming relational continuum in which we are included is not something ‘out there in front of’ that can be captured in language and grammar.  We are born with an awareness of inclusion in the relational continuum wherein we are ‘one with everything’.  While our relational sensations inform us our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum from the ‘get-go’, as Wittgenstein points out; “Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”).  Perhaps ‘not speak’ but perhaps ‘pass over in silence’ is a bit too strong since our sensations inform us of our inclusion (which may induce coos, giggles and crying) particularly in our infancy where we have not yet learned how to concentrate on putting our voyeur observations into language and grammar constructions.

To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat, ‘Mathematics and the Language of Nature’ (referring to Piaget).

If ‘everything is related’ as in the indigenous aboriginal ‘mitakuye oyasin’ and as implied in modern physics, there is no place for the ego-based sense of producer-product powers as assumed in the Western culture mother-child relation.

As Nietzsche points out, ego becomes manifest in all of the situations in which ‘being’ based ‘sorcery’ is implied, as in the case of the human ‘being’, the ‘nation’, and the ‘corporation’.  In all cases, the double error of language and grammar encourages us to believe in name-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.  The ‘mother’ – ‘child’ relation us often interpreted in the classic Western culture sense of the ‘producer-product relation (i.e. belief in ‘sorcery’). This is the same double error as in the case of the ‘flow’ and the ‘boil’ where the ambiguity arises, as with liberal and conservative, ‘does the man make the times (does the boil make the flow) or do the times make the man (does the flow make the boil).  Reflection will show that the impression of binary duality of flow and boil, mother and child is ‘appearance’ (apparition) that is instilled in the Western culture psyche by language and grammar (the ‘double error’). There are no such binary divisions in the transforming relational continuum which we know by way of our included relational experience.  The abstract binary splitting apart of self and other, boil and flow, content and container, inhabitant and habitat, is the work of the tool of language-and-grammar based intellection.

As Emerson observes, the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.


* * *