The Double Error and the Worm Hole
— A Language and Grammar induced “psychological wormhole” between TWO REALITIES (East & West), (Nietzsche & Newton), (Sanity & Sorcery)
Are you ready to travel through the wormhole? It is a safe ‘return trip’ that can be repeated so that you can use it any time.
Be advised that “I can take you there but I cannot show you the way.” That is; “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu
HERE WE GO!
David Bohm’s suggestion that James Wilkes Booth was NOT the SOURCE (cause) of Lincoln’s death is key exemplar. The world dynamic is continually unfolding (the world is a transforming relational continuum) and there is no space-time break between the invention of gunpowder, the invention of the gun and the shooting of Lincoln so that there is no justification for ‘starting our account of reality’ with John Wilkes Booth’s firing of the bullet that struck Lincoln. When we understand reality as a transforming relational continuum, there are no ‘stops and starts’ that disconnect one event from the next, … i.e. it is only language and intellect that chops things up in this way, our experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
If we open our understanding to the world as a transforming relational continuum, we no longer have need of the concept of “SORCERY”. “SOURCERY” is abstraction that needs debunking. Nietzsche approached this debunking by showing that the concept of “sourcing” aka “causing” aka “producing” is abstraction that is psychologically triggered by a language-and-grammar based “double error”.
So what is going on here with this belief in ‘sorcery’ (language and grammar based abstraction) aka ‘causality’ aka the ‘producer-product’ dynamic? In terms of our sensory experience, there are only relational dynamics within the context of a transforming relational continuum. ‘Sorcery’ is language and grammar based abstraction, a ‘double error’ as Nietzsche points out. However, we have built the concept of ‘sorcery’ into language and grammar and are using it to construct our INVENTED REALITY based on ‘what we see’.
That is; we Western culture adherents have been taught (have taught ourselves) to understand ‘reality’ on the basis of what we SEE going on. This is a mistake and it is part of the ‘crazy making’ nature of Western culture adherence. Yes, we ‘see’ John Wilkes Booth shoot and kill Abraham Lincoln, but is this ‘REALITY’?
We can’t get to an understanding of our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational by this simple voyeur visual SEEING route no matter how much visual information we take in. Meanwhile, one may say that they were an ‘eye witness’ to John Wilkes Booth’ shooting that killed Abraham Lincoln. Is ‘what they see’ like a fragment of a reality that we can piece together with other fragments to reconstruct the ‘overall reality’?
If we go directly to the modern physics point made by David Bohm, we understand things (reality) very differently. The inference is that even if we were visual witnesses to the shooting of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth, such vision based understanding is not ‘reality’. Think about it; how could it be reality if reality is the transforming relational continuum that we are included in? What, then, is the significance and meaning of our visual observations, our ‘eye-witness reports’ that we generally take to be informing us on todays ‘reality’.
One thing’s for sure, our eye witness visual observations of John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln is the information that Western culture regards as capturing a real event and it is a collection of such visual observations, like we see on the TV evening news, that informs us on the unfolding global ‘reality’. Remember the old film newsreels with a big newsreel camera turning while shooting pictures, entitled THE EYES AND EARS OF THE WORLD?
What Bohm is saying is that ‘reality’ is something beyond capture by means of visual picture viewing. He’s not the only one saying this; i.e. indigenous aboriginals are implicitly of the same understanding as Bohm, that’s why, just before Bohm passed, he said that indigenous aboriginals had already figured out modern physics and such understanding was part of their cultural geritage.
I am saying that if anyone wishes to take the time to seriously and open-mindedly work their way through things (through the philosophical investigations that Bohm, Nietzsche, Schroedinger, Emerson etc. have undertaken and shared.) that person, it seems to me, will come to the same conclusion, that what we ‘see’ is not ‘reality’.
It is important to note that ‘what we see’ can be articulated in language, as in ‘eye witness accounts’, as in the case of Lincoln’s shooting by John Wilkes Booth. What we can experience but we can’t see is the transforming relational continuum in which we are included (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao). Now, it would be nice if our visual observations, added together, would inform us on the ‘transforming relational continuum’ we share inclusion in, however, that is Bohm’s and Nietzsche’s point; i.e. visual observations as in the articulable eye witness accounts, FALL INNATELY SHORT OF INFORMING US ON THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM WE SHARE INCLUSION IN.
Of course, we don’t rely on our own limited visual viewing of what is going on in the world, …. we watch the TV news. But very often, we are getting someone else’s VIEWING of reality based on their particular viewing access. That is, there is the sense that what may impress our social collective as ‘what is really going on’ is exposed to a lot of different ‘views’. Trump speaks of ‘fake news’ and many believe him, so where do go for a ‘reality check?’ There are so many different ‘voyeur views’ of ‘what is going on out there’. Is it any wonder that indigenous aboriginals have ‘sharing circles’ where the talking stick is passed and people ‘speak from the heart’ rathe than ‘from the head’)?
Adolph Hitler was a big newsmaker who seemed to shape the reality of Europe and the world from the late 1930s and on into the early 1940s There are lots of newsreels that give us a visual perspective of ‘what went on’.
But at the same time, if modern physics says that it was not James Wilkes Booth that killed Lincoln, what would modern physics say about Adolph Hitler waging war on Czechoslovakia and then France, Netherlands etc. and his sourcing of WWII.
WWII was predicted back in 1919 on the basis of the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. A famous newspaper cartoon prophesied that the German babies born in 1919 would be waging a war of revenge for such treatment when they reached the age of adulthood in 20 or so years. Does the present arise from the immediate past? … or from the remote past? Like the drunk who searches under the streetlight for the watch he lost on a dark, unlit section of the street “because the searching conditions are better here”, Germany’s neighbours who also have a long darkly lit history of involvement in intra-European strife may have found it convenient to explain the outbreak of WWII under the ‘current event spotlight’ where things are more brightly and clearly illuminated and more crisply (unambiguously) and explicitly resolved.
So, as the familiar aphorism goes; … ‘does the man ‘source the times’ or do ‘the times source the man’?… in the case of outbreaks of war?
This idea of ‘sourcery’ is always cropping up in our Western culture thinking. Germany got punished by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles because they were the ‘source’ of WWI, supposedly.
Most of us (the proverbial ‘man on the street’) would probably say that Germany was the source of WWII.
What I am writing about here is how the concept of ‘source’ or ‘sorcery’ is a crazy-making delusional abstraction of alchemical origin that our Western culture has made foundational to our conceptualizing of ‘reality’. There is no ‘sorcery’ in the indigenous aboriginal concept of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related, and likewise, there is no ‘sorcery’ in the transforming relational continuum of modern physics. However, ‘Sorcery’ is foundational in Western culture INVENTED REALITY,…. sorcery is ‘the double error’ of language and grammar identified by Nietzsche..
James Wilkes Booth was said to be the ‘source’ of Abraham Lincoln’s death. He was tracked down and shot by Union soldiers before he could be tried, but he would have most surely been convicted of killing Lincoln had he been taken alive and tried. In other words, Western society sees him as the ‘source’ of Lincoln’s death, just as Western society sees Hitler as the source of WWII.
This gives rise to the conundrum …. ‘does the man ‘source the times’ or do ‘the times source the man’?
The concept of ‘sorcery’ is deeply ingrained in Western culture conceptualizing of ‘reality’. It divides the Western populace into ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ over the question of whether the social dynamic is ‘sourced’ by the individual (conservative) as in ‘one rotten apple spoils the barrel’ or ‘sourced’ by the collective (liberal) as in ‘it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child].
SO, … How can David Bohm say, that modern physics would say, that James Wilkes Booth was NOT the source of Lincoln’s death?
This question is important because it reflects on our Western culture’ ‘causal’ (sorcery-based) understanding of ‘reality’ generally.
If your mind works anything like mine, you will have trouble ‘turning off’ the understanding that James Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, … yet Bohm is arguing that modern physics is saying that this ‘sorcery’ based view is not ‘reality’.
How might one change one’s mind on this? I can tell you how I changed my mind on it so that I agree with Bohm that James Wilkes Booth did NOT kill Lincoln. That is, Booth was not the ‘source’ of Lincoln’s death. The problem is with Western culture honed language and grammar and how it makes us think in terms of ‘sorcery’ which is a mistake; i.e. there is no such thing as sorcery in a transforming relational continuum. ‘Sorcery’ is a psychological abstraction deriving from language and grammar by way of a ‘double error’.
Nietzsche pointed out that ‘sorcery’ is a ‘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
The ’double error’ aka ‘sorcery’ is a screw up in our Western culture language-and-grammar conditioned way of thinking that comes from the way we use language and grammar. That is, we inject the concept of ‘sorcery’ into our language and grammar based intellectual portraits of reality.
‘Sorcery’ gives people (name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments) credit for achievements they are not the source of (good and/or bad) since ‘sourcing’ is unreal abstraction. Nevertheless, the unreal abstraction of sorcery gives us ‘ego’ that has us thinking that ‘I did it’ (whether good or bad), thus inflating or deflating our ego. Sorcery is not ‘real’; i.e. it is a double error of language and grammar
The statement ‘seeing is believing’ puts the finger right on the problem. If our view of reality is visual, we might use the phrase ‘seeing is believing’, but then, if we were asked what we saw, we would give back this sorcery based bullshit! For example, we say that we saw hurricane Katrina source devastation in New Orleans. That is double error based bullshit. The ‘double error’, once again, is to (first error) use a name to impute independent thing-in-itself existence to a relational form-in-the flow and conflate this (second error) with grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself. This double error of language and grammar sets up, in the psyche, the abstraction of ‘sorcery’
THERE IS NO SORCERY, THERE IS ONLY THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM. SORCERY IS LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED ABSTRACTION THAT IS USED, IN WESTERN CULTURE, TO ‘INVENT SORCERY-BASED REALITY’.
the reality of our actual experience is relational and ineffable (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao) but our Western culture operative reality (the reality that we invent with language and grammar) is sorcery based. the operative reality of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta is relational. Schroedinger takes us through this in his essay ‘What is Life?’.
Since reality is ineffable and in the space of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related within a transforming relational continuum) harmony and dissonance provide behavioural guidance and sorcery is a non-starter.
I don’t personally believe in ‘sorcery’. It has always been suspect to me. When people have given me credit for sourcing something good, like getting a job, I was always thinking that it was always a case of a help from friends and relatives or co-workers. Have I ever sourced anything on my own? The question doesn’t even make any sense to me. Does Katrina source stuff on her own, like destroy cities? It’s the frigging ‘double error’ of language and grammar sneaking into play. There is only relational transforming and relational forms that we ‘name’ and then turn into sorcerers with the psychological assistance of grammar.
If you can see that there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ even though we base our Western culture INVENTED REALITY on it, then we are on the same page.
That is, we are understanding that ‘seeing is believing’ IS THE PROBLEM.
If you saw James Wilkes Booth shoot Abraham Lincoln, you might be given a Bible and asked to swear an oath to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’. And what that would mean is to recount what you have ‘seen’, and if it was a stormy night and you started off claiming that ‘you saw lightning flash’, you would be well-primed to continue with our double-error based account what went on between Booth and Lincoln.
The energy-charged space of the transforming relational continuum is a form-filled space, human forms and hurricane forms being cases in point, and once we anoint forms with names to give them, in our psyche, persisting (even eternal soul) existence, and give these things, with grammar, powers of sourcing actions and developments, we have the abstract psychological makings of an INVENTED REALITY. It is, of course a ‘visible’ INVENTED REALITY, and that is a bit ‘off-putting’ since the reality of our inclusion in a transforming continuum is an ineffable, non visually picturable experience. We can conclude that our INVENTED REALITY based on ‘sorcery’ (the double error of language and grammar) is an effable representation of the ineffable reality of our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
This leaves us with the challenge posed by Emerson of NOT letting the tool run away with the workman, which it clearly is doing where we take the powers of ‘sorcery’ seriously and apply it to name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments as we like to use language and grammar to portray our self, our nation, our corporation, …so that we can tap into the fruits of ‘our’ sorcery, as if they rightfully belong to us, as their authors, …. giving us personal pride (inflated ego) and material affluence based elevated status that indigenous aboriginals and Taoists/Buddhists may never realize, their orientation being instead to a one-with-everything bliss, that is incompatible and even antagonistic to the quest of elevating oneself above the ‘ordinary’ masses or ‘making something of oneself’.
[No wonder Jules Henry wrote ‘Culture Against Man’ (1963) and Ronnie Laing ‘The Divided Self’ (1965)]
* * * Wormhole passage checkpoint:* * *
If we are able to shift our mind-grounding from the flow-forms to the flow, we have successfully made passage through the wormhole, and should be able to repeat the voyage in either direction whenever we choose. We can check that we have come through the wormhole if we can imagine ourself as the prelingual undivided self that we still are, at our deepest level. We can’t speak or write or be intellectual because there is no platform from which to do so. No utterances can come from us because our ‘self’ is a passsage like a relational flow within a flow or a ‘circulation’. As Schroedinger observes in ‘What is life?’, our ‘I’ is not something that continually develops as a thing on its own, but is more like a ground on which things are continually being written, like a sedimentary structure that is the recipient of continuous deposition in pace with its continuing subsidence, the sandbar that appears to grow and shrink when we reify it with the name sandbar even though there is no ‘it’ there at all, only transforming relations.
* * * * *
APPENDIX: THE ELEMENTS OF PASSAGE THROUGH THE WORMHOLE
If we are able to shift our mind-grounding from the flow-forms to the flow, we have successfully made passage through the wormhole, and should be able to repeat the voyage in either direction whenever we choose. We can check that we have come through the wormhole if we can imagine ourself as the prelingual undivided self that we still are, at our deepest level. We can’t speak or write or be intellectual because there is no fixed platform of self from which to do so. No utterances can come from us because our ‘self’ is a passsage like a relational flow within a flow or a ‘circulation’. As Schroedinger observes in ‘What is life?’, our ‘I’ is not something that continually develops as a thing on its own, but is more like a ground on which things are continually being written, like a sand-bar that is the recipient of continuous growing and eroding wherein the notion of the ‘bar’ as a thing-in-itself is an optical illusion.
Now that we are through the worm-hole we can see how our implanting of the name ‘sandbar’ puts our psyche in ‘double error’ mode where our imposing of the name ‘bar’ imputes thing-in-itself being, that we conflate by imputing the power of sorcery to name-instantiated bar-thing, as in ‘the bar is growing larger’ … ‘the bar is eroding’ where there is no ‘thing-in-itself’ with the powers of sorcery, but only the appearance of forms in the transforming relational continuum.
Reality is a transforming relational continuum and within the transforming relational continuum, … James Wilkes Booth is a relational form; i.e. a bubbling up within the flow in the manner of the sandbars that, thanks to language (naming) and grammar (animating), we can say ‘are continually ‘gathering’ and ‘regathering’ in the tidal flow’ as if ‘they’ are the authors (sorcerers) of their own ‘life-cycle’. (They are not sourcing their own gathering but ‘are being gathered and regathered’ within the flow, which is the very nature of ‘flow’, as Heraclitus has pointed out. FLOW-FORMS SUCH AS THE SAND BAR (AND JAMES WILKES BOOTH) DO NOT HAVE ‘LIFE-CYCLES’ since the APPEARANCE OF ‘coming into being’ and ‘passing out of being’ is the psychological instantiated synthetic product of language, grammar and intellect based on ‘visual appearance’ of forms that are continually being gathered and regathered (scattered) within the purely relational fluid dynamic.
The continual forming and reforming of relational forms can be understood in the sandbar metaphor and also in Bohm’s toffee and/or India ink in clear treacle metaphors. where the ‘existential separateness’ of ‘inhabitant forms’ and ‘flow-habitat’ os purely appearance (relational transformation is all there is) concretized and animated by the double error of language and grammar to do psychological service within an intellectual INVENTED REALITY.
Having made passage through the wormhole into the natural understanding of reality as the transforming relational continuum, we can see John Wilkes Booth and Lincoln as relational forms within the transforming relational continuum, that our psychological invoking of the ‘double error’; i.e. the name-instantiated imputing of thing-in-itself being, conflated with grammar based imputing of powers of sourcing actions and developments, …converts (psychologically) into ‘animate beings’ that can now serve the psyche within an INVENTED REALITY based on ‘sorcery’ rather than on relational transformation.
Our psychological impression of John Wilkes Booth in the double error sense, mirrors psychological impression of our ‘self’ as we also derive from the double error of language and grammar. If we suspend our habit of GROUNDING OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF REALITY in terms of language and grammar (I, you, he, she, it, those others), and instead ‘start from’ the higher level of relational transformation, we can catch ourselves in the act of reducing the thingless-connectedness of relational reality in two ways so as to psychologically construct two ‘lesser realities’ that fit inside the ‘mother reality’ of the transforming relational continuum; These three levels of reality can be used to give us an understanding of the world dynamic we are included in. They are discussed by physicist Erich Jantsch in his ‘Design for Evolution’, but we can find them in ourselves and develop our own nomenclature to refer to them.
In fact, it is more ‘realistic’ to speak of ‘two reduced levels of reality’ (levels 3 and 2) plus the unreduced relational ‘reality’ (level 1).
Level 3 reality: Leader-follower (conservatism) is the simple hierarchical form of organization that concerns itself with how ‘people’ and/or ‘animals’ or ‘things-in-themselves’ relate to one another [there is no containing environment to worry about here]. So, if we preoccupy our psyche with reality based on social dynamics (and forget about being included in something greater than ourselves; i.e. an abstract Euclidian space will do.) we get this leader-follower form of organization;
“The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” — Thomas Mann, ‘Mario and the Magician’, written during the 1920’s rise of fascism in Europe.
This lowest level reality separates the ‘animate’ from the ‘inanimate’ and sees humans as living organisms that were initially hatched by a bolt of lightning striking a mineral rich swamp, the continuing operative reality of mainstream Western (Newtonian) science, as upheld by Nobel Prize winning evolutionary biologists who continue to promote rocket trips to other ‘dead planets’ in search of other planets like earth with ‘life’ on otherwise ‘dead’ bodies of rock and minerals.
Level 2 Reality – Saviour-Supplicant: In this next higher level 2 reality, we have an ‘environment’ that we are included in, and this can ‘make our lives as inhabitants’ in such ‘environment’ rather difficult, as far as satisfying our basic survival needs. In this level of reality, we see an inhabitant-habitat interactive dynamic, and when conditions become very difficult (e.g. drought or hostile others or unfriendly environmental dynamics such as drought or flooding or cooling or warming), there is a general demand by the social collective for someone to lead the masses out of the hostile wilderness. An implicit ‘opening’ for a ‘saviour’ develops in this scenario wherein the variability of the terrain/environment becomes an inductive organizer of the dynamics of the social collective. This gives rise to (creates an opening for) a new type of leader seen as a ‘leader-saviour’ who is not just going to ‘give orders’ as in reality 3, but is going to lead them through a ‘hostile environment’ to the land of milk and honey.
Level 1 Reality -Transforming relational continuum: This highest level 1 reality, transcends the level 2 and level 3 understandings of reality. Question: — ‘What should we see as the key difference that associates with this level 1 understanding of reality?’ This may need a bit of philosophical contemplation since there is a trap here, because our thinking tends to be based in language and grammar and language and grammar harbour ‘the double error’, the sense of our ‘self’ as an independent thing-in-our-self with powers of sourcing actions and developments. In fact, if we are thinking that we should be able to ‘answer this question’ by means of a statement, we are constraining what can constitute an understanding to the question.
Can we suspend our thinking in language-and-grammar based terms so that we don’t fall into the ‘double error’ trap? Should we (must we) acknowledge Lao Tzu’s observation that ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ which is equivalent to our modern physics’ understanding that reality is the experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, an ineffable experience?
It appears that the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is beyond the capability of explicit language-based articulation (ie. that is based on the double error) since ‘everything is in flux’. Although we are capable of understanding through direct experience of sensory relations, such experience is beyond the based and direct explicative capability of language. If we insist on using language to share our sensory experiencing (the habit of post infancy humans; i.e. infants are able to learn and communicate in a purely relational manner without invoking the self-other split incorporated in Western culture language and grammar usage), whether they are indigenous aboriginal infants or the infants of Western culture adherents. The language-based self-other split and the ‘double error’ is the habit of Western culture adherents.
So, the ‘take-away’ here is that the Level 1 Reality -Transforming relational continuum: is ‘not supported by’ double-error based language and grammar. Wittgenstein observes in his final proposition in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
However, as Wittgenstein noted in the immediately preceding (penultimate) proposition;
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.
In other words, there is no way to ‘directly’ and ‘explicitly’ express reality where it is the transforming relational continuum in which the experient is included (‘observer’ is incorrect since it lacks the necessary ‘dimensionality’ to avoid the ‘inhabitant-habitat ‘divided self’ split).
As with Wittgenstein’s inferential approach to capturing the flavour of relational reality (in lieu of being able to grasp the Lenprechaun tightly in one’s fist), the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ is to suggest a practical ‘work-around’ of the ineffability of one’s experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
Whether it is in regard to the sand-bar or James Wilkes Booth, applying such name-instantiated abstractions within the double error of language and grammar to construct an INVENTED REALITY, while it may dominate in our intellectual machinations in both level 3 and level 2 reality, … cannot, IN REALITY, dominate and over-ride our leave 1 relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
Reality of our human experience therefore DOES NOT VALIDATE the level Level 3 reality: Leader-follower nor does it validate the Level 2 Reality – Saviour-Supplicant: both of which depend for their ‘intellectual viability’ on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, yet it does validate Level 1 Reality -Transforming relational continuum: which is not contaminated by the ‘double error’ because it is inarticulable in the explicit terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘powers of sourcing actions and developments’. The approach of the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ and the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ uses language and grammar only to build inference of relational reality, the ‘take-away’ understanding being not-directly-articulable yet furnishing indirect inference, of the ineffable flow-based reality.
The sand-bar that ‘grows larger’, then ‘smaller’ within the and-bar or sand-dune sea, is a purely relational wave phenomenon, as is the emergence and submergence of Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth and other such ‘forms’, all of which are ‘appearances’ in the transforming relational continuum, that the ‘double error’ of language and grammar re-present in terms of abstract entities with powers of sorcery suitable for the construction of an INVENTED REALITY that serves Western culture adherents (although not modern physics, indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta) as the ‘operative reality’.