The Mythical Concept of “Reproduction”
“REPRODUCTION” is pure abstraction that has no place in the reality of our actual experience
There is no such thing as ‘reproduction’, it is language and grammar invoked intellectual abstraction. Experientially, there is only relational transformation. ‘Production’ refers to ‘products’ understood as ‘structures’. There are no ‘structures’ in ‘process’ where ‘process’ is a transforming relational continuum. ‘Structures’ are the intellectual abstractions; artifacts of language and grammar.
The following DISCUSSION develops the conceptual background needed to explore this mistaken belief in ‘reproduction’. The distinction between ‘structure’ and ‘process’ plays a key role. ‘Reproduction’ refers to the ‘replicating of a particular structure’ but ‘structures’ are intellectual abstractions that do not ‘really exist’ in a fluid, process based world. The world as understood in modern physics is a transforming relational continuum; i.e. a world without ‘structures’ since it is a world where everything is in continuing relational flux wherein ‘structures’ are NOT REAL but are abstractions based on ‘snapshot visual appearance’ of relational forms-in-flow. Visual ‘snapshotting’ ‘freezes’ the flow-forms and plays the same role as ‘naming’; i.e. the name persists in the psyche and keeps repeating the same definition over and over again to us, just as a visual ‘snapshot’ keeps repeating to us the same ‘thing-in-itself’ image to us over and over again.
Once we name the continuously transforming flow form (hurricane) ‘Katrina’, the persistence of the name ERRONEOUSLY implies the persistent ‘being’ of a structure where, in fact, there is only ‘process’. We conflate this first error of name-instantiating the abstraction of a local thing-in-itselfness by a second error of grammar that erroneously imputes to the first error (the name-instantiating ‘existence’ of a thing-in-itself structure ), its own powers of sourcing actions and development.
This ‘double error’ is embedded in Western culture language usage so it it difficult to escape from it within Western culture language using social collectives since we keep repeating this ‘double error’ to ourselves over and over again.
‘Process’ has no need of ‘structures’, the ‘duning’ process involves solar, atmospheric and terrestrial influences; it is a living example of the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ where what is inferred lies innately beyond the inferences, which is the basic reality of modern physics. Dunes are born of resonances; they do not set up resonances that give birth to dunes. The understanding of topology (forms understood as relations) is important to an understanding of how language contributes to our sense of ‘reality’, but the definition of topology in a Western language dictionary is ‘upside-down’ because of how language is architected in Western culture. That is; the Western language definition of topology is;
Topology is “The study of geometric properties and spatial relations unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of figures”.
This definition pivots from the assumed existence of ‘figures’, however, this definition is ‘inverted’ in the sense that it speaks of ‘figures’ as the base case for shape changing whereas, in a flow-based reality, figures are NOT FOUNDATIONAL but are abstractions that the psyche invents and retains with the help of language and ‘naming’; e.g. ‘sphere’, ‘cube’, ‘cylinder’ are abstract ‘perfect’ solids that seem to ‘exist on their own’. In a relational (flow-based) reality, ‘figures’ are abstractions that form in the psyche from our visualizing of our experience of inclusion in the flowing continuum, they do not ‘exist out there’ but take structural form ‘in here’. We define them ; e.g. the ‘big dipper’ is based on relations that have us go to our acculturated look-up table of name-based forms (abstractions) so that we can impute persisting existence (which is what ‘naming’ does) to purely relational flow forms. The dipper is like the continent. We speak of ‘continental drift because we apply the ‘double error’ to the most persisting features in the transforming relational continuum (wherein ‘everything is in flux’). As some geologists have argued, we should instead speak of ‘seafloor spreading’. But it is all relative and stems from giving ‘names’ to purely relational forms in the flow.
The influence of language on the psyche can be explored in considering what is going on when we are staring at the persisting whirlpool in river-flow in a bend of a river that is ‘made of purely relational dynamics’ (a ‘standing wave form’) and since it is a phenomenon that we observe as a static image (a ‘boil’ IN THE ‘flow’), naming it ‘a boil’ imputes persisting being to it. Heraclitus would warn us that this is an illusion since everything is in flux and we can’t step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and not the same ‘we’ stepping into it (everything is in flux).
TOPOLOGY is an experiencing of relational dynamics that can be more generally defined as The study of geometric properties and spatial relations without the invoking of cognitive dependency on any set of standard forms’ and ‘figures’ . In other words ‘topology’ , as is available to us from prelingual infancy, is relational understanding that does not depend on any reference based on ‘known’ archetypal figures (structures) with variable size and shape. TOPOLOGY is relational process without dependence on structure as is the intrinsic nature of ‘flow’ as we experience inclusion in it; “It is the Tao and it is ‘ineffable’
“Of that which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence”
This ‘double error’, pointed out by Nietzsche, has also been pointed out by Benjamin Whorf in regard to a basic difference in the architecture of Western languages and indigenous aboriginal languages, a difference that delivers greater simplicity to Western language-based communications but at the price of major OVER-SIMPLIFICATION in how ‘reality’ is represented (i.e. in how language and grammar triggers understanding in the psyche). Where Nietzsche describes this as the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, Whorf makes the point that indigenous aboriginal languages do not make this ‘double error’ and thus DO NOT FALL INTO REALITY-DISTORTING TRAP THAT COMES WITH IT. Relational dynamics are ‘process’ based (dune formation) and the concept of ‘structure’ (the ‘dune’) is an abstraction that the language and grammar of Western culture IMPOSES ON THE PSYCHE; i.e. there is no ‘structure’ with ‘thing-in-itself existence’ as language and grammar fool the psyche into imagining. ‘Everything is in flux’ as Heraclitus observed and as modern physics reaffirms. Form does depend on ‘substance’ , or in other words, process does not depend on structures; e.g. ‘duning’ does not require the concept of a ‘dune’.
We don’t have to think in terms of ‘natural processes that produce dunes’; i.e. we don’t have to think in ‘producer-product’ terms at all, since such thinking imputes reality to ‘structures’ or ‘bodies’ as in ‘reproduction’ of ‘human beings’. To use language to impute ‘being’ to relational forms and to conflate this first error with the second error of grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the first error (the psychologically name-instantiated thing-in-itself) is to fall into the ‘double error’ trap. ‘Form’ does not require ‘substance’! ‘Process’ does not require ‘structure’ (e.g. ‘duning’ does not require ‘dunes’, the latter are language based emanations of psychological activity wherein topological dynamics are reduced to geometrical forms.
As F. David Peat has pointed out, topological understanding comes first in the infant, and is traded out for its absolutizing brother, ‘geometry’, in the process of learning (Western double-error based) language and grammar which engineers the self-other split.’
Topology is “The study of geometric properties and spatial relations unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of figures”. The problem with this definition is that it pivots from the assumed existence of ‘figures’, however, this definition is erroneously ‘inverted’ in the sense that it speaks of ‘figures’ as the base case for shape changing whereas, in a flow-based reality, figures are abstractions that the psyche invents and retains with the help of language and ‘naming’; e.g. ‘sphere’, ‘cube’, ‘cylinder’ etc. In a relational (flow-based) reality, ‘figures’ are abstract ‘structures’ that arise in the psyche, they do not ‘exist out there as ‘things-in-themselves”; e.g. the ‘big dipper’ is based on relations that have us go to our acculturated look-up table of name-based forms (abstractions) that includes ‘dipper’ so that we can impute persisting existence (which is what ‘naming’ does) to purely relational flow forms (which is all there can be in a transforming relational continuum).
TOPOLOGY (to be consistent with modern physics) is an experiencing of relational dynamics that CAN BE MORE GENERALLY DEFINED as The study of geometric properties and spatial relations without the invoking of cognitive dependency on any set of standard forms’ and ‘figures’ .
In other words ‘TOPOLOGY’ in our pre-lingual experience is relational understanding that does not depend on any reference to ‘commonly known’ archetypeal figures (structures) with variable size and shape. TOPOLOGY is relational process (the Tao) that is without dependence on structure. ‘Structure’ comes with ‘language”.
The double error of Western culture language-and-grammar uses ‘naming’ to impute ‘being’ to a relational form, conflating this with grammar to endow the invented (name-instantiated) being with powers of sourcing actions and developments.
Indigenous aboriginal language and grammar does not invoke/provoke psychological impressions of reality by way of the ‘double error’ approach, but allows the relational basis of experiential reality to come on through into the psyche without being intellectually reduced, by the ‘double error’ of language and grammar. Benjamin Whorf describes this difference in how different languages trigger different psychological impressions. That is, Western culture language and grammar, by mentally pushing substance under form to give form a structural basis, loses the flexibility inherent in relational reality and inherits what has been termed ‘the burden of concreteness’ as has characterized the psychological shift from Heraclitus’ ‘flow’ based philosophy to Parmenides ‘is or is not’ ‘being’ based philosophy. Whorf explains this as follows;
From the form-plus-substance dichotomy the philosophical views most traditionally characteristic of the “Western world” have derived huge support. Here belong materialism, psychophysical parallelism, physics–at least in its traditional Newtonian form–and dualistic views of the universe in general. Indeed here belongs almost everything that is “hard, practical common sense.” Monistic, holistic, and relativistic views of reality appeal to philosophers and some scientists, but they are badly handicapped in appealing to the “common sense” of the Western average man–not because nature herself refutes them (if she did, philosophers could have discovered this much), but because they must be talked about in what amounts to a new language. “Common sense,” as its name shows, and “practicality” as its name does not show, are largely matters of talking so that one is readily understood. It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” — Benjamin Whorf
Whorfs conclusion is a two-fold conclusion
Conclusion 1: This conclusion is the same as Nietzsche’s double error, pointing out that Western language and grammar use naming to invent a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ being, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.
Conclusion 2: This conclusion is that indigenous aboriginal languages do not fall into the ‘double error’ trap so that such languages can be based on process without structure. For example, ‘duning’ does not require the existence of ‘dunes’ and the associated ‘double error’ notions of ‘dunes growing larger or smaller’ or ‘dunes changing in shape’, Instead, ‘duning’ can be understood as a relational process without dependency on ‘the existence of structures’ termed ‘dunes’.
DUNING DOES NOT HAVE NEED OF ‘DUNES’. …. PROCESS DOES NOT HAVE NEED OF STRUCTURE … CHANGE DOES NOT HAVE NEED OF AUTHOR.
“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
‘Reproduction’ is based on name-instantiated structures and their interactions as well as the producer-product abstraction (e.g. the male structure interacts with the female structure to ‘reproduce’ human structures. But these being-based structures are not necessary to an understanding of relational transformation. We see ‘boils’ in the flow and the ‘double error’ has us imputing the power of sourcery to the boil to explain the flow (conservative: – ‘one bad apple can spoil the barrel’) and/or sourcery to the flow to explain the boil (liberal: it takes a whole community to raise a child). These two ambiguities stem from a belief in ‘sorcery’. In indigeneous aboriginal cultures, there is no ‘sorcery’ there is only relational transformation.
The double error of Western language and grammar = belief in sorcery which is the basis of Newtonian physics.
As Whorf is pointing out, the language and grammar of Indigenous aboriginals does not give rise to the ‘double error’.
BRIEFEST EVER (FOR ME) SUMMARY
-1- Western culture is a crazy-maker
-2- It is so because of the ‘double error’ explained by Nietzsche which is alternatively known as ‘producer-product’ logic. The first error is where ‘naming’ imputes the existence of thing-in-itself existence, the second error (grammar) conflates the first by imputing to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself the power of sourcing actions and developments (producing product).
-3- As Whorf pointed out, Newtonian physics came from language and grammar and it incorporates the double error.
-4- Newtonian physics based ‘producer-product’ logic is thus a Western culture crazy-maker.
-5- Modern physics and indigenous aboriginal cultures are not infected by the double error crazy-maker; i.e. they are NOT ‘sorcery’-of-‘structures’ based models of reality but instead understand reality in ‘process’; terms (e.g. ‘duning’, ‘humaning’) within a transforming relational continuum..
-6- Western culture is ‘locked-in to the ‘double error’ by-high-switching-costs’; i.e. belief in producer-product reality has society giving ‘high producers’ of ‘good’ products more than average power and influence in allocating rewards and punishments and gives ‘poorly performant producers’ and ‘producers of ‘bad’ products less than average power and influence in allocating rewards and punishments. This rewards and punishment system based on belief in the double error leads to ‘lock-in’ (e.g. ‘high producers’ have disproportionate influence over rewards and punishment programs and support giving higher rewards to ‘high producers’). Meanwhile the producer-product concept (aka ‘sorcery’) on which this management strategy is based is a ‘double error’; i.e. it is based on unreal abstraction (belief in sorcery).
There is plenty of evidence to support the above, and it has been written about by many, including Bohm, Schroedinger, F.David Peat, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Emerson and others, but as Wittgenstein has pointed out, the deception is built into the structure of our language and grammar so that as we Western culture adherents use our language, which we are continually doing, we are conditioning our minds in such a manner as to put ourselves into an ‘INVENTED REALITY’ which is coming to us ‘in our intellect’. The reality of our relational experience coming from ‘sensations’ (inspiration coming from our heart [relational sensations]) is, for us Western culture adherents, giving way to intellectual direction coming from our head. This comes with ‘the double error’.
The ‘delusion’ built into Western culture INVENTED REALITY comes from ‘the double error’ which conveys belief in ‘sorcery’ as in the ‘producer-product’ abstraction.
In the real relational (process) world of our actual experience, everything is in flux and there are no fixed structures. Fixed structures are intellectual abstractions triggered by language and grammar. In the ‘duning’ example, there is only the process of relational process of duning, there are no ‘dune’ structures since everything is in flux. Language and grammar instantiates the structure known as a ‘dune’ and we employ anthropomorphism to ‘animate’ the dune and impute to it its own powers of sourcing actions and developments (growing, shifting, flattening, dispersing). Once we are using language and grammar to construct mental imagery in this double error mode (the dune as an animated structure that is capable of growing, shifting, dispersing etc.), we lost touch with the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.
‘Duning’ is a process within the transforming relational continuum. The notion of a fixed structure we name ‘dune’ (naming imputes persisting thing-in-itself existence to a snapshot image) conditions our psyche, having us think in terms of a snapshot image that persists as an abstract ‘thing-in-itself’. The duning remains an active process within the transforming relational continuum. The active process is the physical-experiential reality, and in spite of what language and grammar do to our mind, there are no fixed structures such as ‘dunes’, much less ‘fixed structures’ that are animated by grammar as we animate humanings such as our selves with language and grammar (i.e. anthropomorphize). The double error of language and grammar, by way of this anthropomorphosizing, has us reduce ‘dunings’ (processes) to ‘structures’ (dunes) that are ‘things-in-themselves’ and then remobilizes them with grammar, imputing to them, their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.
This is ‘anthropomorphism’ because we first do this to ourselves; i.e. reduce ourselves, in our mind, to local structures with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments. This gives us the general double error template that we can apply to ‘duning’ or ‘nationing’ or ‘organizing’ of various and sundry types. We do this just as in Nietzsche’s ‘double error’ example of ‘lightning’.
‘Production’ and ‘reproduction’ are abstractions that we attribute to abstract ‘structures’ such as ‘corporations’ and ‘humans’. How do these fit into a transforming relational continuum? They do not fit. They are the double error abstractions of language and grammar.
‘Structures’ such as we use the double error to impute humans and sand dunes to be, are in reality, relational resonances within the transforming relational continuum.
There are no ‘structures’ in the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, there are only relational processes; ‘duning’ and ‘humaning’ are cases in point. Reducing processes to structures and re-animating them with grammar (the double error) is language and grammar INVENTED REALITY game-play, that has become the ‘operative reality’ that is popularly accepted within Western culture and is in fact the salient feature (endemic craziness) of Western culture.
* * *