WHAT is there about our Western culture cultivated habits that gives us Western culture adherents a superficial understanding of reality that is crazy-making?


Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others have suggested that our language is the source of superficial understanding of reality; i.e. that language cannot ‘go the distance’ to reality (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao), and that language can only be used as a kind of ‘springboard’ to infer an understanding of reality that lies innately beyond the LITERAL understanding-giving capacities of language.  (Language usage in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta cultures is more in the sense of ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions of modern physics’; i.e. as is required in approaching an understanding of the reality of an energized wave-field wherein ‘everything is in flux’).


Since language constructed with explicit concepts (name-based objects), is incapable of conveying understanding of the fluid reality we are included in, when we confuse the literal meaning conveyed by language, for ‘reality’, this delivers to the psyche an INVENTED REALITY  that is a superficial and unreal pseudo-reality.  Using this superficial reality as our ‘operative reality’ is a crazy-maker that has become our Western culture ‘normal’.  As R.D. Laing has pointed out;


What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”


LANGUAGE USAGE WHERE WORDS/NAMES ARE USED ONLY AS AN EXPEDIENT FOR ALLUDING TO RELATIONAL REALITY (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal usage, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta) HAS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERING PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT THAN LANGUAGE USAGE WHERE WORDS/NAMES ARE USED IN A DOUBLE ERROR BASED SENSE.   The ‘double error’ usage, as Nietzsche points out, is where  we use (first error) naming to impute thing-in-itself existence to the named form (e.g. ‘continent’) and conflate this by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing in itself (e.g. ‘the continent is drifting’).


This is what I mean by ‘superficiality’ that we Western culture adherents build into our thinking by our manner of using language.  To speak of ‘continents drifting’ cultivates in our intellect/psyche, a superficial understanding, that OCCLUDES in our psyche, the field based REALITY wherein ‘everything is related’ (mitakuye oyasin) as in a transforming relational continuum.  This superficial understanding brings with it a basic ambiguity that leads to division and argument as to ‘what is real’; i.e. is ‘continental drift’ what is really going on, or is ‘seafloor spreading’ what is really going on?  This is the same polarizing division that gives rise to the ‘conservative’ (one bad apple spoils the barrel) – liberal (it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child).


Which is it for you?  continental drift? … or, … ‘seafloor spreading’?   These are both superficial conceptualizations since the ‘field’ is what is transforming and it is all inclusive; i.e. it is only language and grammar that splits things up and imputes ‘independent thing-in-itself existence’ to them by ‘naming’ them, and then notionally mobilizes the name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar.


The language and grammar based double error (continents that drift, and seafloors that spread) is where, generally, the abstract concept of sorcery (producer-product development) comes from.  In the course of using our intellect (rather than our resonance-attuning intuition) to understand ‘reality’, we engage in the ‘double error’ mode of understanding, …. this arises like Cuckoo’s egg planted in the nest of our mind that hatches and BLOCKS from occupation of the nest of our mind, the natural, more comprehensive (non-superficial) understanding of reality in terms of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the wave-field’.


The dividing of the self by the ‘double error’ (name-instantiated thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments) is the source of ‘ego-that-swells-the-head’, blocking access to the purely relational (undivided self) of inspiration-that fills-the-heart as comes naturally with inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.


SORCERY, (aka producer-product powers), once our intellect latches on to this concept, can either be invested in the continent to explicitly source its drift, … or it can be invested in the sea-floor spreading which implicitly sources its drift giving rise to a duplicity that in innately associated with ‘sorcery’.  (e.g. ‘is it the bad apple that spoils the barrel’? … or ‘does it take a whole community to raise a child?  This is the conservative – liberal division; i.e. the conservative view is consistent with the concept of ego that allows us, as a single, independent individual,  to claim authorship of powers of sorcery of actions and developments; … while the liberal view is consistent with the concept of ego that allows us, as a social collective, to claim authorship of powers of sorcery of actions and developments.   NOTA BENE, … the concept of ‘sorcery’ is language and grammar based  intellectual abstraction.


ONCE WE INVOKE THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF SORCERY, … WE INVOKE, AT THE SAME TIME A DUPLITY IN OUR UNDERSTANDING BY WAY OF TWO VERSIONS OF SORCERY-BASED ‘INVENTED REALITY’, … as in the example of ‘continents drifting’ or ‘seafloor spreading’.  Both sides of this ambiguity arise from the superficiality of our language and grammar based imposing of the abstract of ‘sorcery’ to reduce the ineffable relational transforming (the Tao) so as to render it ‘effable’.


It is really the case that we are an independent, individual thing-in-itself’ endowed with the power of sourcing actions and developments as our ego is telling us through our tool of language and grammar?   Or, does it take inclusion in a whole community  to develop powers of sourcing actions and developments that manifest through us?  If our reputation collapses, so too do our powers of sourcing actions and developments.


Of course, both branches of this dilemma FIRSTLY PRESUPPOSE the ‘reality’ of ‘sourcing actions and developments’ aka ‘sorcery’.  ‘Sorcery’ does not even arise in an understanding of reality as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, as is the case in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures and Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.


In other words, the dilemma of whether ‘continents drift’ or whether ‘seafloors spread’ arises from a superficial view of reality, based on the double error.


The ‘double error’ is what makes the ineffable effable; i.e. it allows us to reduce the all-including ‘field’, the transforming relational continuum of our sensory experience (the Tao that cannot be told) to effable terms.  This gives rise to the ‘divided self’ (R.D. Laing) of Western culture adherents, which is a ‘crazy-maker’.


Does the man make the times or do the times make the man?  This question presumes the reality of ‘sorcery’ which brings with it a binary ambiguity of the habitat-inhabitant (which is the source of changing




-1- Overcoming ineffability.  The transforming relational continuum is ‘ineffable’.  The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.

-2- In order to talk about the ineffable transforming relational continuum, we need to break it down into ‘effable pieces’.

-3- The language and grammar based ‘self’ – ‘other’ division  and the ‘inhabitant-habitat’ division render the ineffable effable

-4- Using language and grammar to engineer a self-other split opens the door to portraying reality in terms of the sourcing of actions and developments by self and other or ‘inhabitant and habitat’.  This abstract sorcery based representation of reality brings with it the ambiguity of whether the sourcing is coming from the self or the other; i.e. from the inhabitant or the habitat.  This ambiguity comes with the sorcery package. It is the price of using the language and intellect ploy to make the ineffable effable.  There is of course ‘loss’ incurred in this abstract division into two.

-5- The concepts of ‘continental drift’ and ‘seafloor spreading’ are concepts by which we explain transformation in SUPERFICIAL terms of topographical change.  This can be validated by voyeur views as produced by a camera in space.   In watching time-lapse voyeur visual views of topographical change and employing language and grammar to capture these, use ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself existence to the visible (rising above the sea’s surface) portions of the topography, and grammar to impute powers of sourcing movement and development to these forms (continents), over-writing in our mind’s eye (eclipsing) the transforming relational continuum, in the manner of the TV weatherman who projects the a picture of the transforming atmospherics on a white board and uses a felt-tip pen to draw the shape of innately fluid (relational) systems, naming them so that he can then speak of these purely relational appearances, in the ‘effable’ ‘double error’ terms of ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves’ notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  As with ‘continental drift’ and ‘seafloor spreading’, the price of using language and grammar to ‘break in’ to the ineffable continuum and reduce it to effable terms, is that we have to use the ambiguity of having both an ‘assertive’ and a ‘receptive’ conjugate pair, as with ‘the high pressure area’ (the assertive male aspect) and the ‘low pressure area’ (the receptive female).  This is what allows us to seemingly overcome the ineffable nature of an all-including ‘relational transformation’, the reality of our actual sensory experience, .. so as to render it effable for intellectual discourse and thus available for ‘sharing and discussing’.

-6- The use of language and grammar to reduce the ineffable transforming relational continuum to something effable is achievable through the ‘double error’, a language and grammar tool the workman can apply to himself, but only at the risk of letting the tool run away with the workman, which is endemic in Western culture.  That is, getting an effable foothold can be done by using language and grammar in ‘double error’ mode which uses naming to impute ‘thing-in-itself existence’ and uses grammar to conflate this by imputing powers of sorcery to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself; … GOODBYE ALL-INCLUDING RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION (the ‘divine’), COME ON IN, EGO BASED CLAIMS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (the ‘human’), as is Emerson’s observation as to what happens to us when we claim to have chopped up the continuum into manageable part and given ourselves powers of jumpstart sorcery of actions and developments.

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

So, the above 6 points furnish an answer to…  WHAT IS GOING ON HERE WITH THIS WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE GAME?


Nevertheless, Western culture adherents continue to be taught and to accept the double error based INVENTED REALITY that has been given a foundational role in Western culture and has been ‘locked in by high switching costs’; e.g. the division of society into ‘GOOD’ AND ‘BAD’ (‘heroes’ and ‘villains’) on the basis of their perceived sorcery contributions.  In other words, there is a ‘lock-in by high-switching costs’ that is infused into Western Culture by systems of Rewards and Punishments based on belief in ‘sorcery’ which give disproportionately increased influence over changes in how we understand and manage things to some (those sourcing ‘good’ actions and developments) and disproportionately reduced influence over changes to how we understand and manage things, to others (those sourcing ‘bad’ actions and developments).


The Western culture belief in sorcery is the underpinning of a binary logic based INVENTED REALITY that is used by Western culture adherents as the ‘operative reality’.


WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO CHANGE THINGS AND BRING WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS TO THE SAME UNDERSTANDING AS MODERN PHYSICS, TAOISTS/BUDDHISTS AND ADVAITA VEDANTA?  David Bohm saw the needed shift in our understanding of reality as requiring a new language, a language and grammar that would preserve the relational nature of reality (reality as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum).


What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.


David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.


A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’


It is possible for any of us to ‘get to the same understanding’ without learning Algonkian by using language in relational mode, as in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’; i.e. by NOT using language to construct visual images.  To say that ‘the continents are drifting’ is to use language in explicit mode to construct a superficial visible reality.[N.B. remember ‘visible, explicit change’].  To say that ‘the seafloor is spreading’ is to use language in an implicit mode to construct a superficial visible reality [N.B. remember ‘visible, implicit change].


The ‘dimensionality’ of both of these modes of ‘reality’: i.e. explicit visible reality (which appeals to [defines] conservatives) and implicit visible reality (which appeals to [defines] liberals), because they are both reductions of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao,  is intrinsically lacking.  If we can visualize the reality that we are talking about, it is not ‘reality’ (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.)  We can sensually experience inclusion in, … but can’t visually ‘see’ and articulate the transforming relational continuum we are included in.  The reality of our voyeur visualizing reduced to language is not ‘reality’, it is merely a ‘perspective’ view of a reality that is not ‘out there’ in our visible forefront, but a reality (The Tao, the field) that includes us and everything, as is available to our sensing of inclusion in purely relational resonance/dissonance.


There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing’; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.– Nietzsche


What we can see is superficial.  It is not ‘reality’.  The reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is not something available to our voyeur visualizing, nor is it expressible in language.  Continents that drift and seafloors that spread are two views of the source of motion and development that are innately ambiguous BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERFICIAL. The reality of our sensual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum cannot be seen or told. It is the ineffable reality.


Western culture adherents who are preoccupied in debate over whether sorcery has a ‘boil sources flow (one-informs-many) topology’ (conservatives)  or a ‘flow sources boil (many informs one) topology’ (liberals) are delaying the realization that there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’; it is the abstract artifact of a double error of language and grammar.

* * *