The Usurping of Transformation by Growth, Topology by Geometry
WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKER: THE USURPING OF TRANSFORMATION BY GROWTH, TOPOLOGY BY GEOMETRY
We are born with an intuitive sense of topological discrimination of FIGURE and GROUND as ONE, but in WESTERN CULTURE are quickly taught to supersede TOPOLOGY with the lesser concept of GEOMETRY, a substitution that radically reduces our understanding of the natural world dynamic, replacing TRANSFORMATION with GROWTH. Instead of understanding a loaf of white bread turning blue as ‘TRANSFORMATION’, we speak of the GROWTH of a ‘SPOT’ of ‘MOLD’.
This is the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar pointed out by Nietzsche; the first error is NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING to a form that we observe by way of our voyeur visualizing sense, while the second error of GRAMMAR conflates the first by imputing the power of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself. This double error approach of language and grammar would have us speaking in terms of GROWTH OF BEING; for example we speak of THE GROWTH OF BLUE MOLD ON A PIECE OF BREAD.
IN THIS DOUBLE ERROR BASED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF “GROWTH”, WE ARE INVENTING THE LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM AND BY SUBSTITUTING ‘GROWTH’ FOR ‘TRANSFORMATION’.
THE ‘BLUE SPOT OF BREAD ” IS NOW THE ‘FIGURE’ THAT LANGUAGE ENDOWS WITH AN ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE SEPARATE FROM THE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE THAT LANGUAGE GIVES TO THE WHITE BREAD ‘GROUND’ AND ‘GRAMMAR’ SECURES THIS ABSTRACT ONTOLOGICAL INVENTION OF LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF BEING BY IMPUTING LOCAL JUMPSTART POWER OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT TO THE ‘BLUE SPOT’ THAT NOW GOES BY THE NAME ‘MOLD’.
Once we employ this double error in constructs such as ‘The spot of mold is growing larger and darker’ we have focused in on the ‘spot’ and imputed to it ITS OWN LOCAL POWER OF GROWTH.
In other words, WE HAVE REPLACED THE UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSFORMATION WITH THE CONCEPT OF ‘GROWTH’..
If the mold occurs in a spherical space such as on the surface of an apple, the SO-CALLED “GROWTH” OF THE MOLDY SPOT OR ‘FIGURE’ WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE SIMULTANEOUS RECIPROCAL “SHRINKAGE” OF THE NON-MOLDY ‘GROUND’.
WHICH IS REAL? … ‘GROWTH’? … OR ‘TRANSFORMATION’? If the farmer clears trees and cultivates land for raising crops, our habit is to refer to this in terms of the GROWTH of farmland, without mentioning the reciprocal reduction of uncultivated land, a definite REALITY in the natural curved space of our actual sensory experience (as contrasted with abstract, Euclidian ‘flat’ space).
GROWTH IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT ‘MAKES SENSE’ ONLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ABSTRACT EUCLIDIAN “FLAT SPACE”.
IN THE REAL WORLD OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.
WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE IS A CRAZY-MAKER BECAUSE IT HAS US UNDERSTAND ‘GROWTH’ AS SOMETHING ‘REAL’, SO THAT WE THEN USE ‘GROWTH’ IN LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TRIGGERED INTELLECTUAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF REALITY, AND EMPLOY THESE ABSTRACT REALITIES AS OUR ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’, …SO THAT RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, COMING FROM OUR DIRECT SENSORY EXPERIENCE, IS DROPPED FROM OUR INTELLECTUAL AWARENESS. THIS IS A ‘CRAZY-MAKER’.
For example, promotion of the GROWTH of cultivated lands means, at the same time (in the spherical space we inhabit) the reduction of uncultivated forests, and forests play an important role in the relational dynamics of nature. GROWTH is an abstract concept implying absolute EUCLIDIAN space while in the reality of our sensory experience THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GROWTH (it is the ‘double error’), there is only TRANSFORMATION, as in the ‘mold’ example.
‘GROWTH’ IS HOW TRANSFORMATION ‘APPEARS’ WHEN WE USE GRAMMAR AND GRAMMAR AS THE CARRIER OF THE EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM IN THE CHARACTERIZING OF FIGURE AND GROUND.
‘TRANSFORMATION’ IS WHERE FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE as is the transformation of molding bread .
We may speak in terms of the ‘GROWTH’ of a spot of mold, but that is DOUBLE-ERROR-SPEAK that associates with EUCLIDIAN space wherein FIGURE AND GROUND are understood as ONTOLOGICALLY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT according to EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM as in GEOMETRY.
“Geometry existed before the Creation. It is co-eternal with the mind of God… Geometry provided God with a model for the Creation… Geometry is God Himself.” Thus said Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi, The Harmony of the World (1619), book IV, Ch. 1
Geometry is abstraction that reduces the topological relationality of FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE to the geometric abstraction of FIGURE AND GROUND AS TWO. In the intellectual conditioning that brings about our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE, we let go our purely relational topological understanding and plant in its place, the abstract EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ of binary logic wherein FIGURE AND GROUND LOSE THEIR INNATE UNITY AS WITHIN THE RELATIONAL FLUIDITY OF TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE.
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,
This unnatural elevating of GEOMETRY with its accompanying EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM (where ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are two distinct and separate ontological entities) over TOPOLOGY with its accompanying BOTH/AND LOGIC OF THE INCLUDED MEDIUM (where ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are ONE as in a fluid ‘whorl-and-flow’ sense) …. is an unnatural inversion that puts intellectual geometric abstraction of GROWTH into an unnatural/abstract precedence over intuitive sensory experience supported topological reality.
In our indigenous aboriginal culture mode of understanding, everything is relational (‘mitakuye oyasin’) which means that the world dynamic is relational TRANSFORMATION and there is NOTHING TO BE BORN AND NOTHING TO DIE since relational transformation does not have a dependency on the double error concept of ‘beings’ with ‘powers of sourcing actions and developements’
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘BEING’, ‘GROWTH’, ‘REPRODUCTION’, in the REAL world of relational transformation.
The following extract from a prior essay is relevant to this discussion;
The following discussion is included to show that the relative interplay of ‘epigenetics’ (outside-inward sourced development) and ‘genetics’ (inside-outward sourced development) may be the greater reality rather than regarding the TWO contrary processes as separately existing. In this case, ‘sourcing’ is superseded by ‘transformation’.
An acknowledgement of ‘epigenetics’ along with pleomorphism will together remove dependency on the simplistic time-based ‘reproductive’ lineages of evolution that come from denial of epigenetics and the imposing of the convention of monomorphism wherein biotic forms must come from similar looking forms
In the views of Antoine Béchamp and others, ‘microzymes’ are in operation at a lower level and through differing relational associations can ‘produce’ both bacteria and body cells. As in relational interpretations generally, ‘microzymes’ do not have to be considered to be ‘real things’ or biological ‘atomic building blocks’ but can be understood as influential relations [‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘things’]. The main point is that relational forms that develop within a transforming relational continuum have no dependence on a linear-in-time reproductive lineage. The proliferation of bacteria within a body can be in place of the proliferation of body cells [these do not need to be two separate antagonistic processes]. The idea of ‘germ theory’ or ‘the attack of pathogens’ is an anthropomorphism.
A related example of moving away from anthropomorphisms is found in Jamie Cunliffe’s redefining of ‘the immune system’ [a foreign–organism hunting and killing system] in terms of morphostasis, the tendency of a cellular process to sustain a structurally stable form. One of the main functions of the cell-sustaining process is the clean-up of debris from degenerating cells. Cell debris is food for other organisms to feed on and proliferate [‘pathogens’] and these organisms also contribute to the debris. Since there are many other ‘foreign’ microorganisms in the body that ‘the immune system’ does not hunt down and kill, the illness may relate to a lag in debris clean up and recovery may associate with the removal of all ‘stuff’ (debris and other microorganisms) that ambiguate the basic cleaned-up cell symmetry/structure.
In this case (morphostasis), there is no identification of a ‘foreign organism’ and no ‘hunting down and killing them’. This view seems to edge towards an overall process where ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘identified ‘things’ and ‘what things do’. E.g. the amazingly ‘crisp’ ‘morphostasis of hexagonal bee cells arises from an epigenetic-genetic nondual dynamic, as also with soap bubbles, Bénard (convection) cells etc. The architecture and stability of these cell forms does not derive from any cell blueprint, there is none since the cell does not derive from a one-sided genetic development process but from a nondual epigenetic-genetic confluence. –— http://goodshare.org/wp/exploring-a-double-bind/
This example is one of many wherein a minority of scientists have sought to argue in favour of a ‘relational’ view of reality but have lost, arguably because of the ‘lock-in’ and ‘high switching costs’ associated with trading up from an ‘allopathic medical reality based on ‘being’ and ‘sourcing’ to a relational medical reality. To repeat Giordano Bruno’s observation; ‘The majority has no monopoly on the truth’, however, as pointed out by La Fontaine, the majority does have a monopoly on the ‘operative truth’ promulgated through the strong-arming of the majority; i.e. ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.
In other words, epigenetics (outside-inward sorcery) and genetics (inside-outwards sorcery) are both abstractions and are together suggestive of purely relational TRANSFORMATION. Note that ‘genesis’ is how CONSERVATIVES think of ‘their own individual creative acts of SORCERY) while ‘epigenesis’ is how LIBERALS think of ‘their collective creative acts of SORCERY’. As BIPOLARS, we see ourselves as sorcerers alternating between SOURCING WONDERFUL CREATIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (giving us a ‘pride’-HIGH) AND SOURCING HORRIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (giving us a ‘shame’ – LOW). SORCERY is ‘not real’ but is a CRAZY-MAKER when our ego starts confusing SORCERY or REALITY and taking ourselves on a wild ride of HIGHS and LOWS, where we may get stuck on HIGH or fall into and get stuck in a LOW.
SORCERY is an abstraction that can be used as a tool of inference, but where ‘confused for reality’, can polarize the self-perceived sorcerers of good against the perceived sorcerers of bad, a polarizing sorcery that manifests as BIPOLAR STRIFE at the level of the social collective (the ‘GOOD’ polarize against the ‘EVIL’. This polarizing innate in sorcery also manifests WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL as BIPOLAR DISORDER as a schism within one’s sense of SELF as a SORCERER; i.e. as a SORCERER of WONDERFUL CREATIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, and alternatively as a SORCERER of HORRIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
WITHOUT BELIEF IN SORCERY, THERE WOULD BE NO SPLITTING INTO ‘GOOD’ AND ‘EVIL’ AND CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL AND BIPOLAR EUPHORIA AND PARANOIA; I.E. IT IS ALL BELIEF IN SORCERY BASED.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘locked in by high switching costs’. That is, the rewards and recognition for GOOD SORCERY are worn as badges of honour that have helped to build our WESTERN social structure of recognition, respect and leadership archetypes. The punishment and disgust for BAD SORCERY are worn as badges of shame and dishonour that have helped to build our lower end WESTERN social structure of repulsive and negative villainous archetypes.
EVIDENTLY, THE CHOICE BETWEEN TRANSFORMATION AND SORCERY, … which of these to give the primary foundational role to in our understanding of REALITY, is a culture-shaper, that distinguishes EAST from WEST with the EAST opting for TRANSFORMATION and the WEST opting for SORCERY.
BELIEF IN SORCERY IS A CRAZY MAKER!
* * *