The WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKER: —BELIEF IN GROWTH!
In the WEST, but NOT in the EAST, the language and grammar-based REPRESENTATION of REALITY employs the abstract reductive concept of GROWTH. ‘GROWTH’ is planted in WESTERN MINDS like a cuckoo’s egg or ‘Trojan Horse’, that makes a clandestine entry into the natural family of things, hatching out and ejecting the natural inhabitants of the nest.
The concept of ‘growth’, as in the ‘growth’ of a ‘town’, as people stream into ‘it’ from all points of the compass is ONE-SIDED ABSTRACTION since there is no mention of the relational transformation this involves. If the sons and daughters of many families withdraw from their long-time family and friend relations and pack up and move to join in the growth of a new town, the ‘change-reality’ includes BOTH the LOSS of their relational participation where they were AND their contribution to the ‘GROWTH’ of the ‘new town’. The REALITY here is thus TRANSFORMATION of relational space rather than the GROWTH of a ‘new thing-in-itself’ (town).
“G R O W T H’ is the abstract INTRUDER that triggers in the WESTERN INTELLECT a reduction of the RELATIONAL understanding of REALITY in the double error based terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar instantiated powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
THERE GOES REALITY UNDERSTOOD AS ‘RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION’ AND HERE COMES REALITY UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF ‘GROWTH’. As relational forms gather and scatter in a Heraclitean evolutionary dynamic, WESTERN CULTURE reductionism RECASTS this relational transformation in the REDUCED terms of GROWTH of notional name-instantiated LOCAL things-in-themselves, notionally with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
HERE IS WHERE EAST AND WEST UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY PART WAYS AND WHERE MODERN PHYSICS AFFIRMS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EAST.
THAT IS; REALITY IS ‘RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION’ WHILE THE PSEUDO-REALITY OF ‘GROWTH’ DERIVES FROM THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR’.
The ‘double error’ is a ‘tool’ for rendering an effable allusion of the ineffable; e.g. we may say …. “the dune (or ‘boil’) is GROWING larger and longer and is shifting to the south”.
The use of the term GROWING is a ‘backdoor’ way of imputing ‘LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF BEING’ to a relational form in the flow. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GROWTH’ IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, however, language and grammar constructions that feature the GROWTH of THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, serves as a double error-based means of communicating visual aspects of forms forming in the flow (the Tao, the Wavefield).
ATTENTION! The double error-based reduction of relational forms to notional ‘LOCAL things-in-themselves’, notionally with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments such as GROWTH, is a tool for effable-izing a reductive allusion to the ineffable Tao (Wave-field dynamic). REALITY, AS THE UNDIVIDED RELATIONAL THE PHENOMENON OF TRANSFORMATION IS INEFFABLE. GROWTH IS AN ABSTRACT REDUCTION THAT ‘SIDESTEPS’ THE INEFFABILITY OF TRANSFORMATION THROUGH THE DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION OF RELATIONAL FORMING TO NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH GRAMMAR GIVEN POERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
The CRAZY-MAKER AFFLICTS THE WEST BUT NOT THE EAST SINCE THE EAST UNDERSTANDS ‘GROWTH’ AS A REDUCTIVE ABSTRACTION THAT MERELY ALLUDES TO THE REALITY OF RELATIONAL ‘TRANSFORMATION’ WHILE THE WEST ASSUMES THAT ‘GROWTH’ IS A PHYSICAL REALITY! In the EAST, as in modern physics, the world is a transforming relational continuum; e.g. ‘children’ are not name-instantiated things-in-themselves that ‘start off small’ and GROW larger ‘over time’, … children are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum. Similarly, a ‘town’ is not a ‘thing-in-itself’ that GROWS larger over time, … a ‘town’ is a ‘towning’, … a relational forming in the flow.
Only in an abstract mathematical-Euclidian ‘flatspace’ understanding of reality as provided by WESTERN language and grammar expression (wherein space is implicitly infinite in extent) can ‘towns’ GROW LARGER. In reality, ‘towns’ ARE NOT SEPARATE THINGS as they are cast in language and grammar; i.e. to say that ‘THE TOWN IS GROWING LARGER’ is a ‘double error’ of language and grammar. What a ‘town’ is, is a manifestation of relational transformation that, when treated with the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, RECAST the TOWN as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with ‘its own powers of sourcing actions and development. To believe that ‘towns can grow larger’ is a symptom of the CRAZY-MAKING that is known as WESTERN CULTURE REALITY.
* * *
* * *
As in traffic in an open space, there are no fixed references and movement is relational. As included participants, we can move so as to preserve and cultivate relational harmony within the transforming relational continuum. There is no sense of our own ‘absolute movement’ within the dynamic relational continuum.
The ‘Tao’ or transforming relational continuum that is without fixed identity FIGURES nor corresponding binary logic based GROUND as in ‘the Tao’ aka the ‘Wavefield is an INEFFABLE understanding that we use language and grammar to EFFABLE-ize, or in other words ‘absolutize’. We achieve this absolutizing with the abstracting power of language and grammar which, as Nietzsche points out, derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; The first error is ‘NAMING’ that imputes LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING to a relational flow-form, and this is conflated by the second error of ‘GRAMMAR’ that imputes the power of SOURCING actions and development to the abstract naming-instantiated THING-IN-ITSELF.
Once we engineer this LOCAL INSTANTIATING OF ACTION AND GROWTH, and substitute it for the transforming relational continuum of our actual sensual experience, we put ourselves into a new psychological pseudo-reality that is based on rational abstractions and REASON.
NOTA BENE! When we are formulating reason-based conceptualizations, we are no longer grounding our understanding in our relational experience of inclusion in the Tao, but are instead INSERTING OURSELVES into an abstraction-based pseudo-world. WHILE THIS MAY BE A CRUDE SOLUTION TO THE INEFFABILITY OF OUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO, … AND THUS BE USABLE AS INFERENCE OF THE INEFFABLE REALITY THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND IT, … TO EMPLOY AS OUR ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’, AS IS THE ERROR OF WESTERN CULTURE, IS A “CRAZY-MAKER”. In other words REASON is a tool that is only good for INFERENCE of the ineffable reality that lies innately beyond it. When we let the tool run away with the workman, the human with the divine, we confuse ourselves, as Emerson points out and as Nietzsche elaborates on, as fllows;
—Against this let us set the different manner in which we (—you observe that I am courteous enough to say “we”) conceive the problem of the error and deceptiveness of things. Formerly people regarded change and evolution in general as the proof of appearance, as a sign of the fact that something must be there that leads us astray. To-day, on the other hand, we realise that precisely as far as the rational bias forces us to postulate unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, materiality and being, we are in a measure involved in error, driven necessarily to error; however certain we may feel, as the result of a strict examination of the matter, that the error lies here. It is just the same here as with the motion of the sun: In its case it was our eyes that were wrong; in the matter of the concepts above mentioned it is our language itself that pleads most constantly in their favour. In its origin language belongs to an age of the most rudimentary forms of psychology: if we try to conceive of the first conditions of the metaphysics of language, i.e. in plain English, of reason, we immediately find ourselves in the midst of a system of fetichism. For here, the doer and his deed are seen in all circumstances, will is believed in as a cause in general; the ego is taken for granted, the ego as Being, and as substance, and the faith in the ego as substance is projected into all things—in this way, alone, the concept “thing” is created. Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as cause; from the concept “ego,” alone, can the concept “Being” proceed. At the beginning stands the tremendously fatal error of supposing the will to be something that actuates,—a faculty. Now we know that it is only a word. Very much later, in a world a thousand times more enlightened, the assurance, the subjective certitude, in the handling of the categories of reason came into the minds of philosophers as a surprise. They concluded that these categories could not be derived from experience,—on the contrary, the whole of experience rather contradicts them. Whence do they come therefore? In India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “we must already once have lived in a higher world (—instead of in a much lower one, which would have been the truth!), we must have been divine, for we possess reason!” … Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar. –
— Nietzsche Twilight of the Idols
(NOTE: Nietzsche is pointing out that the double error of grammar invents THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with powers of SORCERY and GROWTH).
WITH THE ABOVE IN MIND, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ENCOURAGEMENT (within WESTERN CULTURE religious belief) TO REGARD, as REALITY, REASON THAT SUPPORTS THE ABSTRACTIONS OF ‘INDEPENDENT BEINGS’ WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF ‘GOOD’ AND ‘EVIL’ ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS;
“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
The ambiguous split that arises from assuming LOCAL INDEPENDENT THING-IN-ITSELF BEING; i.e. the FIGURE AND GROUND PROBLEM.
By imputing ‘independent being’ to a relational form, as we do using the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (naming to impute being and grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated being), … we DIVIDE THE BEING OUT OF THE TAO (the Wave-field continuum) and SET THE BEING UP as if it were are LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF WITH ITS OWN JUMPSTART POWERS OF ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT. This is where the ‘producer-product’ abstraction comes from. First we NAME a relational form in the Tao, such as a person or swarm of people (social collective) and then use GRAMMAR to abstractly (psychologically) animate the abstract ‘thing-in-itself’, … and in the process, impute the existence of a ‘container’ (the “HABITAT”) that accommodates the movement and actions of the INHABITANT, notionally without being involved in such actions; i.e. the boiling in the flow becomes a separate ‘boil’ (imagine the storm-cell or hurricane) that is ‘not one with’ the flow, but is understood as a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is the AUTHOR of actions and developments
“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
Once we split apart (in our abstracting mind, thanks to the double error of language and grammar, we introduce a basic ambiguity with respect to the ‘source’ of actions and developments. Note that we do NOT need to imagine a SOURCE of actions and developments when we are understanding reality as a transforming relational continuum. The need to impute a SOURCE of actions and developments derives from our splitting the Tao (notionally, as with language-triggered intellection) into two separate parts; i.e. ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ or ‘FIGURE’ and ‘GROUND’.
This is where we introduce the artificial intellectual ambiguity mocked in Gulliver’s Travels that divides the populace into (a) those who believe that the individual dynamic [FIGURE dynamic] is the source of the dynamics of the social collective [GROUND], and (b) those who believe that the social collective [GROUND] dynamic is the source of the dynamics of the individual [FIGURE]. This is the same ambiguity as in the Zen koan of wind and flag (the enigma of ‘which sources which’). The answer is that, IN REALITY, there is no such thing as SOURCING of actions and developments, there is only relational transformation.
As in modern physics (e.g. Bohm’s example of the death of Lincoln NOT being simply due to the actions of James Wilkes Booth, but to an unresolvable [in space and time] matrix of unfolding relational influences including the invention of gunpowder), and as in Nietzsche’s example of the ‘double error’ we use to abstractly LOCALIZE in space and time, inherently relational phenomena, REALITY is fluid and ineffable.
Both EASTERN and WESTERN cultures use language and grammar based REDUCTIONS to generate EFFABLE allusions to the ineffable TAO (the wave-field continuum). The difference between EAST and WEST is that while the EAST employs these effable-ized reductions to ALLUDE to the fluid reality we are included in, the WEST employs these effable-ized reductions as the in-effect OPERATIVE REALITY.
By ‘the EAST’, I am intending ‘modern physics’, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. In the EAST, if we speak of a boil in the flow such as hurricane Katrina, in terms such as ‘Hurricane Katrina is GROWING LARGER AND STRONGER as it moves up the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans’, this ‘double error’ based construct is understood as an allusion to the overall reality of relational transformation. However, in the WEST, this ‘double error’ based construct is understood as the ‘actual operative reality’. In other words, the WEST is understanding GROWTH as something ‘real’; i.e. in terms of the ‘changing over time’ of a notional LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THING-IN-ITSELF. This is a CRAZY-MAKER.
* * * * *
* * * * *
I am speaking to you from my Mahavit aspect, which we all have within us, although in living in our WESTERN CULTURE, we may not let our Mahavit (or Atmavit) persona ‘surface’ too visibly.
As you may have gathered, my view is that WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is a CRAZY-MAKER. For example, my view is that the Conservative Liberal split in perspectives is a kind of ‘schizophrenia’ and that those WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS who are not disposed to either of these bipolarities find themselves suffering from ‘bipolar disorder’. Better that these ‘miner’s canaries’ would have been born into indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta cultures where this ‘splitting’ is implicit rather than explicit; i.e. as a Mahavit, I employ ‘talk’ of the ‘opposites’ of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ but I do not believe in the REALITY of the double error of language and grammar which is where the notion of LOCAL incipient SOURCING of actions and developments comes from.
In other words, as a Mahavit, I too, use English language and grammar in the double error context, … but I use it in the EASTERN sense as a Wittgenstein ladder for inferring my experience of inclusion in the INEFFABLE transforming relational continuum. For example, as a relational organizing (which WESTERN CULTURE commonly REDUCES to a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself ORGANISM)) within the transforming relational continuum, I accept that I am like included in something ‘greater than myself’, as is the understanding coming from modern physics.
Therefore, I do not follow the prevailing WESTERN CULTURE belief based on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (Nietzsche) that we are name-instantiated things-in-ourselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.
Meanwhile, this is where WESTERN CULTURE is coming from and it is a CRAZY-MAKER since the imputing of SORCERY aka the LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS is abstraction that introduces a basic SPLIT into our understanding of our ‘dynamic reality’. This ‘plays out’ in WESTERN CULTURE society as the split between CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS in that while the former believe that the individual sources the behaviour of the social collective while the latter believe that the social collective sources the behaviour of the individual. e.g. “One bad apple spoils the barrel” (conservative) and “It takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child” (liberal). Both of these views, which divide the WESTERN SOCIAL COLLECTIVE assume the reality of ‘SORCERY’.
In my view, that is a CRAZY-MAKER and I have never, in my bones, believed in either of those two polar opposite choices for our understanding of the LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.
The point is, … and this is the EASTERN view and is my own (Mahavit) INTUITIVE view, … that there is no such thing as the LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments. There is only RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION. In my own experience, I was always aware of being included in a matrix of relations that were largely supportive of my actions and developments and it was impossible for me to ‘divide out’ ‘my actions’ from the relational dynamics that I am included in. So I do not not divide myself out.
However, I do speak use language, which happens to be mainly English, but when I do, I speak as a Mahavit so that when I peak of GROWTH of a child or a business or the GROWTH of whatever, I am NOT seriously believing in the double error abstraction OF NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH GRAMMAR INSTANTIATED POWERS OF SOURCING ACITONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
In other words, … sure, .. I will say; ‘The Dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting across the desert floor (and thus notionally dividing up reality into a FIGURE and GROUND (INHABITANT AND HABITAT) DUALITY, … but my understanding will be that what is going on here is relational resonance (wave dynamics) wherein THERE IS NO EXPLICIT FIGURE AND GROUND DUALITY, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION that gives the APPEARANCE of a duality that language and grammar manage to ‘concretize’ in double error based terms.
In my understanding, REALITY is the transforming relational continuum, … the ineffable Tao, … (all-including wave-field) and our language and grammar REDUCTIONS, such as ‘hurricane Katrina is growing larger and stronger and is moving towards New Orleans, … and is now devastating New Orleans”, …. is all part of the language-and-grammar ‘double error over-write’ that impresses our intellectual understanding. In terms of our sensory experience, there is only relational transformation in which we are included.
The point is, if your understanding is in line with the popular WESTERN CULTURE UNDERSTANDING wherein then notional LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (the ‘double errror’ of language and grammar) is accepted as REALITY, … then you are going to agree that John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln in the sense that the killing was a LOCALLY SOURCED ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT (as in the ‘double error’ of language and grammar). This is the common belief of WESTERN CULTURE and if you are elected for jury duty, you are going to have to swear oaths of belief in this LOCAL SOURCING based way of understanding reality.
I have not done this, and could not and would not do it, because my understanding is consistent with indigenous aboriginal cultural understanding, and Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, that we are all included in the Tao, and are not, as in the double error of language and grammar ‘LOCAL THINGS-IN-OURSELVES WITH OUR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT’.
In fact, my view is that such beliefs as our demanded of us as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are CRAZY-MAKING, and the splitting into Conservatives and Liberals is a manifestation of that CRAZINESS that stems from belief in LOCAL SORCERY. Ok, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are cool, and we now call SORCERY, ‘the ‘producer-product’ dynamic and reward and punish on that basis. Once we do this, the reality of relational transformation is wallpapered over by such abstract belief in LOCAL SORCERY that becomes the WESTERN CULTURE basis for REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE WHACKO DUE TO OUR BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’.
BELIEF IN ‘GROWTH’ IS A POPULAR EXEMPLAR OF THE PERVASIVE WESTERN CULTURE BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’.
We even ascribe GROWTH to our children, as if our children were LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, … as we also ascribe to hurricanes, sand dunes, nations, corporations and individual humans, … and really, anything we endow with a ‘name’ and attach an actions verb to as in the ‘double error’; e.g. ‘the tide is rising’. Such language-and-grammar based allusions to GROWTH eclipse the sensory experience reality of inclusion in relational transformation.
Why would anyone NOT believe in this view that GROWTH as in ‘the GROWTH OF A CHILD’, … or ‘the GROWTH of a TOWN’, … or ‘the GROWTH of a NATION’ … or ‘the GROWTH OF A CORPORATION’ … is a bullshit concept? (i.e. that there is only relational transformation).
The simple answer is found in ‘nonlinear dynamics’ and it is called ‘LOCAK-IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS’. What this means is that many people have a stake in keeping things the way they are, regardless of whether the way things are is cultivating massive social relational dysfunction. As systems thinker Henri Laborit observed;
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’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Laborit
While I was allowed, in my workplace experience as a manager, to ‘speak realistically’ about the ‘managerial contribution’ by saying that my achievements were not really my achievements since what unfolded was deriving from the dynamics of the relational web I was included in, I had no influence over the rise in the relation of management to worker compensation from 17:1 when I first started work to over 1000:1 when I left the business sector in 2007.
The ambiguity of the concept of the ‘sourcing of actions and developments’ was not only in terms of magnitude but also the source of the schizophrenic split we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS refer to in terms of ‘conservatism’ (one-to-many based sorcery) and ‘liberalism’ (many-to-one-based sorcery). ONCE AGAIN, THE POINT IS THAT THIS AMBIGUITY ARISES WITH THE EGO-BASED BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’…. “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY”, … IT IS AN ABSTRACT INVENTION OF THE EGO. THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.
In sum, … you all know as well as I do that ‘ego’ is holding this whole absurd CRAZY-MAKING WESTERN CULTURE BELIEF SYSTEM together, and it is nothing like the belief system of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
My reaction to the popular interpretation of modern physics with its obfuscation of what is going on by probability theory is like Schroedinger’s
“Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” (Schrödinger E, ‘The Interpretation of Quantum Physics’). … “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” (Erwin Schroedinger speaking about the ‘legitimate science’ interpretation of Quantum Physics).
What is the probability of GROWTH of the town Z to double its current size over the next 10 years? There is no such thing as GROWTH in reality, there is only transformation.
What is the probability of a president (e.g. Lincoln) being shot by an assassin while in office? There is no such thing as a cause-and-effect (producer-product) event, … that is the ‘double error’ abstraction, … there is only relational transformation.
GROWTH, BIRTH and DEATH are language and grammar based abstractions that we use to reduce the ineffable Tao to ‘effable terms’ that are good ONLY FOR INFERRING the ineffable reality of our inclusion in the transformation relational continuum (the Tao, the Wavefield).
When the name Katrina (the hurricane) falls from the popular conversation, she has not simply arrived without warning and departed without a trace, … she, like all of us, is how relational transformation (the Tao aka the wave-field) manifests.
and yes, my view is that WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE IS A CRAZY-MAKER, as exemplified by the totally artificial split of the social collective into ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ based on the absurd belief in SORCERY’ (i.e. whether sorcery is one-to-many as in the conservative view or many-to-one as in the liberal view).
mitakuye oyasin (= ‘we are all included in the commons of the transforming relational continuum’).
END OF AUTHOR’S PREFACE.
* * *
APPENDIX: COVID 19: THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR
A modern physics based understanding of the world dynamic is in terms of relational transformation rather than in the ‘double error’ based terms of a LOCAL thing-in-itself (e.g. COVID 19) that is purportedly a PATHOGEN that is the SOURCE of destructive actions and development.
This is the ‘double error’ based representation of what is INSTEAD, relational phenomena. The same ‘double error’ is made in WESTERN MEDICINE GENERALLY. It is the same error as in the mistaken identity of ‘clostridium difficile’ as a PATHOGEN that was purportedly the SOURCE of the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of people (it is still going on) which derives instead from a falling out of relational balance of the organism-as-dynamic-relational system. This is the Hygiean understanding of health that is supported by modern physics whereas our popular Western view of ‘health’ is in the mechanistic terms of a ‘correctly functioning organism-thing-in-itself’.
The example of ‘clostridium difficile’ is where WESTERN MEDICINE identifies the c. difficile as a ‘pathogen’ whereas modern physics and Traditional Chinese Medicine identifies the ‘health issue’ in terms of imbalance as where the application of ANTI-BIOTICS has disturbed the dynamic relational balance in the mircrobiome (the dynamic-balance-sustaining biotic assemblage that constitutes the ‘organism’). The point is that the healthy ‘organism’ is a resonance-sustaining microbiotic assemblage in which ‘c. difficile’ is a contributing participant. The effect of the anti-biotic is to kill off many biotic forms such that the relational balance is lost, and this manifests as ‘illness’; i.e. THERE IS NO ATTACK OF PATHOGENS, however, Western Medicine identifies ‘c. difficile’ as a ‘pathogen’ since it is found ‘holding the smoking gun’ (it has flourished disproportionately due to the imbalance from the anti-biotic killing off of many biological forms participating in the dynamic equilibrium that IS THE ORGANISM.
COVID 19 is the name given to a ‘pathogen’, which is a concept coming from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar where we use ‘NAMING to impute thing-in-itself existence to relational forms, conflating this with GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself. This is the synthetic makings of the ‘pathogen’.
SHOULD WE BELIEVE IN ‘PATHOGENS’? Is a killer a ‘pathogen’ or does killing derive from relational imbalance and dissonance?
In the case of c. difficile, the infection is proportional to the size of the opportunity opened up for c. difficile as associated with the relational imbalance associated with the administering of an anti-biotic into the fullblown, complex relational biotic assemblage.
In the case of COVID 19, , as with ‘c. difficile’, so long as we stick with the ‘pathogen’ abstraction, we have no good explanation why some of those showing the presence of the ‘pathogen’ are barely bothered while others that show the presence are dying.
The answer, in both cases, is that … there is no such thing in a relational dynamic as a ‘PATHOGEN’, there is only RELATIONAL BALANCE/IMBALANCE (harmony/dissonance in a wave-field sense).
Here we wave another example of EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET.
Fecal transplant as a cure for c. difficile (to restore balance in the microbiotic assemblage) which was recognized in Chinese medicine a thousand years ago, continues to be resisted today by Western medicine in spite of its near 100% success rate, because of the dominance of the pathogen model in Western medicine.
COVID 19 is the product of the persisting dark age pathogen theory of WESTERN CULTURE. The fact that it is dominant in our WESTERN CULTURE dominated global social dynamic mimics the popularity of the belief in man-made global warming; i.e. the abstract concept of the producer-product effect is widely prevalent and it derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; i.e. the first error is NAMING to impute thing-in-itself being to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself (e.g. COVID 19), … while the second, compounding error is GRAMMAR whereby we impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself (COVID 19).
As with the ‘c. difficile’ example, there is a form like John Wilkes Booth who we MAY see as holding the smoking gun that fired the killer shot, but as David Bohm points out in using the example of Booth and Lincoln, the real world of our experience is a transforming relational continuum, and the language and grammar based ‘double error’ reduction to pathogen and prey is merely simplifying abstraction.
We can say that ‘c. difficile’ and other bacteria ‘kill people’ just as we can say that ‘criminals’ ‘kill people’. Then, again, we can say that Robin Hood robbed the King of his grain and Jean Valjean robbed the Baker of his bread. In all cases, we are reducing dynamics arising from relational imbalance to double error based terms wherein the first error is NAMING to create a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ conflated with GRAMMAR that notionally endows the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with the powers of sourcing actions and development. This ‘double error’ is what allows us to dive into the ineffable relational continuum and inject an effable LOCAL SOURCING AGENT by way of the ‘double error’.
C. difficile is presented, by way of the ‘double error’ as the ‘LOCAL SOURCING AGENT’ for killer cases of colitis.
What is NOT SAID in this formulation of what is going on, is that the disproportionate flourishing of c. difficile is the SECONDARY effect of relational imbalance in the microbial assemblage whose balance constitutes good health.
Similarly, the disproportionate flourishing of Robin Hoods and Jean Valjeans is the SECONDARY effect of relational imbalance in the human social collective whose balance constitutes good societal health.
RELATIONAL BALANCE/IMBALANCE is the only ‘real possibility’ in a transforming relational continuum; i.e. the world understood as in modern physics. As with the abstract concept of GROWTH, the concept of PATHOGEN implies the DOUBLE ERROR of ‘NAMING’ to impute local thing-in-itself existence, conflated with GRAMMAR to impute the power of SOURCING actions and development to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself.
In other words, ‘c. difficile’ is not a ‘pathogen’ and neither is COVID 19. What is going on is ‘relational imbalance’.
MEANWHILE, as far as language and grammar based communications are concerned, it is possible (and popular in WESTERN CULTURE) to capture what is going on in ‘double error’ terms of LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT, stating the ‘c. difficile caused is causing the death of thousands of people every year (without ever mentioning that c. difficile only becomes lethal through our unbalancing of our life sustaining microbial assemblage; i.e. the proliferation of c. difficile is secondary.
This is the general case of the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar, and the same applies to casting COVID 19 as a pathogen as to casting Robin Hood and Jean Valjean as pathogens; i.e. the basic physical reality is the transforming relational continuum which aka the Tao aka the Wave-field which is INEFFABLE. The ‘double error’ is a practical scheme of rendering the ineffable effable (in a crude, reductive fashion). Both ‘c. difficile’ and ‘COVID 19’ are exemplary of the ‘double error’ which imputes the existence of LOCAL things-in-themselves with grammar given powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
As modern physics attests, the ‘real world’ is a transforming relational continuum and it is thus ineffable in language that is direct and explicit (hence the ‘bootstrapping’ approach of the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics).
WESTERN CULTURE JUSTICE, on the other hand, embraces the double error, first to inflate the ego on the basis of the notional power of LOCAL SOURCING, the origin of constructive actions and development, and second to scapegoat others so as to explain, on the basis of the notional power of LOCAL SOURCING, the origin of destructive actions and developments. This ‘SORCERY’ based reality construction is ‘effable’ and ‘wallpapers over’ the understanding of reality as in the ineffable Tao (the transforming relational continuum aka the wave-field). As discussed in the main body this essay, while the EAST makes use of this reduction to effable as INFERENCE of what lies innately beyond capture in language, the WEST has taken to employing this reduction-to-effable as the ‘operative reality’. This is how the abstract double error based concept of ‘pathogen’ comes to be regarded in WESTERN CULTURE as ‘real’, eclipsing understanding in the purely relational terms of resonance/dissonance.
COVID 19 is a double error abstraction as described.
Over here, it is a lethal killer, and over there it is harmless, as also with clostridium difficile.
This discrepancy can be understood in the same context as Robin Hood and Jean Valjean, both of whom are brought into existence through relational imbalance; i.e. in the service of restoring relational balance. As such, they cannot be understood as LOCAL things-in-themselves with ‘their own jumpstart powers of sourcing actions and developments, as the ‘double error of language and grammar casts them, …instead, … their actions are inductively shaped by the dynamics of the social collective they are included in. Their actions are in the service of bringing balance to the relational dynamics they share inclusion in. When the number of starving children grows, their actions become more frantic and aggressive, and there is no way to understand their behaviour by studying them in the ‘double error’ terms that casts them as LOCAL things-in-themselves with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments (as is the assumption built into Western Justice).
The BOTTOM LINE in this discussion is that COVID 19 is like ‘clostridium difficile’, an INFERENCE of something going on that cannot be explicitly expressed; a proliferation of a member of a relational assemblage in response to something having gone missing within that relational assemblage (that is, clostridium difficile proliferates because of the loss of relational balance in the overall, relationally interdependent assemblage). We would ‘miss the point’ by simply addressing the proliferation.
Such action BOTH IS AND IS NOT locally jumpstarting (such phenomena involves the ‘quantum’ BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium; i.e. the EITHER IS OR IS NOT logic of the EXCLUDED medium falls innately short of representing the Tao.
In the quantum BOTH IS AND IS NOT logic of the INCLUDED medium we have the picture of figure and ground as ONE rather than two, … a topology in which the split into pathogen and host is not viable.
* * *