We ‘ARE’ Where we Were
Psychological studies reveal how ‘the places we were born into’ and the ‘times we were raised in’ are, not surprisingly, shapers of ‘who we are’, hence the title of this note, ‘We ‘ARE’ Where we Were’. There is more to this than ‘meets the eye’ in the sense that there is both a ‘kid in the candy shop’ aspect that brings forth and develops our masculine assertive behaviour as well as a feminine ‘choiceless awareness’ of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (i.e. the Wave-field continuum aka the Tao). Reflection suggests that our acculturation from infancy shapes what we take to be ‘REALITY’ and that there are very different options for perceiving REALITY that divide us into the cultures of EAST and WEST.
As is discussed in the following text, we can conceptualize ‘GROWTH’ as in ‘the GROWTH of a TOWN’ in terms of (a) a LOCAL thing-in-itself-that is RATIO-ing up in size and development as in RATIONAL or REASON based psychological conceptualizing, OR, … we can understand the very same dynamic in terms of (b) the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE within which “THERE IS TOWNING” such as the ant-like GATHERING-and-SCATTERING of social collectives. As it turns out, because TRANSFORMATION, which is the REAL dynamic that we have sensory experience of inclusion withing, is INEFFABLE or in other words, not capturable in EXPLICIT language terms) since transformation is purely relational (implicit and nonlocal), our habit has been to employ a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that ‘is effable’.
The TOWN-that-is-GROWING is NOT REAL but is a DOUBLE ERROR (NAMING and GRAMMAR) based intellectual construction, which we psychologically SUBSTITUTE for the INEFFABLE because continually TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE in which there is TOWNING.
Psychological explorations such as “theconversation.com/how-where-youre-born-influences-the-person-you-become” only get to the ‘tip of the iceberg’ in regard to this question since it is an exploration WITHIN WESTERN CULTURE, however, it supports the suggestion that ‘We ‘ARE’ Where we Were’. This essay examines how ‘who we are’ is shaped by ‘where we were’ in our earliest and ongoing development, including how the masculine and feminine ‘shaping’ comes into play through infusion of language and culture.
* * *
When we were infants, we had no choice but to submit to the infusions of teachings of our parents and others who tended to us, who had in turn been infused with the understandings particular to the Culture they were raised in. Early on, we were OPEN and naturally gifted with CHOICELESS AWARENESS in the sense of the feminine, the choiceless awareness of the vagina as it opens up to full-fillment with asserting content. In the realm of language, discrimination comes after the initial loading that teaches us how to discriminate; i.e. what to accept and what to reject.
This ‘bootstrapping’ of an information filtering screen has been operative in establishing the GREAT DIVIDE between the Cultures of EAST and WEST and it is no ‘accident’ that children raised in the EAST acquire a distinctive EASTERN CULTURE understanding while children raised in the WEST acquire a distinctive, but very different WESTERN CULTURE understandings since children come into the world with the open-ness of the intellect, the open-ness of choiceless awareness, while the ability to discriminate between ‘signal’ that we accept and ‘noise’ that we reject comes through our cultural conditioning.
That this system ‘works’ manifests in the evident differences across cultures, not only in the behavioural manner and dress, but also in differing ways of understanding ‘REALITY’.
The title of this note, We ‘ARE’ Where we Were aims to draw attention to how we are infused with CULTURE-specific ‘bootstrapping’ tools that become, in the realm of language based intellection, part of a CHOICELESS AWARENESS which is like an automatic right of free passage of external offerings into the psyche without having to stop and submit to inspection that discriminates whether or not admission is justified.
Each different CULTURE cultivates within its ADHERENTS, from early infancy, different ‘spontaneously accept’ and ‘spontaneously reject’ filters. This Note reviews some of the more influential of these differences in acculturated spontaneous responses which operate at a level deeper than is reached by our intellectual scrutiny based deliberations and continual readjustments to our ‘operating assumptions’.
There is an ‘EAST’ and ‘WEST’ social divisiveness tied to these PSYCHOLOGICAL BOOTSTRAP FILTERS, which are implanted into our differing language architectures and which have become ‘automatic’ and operative at a level below our explicit intellectual-analytical operations.
For example, the EAST retains the ‘flow-continuum’ sense of reality so that in indigenous aboriginal language the reality of a ‘TOWN’ is as in a ‘TOWNING’ where the understanding is of a resonant gathering-scattering-nexus where there is intake from surroundings and output to surroundings and that is understood as ‘what TOWNING IS’; i.e. a nexus of gathering and scattering which is a feature within the transforming relational continuum. THERE IS NO “LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF’ such as a ‘TOWN’ to cast as the LOCAL AUTHOR of the gathering and scattering suggestive of a BINARY LOGICAL division into TOWN-and-COUNTRY in the sense of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, there is only the relational ‘gathering-scattering’ wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, which would have us understand the FIGURE in the GROUND in the relational terms of (a standing wave) RESONANCE within a flow-continuum.
The FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE, as in the understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures and the ‘EAST’ (which is supported by Modern physics) serves up a reality in which ‘everything is related’ (mitakuye oyasin) since the FIGURES are understood as relational features in a common GROUND aka ‘the Wave-field’ aka ‘the Tao’.
This EASTERN understanding is supported by EASTERN language architecture which serves up the equivalent of TOWNING as a resonant gathering-scattering as contrasted with the WESTERN language with its use of ‘TOWN’ implying a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF.
The ‘TOWN’ based rhetoric employs the DOUBLE ERROR structure of NAMING and GRAMMAR which SUBSTITUTES in place of the NONLOCAL sense of TOWNING (as a relational resonance based hub), the ONTOLOGICAL sense of ‘the TOWN’ as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF. Of course, this REIFICATION of ‘the TOWN’ comes with the ‘burden of concreteness’ cited by the Pre-Socratic philosophers, since a GRAMMAR is then required to reconstruct a corresponding language based representation of dynamics which portray ‘the TOWN’ as the LOCAL SOURCE and LOCAL RECIPIENT of actions and developments; e.g. the TOWN is GROWING its production of products and its consumption of raw resources’. We likewise say that the TOWN is sourcing the development of productive talent that is emigrating from the TOWN and is a receptacle for new talent that is immigrating into the TOWN, giving us the sense that the TOWN has powers of SOURCING and RECEIVING that reinforces the notion of the TOWN as a LOCAL THING-in-ITSELF.
NOTE THAT THESE TWO TERMS ‘IMMIGRATING’ and ‘EMIGRATING’ are NOT NEEDED in the understanding of these same actions as TOWNING, a resonant gathering-scattering, since there is no point at which the resonance feature is imputed to have ONTOLOGICAL LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF status whereupon it is RECAST as a LOCAL SOURCE and LOCAL RECEIVER of the flow of people and products. Like the basement drain that is the LOCAL SOURCE of cockroaches when the lights go off and the LOCAL RECEIVER of cockroaches when the lights go on, the TOWNING is merely a PORTAL for GATHERING and SCATTERING; i.e. it is neither a LOCAL SOURCE nor a LOCAL CONTAINER. In this sense, it can be compared to the Volcano which is likewise NOT the SOURCE of its own extrusions and the Subduction zone which is NOT the RECEIVER of the subducting material but these are simply PORTALS that are secondary to the NONLOCAL PRIMARY REALITY of TRANSFORMATION.
In general, there can be understanding of the male as a PORTAL for LOCAL SOURCING and the female as a PORTAL for LOCAL RECEIVING, as understood in spherical space; i.e. as a spherical flow wherein extrusion and subduction are conjugate MALE-FIGURE-and-FEMALE-GROUND aspects of the ONE dynamic of TRANSFORMATION.,
WHAT A DIFFERENCE THAT DIFFERENT LANGUAGES MAKE! … in our PSYCHE-based reality constructions.
When we were infants, we had no choice but to submit to the language-based infusions of teachings of our parents and others who tended to us, who had in turn been infused with the understandings particular to the Culture they were raised in.
If we were raised in the CULTURE of the EAST, we would be understanding the movement of people into clusters of homes in terms of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein the LANDSCAPE is TOWNING; i.e. where TOWNING is a gather-scatter rippling in the flowing LANDSCAPE like the ‘eddy’ in river-flow.
That is, the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is modified by the forces of NATURE including HUMANING which is a manifest development within the transforming relational continuum wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE such that TRANSFORMATION is not something that ‘the HUMAN FIGURE undergoes’ (the INHABITANT undergoes) and that, separately, ‘the ‘GROUND’ undergoes (the HABITAT undergoes).
THAT IS; … TRANSFORMATION is something experienced as FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE. This is the understanding that is implicitly built into the languages and cultures of indigenous aboriginals and of the EAST. This is why we hear statements from indigenous aboriginal culture adherents such as;
This we know, the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”— “Chief Seattle”
Modern physics reaffirms this indigenous aboriginal understanding and thus supports many indigenous aboriginal cultural practices that differ markedly from those of the WEST. The WEST’s ‘Pathogen’ is subsumed by purely relational dissonance in the EAST.
We ‘ARE’ Where we Were, … so where were you during your early infancy when the culture one was situationally included in was ‘downloading’ into one’s ‘choiceless awareness’, a particular ‘suite of bootstrap routines’ that would either put you ‘on board’ with Chief Seattle’s statement which modern physics has reaffirmed is consistent with the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in Nature (in the transforming relational continuum, … OR, … or instead put you ‘on board’ with very different understandings such as the CHRISTIAN understanding;
1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
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. —The Catholic Catechism
In Nietzsche’s understanding as in modern physics and indigenous aboriginal cultures, while TRANSFORMATION is the reality of our sense experience, it is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT and thus language that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT cannot give direct representation to it. “REASON” aka “RATIO-NALITY” is device for constructing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein dynamics are no longer understood as NONLOCAL, but are, in the SUBSTITUTE REALITY, presented as LOCAL and EXPLICIT which is where GROWTH simplifying our sensory experience reality by reducing TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL to RATIO which is LOCAL and used to engender the concept of GROWTH as ‘an effable’ substitute for TRANSFORMATION. GROWTH is an abstract concept based on the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous’. For example, we can SPEAK IN TERMS OF “THE GROWTH” of cultivated land without ever having to mention the CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE of Wilderness area, thus by employing the concept of GROWTH in language, we OBSCURE the reality of TRANSFORMATION. Thus we ourselves fall out of relational harmony with the all-including TRANSFORMATION in which we ourselves are included.
It is not impossible for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS to find our way back out of the early childhood DOUBLE ERROR based reality conditioning that we have gone through, as David Bohm and F. David Peat have done, although it would be a lot easier if we didn’t have the language architecture that we have, which is a major influence in keeping us in a SUBSTITUTE REALITY where notions such as ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ substitute for ‘the LANDSCAPE is TRANSFORMING’, the former assertion of ‘GROWTH’ being a RATIO-based assertion (i.e. a RATIONAL aka REASON based assertion).
This pseudo-reality wherein GROWTH SUBSTITUTES for TRANSFORMATION as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, has become deeply entrenched as our WESTERN CULTURE ‘operative reality’ since it finds pervasive usage in our language. Although ‘GROWTH’ is abstraction that depends on the abstraction of a LOCAL ‘THING-IN-ITSELF” that ‘does the GROWING’, it is a concept that is playing a foundational role in our WESTERN CULTURE constructions of reality; i.e. the constructions of a language-based SUBSTITUTE REALITY which is departing radically from the ‘reality’ of our sensory experience.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADULTS need a new language, like the language of the indigenous aboriginal cultures, that does not depend on the concepts of ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments per the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR. This WESTERN language, wherein we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, OBSCURES the reality that the LANDSCAPE is TRANSFORMING, yet it serves us in such a manner as provides the foundations of an alternative SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring NAMING-instantiated LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-give powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments including GROWTH, such as TOWNS, COUNTRIES and CORPORATIONS.
In the new language, if we should ever develop and popularize it, as in the indigenous aboriginal languages, the base is the transforming relational continuum and within that we can speak of TOWNING, COUNTRYING etc. which implicitly acknowledges these thing as relational FIGURES within the transforming relational GROUND wherein FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE. In this regard;
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’
MEANWHILE, …. We ‘ARE’ Where we Were, … and Where we Were in our infancy and early development was in the land of languages which develop a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, where we say things like ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous and productive’ and we speak of immigration and emigration INTO AND OUT OF THE TOWN, … when the reality is that that INNERING and OUTERING is what TOWNING really is, whether in the sense of variations in birthing and dying or simply comings and goings.
Why should we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS switch to a new language that allows us to capture more ‘realistic’ representations of reality than the SUBSTITUTE reality based on DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR with its implication of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments?
BECAUSE, we are putting ourselves on ‘BUS-TRIP TO HELL’ as some have put it.
We are operating as if GROWTH were REAL! GROWTH is NOT REAL! There is only TRANSFORMATION. The folly in this continually amplifying by way of dysfunctional TRANSFORMATION.
Opinion: Sooner or later, we have to stop economic growth — and we’ll be better for it
The end of growth will come one day, perhaps very soon, whether we’re ready or not. If we plan for and manage it, we could well wind up with greater well-being.
by Richard Heinberg
January 8, 2019 — Both the U.S. economy and the global economy have expanded dramatically in the past century, as have life expectancies and material progress. Economists raised in this period of plenty assume that growth is good, necessary even, and should continue forever and ever without end, amen. Growth delivers jobs, returns on investment and higher tax revenues. What’s not to like? We’ve gotten so accustomed to growth that governments, corporations and banks now depend on it. It’s no exaggeration to say that we’re collectively addicted to growth.
The trouble is, a bigger economy uses more stuff than a smaller one, and we happen to live on a finite planet. So, an end to growth is inevitable. Ending growth is also desirable if we want to leave some stuff (minerals, forests, biodiversity and stable climate) for our kids and their kids. Further, if growth is meant to have anything to do with increasing quality of life, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it has passed the point of diminishing returns: Even though the U.S. economy is 5.5 times bigger now than it was in 1960 (in terms of real GDP), America is losing ground on its happiness index.
* * *
While the Heinberg does not go all the way to the root issue of where this concept of GROWTH comes from (the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which we employ to say RATIO-based things like ‘The TOWN is GROWING’ or ‘the ECONOMY is GROWING’), he is correct in pointing to the folly of NOT accounting for ‘what is shrinking’ (e.g. natural resources) in conjugate relations to ‘what we say is ‘growing’). But in our WESTERN CULTURE, RATIONAL THINKING aka ‘REASON’ is what we learned from early infancy. Reason is based on ratio and it only goes so far as to support the construction of SUBSTITUTE REALITY as given by such statements as ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ or ‘the industry is growing’ or the ‘business is growing’ or the number of COVID infected people is growing.
If we lived in the abstract space on a flat plane of infinite extent, such statements might be fitting, but in a spherical space, the GROWTH of the FIGURE means the conjugate SHRINKAGE of the GROUND it is included in.
Such understandings are passed to us as children by way of the languages we learn to speak. The WESTERN CULTURE language I learned as a child, because it cast us all as LOCAL THINGS-IN-OURSELVES with our own powers of SOURCING actions and developments, infused me thoughts of my own and everyone’s ‘independent being’. This set the stage for thinking in terms that some forms could be ‘superior’ and others ‘inferior’ as in lot of the WESTERN teachings;
“The ‘Great Chain of Being’ is a strict hierarchical structure of all matter and life, thought in medieval Christianity to have been decreed by God. The chain starts with God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals and other minerals. This ‘scala naturae’ is a concept that draws from the writings of Plato and Aristotle (in his ‘Historia Animalium’), which was further developed in the middle ages and reached full expression in early modern Neoplatonism.” — Wikipedia
So, from my Christian upbringing, I had no idea that modern physics was going to come along and support the notion of the savages that ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ‘everything is related’, and that we should consider the ‘four-leggeds’ and the ‘winged ones’ and ‘crawling ones’ as our interdependent brothers.
We ‘ARE’ Where we Were … points to the fact that myself, and most of those I grew up with, grew up with an understanding of ‘reality’ that was the popular understanding of those in the place we were born and raised where influences were fed to us through the language we learned, and which our parents had learned and their parents and grandparents. These were European languages (English and Italian) and one can say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ in both of them without any problem.
Now, if I had been weaned on an indigenous aboriginal language or Bohm’s rheomode, then even if I spoke the words ‘the TOWN is GROWING, my understanding would be that the REAL REALITY is that ‘the LANDSCAPE IS TRANSFORMING’ meaning that the expression, ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, is not the ‘real reality’ of our sensory experience but rather the introduction of an abstract, simplifying SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
The SUBSTITUTE REALITY gives us scope for more explicit, detailed accounts, NOT of REALITY which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT as is the nature of TRANSFORMATION, but of this SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR based SOURCING of actions and developments, such as ‘the TOWN is GROWING’.
Where do the ‘more explicit, detailed accounts’ come from if they are not REALITY? ANSWER: from language; i.e. from associating NAMES with relational forms within the transforming relational continuum.
The GROWING number of new streets full of new houses and apartment blocks is a tangible, persisting development, but it is NOT REALITY since in REALITY, everything is in flux, as affirmed in modern physics’ Wave-field reality and in the wisdom of the ancients. The thin veneer of TOWN is like spot of rust on a metal plate. To say that the spot of rust is GROWING is a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that constructs a superficial SUBSTITUTE REALITY that distracts from the real reality of TRANSFORMATION. As with the rust-spot, so also with the populated spot aka the TOWN. The reality is NOT the GROWTH of the TOWN but the TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE, but as long as we take pictures of the TOWN over time as if to prove ‘its GROWTH’, we ourselves in a RATIO based SUBSTITUTE REALITY which obscures the sensory experience reality of our inclusion in TRANSFORMATION.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
We can’t piecemeal reality and the creatures of the wilderness that we displaced in the construction of this new development, that fled to the outskirts of TOWN, and this is part of REALITY and it points to TRANSFORMATION as the overall REALITY. If we were to promote GROWTH out of the context of TRANSFORMATION as WESTERN CULTURE economies tend to do, we make a mess of things because the REALITY of TRANSFORMATION is going to prevail and give rise to grotesque phantoms in the shadows of the purportedly explicitly determined developments which we claim to ‘see’ as we fix our spotlight focus on our RATIO-nal vison of GROWTH.
TRANSFORMATION is an ANDROGYNOUS dynamic which is both assertive (male) and accommodating (female) but WESTERN CULTURE has developed language with a male-assertive orientation as exemplified by the central role given to the concept of GROWTH.
As we observe film footage of an avalanche, the valley seems to be ‘swallowing’ (avaler fr.) a large portion of the mountain but this awareness of the FEMALE aspect recedes into the background obscurity as our psyche focuses in on the foreground of MALE assertive action pictured as the peninsular tongue of descending rock as it undertakes to FILL THE VALLEY HOLE in an ANDROGYNOUS FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE TRANSFORMATION.
The psychological impression or ‘mental picture’ that is the ‘keeper’ that we ‘place on record’ is the MALE asserting ‘tongue’ of descending rock. That becomes the effective sum total ‘take-away’ impression of the action, the ‘picture’ we store in our memory. While the plunging tongue or ‘lingus’ is something we can capture in ‘language’ and retain as a mental ‘picture’, the conjugate opening of the valley which is an equally essential aspect of transformation, is ignored. As the saying goes; No-one misses a slice from a cut loaf”, but the swollen lingus, the rocky descending tongue of the avalanche, offers up a persisting image.
A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein – Philosophical Investigations.
The word is ‘avalanche’ implying the swallowing power of the valley but the common WESTERN CULTURE language-induced picture, is that of an explicit, asserting rocky tongue rather than the valley opening up to implicitly swallow its surroundings. The explicate order seems to prevail over the implicate order in our WESTERN CULTURE language based representation, but that would seem to be opposite to the EAST;
The spirit of the valley never dies.
This is called the mysterious female.
The gateway of the mysterious female
Is called the root of heaven and earth.
Dimly visible, it seems as if it were there,
Yet use will never drain it.
Know the male.
But keep the role of the female.
And be ravine to the empire.
Then the constant virtue will not desert you.
And you will again return to being a babe;
–Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching XXVIII
With this as background we might then ask; — Was the explicit, detailed account of the construction of new streets and houses as associate with the GROWTH of the TOWN … NOT REAL? As Goedel’s theorem says, all finite systems of logic are innately incomplete and the logical account of new construction falls into that category of ‘incompleteness’.
As the tongues of newly constructed districts assertively push out from the TOWN into the receptive valley, we understand, at some level, that the materials of this FIGURE draw from the GROUND in the context of FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE aka “TRANSFORMATION” and that ‘the “GROWTH” of the TOWN’ is a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that appeals BECAUSE, like the ‘avalanche’ that is captured by the word ‘landslide’, IT IS THE “MALE” PICTURABLE ASPECT of TRANSFORMATION while the valley ‘loaf’ which has given up so many ‘slices’ retains no EXPLICIT record of the slices it has dished out.
GROWTH may seem ‘tangible’ but it is a LOCALIZING by way of self-referencing abstraction, a linear ‘ratio’ or ‘reason’ based conceptualizing that carries with it the Goedel’s theorem logical incompleteness exposure. Like the ‘avalanche’, the brown spot on the green apple will continue to “GROW”, so we say, while we fail to mention the conjugate shrinking of the green. Such one-sided picturing that has us think in “RATIONAL” terms of the GROWING RATIO of brown with respect to itself, ignores REALITY which includes conjugate SHRINKING of the green, and thus obscures the REAL REALITY of TRANSFORMATION.
“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
We ‘ARE’ Where we Were! … for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS;
… is a place where we feed one another a daily diet of reason which is stirred into our language exchanges like an olive oil that facilitates ingestion of ‘content’ but like a catalyst, does not itself deliver content. RATIO aka REASON catalyzes an understanding of GROWTH as something EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT so that we can SUBSTITUTE this for the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT “REALITY” of TRANSFORMATION.
We ‘ARE’ Where we Were! … for MODERN PHYSICS and EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS
… is a place where ‘reason’ aka ‘ratio based thinking’ takes a back seat to the ‘intuiting’ of TRANSFORMATION such that the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is understood as the primary reality, as reaffirmed by modern physics.
* * *
I understand that I am an imputed ‘member’ of a majority constituency who has been born into a ‘Where we Were’ based on constructions of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein RATIO aka REASON has hijacked TRANSFORMATION as the basis of the ‘operative reality’. This has led to a plethora of abstraction based social dysfunctions. The RATIO-based abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING gives rise to EGO in individuals and in social collectives (Nationalism and Corporatism), obscuring the REALITY of our inclusion in TRANSFORMATION. Our ‘Who we ARE is coming from Where we Were; i.e. a place where belief in RATIO based reality wherein GROWTH obscures TRANSFORMATION is infused into the psyche by way of the popular language and serves as the SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
This makes me a ‘Mahavit’ in the terms used in Advaita Vedanta since this Western Culture SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on RATIO aka REASON as in the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR (the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING) with all its binary logical judgementalism… is something I don’t believe in but attempt to live in relative harmony (or minimal dissonance) within, while writing and working as I can to contribute towards a reorientation to moving/acting in harmony within the all-inclusive TRANSFORMATION aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.
* * *