What is Reality? (subtitle: The ‘Cuckoo’s Egg of ‘Growth’)
‘GROWTH’ is a ubiquitous and effective ‘cuckoo’s egg’ that hatches crazy-making understandings in Western minds.
FORWARD: A TECHNICAL NOTE ON HOW THE WORD ‘GROWTH’ IS USED IN THIS DISCUSSION:
There is often an unresolved ambiguity in how the word ‘growth’ is generally used due to the differing ‘figure and ground’ concepts that arise in ‘standard logic’ (EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium) vis a vis ‘quantum logic’ (BOTH/AND logic of the included medium). In terms of FIGURE AND GROUND, there is ontological independence of FIGURE and GROUND in the first case, and the separateness is only APPEARANCE based in the second case. When we speak of ‘growth’ of a ‘figure’, we do not usually specify whether we are picturing that growth in Cartesian space or in spherical space; e.g. the growth of a figure such as a storming or a duning on a flat space would deliver the understanding of ‘growth’ as the enlargement of a ‘thing-in-itself’, however, the growth of a figure such as a storming or a duning on the spherical surface of the earth would entail the reciprocal shrinkage of the ‘ground’ in the figure and ground couple so that instead of ‘growth’ we should be talking about ‘transformation’.
A confusing ambiguity arises where we speak of ‘growth’ of a ‘figure’ without declaring whether there is a corresponding ‘shrinking’ of the reciprocal ‘ground’. This ambiguity can in turn inject the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’ where a LOCAL producer-product dynamic is inferred. This ‘double error’ based injection of the concept of ‘sorcery’ is problematic in Western culture language and grammar. While these ambiguities are ‘managed’ in THIS DISCUSSION, they are, in many philosophical discussions left as ‘loose sheets flapping in the breeze’ and can be the source of ‘petitio principii’ errors of logic.
For example, where one starts using figure and ground in the flat space sense where they are ontologically separate and in the course of the discussion switches to using the same figure and ground as if they are distinguished merely by ‘appearance’ and are without ontological separateness (as would equate to switching between Newtonian physics and modern physics and back). For example, on a flat space, it is fair to speak of a boil ‘moving across that space’ since figure and ground are TWO separate ontological entities while in the curved space on a sphere, we must speak of relational transformation since ‘figure and ground are only ONE’. (Talk that is in ‘figure and ground’ terms of ‘dunes that grow larger and shift across the desert floor’ invokes LOCAL 3 dimensional ontology while talk in ‘figure and ground’ terms of ‘duning’ invokes NONLOCAL resonance that is 4+ dimensional). Mixing these two representations and their logics indiscriminately in language and grammar constructions is not uncommon and leads to confused (aberrant) understanding. [see Poincaré’s discussion on Cantorians and pragmatists in Dernières Pensées’, Ch. V, ‘Les Mathematiques et la Logique’]
The following note takes care to keep the discussion grounded in the most general framing (relational transformation) and to avoid inadvertent mixing of EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium with BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.
The WEST’s Crazy-Making Reduction of the Dimensionality of Reality
The WEST has laid a Cuckoo’s egg into the global collective consciousness, and it is called GROWTH (formerly known as SORCERY).
The Cuckoo’s egg of ‘growth’, when incubated in the psyche, liberates the abstract concepts of both ‘being’ and ‘time’.
‘Being’ and ‘time’ had to be foisted on the intellect in order to render the ineffable effable because relational transformation that is all-including, known as the Tao, is ineffable (“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu).
That is; … the reduction of transformation to the producer-product concept of ‘growth’ … had to be done to provide a ‘tool’ for rendering the ineffable effable; i.e. for inserting a notional LOCAL jumpstart sourcing agency to do an ‘end run’ around the ineffability of NONLOCALITY that characterizes the Tao aka the Wave-field.
BUT, only the WEST has employed the reduction of NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION to LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT GROWTH as “The Way it Really Is”. That is, while the EAST employs the tool of REDUCTION (from ‘relational transformation’ to ‘producer-product growth’ as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’; i.e. a tool we can use to trigger an intuitive leap beyond its explicit (effable) meaning to its implicit (ineffable) meaning.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
— Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF ‘GROWTH’ HAS NO MEANING IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AKA ‘THE TAO’.
Meanwhile, the abstractions of ‘GROWTH’ and ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ based ‘SORCERY” go hand-in-glove, delivering a WORK-AROUND for the ineffability impediment (Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”) that associates with relational transformation that we are included in (the Tao, the Wave-field).
Thus, ‘GROWTH’ is like a Cuckoo’s egg planted in the nest of our mind that hatches out and pushes overboard the rightful occupant called ‘TRANSFORMATION’.
Ok, so TRANSFORMATION that is all-inclusive is INEFFABLE, which makes our substituting of a surrogate that is reduced to the point that IT IS EFFABLE a sensible ploy to do an ‘end-run’ around the ineffability of our ACTUAL REALITY.
BUT, NOTA BENE, … it is a reality-distorting crazy-maker to go overboard and use the surrogate of GROWTH in place of TRANSFORMATION in OUR OPERATIVE REALITY.
Should we really be making pencil marks on door-frames so that our children can MEASURE their own GROWTH?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GROWTH’ IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (THE TAO, THE WAVE-FIELD) THAT IS THE ‘REAL REALITY’ OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE.
‘GROWTH’ is a Cuckoo’s egg planted in the nest of our psyche that, in the WEST, continues to get all the attention and nurturance so that it DISLODGES AND EJECTS the rightful occupant, TRANSFORMATION.
In mathematical terms, this is a reduction of dimensionality, from 4+ dimensions to 3 dimensions. Since NONLOCAL resonance that manifests as ‘duning’ exceeds the capabilities of LOCAL 3 dimensional representations, it is our Western custom, built into language and grammar, to reduce the ineffable 4+ dimensional resonance (wavefield dynamic) to the effable LOCAL 3 dimensional, … SO AS TO RENDER OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCING OF INEFFABLE REALITY IN A REDUCED-BUT-EFFABLE AND THEREFORE INTELLECTUALLY SHAREABLE FORMAT.
This is “the tool”, as Emerson has pointed out, “that has run away with the workman, the human with the divine”.
This ‘tool’ reduces TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH.
TRANSFORMATION IS REAL, … GROWTH IS DOUBLE ERROR BASED ABSTRACTION.
The ‘double error’ is comprised of a first error of ‘NAMING’ that imputes thing-in-itself existence to a relational form within the transforming relational continuum, and we conflate this with a second error of GRAMMAR that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself.
TRANSFORMATION is the 4+ dimensional NONLOCAL phenomenon of resonance as in ‘duning’ while GROWTH is the corresponding, ‘reduced-to- 3 dimensions’ LOCAL thing-in-itself-base, grammar-animated pseudo-phenomenon as in ‘the dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the South.
TRANSFORMATION AS IN THE WAVE-FIELD DYNAMIC IS RELATIONAL AND IT INCLUDES OURSELVES AND EVERYTHING, which is why it is ineffable because it is not ‘something out there’ which we can visually picture.
The difference between EAST and WEST is thus the following;
EAST: Uses the tools of language and grammar to reduce the ineffable Tao (purely relational wavefield/resonance) to an effable representation that is IMPLICIT as in the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ where the understanding requires an intuitive LEAP as described in the above cited Wittgenstein propositions 6.54 and 7.0. Statements such as ‘the dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the South’ this understood as IMPLICIT INFERENCE to a reality that is ineffable and requires an INTUITIVE LEAP to get to the ineffable reality (4+ dimensional wave-field reality in mathematical terms).
WEST: Uses the tools of language and grammar to reduce the ineffable Tao (purely relational wavefield/ resonance) to an effable representation that is EXPLICIT, thus ‘duning’, once reduced to ‘dunes’ as if they were ‘things-in-themselves’ that are animated with grammar, IS NOT USED AS A LAUNCHING PAD FOR AN INTUITIVE LEAP TO A REALITY THAT LIES BEYOND THE EXPLICIT, but is accepted LITERALLY (explicitly) as the ‘operative reality’. GROWTH, is thus accepted and employed as REALITY in the WEST, instead of being intuitively understood as dimensionally-reduced allusion to TRANSFORMATION as in the EAST and as in MODERN PHYSICS.
THE WESTERN BELIEVE IN ‘GROWTH’ AS SOMETHING ‘REAL’ IS A CRAZY-MAKER. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GROWTH’ IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
CONCLUSION: ‘Growth’ is an abstraction that goes hand in hand with the ‘Producer-Product’ abstraction, in the manner of a ‘petitio principii’ or ‘begging the question’. What is the result of a producer-product dynamic? The answer is ‘growth’. These concepts are language and grammar built abstractions unsupported by our sensory experience; i.e. our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the wave-field’.
‘Growth’ and ‘the producer-product dynamic’ are abstractions that reduce the ineffable Tao to effable terms.
Our Western culture practice of putting a rising succession of pencil marks on a door-frame to let the child see the record of her continuing growth, tends to wallpaper over our higher dimensional psychological conceptualizing (4 + dimensional TRANSFORMATION) with this reduction to 3-dimensional GROWTH. The WESTERN child comes out of this continual indoctrination in the purported REALITY of GROWTH, with an intellectualization of the psyche which has blocked out awareness of an all-inclusive TRANSFORMATION.
It’s not that we are not capable of understanding inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION just because it is INEFFABLE, it is just that we WESTERN culture adherents have shifted our reality basis over to the effable, and not just the effable as a springboard for an intuitive leap to the ineffable, but for use as an EXPLICIT surrogate or pseudo-reality.
It’s not that we don’t have within us the natural capability of understanding REALITY as 4 + dimensional relational TRANSFORMATION, it is instead that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have become so accustomed to reducing the 4+ dimensional wavefield dynamics (the Tao) where topological TRANSFORMATION is the basic reality, to 3 dimensional thing-in-itself based GROWTH which we use to in our reduction needed to re-render the ineffable in effable terms.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS seem to have ‘lost touch’ with our higher dimensional RELATIONAL reality through the WESTERN acculturation process; e.g;
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,
As Wittgenstein observes;
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE THE 4 + DIMENSIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, USING SUCH REDUCTIONIST TERMS AS ‘GROWTH’ IN PLACE OF TRANSFORMATION, CANNOT ‘GO THE DISTANCE’. Thus it is up to us and our intuition to make the needed leap to a reality that lies beyond the limits of our effable language and grammar (double error based) constructions.
* * *
FIGURE AND GROUND: WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Mach’s principle: the dynamics of the inhabitant (figure) are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (ground) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat (ground) are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitant (figure) suggests that the FIGURE and GROUND may not involve two separate ONTOLOGICAL ENTITIES; i.e. that our ability to differentiate FIGURE AND GROUND may be APPEARANCE based rather than ONTOLOGY based.
What’s coming into play here, in the intellect, is the concept of ‘SORCERY’; i.e. should we assume that there is ‘SORCERY’ going on here between ‘FIGURE’ and ‘GROUND’? If so, we are at the same time implying ontological essence aka LOCAL essence to the ‘sorcerer’, an assumption which gives rise to the ‘double error’ as pointed out by Nietzsche.
I would describe this in terms of our need to render the ineffable effable in the following context. NONLOCALITY as in RESONANCE that manifests in the persisting whorl in the river bend is something we understanding from our sensory experience, but NONLOCALITY cannot be captured in language and grammar where we personify persisting forms (for which we use our impression of ourselves as the archetype) as LOCAL ‘things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments’. Would we consider ourselves to be NONLOCAL relational phenomena?
The EAST answers YES to NONLOCALITY for understanding the WHORL (figure) in the FLOW (ground) but the WEST (possibly from one’s own ego sense of powers of sorcery) answers NO and insists on LOCAL sourcing. This is going to lead to the ambiguity issue for the WEST because once we impute ‘sorcery’ as the origin of figure-ground dynamic, we have opened the way to understanding figure and ground in EITHER/OR logical terms of EITHER the figure (whorl) sources movement of the ground (flow) OR the ground (flow) sources the movement of the figure (whorl). This manifests in the WEST as the conservative (figure/individual-sources ground/collective) and liberal (ground/collective sources figure/individual) ambiguity.
The language-and-grammar INSERTING of a LOCAL SOURCE is what re-renders the ineffable NONLOCAL source of dynamics in effable LOCAL SOURCE based terms. The real NONLOCAL sourcing derives from the unbounded transforming relational continuum which is why it is ineffable because we can never get to the bottom of it. This is brought forth in Bohm’s example of how we cannot get to the bottom of the sourcing of Lincoln’s death because it is a development within the transforming relational continuum that includes the inventing of gunpowder and the gun and the actions of John Wilke’s Booth’s mother and father and much, much more. In order to be effable, we must reduce the NONLOCAL to something LOCAL and that means ‘sticking an authoring source’ in there. How do we do that? We do it with language and grammar which gives us the capability of the ‘double error’;
“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
It is not that the ‘ineffable’ is simply discardable after we have achieved this LOCAL SOURCING of the natural NONLOCAL phenomena, … the ineffable is still the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao (the ineffable transforming relational continuum). This reduction to LOCAL SOURCING is an expedient that allows us to talk about and share A CRUDE REDUCTION-to-LOCAL AND THUS-to-EFFABLE OF THE INEFFABLE NONLOCAL PHENOMENA OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE. This reduction gives us notional things-in-themselves notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’). And while this is all intellectual abstraction, it is abstraction that we can manipulate and manage to give expression (in terms of these effable language and grammar abstractions) to our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao. This reduction of the ineffable to effable gives us the capability of being-based ‘reason’. Reason is the language and grammar based device we engineer for ourselves by using intellectual invention to insert ourselves into the NONLOCAL CONTINUUM and engineer a LOCAL SYNTHETIC SOURCING of action and development, which is what re-renders, in intellectual language and grammar terms, the ineffable as effable.
“In Reason’ in language! … Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed. … – 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’
Language and grammar achieve the needed reduction of the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field), to the effable-because LOCAL thing-in-itself being-based. The mental modeling ‘archetype’ for the local thing-in-itself is OUR SELF, or rather ‘how we like to think of our self’; i.e. in the double error terms of a notional locally-existing thing-in-ourselves’ with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’ of language and grammar). As Nietzsche observes on this language-and-grammar enabled, ego-based intellectual construction of an imaginary reality;
“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’
Ok, our sensory experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum and while we can understand life in that way, ‘intuitively’ and within the context of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all relational forms within the NONLOCAL wavefield Unum of nature), such understanding is ineffable; i.e. language builds effable constructions based on LOCAL figures and ‘their’ actions. We are forced to make a kind of ‘a deal with the devil’ to reduce the ineffable NONLOCAL to the effable LOCAL (as the systems sciences guru Kenneth Boulding observed: ‘The name of the devil is suboptimization’).
Suboptimization is the intellectual reducing of relational flow-forms by way of ‘naming’, which imputes them to be notional ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves or ‘systems in themselves’ such as humans, nations, corporations, opening the way (within our idealizing intellect) to a pursuit of optimizing these things AS IF THEY ‘REALLY WERE’ INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, such is the intellectual mesmerisation that takes hold of us from our act of ‘naming’ them, with or without a ceremony such as tapping them on the shoulder with the sword Excalibur.)
THE ‘EAST’ CAN BE DEFINED AS ‘THOSE WHO EMPLOY LANGUAGE-AND-GRAMMAR REDUCTION TO EFFABLE AS A SPRINGBOARD OR ‘WITTGENSTEIN LADDER’ FOR LAUNCHING AN INTUITIVE LEAP TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND EFFABLE CAPTURE, … THE ‘WEST’ CAN BE DEFINED AS THOSE WHO EMPLOY LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR REDUCTION-TO-EFFABLE, “LITERALLY”, AS THEIR ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’. Eg. ‘the dune that grows larger and shifts across the desert floor’, for the EAST, is a language and grammar based ‘reduction-to-effable’ of the NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon of ‘duning’.
The concept of a LOCAL DUNE, in the EAST, IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND EMPLOYED AS THE OPERATIVE REALITY, but is understood as an intellectual ‘stimulator’ of the intuition, wherein rational intellection urges intuitive intellection to make the leap from the effable LOCAL (the dune) as stimulus for the leap to the ineffable NONLOCAL (duning) understanding in the purely relational terms of inclusion in the Tao.
While the ‘dune’ is a notional LOCAL thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the double error of language and grammar), ‘duning’ IS NONLOCAL AND BELONGS TO THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
* * *