Pre-amble: Why Western Culture is So ‘Successful’ and ‘So Troubled’.

‘Success’ in the culture of the WEST is measured in ‘producer-product’ terms where ego swells the head (we see ourselves as name-instantiated things-in-ourselves who we impute to be LOCAL, INDEPENDENT authors of actions and developments.   This language and grammar intellectual ‘double error’ eclipses the RELATIONAL reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in NONLOCALITY; i.e. inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (‘the Tao’) wherein inspiration fills the heart.

In understanding ourselves as belonging to NONLOCAL relational transformation (the Tao), there is no need to INVENT the concept of LOCAL BEING and LOCAL SOURCING of ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS as is done in language and grammar by inventing the PRODUCER-PRODUCT concept.

Because the WEST makes mental models of reality in terms of ABSTRACT LOCAL individual and collective (name-instantiated) producer-product agents that deliver SUCCESS in the abstract intellectual PRODUCER-PRODUCT sense, the relational transformation that is the NATURAL NONLOCAL reality of our sensual experience, submerges beneath our active intellectual awareness (we drop from consciousness the inherently NONLOCAL nature of the Tao dynamic.

One might compare this to the weatherman that uses a marker pen on a plastic covering over a satellite imagery of the transforming weather system displaying on a video screen; i.e. the fixed images he draws and names (annotates) on the transparent overlay  mimic the manner in which the naming of an innately relational flow-feature gives us the impression of its thing-in-itself existence, even though it is purely relational forming in a transforming relational continuum.

To give intellectual precedence to the marker-reified form over the innately transient relational flow-physics is to invert the natural ‘reality priority’, thereby OBSCURING NONLOCALITY as the NATURAL dynamic of the transforming relational continuum (the Tao); e.g. in the manner that we use the double error to reduce NONLOCAL resonance that manifests as ‘duning’  to LOCAL ‘dune-things-in-themselves’ with notional ‘powers of sourcing their own growth/development and movemint’, … a double error that  spells epistemological TROUBLE since we, and the things we give names and double error treatment to, ARE NOT REALLY ‘LOCALLY-EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (e.g. ‘dunes’) WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF PRODUCER-PRODUCT ACHIEVEMENT’ (dunes growing larger, shifting and burying and filling-in holes etc.).

Imputing producer-product ‘sorcery’ power to name-instantiated things-in-themselves as we use language and grammar to do in the case of reducing the NONLOCAL  4+ dimensional relational resonance of duning to the LOCAL  3- dimensional abstractions ‘dunes’, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and development is achieved by means of the ‘double error’ of grammar; i.e. the first error is ‘naming’ to impute to the relational flow-form its own local, independently existing ‘being’ while the second error conflates the first by imputing to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself its own powers of sourcing actions and development.

NONLOCALITY as in wave-field resonance is reduced, by the double error to three-dimensional geometrical form based LOCAL dynamics.  The reduction of ineffable NONLOCAL DYNAMICS (wavefield/resonance) by way of language and grammar to effable LOCAL dynamics invokes the ‘figure-ground split’ aka the ‘inhabitant-habitat split’.  This language and grammar-based split in how we conceive of dynamics is a schizophrenia inducing split which leaves us with unresolved options as to whether the actions of the inhabitant are transforming the habitat (e.g. does the river dig itself a channel through the valley) or whether the dynamics of the habitat are inducing the actions of the inhabitant’ (e.g. does the locally subsiding flatland induce rainfall and snowmelt to come together in a powerful flow stream to plough and deepen its own channel in the valley)?  In other words, does the subsiding land source female agency in opening up her furrow to attract and draw into herself the powerful river flow that reams out her valley, her ravine, her canyon?   Or, should we credit the river with one-sided ‘male’ sourcing agency and credit the river with scouring out a channel for itself?

This is the same ambiguity as in the Zen koan of ‘wind-and-flag’ which gives rise to the enigmatic question; which sources the movement of which?  The answer in that case, as in the case of whether the valley sources the river or the river sources the valley is; … THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AKA ‘THE TAO’.  In other words, there is no such thing as LOCAL DYNAMICS, there is only the NONLOCAL DYNAMIC of ‘the Tao’.  The abstraction of a ‘local dynamic’ derives from the ‘double error of language and grammar’.

The LOCALIZING of dynamics by way of the ‘double error’ is what renders the ineffable Tao effable BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF NONLOCALITY.

As will be discussed in this comment on … Why is Western Culture So ‘Successful’ and ‘So Troubled’? … the ‘SUCCESS’ of Western Culture is as measured  in ‘producer-product’ terms, however, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE PRODUCER PRODUCT DYNAMIC, there is only relational transformation.  Western Culture is ‘troubled’ because of the growing scepticism as to the ‘reality’ of the ‘double error’ aka ‘the producer-product dynamic’. 

First came the scepticism of the leader being seen in terms of ‘the man makes the times’, since others see the leader in terms of ‘the times makes the man’.  For example, back in 1919 where the punitive Treaty of Versailles was signed, pundits were predicting another war in 20 years when the Germans born in 1919 would reach the age of 20 after suffering through 20 years of ‘Carthaginian (punitive) peace’. From this point of view, ‘the times made the man’ (Hitler).  But Europeans who had ‘rubbed German noses in it for the first 20 years of their young lives, preferred to point to the innate warlike nature of the Germans and the evil intent of their leader Adolph Hitler as in ‘the man makes the times’.  As in the Zen koan of whether the flapping flag sources wind or whether wind sources flapping of the flag, there is no ‘sorcery’ in natural, there is only relational transformation.  The obsession with ‘sorcery’ is a Western culture addiction and it can only lead to ambiguity BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRICE THAT HAS TO BE PAID FOR RENDERING THE INEFFABLE-BECAUSE-NONLOCAL EFFABLE-BECAUSE-LOCAL BY WAY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

* * * End of Pre-amble:  ‘Why Western Culture is so ‘Successful’ and ‘So Troubled’ * * *

 

The Culture-Defining Prioritizing of Two Realities

The Tao is the transforming relational continuum the essence of which is nonlocality.  Nonlocality is ineffable.  It is the entire dynamic which is the dynamic of relational transformation as in flow wherein forms are continually forming and reforming, taking on appearance as ‘local entities’ only in manner of boils or whorls in fluid flow.   This is the wave-field and it is nonlocal-relational and ineffable.

It is the Tao that cannot be told because of its inherent nonlocality that renders it ineffable.

The life experience of inclusions in the Tao as relational forms in the flow unfolds whether or not it can be articulated; i.e. whether or not there exists within the Tao, a capacity for articulating and sharing impressions of the ‘Tao-dynamic’.  The understanding that ‘all-is-one’ (Heraclitus, Lao Tzu) is an understanding that must be immanent in all forms given that is the basic nature and substance of Tao. The boil and flow distinction is ‘appearances’ within the transforming relational continuum (wave-field) that we ‘fabricate’ and ‘concretize’ with language and grammar, as with ‘dune and desert’.

Given that we are all related, … NOT in the sense of individual forms that are co-operating or inter-acting, … but as flow-forms that are ‘appearances’ within the one wave-field (the Tao), there is no way to capture what is really going on (continually unfolding relational transformation) because of its NONLOCALITY; i.e. the forms in flow have no discrete thing-in-itself being, and thus they have no discrete ‘beginning’ (birth) or ‘ending’ (death).  As with flow-forms their ‘appearance’ as distinct things-in-themselves, emerging and submerging within the totality of the flow, is just that, ‘appearance’, … and there is never any separation from the flow, and thus never any separation from the observing image-ination, that is the source of DISTINGUISHING flow-form and flow-body, but is the source of using the abstracting intellectual tools of language and grammar to RE-CAST the formings-that-are-appearances, with distinguishing grunts or growls or with other forms of shareable signals.

This signalling is made possible by the sensory capacities that are immanent in the transforming relational continuum which includes the flow-forms emerging and submerging within it, all of which are within the FLUID UNUM of the ‘Tao’.

In the continually transforming Tao, the nonlocal intelligence with the locally emergent (flow-form) body, … and here the language I have to use to share these concepts ‘lets me down’ because, ‘flow-form’, while inherently NONLOCAL is reduced to something local merely by capturing and expressing it by means of language and grammar.  That is, language and grammar allows us to reduce duning and hurricaning and humaning, … innately dynamic relational appearances within the ONE TAO which never ‘individuate’ from the Tao, and which never come into possession of their own powers of sourcing actions and development, … to notional name-instantiated things-in-themselves WHICH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR PORTRAYS AS HAVING INDIVIDUATED FROM THE TAO AND HAVING TAKEN ON THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

THIS IS DONE WITHIN THE INTELLECT BY THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR as Nietzsche points out.  Once we have re-cast our experience of inclusion in the Tao in terms of ‘double error’ based abstraction, we have ARTIFICALLY (by way of intellectual abstraction) SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF NONLOCALITY THAT GIVES RISE TO INEFFABILITY.

Ok, even if we have to make this double error; i.e. naming to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself being to innately relational forms [first error] conflate with imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments [second error] to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself, IN ORDER TO WREAK SOME ‘LOCALITY’ OUT OF THE INNATELY NONLOCAL TAO, .. it is still immensely valuable in that it allows us to break through the ‘ineffability’ barrier and gives us a means of SHARING OUR EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO.

The ‘double error’ is the ‘trickery’ enabled by the tool of language and grammar whereby we re-render innately nonlocal phenomena such as flow-forms (boiling, duning, humaning) in the TAO as local things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

THIS ABSTRACT ARTIFICIAL INTELLECTUAL “LOCAL-IZING” OF THE NONLOCAL TAO, when used as a basis for ‘reality constructions’ MUST lead to clashes with the understanding coming to us from our NON-REDUCED SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE NONLOCAL DYNAMIC AKA ‘THE TAO’ AKA ‘THE WAVE-FIELD’, … the ‘transforming relational continuum.

WHERE AND HOW DOES THIS CLASH COME INTO PLAY FROM LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR THAT REDUCES THE NONLOCAL TO THE LOCAL AND HOW ARE WE DEALING WITH IT?

First of all, it is important to NOT FORGET that the use of the double error to ‘localize’ the inherently nonlocal Tao, is what opens the way to ‘sharing our ineffable experience’ by re-rendering it in effable terms, which means re-rendering our inherently nonlocal dynamics in terms of local dynamics.

Once we use language and grammar (the double error) to LOCALIZE dynamics that are innately nonlocal/relational (as in the Tao aka the wave-field) to construct an effable ‘reality’, we open up a schism between the intellectual reality based on local things-in-themselves, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (from ‘duning’, ‘boiling’ and ‘humaning’ within the Tao we reduce and shift to ‘dunes’, ‘boils’ and ‘humans’, abstractions within abstract ‘Cartesian’ space).

This schism is not a problem so long as we remember that the language and grammar based reality wherein nonlocality has been synthetically (intellectually) redued to ‘local things with locally originating powers) is MOCK-UP, an INTELLECTUAL TOOL, that opens the way to EFFABLE  SHAREABILITY of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao.

CORRECTION!  Our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao IS NOT SHAREABLE, what is shareable is an abstract double error based REDUCTION of our ineffable experience AND THIS REDUCTION IS BASED ON THAT WHICH IS VISIBLE.  As modern physics has pointed out, while ‘dunes’ and ‘boils’ and ‘humans’ are visualizable as three dimensional things-in-themselves’, duning’, ‘boiling’ and ‘hunaning’ as relational forms within the transforming relational continuum is a phenomenon that, to put it into mathematical descriptive terms, requires 4+ dimensions. That is, in a fluid reality where ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are ONE (the distinction into two deriving from ‘appearance’), there is no LOCALITY.

BUT USING LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TO IMPOSE LOCALITY HAS A BASIC PROBLEM (which is at the core of schizophrenia) because if we impute the double error based powers of LOCAL incipience of action, this forces us to divide the flow into ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ in which case our grammar will endow BOTH the FIGURE and the GROUND with the double error powers of sourcing actions and developments.  In general terms, in order to reduce the Tao so as to inject the abstract concept of LOCAL sourcing of actions and developments (the ‘double error’), we create the ‘figure-ground’ ambiguity as in the Zen koan of wind and flag.  Because resonance is basic to our sensory experience, but NOT local incipience of action and development (this comes from the double error), once we use language and grammar to impute local incipient action to the movement of the wind, our experience informs us that the moving flag is a LOCAL SOURCING AGENCY that stirs the air into wind, while the moving air aka ‘the wind’ is at the same time is SOURCING the LOCAL MOVEMENT OF THE FLAG.

What else could we expect from using language and grammar to break into the flow continuum to as to inject the abstract (language and grammar based) notion of LOCAL sourcing?   This ‘splitting’ is the very same splitting that manifests in Western culture in the ‘conservative’ – ‘liberal’ split where the ‘figure’ is the individual and the ‘ground’ is the social collective, and where collective divides into those who believe the LOCAL origins of action and development (the double error) derive from (A) the individual, or (B), the collective.  Is it the case that ‘one bad apple spoils the barrel’ or is it the case that ‘It takes a whole community to raise a child?’.

THERE IS NO REAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE-GROUNDED AMBIGUITY HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘LOCAL SOURCING’, ‘LOCAL SOURCING IS AN ABSTRACT ARTIFACT OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR STIMULATED INTELLECTION.  THERE IS ONLY THE TAO, THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

Ok, we don’t’ have to throw the baby (of language and grammar based reduction and expression of relational experience) out with the dirty bathwater, we can ‘live with’ the errors inherent in language and grammar by never forgetting that language and grammar deliver a REDUCTION of the NONLOCAL TAO to language and grammar based abstraction that reduces the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL which is what renders the INFEFFABLE, EFFABLE.  It is a ‘tool’ which, in Western culture, has RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN.   Once we portray ourselves by way of the ‘double error’ as local sources of actions and developments, EGO raises its head and it is EGO that is the manifestation of ‘the tool (of a localizing language) running away with the workman, the human with the divine.

EGO IS WHERE WE PLUG THE NONLOCAL DIVINE INTO THE LOCAL HUMAN AND DISCARD THE NONLOCAL DIVINE.

REMEMBER?  … ‘LOCAL’ IS JUST AN INTELLECTUAL TRICK TO RENDER THE INEFFABLE (THE NONLOCAL TAO) EFFABLE.  OUR INTELLECT IS HIGHLY EXPOSED TO TRICKERY SINCE IT DEALS IN ABSTRACT INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS WHILE OUR INTUITION IS GROUNDED IN OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE INEFFABLE TAO.

Western culture and Eastern culture difference CAN BE DEFINED on this basis that whereas the EAST regards to tool of language-imputed locality to be just that, a tool that stimulates our understanding of the inarticulable (nonlocal and thus ineffable) Tao that lies innately beyond explicit capture and which can only be alluded to by relational inference;  as Wittgenstein expresses this;

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

CONCLUSIONS: Re The Culture-Defining Prioritizing of Two Realities

There has to be a ‘sacrifice’ of ‘something’ in order to reduce the ineffable, unshareable NONLOCAL phenomenon of the Tao to language based effable, shareable form.   I would call that ‘something’ ‘dimensionality’ since that is a handy mathematical abstraction that alludes to the ‘something that goes missing’.  Ernst Mach and others have also made reference to this reduction in dimensionality, inferring that the fullblown reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the wave-field (the Tao) is ineffable.

We can ‘see’ a resonance such as ‘duning’ which is the LOCAL TIP-OF-THE-ICEBERG of an inherently NONLOCAL relational phenomenon but we can’t SEE the fullblown transforming relational continuum which includes everything including ourselves.

So what do we do?

Like the drunk who loses his watch on a dark night on a dark stretch of the street, he moves his search to the brightly lit area beneath the streetlight because the search conditions are far better there.  In other words, how far can we go in our inquiry into the LOCAL in informing us on the NONLOCAL?

How much can we learn from studying ‘dunes’ and their actions and development, in regard to giving us an understanding of ‘duning’?   Once we DROP from the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL, the Leprechaun has slipped out of our tightly grasping fist and all possibility of getting the answer to ‘who and what the hell are you?’ has evaporated.

There is no path of understanding from UNDERSTANDING THE LOCAL to UNDERSTANDING THE NONLOCAL since the LOCAL is not ‘real’ but is the product of an intellectual device that reduces the INEFFABLE NONLOCAL to an EFFABLE LOCAL to enable language and grammar based SHARING of a necessarily REDUCED-TO-SHAREABLE (EFFABLE) allusion to the NONLOCAL, INEFFABLE Tao.

We are talking here about a language and grammar based tool, which we Western culture adherents, are in the habit of using on ourselves, … which would be ok if we remembered that this REDUCTION OF NONLOCAL TO LOCAL is just a crude ‘go-by’ tool or ‘Wittgenstein ladder’, but evidently, we are letting ourselves be redefined by the tool, and the double error is where EGO derives, the notion wherein the source of actions and developments are LOCAL.  The double error of language and grammar reduces the ineffable to effable, the nonlocal to local, …

* * *

FOOTNOTE:   TRANSFORMATION AND FORMS

Do forms ‘transform’; i.e. are forms primary?

Or, is transformation primary and forms secondary?

When the weatherman shows video of transforming weather pattern on a Plexiglas screen, he outlines the ‘lows’ and ‘highs’ and draws arrows to signify ‘their’ movement and growth or diminishment (while lows and highs are ‘relational’, naming them imputes existence of two polar opposites capable of their own actions and developments.  This is the ‘double error of grammar’ pointed out by Nietzsche).

This is how ‘duning’ (wave-field dynamics) are reduced to ‘dunes’, notional things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (growing larger and longer, shifting across ‘the desert floor’ (N.B. … notice the inhabitant-habitat splitting that is a logical necessity when employing the ‘double error’ that reduces ‘duning’ to ‘dunes with the powers of sourcing actions and developments).

YES, THIS DOUBLE ERROR DOES GARNER, WITH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED CONDITIONING OF THE INTELLECT, ‘EFFABLE’ ‘LOCAL-BEING’ WHERE THERE IS ONLY, IN THE SENSORY REALITY OF OUR RELATIONAL EXPERIENCE ‘INEFFABLE’, NONLOCALITY (THE TAO)

In other words, this ‘double error’ is how language and grammar reduce relational transformation to name-instantiated ‘forms’, independently-existing things-in-themselves mobilized with ‘grammar’ within a ‘producer- product’ intellectual animation; e.g. NO MORE ‘DUNING’ (transformation as in our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao), only DUNES (intellectualized things-in-themselves forms) intellectually animated with grammar.

WHICH IS THE PRIMARY REALITY?  RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AS IN OUR INEFFABLE SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO? OR EFFABLE NAME-INSTANTIATED INTELLECTUAL THING-IN-THEMSELVES ABSTRACTIONS AKA ‘FORMS’ THAT ARE GRAMMAR-ANIMATED AS IN OUR INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED CONSTRUCTIONS?  e.g. is the relational transformation wherein ‘duning’ manifests the primary reality, or is the primary reality ‘the dunes’, those abstract language and grammar formulated ‘things-in-themselves’ that we say are ‘growing larger and shifting across the ‘desert floor’ as intellectually captured in our double error formulations?

HERE COMES THE EAST – WEST SPLIT, BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING;

THE UNDERSTANDING OF EASTERN CULTURES AND MODERN PHYSICS is that the PRIMARY REALITY is RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, and that the language and grammar based reduction by ‘naming’ to ‘forms’ which we ‘animate’ with grammar as in the ‘producer-product dynamic is a SECONDARY ABSTRACT INTELLECTUAL REDUCTION of our primary sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

THUS, THE EAST, SEES THE TOOL OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR AS AN INTELLECTUAL TOOL THAT REDUCES THE INEFFABLE, NONLOCAL TAO TO EFFABLE, LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTIONS SO AS TO DELIVER AN EFFABLE ALLUSION TO THE INEFFABLE.

WHEREAS, THE WEST, SEES THE TOOL OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR AS AN INTELLECTUAL TOOL THAT REDUCES THE INEFFABLE, NONLOCAL TAO TO EFFABLE, LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTIONS SO AS TO DELIVER AN EFFABLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INEFFABLE

The ARCHETYPE for this reduction of transformation [e.g. ‘duning’] to the producer-product forms [e.g. ‘dunes’] is our human self which we reduce from ‘humaning’ within the Tao, to self-standing, ‘humans’, ‘things-in-themselves forms’ as ‘producer-product sourcing entities’, leading to EMERSON’S observation that WESTERN MAN has fallen into the trap of letting “the tool run away with the workman, the human with the divine” by reducing his understanding of himself to a local double error based ‘producer of products’, … whereas, EASTERN MAN employs propositions formulated with the reductionist tool of language and grammar, NOT AS THE NEW AND IMPROVED (EXPLICIT AND PRECISE) ‘REALITY’, BUT MERELY AS A MENTAL EFFABLE PRINGBOARD, TO LAUNCH OUR LEAP BEYOND THE LOCAL AND EFFABLE TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NONLOCAL, INEFFABL TAO (the wave-field reality of modern physics).

Wittgenstein expresses this need for a mental leap beyond the explicit to arrive at an understanding of the innately implicit (nonlocal, ineffable) Tao  in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus;

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

 

 

 

RELATED COMMENTARY:

 

hi y’all,

 

I continue to write about ‘the double error’ problem we have built into our Western culture understanding of ‘reality’ as I think it is a ‘growing’ problem issue.

 

In saying this, I am coming from the EAST view of reality (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal, Buddhist/Taoist and Advaiita Vedanta).   The EAST view of reality is the ‘ineffable view’ as is the ‘wave-field’ view  or the view in terms of the ineffable Tao (the transforming relational continuum) which is the view of Heraclitus wherein ‘everything is in flux, … which is why it is ‘ineffable’.

 

The difference in understanding ‘reality’ of the EAST compared to the WEST is that the EAST employs the ‘effable’, ‘double error’ based view of reality as a kind of ‘jumping off point’  or Wittgenstein ladder, that IS NOT IN ITSELF REALITY, but which gives one a platform from which to ‘make an intuitive leap’ to get to the ineffable, but intuition-attainable  reality.

 

This difference between the ineffable and the effable associates with the difference between the nonlocal and the local.  In the manner of the hurricane in the flow of the atmosphere, we can consider ourselves as relational forms in the flow.   However, here we run into the ‘figure-and-ground’ ambiguity as in the Zen koan of wind and flag where there is an ambiguity as to whether flapping of the flag is sourcing turbulence in the air or whether turbulence in the air is sourcing flapping of the flag.   Similarly, in history, the ambiguity arises as to whether ‘the man makes the times’ or ‘the times make the man’.  This ambiguity also emerges in the difference between Newtonian physics and modern physics where Newtonian physics (which still dominates Western culture ideas of dynamics) employs the EITHER/OR logic of the included medium, while modern physics employs the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium.  An example of this is how we think of fluid dynamics where we see a boil in the flow.  We have all seen a ‘whorl’ or ‘boil’ in a river flow where the ‘whorl’ seems to move independently of the flow (e.g. across the river which is flowing downstream).  One may thus speak of the ‘whorl’ and the ‘flow’ as if they are two separate phenomena, however, that notion comes from language and grammar as we use it to capture and describe movement.  The ‘boil’ is part of the appearance of ‘flow’ and NOT a separate thing.   For this reason we might be better advised to speak of the ‘boiling’ rather than the ‘boil’ since once we start speaking of ‘the boil’ we make it out to be a thing-in-itself, just as in the case of speaking of ‘the dune’ instead of ‘duning’ since ‘duning’ is a nonlocal resonance phenomenon, and ‘boiling’ is likewise’.  In modern physics, all forms are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, and that applies also to ‘humanings’ or ‘mannings’ which are features in the flow, and not, as ‘humans’ implies, things-in-themselves’.

 

You can see that if what I am saying makes sense then our Western culture is really screwed up compared to modern philosoohers of physics such as David Bohm, F. David Peat, Erwin Schroedinger and Nietzsche (who got his modern physics from Roger Boscovitch), whose relational understandings of reality accord with those of  indigenous aboriginal understanding, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta.

 

Well, that is certainly my view, that our Western culture understanding of ‘reality’ is a crazy-maker, and one can put one’s finger on the problem by exploring this age-old issue of the nature of ‘figure-and-ground’ or ‘inhabitant-and-habitat’ and whether these twosomes are a UNITY as in the BOTH/AND (quantum) logic of the included medium or whether these twosomes are two different things in themselves as in the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.

 

As you know, our Western culture continues to ‘model reality’ on the Newtonian physics basis that the human inhabitant and the habitat are two mutually exclusive figure and ground entities, and this is dead wrong according to modern physics.  What you don’t hear too much about in this context, is the sort of trouble our Western culture misconception of reality is getting us into.  Why not?  Because the implications are that the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that we Western culture adherents are currently employing is a crazy-making delusion, but it is this crazy-making delusion that comes in the form of the ‘double error’ and it surrogate, the producer-product dynamic is what underpins the foundations of our Western culture value and rewards system.  The trusted leaders of Western culturized society who would have most influence over changes we might want to make to our society, have been elected or otherwise elevated into positions of more than average influence over any changes we might want to make to our social apparatus.  Given the message of modern physics wherein the double error and producer-product logic is torpedoed and sunk, … and given that the most influential leaders and movers and shapers of our Western society have attained their disproportionate trust and influence over what changes our social collective should make, … on the basis of their double error producer-product capabilities and contributions, we are in a bit of systemic conflict of interest situation.

 

Those that we have given most influence to on the basis of their producer-product strengths, are in the position that it is they, who the average citizen looks most to (or has delegated most to) for guidance on major decisions, who must make the announcement that there ‘has been a mistake’ and that ‘there is no such thing as the ‘sourcing of actions and developments’ as in the producer-product logic, … that it is a double error of language and grammar, and therefore that they who were celebrated for their producer-product contributions through the economy and through social recognition, have been (however unintentionally or otherwise) scamming the system.

 

While such an admission and shift would be of nuclear explosion proportions in our Western culture (and impact the entire world dynamic), it would involve no shift at all in the understanding of reality of Bohm, Schroedinger, the indigenous aboriginal traditionalists (a shrinking fraction of the indigenous aboriginal population since many have left their traditions).  As Hitler pointed out, if you tell a whopper of a lie, few people have the temerity to call it out and the lie endorsing majority will mock them for even trying to point it out, and that is known in nonlinear systems as ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’, the reason why we are still using the inferior Windows PC system, because the cost of porting software to another, very different hardware base is far more than the cost of switching to a better hardware base.

 

It is clear that Western culture’s double error based ‘reality’ is a crock, while the Tao is consistent with modern physics and wave-field physics, and that WE ARE REALLY SCREWING WITH OURSELVES BY EMPLOYING A BOGUS DOUBLE ERROR BASED OPERATIVE REALITY, … but as just stated, we have locked ourselves in with HUGE SWITCHING COSTS, so that unless we were personally convinced, the odds are in favour of people ‘letting sleeping dogs lie’.

 

The only problem is that ‘the dogs are not actually sleeping’, … a lot of people are being hurt right now by this belief in a bogus ‘producer-product reality, and that hurt will be nothing compared to what will happen several generations out, … if nothing were to be done until then.

 

Mass murders are just one of the ‘symptoms’ of our crazy-making Western culture, there is also the double-error influences noted by Nietzsche which are the source of ego and the producer-product concept.  This concept fuels ‘ego’, wherein one is taught to believe (and supported in such belief by Western society generally) that one is the producer of his own production, even if your grandfather left you 10 million, you are still ‘deemed the one’ who is the jumpstart source of whatever ‘you make’ with it.     This is like being a ‘land owner’ (a notion that contradicts our being included in the ONE transforming relational continuum).  Now, if we were swapped out while still in our crib as in stories like the prince and the pauper, … it is made clear that it is how others perceive us that establishes whether we are the producer of products in great abundance or whether your labours are fully spent in scraping up survival grub for your family and self  This difference is wrongly seen to reflect on ‘who we are’ in the producer-product modeling of reality.   The adage, ‘there but for fortune go you are I’  is an appropriate descriptor here, unless you ‘make the big time’, and then on can croon…  ‘I did it my way’.

 

This mutually contradicting way of looking at ‘how life unfolds’ permeates Western culture constructions of ‘reality’.

 

For your possible interest, I have appended a FOOTNOTE that gets a bit more into this, and also include the URL of an essay on the topic.  In the essay, I get into why we Western culture adherents believe our Western culture has been so successful in the sense of developing so much amazing technology that hugely improves our lives, … i.e. ‘our lives’ meaning the lives of ‘human beings’ assumed to be independent things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments as depicted in the double error of language and grammar.

 

The footnote (below) homes in on the key difference in understanding reality of EAST and WEST; i.e. e.g. the EAST sees the world dynamic FIRSTLY in terms of transformation; e.g. as in the wave-field or resonance phenomenon we know as ‘duning’ while the WEST sees the world dynamic FIRSTLY in terms NOT OF TRANSFORMATION BUT IN TERMS OF ‘FORMS’; e.g. ‘dunes’ that our language and grammar present to us as ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sourcing their own actions and developments (the double error).  Now, the EAST does this too since it is necessary to render the ineffable Tao (wave-field continuum) effable, but the difference is that in the EAST, the understanding is that ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, … meaning that the reduction to effable language (the reduction of nonlocal relational phenomena to notional local explicit phenomena) is merely a ‘Wittgenstein ladder approach’ to tickle our intuition of nonlocal dynamic reality (e.g. duning), so that if our language speaks of ‘dunes that are growing larger and longer and shifting to the south’, .. our intuition is understanding the wave-dynamics that we call ‘duning’.  Likewise our intuition understands that ‘more real’ than local figure things-in-themselves called ‘continents drifting’ and local ground in itself called ‘seafloors spreading’ is nonlocal relational transformation.  Western culture’s modern physics acknowledges nonlocality but the concept of local sourcing is the very basis of the producer-product dynamic which comes from the double error of language and the producer-product picture is what we use to wallpaper over our access to nonlocality, the reality of the Tao (wavefield).

 

cheers,

 

ted

 

http://goodshare.org/wp/why-western-culture-is-so-successful-and-so-troubled/

* * *

 

FOOTNOTE:   TRANSFORMATION AND FORMS

 

Do forms ‘transform’; i.e. are forms primary?

 

Or, is transformation primary and forms secondary?

 

When the weatherman shows video of transforming weather pattern on a Plexiglas screen, he outlines the ‘lows’ and ‘highs’ and draws arrows to signify ‘their’ movement and growth or diminishment (while lows and highs are ‘relational’, naming them imputes existence of two polar opposites capable of their own actions and developments.  This is the ‘double error of grammar’ pointed out by Nietzsche).

 

This is how ‘duning’ (wave-field dynamics) are reduced to ‘dunes’, notional things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (growing larger and longer, shifting across ‘the desert floor’ (N.B. … notice the inhabitant-habitat splitting that is a logical necessity when employing the ‘double error’ that reduces ‘duning’ to ‘dunes with the powers of sourcing actions and developments).

 

YES, THIS DOUBLE ERROR DOES GARNER, WITH LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED CONDITIONING OF THE INTELLECT, ‘EFFABLE’ ‘LOCAL-BEING’ WHERE THERE IS ONLY, IN THE SENSORY REALITY OF OUR RELATIONAL EXPERIENCE ‘INEFFABLE’, NONLOCALITY (THE TAO)

 

In other words, this ‘double error’ is how language and grammar reduce relational transformation to name-instantiated ‘forms’, independently-existing things-in-themselves mobilized with ‘grammar’ within a ‘producer- product’ intellectual animation; e.g. NO MORE ‘DUNING’ (transformation as in our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao), only DUNES (intellectualized things-in-themselves forms) intellectually animated with grammar.

 

WHICH IS THE PRIMARY REALITY?  RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AS IN OUR INEFFABLE SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO? OR EFFABLE NAME-INSTANTIATED INTELLECTUAL THING-IN-THEMSELVES ABSTRACTIONS AKA ‘FORMS’ THAT ARE GRAMMAR-ANIMATED AS IN OUR INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED CONSTRUCTIONS?  e.g. is the relational transformation wherein ‘duning’ manifests the primary reality, or is the primary reality ‘the dunes’, those abstract language and grammar formulated ‘things-in-themselves’ that we say are ‘growing larger and shifting across the ‘desert floor’ as intellectually captured in our double error formulations?

 

HERE COMES THE EAST – WEST SPLIT, BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING;

 

THE UNDERSTANDING OF EASTERN CULTURES AND MODERN PHYSICS is that the PRIMARY REALITY is RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, and that the language and grammar based reduction by ‘naming’ to ‘forms’ which we ‘animate’ with grammar as in the ‘producer-product dynamic is a SECONDARY ABSTRACT INTELLECTUAL REDUCTION of our primary sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

 

THUS, THE EAST, SEES THE TOOL OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR AS AN INTELLECTUAL TOOL THAT REDUCES THE INEFFABLE, NONLOCAL TAO TO EFFABLE, LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTIONS SO AS TO DELIVER AN EFFABLE ALLUSION TO THE INEFFABLE.

 

WHEREAS, THE WEST, SEES THE TOOL OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR AS AN INTELLECTUAL TOOL THAT REDUCES THE INEFFABLE, NONLOCAL TAO TO EFFABLE, LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTIONS SO AS TO DELIVER AN EFFABLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INEFFABLE

 

The ARCHETYPE for this reduction of transformation [e.g. ‘duning’] to the producer-product forms [e.g. ‘dunes’] is our human self which we reduce from ‘humaning’ within the Tao, to self-standing, ‘humans’, ‘things-in-themselves forms’ as ‘producer-product sourcing entities’, leading to EMERSON’S observation that WESTERN MAN has fallen into the trap of letting “the tool run away with the workman, the human with the divine” by reducing his understanding of himself to a local double error based ‘producer of products’, … whereas, EASTERN MAN employs propositions formulated with the reductionist tool of language and grammar, NOT AS THE NEW AND IMPROVED (EXPLICIT AND PRECISE) ‘REALITY’, BUT MERELY AS A MENTAL EFFABLE PRINGBOARD, TO LAUNCH OUR LEAP BEYOND THE LOCAL AND EFFABLE TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NONLOCAL, INEFFABL TAO (the wave-field reality of modern physics).

 

Wittgenstein expresses this need for a mental leap beyond the explicit to arrive at an understanding of the innately implicit (nonlocal, ineffable) Tao  in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus;

 

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