Archive for October, 2019




“Reason” in language! …  oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


Reason is not ‘reality’Reality is the ineffable experiencing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (aka the Tao).

Western culture adherence has put intellectual ‘Reason’ (the bipolar EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium) into an unnatural precedence over the directly experienced sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) of our inclusion in the Tao.  This unnatural inverting which puts ‘bipolar logic’ into precedence over sensory relational experience is a psychological ‘bipolar disorder’ that manifests in the ‘double error’ (Nietzsche).  Where a social collective ‘buys in’ en masse to a belief in the ‘double error’, their understanding of ‘reality’ splits them into two opposing camps as in the Zen wind-and-flag koan, one pole of which (conservative) believes that reality is where individual-actions-and-developments are sourcing collective actions and developments, and the other pole of which (liberal) believes that collective actions and developments are sourcing individual actions-and-developments.

The Zen answer to this dichotomous koan is; ‘There is no such thing as ‘the sourcing of actions and development’, there is only the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

Modern physics has reaffirmed Zen in this matter, however, Western culture adherents have become so caught up in their bipolar arguing contention, that questioning the ‘reality’ of the double error implied ‘sourcing of actions and developments’ is being overlooked, even though it is a fundamental ‘error’ in Western culture adherent language and grammar based constructing of reality.

(N.B. The first error in the double error is to use ‘naming’ to infer local, independent thing-in-itself existence’ and the second error conflates the first by imputing the notional power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself).

So, this psychological double error based impression of ‘sourcing of actions and development’ gives rise to a ‘schizophrenic reality’ wherein the collective splits into two mutually opposing sub-collectives on the basis of polar difference in their construing of ‘what reality is’.  Both of the polarized groups with their polar opposite views of ‘what is reality’ deem themselves ‘normal’ by virtue of their agreement on ‘their reality’ WITHIN THEIR GROUP.  As R.D. Laing points out, this sort of ‘normal’ IS NOT NATURAL!

What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”  — R.D. Laing

When people agree as a group on what constitutes “reality for them”, they are able to cooperate and function harmoniously, within their polarized group, on the basis of employing their ‘commonly perceived reality’ as their ‘operative reality’. However, as Giordano Bruno observed (before he was burned at the stake in 1600 for the heresy of relativity), ‘A majority has no monopoly on establishing what is the truth’.  And as has similarly been observed by Lafontaine; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. 

Individuals (sensitive miner’s canaries who sniff something wrong in this polarization) who do not buy into joining either side of the polarization, become the ‘identified patients’; i.e. the ‘not-normals’ (i.e. those not-wanting to join in either of the polar options as the ‘normals’ are doing).  This ‘culture imposed schizophrenic pressure) shows up when indigenous aboriginals [where schizophrenic thinking is NOT the normality] come into Western culture adhering social collectives)

 ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’ by Cochrane and Sashidharan, that show that the incidence of schizophrenia in non-native born blacks in the U.K. is 3-5 times higher than native born blacks. As the researchers point out, the implication is that we are not going to discover the source of the illness, no matter how deeply and intensively we investigate the individual’s ill health as if it were the property of the individual.

“From the outset it will be clear that most of the research in this field has followed the conventional epidemiological or medical paradigm by focusing on mental ill health as the dependent variable. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a lack of empirically grounded research on mental well-being or the psychological resilience and survival of minority groups in this country” — R. Cochrane (University of Birmingham) and S. P. Sashidharan (North Birmingham Mental Health Trust) in ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’

The same conclusion was reached by Jill Astbury in ‘The Making of Women’s Madness’ in reviewing The World Health Organization statistics on the mental ill health of females which show that women have twice the incidence of ‘affective disorders’ (depression, bipolar disorder etc.) as men.  We usual dichotomous ambiguity associated with ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments (in this case mental illness) surfaces once again.  Astbury observes that there is a problem in assuming that ‘the women are ill’ rather than there is an illness-inducing dysfunction in the social dynamic which may be manifest more visibly in the more sensitive members of the social collective.  In other words, is mental breakdown due to a fault in the individual or due to in the dynamics of the collective in which the individual in included?

The research stemming from this viewpoint had a systemic blindness. It could literally not see what it was doing, as the normative quality of its own presuppositions had made them invisible.” – Jill Astbury

As expressed in Mach’s principle;” The dynamics of the inhabitants (boils) are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (flow) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat (flow) are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants (boils).  In other words, the habitat and the inhabitant are (as in the Zen koan of wind-and-flag) without ontological independence (the all-including Tao or ‘wave-field’ precludes  the ontological independence that the abstractions of language and grammar impute to relational forms are psychological impression and not sensory experience based.

The results of the philosophical investigations of Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger, Wittgenstein and others, support the understanding that ‘reason’ allows to construct abstract language and grammar reduced-reality-constructions that effable-ize’ the ineffable Tao, delivering the huge benefit of rending the ineffable Tao (a reduced version thereof) effable.  What was unshareable because ineffable becomes crudely shareable by way of ‘reason’.   That is, the ‘duning’ that is non-local and non-material because it is a resonance phenomenon (wave-field phenomenon, when it is reduced to ‘double error based dunes’ (name-instantiated local things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments) gives us the abstract intellectual ‘traction’ for ‘reason’ based ‘explanatory’ constructions.

‘Reason’ becomes problematic here in that it is an abstract intellectual reduction that constitutes a ‘dumbing down’ of the reality  of our sensory relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao). 

* * *

Reason is based on logic of which there are two types;

The BOTH/AND (quantum) logic of the included medium (e.g. boil and flow are seen as a one thing while the ‘two-ness’ is only ‘appearance’. Reason based on this  BOTH/AND logic has no exposure to ‘schizophrenia’ as does EITHER/OR logic

The EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium (e.g. boil and the flow are seen as two ontologically unique and separate things-in-themselves. Reason based on this EITHER/OR logic is ‘schizophrenia’ inducing (some say the boil is sourcing the flow and some say the flow is sourcing the boil (see also the Zen wind and flag koan – that brings forth the question; which is sourcing movement?) Answer; neither, there is only transformation, no sorcery.

Indigenous aboriginal cultures and modern physics base their ‘reason’ (remember, reason is a reduction of our ineffable experience that renders the ineffable crudely effable) on the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (boil and flow, or ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’, are only one, but are distinguishable as two by ‘appearance’, but not by ontic separateness

Western culture’s ‘standard’ mode of ‘reasoning’ employs EITHER/OR logic.  This logic is innately ambiguous as in the Zen wind/flag koan or the boil/flow topology; i.e. does the dynamic of the inhabitant source change in the habitat or does the dynamic of the habitat source change in the inhabitant?  EITHER/OR reason is innately ambiguous and leads to the ‘conservative – liberal’ polar opposition in THE WESTERN SOCIAL COLLECTIVE, … where people form groups whose reason polarizes against each other (one group takes the EITHER/OR reason branch wherein ‘one rotten apple spoils the barrel’ (conservative) and the other group takes the EITHER/OR reason branch where ‘it takes a whole community to raise a good/bad child’ (liberal).

Sensitive individuals (miner’s canaries) do not want to ‘take sides’ so they become human ‘buffers’ who embody this polarizing split in order not to ‘take sides’ (they allow the ‘sides’ to form within their own self).  ALL OF THIS COMES ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EMBRACE OF THE ABSTRACT LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM AS THE BASIS OF THEIR ‘REASON’.  (Don’t forget, our sensory experience (sensorimotor rhythms etc.) gives more basic but ineffable understanding of experience.  ‘Reason’ is only a crude tool (even though it’s explicitness impresses us) that falls innately short of our sensory experience; however, reason is effable while sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao is ineffable (not shareable by language).

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta embrace reason based on BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (the boil is the flow and only appears separate).  Reason based on BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, can be suffested in language; e.g. by speaking in terms of ‘duning’ (wave-field resonance) rather than ‘dunes-that-shift-and-grow’.  The same for ‘humaning’ (wave-field resonance).  This is the EASTERN mode of reason which is not exposed to the schizophrenia (of the collective and/or individual) as the WESTERN mode of reason is.  The Tao is nevertheless the un-reduced reality directly available to us through our senses (e.g. our innate wave-sensing or resonance-sensing which gives rise to forms in the flow such as ‘organisms’.


Neurofeedback is one means of breaking the out-of-control hijacking of our understanding by ‘reason’ and put us back in touch with our sensations which are our means of understanding the ineffable inclusion in the Tao. But first we have to acknowledge that ‘reason’ is problematic, particularly the schizophrenia inducing reason that comes with the logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM, the popular logic of Western culture that splits the social collective into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and for sensitive miner’s canaries who don’t like to ‘take sides’, it splits them into mutually opposing poles as in ‘bipolar disorder’, making the ‘abnormal’ by the standards of those who accept the splitting into conservative and liberal.


Reducing ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao to an ‘effable’ ‘reason’ -based account of such ineffable experience is what gives rise to the emergence and development of the tool of language and grammar.   Western culture schizophrenia arises where we let this tool of ‘reason’ ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.

“Reason” in language! …  oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

So long as we are using ‘reason’ to try to figure out what is wrong with our thinking, we are in a Sisyphusian struggle akin to trying to bite our own nose (‘schizophrenia’) or trying to change the drive-train on our car while driving in it.

Goedel’s theorem of incompleteness of all finite systems of logic says that reason can’t be used to overcome its own innate limitations.  Reason reduces the ineffable Tao to something effable, called ‘reason’, which is no longer the Tao but something innately less.  The issue described by Emerson of ‘the tool (of reason) running away with the workman, the human with the divine’, is what Nietzsche (an admiring reader of Emerson) is talking about in regard to our Western culture practice of using ‘reason’  that imputes the power of sorcery to ourselves via the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.



The ‘bipolar disorder’ that manifests in the social collective as the conservative-liberal ‘reasoning’ split comes from the same language and grammar source as the bipolar disorder that arises within the individual; i.e. the ‘double error’ of naming to impute thing-in-itself being (first error) conflated with grammar that conflates the first error by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.


* * *

In the simplest terms, Western culture has built into its language and grammar a ‘double error’ which invokes, in the abstracting intellect, an innately ambiguous bipolar splitting which, in the case of the social collective, divides the collective into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ factions, and in those sensitive ‘miner’s canaries’ who want to avoid ‘joining in such polar faction-building, ’embody’ this language-and-grammar induced psychological splitting within their own ‘self’.  REMEMBER! … this splitting is a psychological impression that comes from language and grammar, — WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, … by way of the ‘double error’ where, for example, in the relational transformation we know as ‘duning’.

In reducing resonance (‘duning’) with the double error, we (first error) use ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself existence to one of the lobes in the washboard-appearing resonance train, and conflate this with grammar (second error) that imputes to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself, the power of sourcing actions and developments (second error).  By way of superficial ‘appearance’, we can separate out (as if using a marking pen on a photograph) a ‘particular lobe’ in the ‘washboard-like’ visual pattern of the resonance-induced (wave-field-induced) multi-lobe forming (duning) of sand, dust, bio-matter etc., … and then, having outlined a single lobe in the resonance based ‘washboard’, start speaking of ITS DEVELOPMENT and ITS MOVEMENT, as if BY ITS OWN POWERS OF ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT (i.e. ‘this dune is growing longer and taller and in shifting to the East’).


The reduction of the resonance-phenomenon (wave-field phenomenon) of ‘duning’ (as available to our sensory experience even though it is a non-local, non-material relational phenomenon), to the local, material terms of ‘the dune’ and ‘what the dune does’ illustrates ‘what is lost’ in such Western-culture-habitual language and grammar ‘double error’ based reduction.  What is ‘gained’ is our being able to share (some reduced semblance of) what is inherently ‘ineffable’ since resonance is the manifesting of the tranforming relational continuum aka ‘wave-field’ which is inherently non-local and non-material (non-explicit).

REASON BASED ON THE DOUBLE ERROR SERVES AS A CRUDE MEANS OF SHARING THE INEFFABLE (CRUDE BECAUSE IT ENTAILS ‘DROP OUT’ OF ESSENTIAL MEANING.).  But we win some as we lose some . THE HUGE GAIN HERE IS THAT THE EFFABLE IS EXPLICITLY SHAREABLE WHILE THE INEFFABLE IS NOT EXPLICITLY SHAREABLE (in other words, it is not the ‘ineffable’ that is being shared but some reduced surrogate.  For example, I can utter the word ‘duning’ and/or ‘resonance’ but these terms imply only non-local, non-material wave-field phenomena, relational forms of understanding that do not support REASONING.

In order to reduce our relational understanding (this which comes to us directly through our sensory experience) to make it fit for REASONING, we resort to ‘the double error’ of language and grammar.  By reducing our experiencing of the ineffable by way of the double error of language and grammar to render it fit form REASONING, we impute God-like powers of jumpstart creating to abstract name-instantiated things-in-themselves. This is nevertheless a very useful tool (it enables SHARING a crude reduction of our unique ineffable experience), but when the tool is used not simply in an inference oriented support role (e.g. as in poetic inference/allusion) but as a ‘substitute reality’, we have a problem that Nietzsche alerts us to as follows;

“Reason” in language! …  oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


* * *


FOOTNOTE:  Nietzsche quote (in English and German) on the deceptiveness of ‘reason’ in philosophy — (Proposition 5 in Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols.


Chapter 5.

“Reason” in Philosophy


At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say “we” for politeness’ sake.) Formerly, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, conversely, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error. So certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. 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 capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.

Very much later, in a world which was in a thousand ways more enlightened, philosophers, to their great surprise, became aware of the sureness, the subjective certainty, in our handling of the categories of reason: they concluded that these categories could not be derived from anything empirical–for everything empirical plainly contradicted them. Whence, then, were they derived?

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.


(Original German)

Kapitel 5

Die »Vernunft« in der Philosophie.



– Stellen wir endlich dagegen, auf welche verschiedne Art wir (– ich sage höflicher Weise wir…) das Problem des Irrthums und der Scheinbarkeit in’s Auge fassen. Ehemals nahm man die Veränderung, den Wechsel, das Werden überhaupt als Beweis für Scheinbarkeit, als Zeichen dafür, daß Etwas da sein müsse, das uns irre führe. Heute umgekehrt sehen wir, genau so weit als das Vernunft-Vorurtheil uns zwingt, Einheit, Identität, Dauer, Substanz, Ursache, Dinglichkeit, Sein anzusetzen, uns gewissermaaßen verstrickt in den Irrthum, necessitirt zum Irrthum; so sicher wir auf Grund einer strengen Nachrechnung bei uns darüber sind, daß hier der Irrthum ist. Es steht damit nicht anders, als mit den Bewegungen des großen Gestirns: bei ihnen hat der Irrthum unser Auge, hier hat er unsre Sprache zum beständigen Anwalt. Die Sprache gehört ihrer Entstehung nach in die Zeit der rudimentärsten Form von Psychologie: wir kommen in ein grobes Fetischwesen hinein, wenn wir uns die Grundvoraussetzungen der Sprach-Metaphysik, auf deutsch: der Vernunft, zum Bewußtsein bringen. Das sieht überall Thäter und Thun: das glaubt an Willen als Ursache überhaupt; das glaubt an’s »Ich«, an’s Ich als Sein, an’s Ich als Substanz und projicirt den Glauben an die Ich-Substanz auf alle Dinge – es schafft erst damit den Begriff »Ding«… Das Sein wird überall als Ursache hineingedacht, untergeschoben; aus der Conception »Ich« folgt erst, als abgeleitet, der Begriff »Sein«… Am Anfang steht das große Verhängniß von Irrthum, daß der Wille Etwas ist, das wirkt, – daß Wille ein Vermögen ist… Heute wissen wir, daß er bloß ein Wort ist… Sehr viel später, in einer tausendfach aufgeklärteren Welt kam die Sicherheit, die subjektive Gewißheit in der Handhabung der Vernunft-Kategorien den Philosophen mit Überraschung zum Bewußtsein: sie schlossen, daß dieselben nicht aus der Empirie stammen könnten, – die ganze Empirie stehe ja zu ihnen in Widerspruch. Woher also stammen sie? – Und in Indien wie in Griechenland hat man den gleichen Fehlgriff gemacht: »wir müssen schon einmal in einer höheren Welt heimisch gewesen sein (– statt in einer sehr viel niederen: was die Wahrheit gewesen wäre!), wir müssen göttlich gewesen sein, denn wir haben die Vernunft!«… In der That, Nichts hat bisher eine naivere Überredungskraft gehabt als der Irrthum vom Sein, wie er zum Beispiel von den Eleaten formulirt wurde: er hat ja jedes Wort für sich, jeden Satz für sich, den wir sprechen! – Auch die Gegner der Eleaten unterlagen noch der Verführung ihres Seins-Begriffs: Demokrit unter Anderen, als er sein Atom erfand… Die »Vernunft« in der Sprache: oh was für eine alte betrügerische Weibsperson! Ich fürchte, wir werden Gott nicht los, weil wir noch an die Grammatik glauben…


* * *









Insight: The Conservative – Liberal Schizophrenia



Of the logos, which is as I describe it, people always prove to be uncomprehending both before they have heard it and once they have heard it. For, although all things happen according to the logos, people are like those of no experience, even when they do experience such words and deeds as I explain when I distinguish each thing according to its phusis (nature / constitution) and declare how it is; but others are as ignorant of what they do when awake as they are forgetful of what they do when asleep.

Those who hear and do not understand are like the deaf. Of them the proverb says: “Present, they are absent.”

— Heraclitus

Heraclitus’ above cryptic comment reflects the problem of shifting from the classical Western ‘EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium’ to the modern physics ‘BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (quantum logic), the latter which is implicit in Heraclitus’ flow-based (Tao-based) understanding of reality.

To understand the phenomenon that Heraclitus is referring to, consider the problem that associates with speaking about ‘duning’ in the ‘desert’.  The Western culture adherent will speak in such terms as ‘the dune is growing larger and shifting to the West across the desert floor’.   The indigenous aboriginal understands this phenomenon in the same way as modern physics; i.e. this is relational transformation as associates with ‘resonance’ (wave-field phenomena).  Western culture is using the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that reduces this resonance phenomenon by ‘naming’ to impute local, independent thing-in-itself being (first error) and conflating this with grammar (second error) to endow the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The duning as resonance based transformation becomes, by way of this language and grammar based double error reduction, the dune that is growing larger and longer and shifting across the desert floor.

In a conversation where several Western culture adherents are joined by an indigenous aboriginal, the indigenous aboriginal will understanding the statement that “the dune is growing larger and longer and is shifting across the desert floor” because this puts together a ‘picture’ that she will understand in her usual ‘mitakuye oyasin’ manner (everything is in flux).  In other words, she will make the leap from the literal meaning of the words to the understanding in terms of being included in a transforming relational continuum.  The mental leap of reduction from the 4D or higher dimensional wave-space to the lower 3D space of local closed form material objects is easy, however, however, for someone who was taught from childhood to understanding reality in double error terms of Western culture adherents, the 4D understanding is not even ‘on their radar screen’, and the 3D reality is ‘all she wrote’.

While the indigenous aboriginal and the Western culture adherent will be able to communicate very effectively on many topics, their respective sense of the nature of the world they live in and their relationship therein will be very different.  For example, while the Western culture adherent will be understanding things according to the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, the indigenous aboriginal will be understanding things according to the BOTH/AND (quantum) logic of the included medium (where the duning is NOT ‘dunes moving across the desert floor, but wave dynamics manifesting through the sandy material (i.e. not coming from the dynamics of the sandy material).  Carlo Rovelli captures this as follows in ‘Quantum Gravity’;

In Newtonian and special relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities – particles and fields – what remains is space and time. In general relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of one of the fields, the gravitational field. This implies that physical entities – particles and fields – are not all immersed in space, and moving in time. They do not live on spacetime. They live, so to say, on one another. It is as if we had observed in the ocean many animals living on an island: animals ‘on’ the island. Then we discover that the island itself is in fact a great whale. Not anymore animals on the island, just animals on animals. Similarly, the universe is not made by fields on spacetime; it is made by fields on fields.”   — Carlo Rovelli, in ‘Quantum Gravity’

As in Heraclitus complaint, people hear an explanation of flow-based reality (the Tao), which is like hearing an explanation of how the splitting of the figure and the ground (whorl in the flow) where these two things are just ‘appearances’ rather than having ontological separateness.  But Western culture adherent tend to immediately ‘lose their intuitive grasp’ of the purely relational ‘wave view’ and revert to speech that assumes an ontological ‘figure-ground’ splitting since Western culture language and grammar ‘builds this ontological splitting’ in, by way of the ‘double error’  of using ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself being to a relational flow-form and conflating this with by using grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

Since this reductive binary implication is ‘built into’ our Western culture language and grammar, our comments are implicitly ‘laden’ or ‘contaminated’ with it, contaminating everything we say with its binary implication.  This problem comes about from the property of Western language and grammar of reducing the ineffable understanding of inclusion in the Tao (flow) to effable, visual representation; i.e. i.e. understanding reality in the Tao sense requires us to shift our understanding beyond visual representation as-implied by Western language and grammar’ and the ‘double error’.

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

 * * *


The following note explores the source of ‘schizophrenia’ in Western culture as in the ‘splitting’ that divides ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ .  This exploration concludes that the root source of ‘schizophrenia’ is ‘reason’ aka ‘logic’ (the Western culture EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, as  gives rise to an innate ambiguity exposed in Gestalt psychology as the ‘figure/ground dichotomy’ and in Western culture generally (by way of the double error of language and grammar) as the ‘inhabitant/habitat’ split.  Modern physics, on the other hand, has required a non-binary, ‘inclusive’ logic, the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium (Stephane Lupasco et al), which has been the traditional logic of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  This BOTH/AND logic of the included medium is suggested by the Tai-Chi symbol with its ‘ambiguous non-dual dualism (viewing this symbol elicits questioning in the psyche as to whether there is just one form with the appearance of dual aspects or whether there are two separate forms.).  This opens the way to a bifurcation that seems to be where EASTERN psyches and WESTERN psyches split, and also where modern physics departs from Newtonian physics.

The findings of inquiry into this ambiguity, by Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others suggest that Western culture adoption of the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium is the source of general ‘schizophrenia’ (i.e. schizophrenia as the ‘norm’) in Western culture, making it very difficult for those ‘miner’s canaries’ living within a Western culture adherent social collective, who ‘smell a rat‘ that unsettles their psyche, an unsettling that is treated by the Western culture at large as THEIR problem, and thus administering drugs and psychiatric treatments designed to return the miner’s canaries to thinking that is firmly grounded in the EITHER/OR logic of the included medium, the Western culture way of reasoning deemed ‘normal’.

The suggestion here, supported by the works of Bohm, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Emerson and others is that EITHER/OR LOGIC IS A CRAZY-MAKER since it is inherently ambiguous and it aeads to the polarizing of views in the social collective as manifests in the conservative and liberal factionalizing, and manifests WITHIN the Western culture acculturated individual that eschews ‘taking sides’ within a split social collective, by the individual’s having to throw their own bodily self into the ‘keeping things together’, an exercise akin to having one’s opposite-side limbs tied respectively to two teams of horses pulling in opposite directions.  That is, the sensitive ‘miner’s canary’ throws their very ‘self’ into the gap the heal the polarizing split in the Western culture schizophrenic social collective they are included in.

Modern physics shows that an understanding of physical reality requires the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, wherein the separateness of the boil and the flow is understood as ‘appearance’ and THERE IS NO BINARY, ONTOLOGICAL SPLITTING in the reality of our experience of inclusion in the Tao, aka the transforming relational continuum, aka the wave-field.

It is the Western culture ‘lock-in’ to EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium as the default tool for trying to make sense out of reality hat is the crazy-maker impacting Western culture social collectives, via a ‘splitting’ (schizophrenia) which manifests at the level of the social collective (as the conservative-liberal polar splitting), and if this splitting is resisted by the individual, at the level of the individual (rather than the splitting OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE, since the individual self becomes the ‘buffer’ for splitting in the social collective, this can give rise to huge pull-apart tensions in the individual who then seeks relief by cultivating an internal psychologically buffering self-other splitting within herself, which can become very disorienting and lead to behavioral instability diagnosed as ‘disorder presumed to be ‘root-source-arising’ within her’ (e.g. HER ‘bipolar disorder’ or HER ‘schizophrenia’).

In short, the problem begins with the general Western culture social collective’s embrace of classical EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium as the basis for intellectual constructions of reality, a logic that NOTIONALLY/PSYCHOLOGICALLY splits apart the ‘inhabitant’ from the ‘habitat’, the ‘figure’ from the ‘ground’  (by contrast with the ‘quantum logic’ of modern physics which understands the distinction between ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ or ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ as ‘appearance, as with a boil in flow (e.g. a dynamic relational equilibrium) rather than a split into two thing-in-itself ONTOLOGICAL ENTITIES.  EITHER/OR LOGIC IS A CRAZY-MAKER  WHICH SPLITS THE WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE INTO CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL, WHILE THOSE ‘NOT TAKING SIDES’  ACCOMMODATE THE SYNTHETIC LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR PROVOKED SPLITTING, WITHIN THEIR SELF, which can get very confusing. The Western culture majority, having ‘split’  on a whole-self basis into conservative or liberal camps and thus seen as a ‘normal’, become the embodied definers of ‘normality’  and thus the adjudicators of what is ‘not normal’  (those not embracing one or the other of the social split into conservatives and liberals but try to buffer the split within their own ‘self’ fall into the category of ‘abnormals’  (bipolars, schizophrenics) for whom the ‘cure’  or  those the schizophrenic normals see as ‘abnormals’ lies in restoring the ‘abnormals’ the schizophrenic ‘normal’.

The problem with language is the problem with using language to ‘reason’  where we invoke the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.  ‘Poetry’ on the other hand, serves us well (it employs relational inference as a means of sharing experience of inclusion in the Tao). ‘Reason’ based on the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, on the other hand, is a ‘crazy-maker’!

“Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter! — Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being.  Among others there was Democritus in his discovery  of the atom. “Reason”  in language!  (... wherein …  Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed..…)  ….. Reason” in language! …  oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


* * * end-of-introduction * * *


Go to Top