THE EAST-WEST SPLIT: REALITY IN TERMS OF TRANSFORMATION (EAST) VS GROWTH (WEST)

This comment on belief in GROWTH versus TRANSFORMATION points directly to the CRAZY-MAKER in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE.

-1- Consider the ‘double error’ when we use the abstract concept of GROWTH in our language and grammar representations of ‘reality’.

We speak of the GROWTH of the land we have ‘under cultivation’ and what comes into the mind’s eye is a small field of grain, that is, from year to year, getting much larger, perhaps starting from a few acres in size and growing to over 100 acres in size.

What we don’t speak about is the chopping down of trees and removal of stumps and rocks and chasing out of gophers and foxes that is associated with our GROWING the size of the field of grain.  It’s not that our proposition concerning the GROWTH of the field is NOT TRUE, it’s more like the surprise finding of Goedel’s theorem that all systems of logic are fundamentally INCOMPLETE.   In other words, while our talk of the GROWTH of the farm is logically TRUE, such TRUTH is evidently an INCOMPLETE TRUTH because what is also involved in the same action is a SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS, the living space of wild animals and birds.

The talk of GROWTH of cultivated land evidently FAILS TO MENTION THIS OTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME REALITY, … which is the SHRINKAGE of ‘wilderness’ (uncultivated land).

IN REALITY, what is going on is TRANSFORMATION and there is no such thing as GROWTH.  GROWTH is logical abstraction that is innately INCOMPLETE.  This issue raises questions as to how our use of language and grammar captures SPACE and CONTENT (HABITAT and INHABITANT, FIGURE AND GROUND), or if there are such things.  For example, the boil and flow distinction in the river bend may ‘appear’ to be separate things (the boil seems to enjoy persisting LOCAL PERSISTING BEING’ while the flow is purely relational transience).

There are questions here in regard to how we capture and reduce our voyeur visual observations to language and grammar.  In particular, we are prone to the ‘double error’ as Nietzsche points out, where we are faced with capturing CHANGE as in TRANSFORMATION, in language and grammar;  NOTE THAT TRANSFORMATION HAS NO LOCAL AUTHOR.

“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

The double error of language and grammar allows us to capture TRANSFORMATION (in reduced form) in language.   Why the double error reduction?  Because TRANSFORMATION is the Wave-field dynamic which is EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME, or in other words NONLOCAL and NONLOCAL DYNAMICS ARE INEFFABLE even though these ineffable-because-nonlocal dynamics are the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao (Wave-field).

OK, … HERE’S WHERE EAST AND WEST SPLIT; i.e.  on the approach to effable-izing the ineffable or in other words ‘LOCALIZING the NONLOCAL’.

(more…)