INTRODUCTION: This note briefly explores the problematic concept of PATHOGEN, pointing to how the ‘thin skull rule’ that holds the identified PATHOGEN or CRIMINAL fully and solely responsible for destructive consequences of conflict, may be erroneously stripping the phenomena under investigation of its INEFFABLE content.  For example if a hot summer has desiccated the vegetation and TRANSFORMED it into an ‘incendiary bomb waiting to go off’, the ‘thin skull rule’ will assign causal responsibility to the logger whose chain saw sparked a forest fire.  Reflection shows that what is being obscured and replaced by LOCAL abstraction here is the REALITY of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION (i.e. the INEFFABLE).

We say that we have the power to ‘construct a house’ and/or ‘destroy a house’ (isn’t language great, it lets our imagination construct all kinds of ‘imagined realities’), but TRANSFORMATION is the REAL REALITY and WE ARE INCLUDED WITHIN IT.  So, this habit we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have, of claiming to have powers of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION is just abstraction coming from the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.  We say that ‘we construct houses’ but if we look around, there are ‘bald patches’ in the forest where we have removed trees for lumber and there are large holes in the ground where we have taken sand and gravel for concrete foundations so “CONSTRUCTION” IS AN IMPOSSIBLE ABSTRACTION THAT IMPLIES “LOCAL” INSTANTIATION (this is easy to do with the abstracting power of language and grammar) WHERE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IS RELATIONAL “TRANSFORMATION” which is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE and we are INCLUDED WITHIN IT.  It is called ‘the Tao’ by some and the ‘Wave-field’ by others, terms that refer to the transforming relational continuum.

So, ‘CONSTRUCTION’ AND ‘DESTRUCTION’ ARE ABSTRACTIONS PIVOTING FROM THE ABSTRACT NOTION OF LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, language based abstractions that are part of THE INTELLECTUAL REPRESENTATIONAL TECHNIQUE OF SUBSTITUTING NAME-INSTANTIATED  LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH NOTIONAL POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (all of this being done by means of language and grammar), for the sensory experience of inclusion in NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-BECAUSE-NONLOCAL.   In other words, ‘CONSTRUCTION’ and ‘DESTRUCTION’ are mutually supporting ‘PROPS’ that BACKHANDEDLY IMPLY THE “EXISTENCE” OF SOME NAMING-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF.  In this manner, the transforming relational continuum, which has no place for ‘things-in-themselves’, is set aside (mentally) so that this NEW WORLD of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES can take over as the OPERATIVE REALITY.  If we suspend our delivery of language-based representations with their reason-based grammatical constructions, our intuitive, sensory experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION (aka the Tao) based understanding will once again become the operative reality, and the binary concepts of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION will ‘recede into the darkness’ where ABSTRACTION lives as a kind of BRIGHTNESS of that which “IS” opposite to the DARKNESS of that which “IS NOT”.

CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION are language-and-grammar born ABSTRACT BINARY REDUCTIONS OF RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION WHEREBY THE NONLOCAL (INEFFABLE) IS REDUCED TO THE LOCAL (EFFABLE).  While ‘the EAST’ and modern physics employ the abstract binary concepts of CONSTRUCTION and DESTRUCTION merely as EFFABLE INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE REALITY (the Wave-field, the Tao) that lies INNATELY BEYOND the reach of LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have fallen into the habit of regarding the lOCAL and EFFABLE as REALITY, and this is a CRAZY-MAKER!

With this ‘background’ in hand, questions associated with COVID 19 can be explored for possible answers.

* * *

 

The following Question is Explored.  Could our common off-the-cuff answer prove to be prejudicial to our health?

DOES DISEASE “REALLY” SPREAD BY CONTACT?

The common WESTERN CULTURE SCHOOLED answer to this is YES, it can be spread by contact.

BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, REALLY?

We could follow this up with a probability-oriented question; i.e. ‘What is the probability of CONTRACTING AN ILLNESS THROUGH “CONTACT” WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS THE ILLNESS?

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS INQUIRY?

The point (my intended point) is not to do with the literal content of the question and answer, but with the underlying, unstated, implicit assumptions used in formulating the question; i.e.

-1- An ‘illness’ is something that an ‘individual’ can ‘have’.

-2- An ‘illness’ can be ‘passed’ from one person to another by ‘close contact’.

-3- an ‘illness’ can ‘spread’ though a social collective through ‘close contact’.

DISCUSSION:

This concept of a ‘disease’ as a LOCAL PATHOLOGY caused by a PATHOGEN that can be passed from one person (a notional INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING-THING-IN-ITSELF) to another person (a notional INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING-THING-IN-ITSELF) is implicit in statements 1-3 above.

The PATHOGEN model we (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) commonly employ is a very idealized/abstract.  If I pop a balloon, making a loud bang, and a nearby war vet with PTSD goes ballistic creating a lot of ‘collateral damage’, including another death, who is to blame?  The war vet with PTSD is like a bomb primed for detonation that is not fussy about the ‘source’ of its detonation.

This stuff happens in real life, as we know and it ‘blurs’ what we refer to as ‘cause-and-effect’ aka the ‘producer-product’ dynamic’.

In this era of COVID 19 ‘infections’, our assumptions as to ‘causal relations’ seem in need of review.

(more…)