We can’t build a city in the same Wilderness twice for the Wilderness is not the same Wilderness and the city is not the same city.

(Shifting understanding from Euclidian space to Spherical space)

The proposition “We can’t build a city in the same Wilderness twice for the Wilderness is not the same Wilderness and the city is not the same city” flags a difference in how we understand reality associated with differing conceptualizations of space.  (Spherical space is not the same as Euclidian space; i.e. In the (spherical) space of our sensory experience, as the cultivated area grows, the Wilderness area reciprocally shrinks; i.e This is NEITHER GROWTH nor SHRINKAGE per se (i.e. GROWTH and SHRINKAGE are both flatspace concepts), it is TRANSFORMATION (‘TRANSFORMATION’ is a more ‘dimensionally-competent’ spherical space conceptualization).

BOTTOM LINE: Based on the testimony of our real-life sensory experience, there is no such thing as GROWTH, there is only TRANSFORMATION.

‘GROWTH’ depends on the abstract concept of LOCAL (i.e. a locally existing thing-in-itself as the ‘stub’ that is undergoing ‘GROWTH’.

‘GROWTH’ is simpler than TRANSFORMATION because it makes an abstract splitting between content and container or ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ which conjures up the abstract concept of LOCAL existence so that we can develop a simpler system of language and grammar to represent change LOCALLY as with the INHABITANT without having to deal, AT THE SAME TIME, with simultaneous changes in the HABITAT as is the case with TRANSFORMATION.

That is, because we can notionally SEPARATE AND ISOLATE the FIGURE from the GROUND as if they were TWO separate things (i.e. as if the INHABITANT and the HABITAT were TWO separate things), … we can reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL.

(more…)