INTRODUCTION:  In the Wave-field reality, everything is in flux and thus reality is the IMPLICIT order in the world while the EXPLICIT comes only by way of REPRESENTATIONS as in language and pictures.  The pictures of a child ‘growing up’ is a language based Trojan Horse that fools us into thinking that “GROWTH” is something ‘real’ and that NAMING-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ such ‘the child’ are also ‘real’, however, the statement ‘the CHILD GROWS’ is a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that imposes a substitute reality in the psyche that we employ IN PLACE OF the sensory experience reality of inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION.  This substitute reality based on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT gives us a means of INFERRING the “real reality” of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.   In the EAST, as in modern physics, it is not forgotten that the IMPLICIT-and-NONLOCAL is the natural but INEFFABLE reality while the EXPLICIT-and-LOCAL is the abstract but EFFABLE intellectual surrogate reality.

While the EAST and modern physics employs the EXPLICIT-LOCAL abstract reduction of reality merely as a tool of INFERENCE of the IMPLICIT-NONLOCAL relational reality, the WEST employs the EXPLICIT-LOCAL abstract reduction as the intellectual ‘operative reality’.  This article explores how and why our WESTERN ‘reality’, because it INVERTS the natural order by putting the EXPLICIT in an unnatural precedence over the IMPLICIT, is a CRAZY-MAKER.

* * *  end of introduction * * *    * * * see also FOOTNOTE * * *

 

As Kipling opined;– EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST and never the twain shall meet.

This is true in a certain sense; e.g. I am now an EAST thinker whereas I was raised as a WEST thinker and this is to share that sense.

It is easy to point to the difference, but not as easy to ‘embody’ the difference within one’s behaviour.  It concerns how we understand ‘reality’ and it is easy to intellectually specify the difference; i.e. if we are raised in the EAST’s tradition (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta we will understand FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (which is the understanding that I have come to embrace’), whereas our WESTERN upbringing has us ‘construct reality’ on the basis of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO.

FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE is where our distinguishing of form is IMPLICIT whereas FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO is where our distinguishing of form is EXPLICIT.  If we, for example, experience inclusion in a windblown sandy landscape AND IF we can suspend the NAMING and GRAMMAR that we have trained ourselves to reduce our experience to, we will experience inclusion in the resonance field of the duning phenomenon wherein TRANSFORMATION is in precedence over ‘things’ and ‘what things do’.  That is, TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and it is the stuff of our prelingual sensory experience and it is only when we invoke intellectual talk in terms of LOCAL and EXPLICIT DUNES and THEIR GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and MOVEMENT, and cast this as the PRIMARY reality, that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS part ways with the EAST. The EAST never lets go of the understanding that the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (and thus INEFFABLE) is the primary reality.

That’s it in a nutshell!  While the EAST preserves the natural primacy of the IMPLICIT and NONLOCAL over the EXPLICIT and LOCAL, the WEST elevates the EXPLICIT and LOCAL into an unnatural primacy over the IMPLICIT and NONLOCAL.  Of course, the ramifications of which of those very different understandings of reality serve as the ‘operative reality’ can be many and varied.

For example, in the indigenous aboriginal tradition, as in modern physics, ‘everything is related’ (mitakuye oyasin) so if ‘someone misbehaves’, this is understood as an emergent ‘relational dissonance’ that develops within the web of social and physical relations.   The required action is thus the restoring of relational harmony and there is no assumption that the individual through whom the relational dissonance ‘channelled’ is the SOURCE of the dissonance.

But as we well know, our WESTERN CULTURE tradition is to assume LOCAL SOURCING of the ‘relational dissonance’ which means that the action required to attenuate or eliminate the dissonance will ADDRESS the LOCAL SOURCE.

Note that in an indigenous aboriginal culture, even though the person is simply a conduit for the emergence of conflict that derives from relational dissonance, and even though the community may understand the problem in terms of a relational dissonance that is innately NONLOCAL, a person who is a habitual ‘lightning rod’ may be ‘taken out’ NOT because he is assumed to be the SOURCE of the violence/dissonance but as an emergency measure while the community seeks to resolve the deeper, relational source.

There may even be an ‘apology’ to the ‘lightning rod’ by those ‘taking him out’, acknowledging that while he is NOT the SOURCE of the dissonance, he is a persistent channeler of the dissonance.  In other words, shutting down the channel is an expedient, short-term solution, pending the addressing of a deeper and more endemic ‘sourcing’.

(more…)