INTRODUCTION: The KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS) approach to organizing social activity is a WESTERN CULTURE popular favorite which has us elevate the LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ‘reality’ with its voyeur visualizing of ‘the construction-based GROWTH of a “LOCAL COMMUNITY” into an unnatural precedence over our actual experience of inclusion in unbounded relational TRANSFORMATION.  This leaves behind the actual reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum in the unlit reaches of our intuition, while our reason dances about in the bright light of a LOCAL intellect-fabricated PRODUCER-PRODUCT pseudo-reality.   As Goedel’s Theorem affirms, there is an inherent incompleteness to all finite systems of logic, and while CSI (crime-scenes investigation) logic establishes the steel-bolted ‘truth’ of Jean Valjean’s theft of a loaf of bread, it is blind to the more ‘complete’ reality featuring relational imbalance wherein many are swimming in surplus while others are starving in deficiency.

While TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE, the reductive PRODUCER-PRODUCT view is LOCAL and EFFABLE.  PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION are an abstract binary duality like BIRTH and DEATH that lacks the dimensionality to capture TRANSFORMATION.  The GROWTH of PRODUCTION is a popular orientation in WESTERN CULTURE social dynamics, yet it is LOGICALLY INCOMPLETE and leaves the reality of relational TRANSFORMATION flapping like a loose sheet in the winds of the psyche.   REALITY is instead TRANSFORMATION as in the all-including transforming relational continuum (aka ‘the Wave-field aka the Tao’) while PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION are Euclidian FLAT-SPACE abstractions that ‘side-step’ the reality of TRANSFORMATION; i.e. PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION DO NOT EXIST in the reality of our sensory experience.  The production and consumption of ‘forest products’ may transform a forested planet into a desert moonscape, an aberrant development turbocharged by the popular pursuit of ECONOMIC GROWTH; i.e. THERE IS NO GROWTH, there is only TRANSFORMATION.  The WESTERN CULTURE belief in GROWTH is a CRAZY-MAKER.

* * *   end of introduction * * *

 

As Scrhoedinger protested, one can’t capture TRANSFORMATION using binary FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO abstraction by employing the abstract device of PROBABILITY wherein the FIGURE as a thing-in-itself has a likelihood of EITHER existing OR not-existing.  That is to say; we can’t capture TRANSFORMATION in this way because the basic reality of our sensory experience is where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  For example, DUNING is a resonance phenomenon that is inherently NONLOCAL while DUNES are visual impressions that we think of as LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES in the PLURAL that are, meanwhile, NOT REAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  As Nietzsche observes, we invent the notion of DUNES-that-MOVE with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

 

Schroedinger was clear in his opposition to what became and persists as the ‘standard reality’ in modern physics; i.e. the notion of ‘waves’ as ‘local things-in-themselves’ (think of how the resonance phenomenon of DUNING could be understood in terms of DUNES that ‘gather’ and ‘scatter’).  Once we start thinking of DUNING (the NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon that belongs to the transforming relational continuum) in terms of DUNES as LOCAL material forms that are continually gathering and scattering, we need an auxiliary theory (probability) to deal with the likelihood of a particular place being ‘occupied’ by a DUNE or NOT.  This way of formulating theory accepts the LOCAL THINGNESS of the DUNE as a foundational precept and THEN tries to match the observational data with theory that deals with DUNING dynamics, preserving the concept of WAVE-MATTER EQUIVALENCE.   In Schroedinger’s view, the WAVE-FIELD is the basic reality and material objects and their dynamics is Schaumkommen (appearance).  He did not approve of theory that started from accepting  WAVE – MATTER equivalence where these were two EQUIVALENT ways of comprehending the same phenomenon.  For Schroedinger, WAVES are primary reality and MATTER is ‘appearnce’, so that he never did agree with the majority-pushed interpretation of modern physics which insisted on a particulate base moderated by existential ‘probability’;

“Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” (Schrödinger E, ‘The Interpretation of Quantum Physics’). … “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” (Erwin Schroedinger speaking about the ‘legitimate science’ interpretation of Quantum Physics).

(more…)