Archive for September 10, 2020
NONLOCALITY and the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR
0
How we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS confuse ourselves with our language and grammar.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” – Brutus, in ‘Julius Caesar’.
If I ‘go with the flow’ in pulling the boat up onto the beach, I nevertheless say; ‘I pulled the boat up on the beach’.
Life is like that, your working associates may ‘make you look good’, particularly if you are ‘their boss’.
Can we ever ‘really claim’ that ‘I did such and such’, like ‘mow the lawn’, … or should I be giving credit to the invention of the gasoline engine?
How ‘casual’ we are with our use of language and grammar. Nietzsche speaks of ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’ of NAMING and GRAMMAR which equips us to make simple statements that imply LOCAL actions and developments. This GRAMMAR based abstract conception of LOCALLY SOURCED action and development is what Nietzsche calls ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’.
WHY DO WE MAKE THIS DOUBLE ERROR? — because we live within a transforming relational continuum which is INEFFABLE because it and us are in continual flux. This all-including reality is also known as the Wave-field and ‘the Tao’. We can’t point to something which is everywhere at the same time such as the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao that we and everything are included in. In order to ‘get around’ this ineffable-ness of the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. our inclusion in a NONLOCAL dynamic that is greater than the forms that are included in it (since everything is in flux), we employ the DOUBLE ERROR. The first error is NAMING a flowing form to impute to it LOCAL thing-in-itself existence, and we conflate this with a second error of GRAMMAR to impute to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself the notional powers of LOCALLY SOURCING actions and developments. Now we’re talking! Of course this is not without a few snags that are going to ‘catch us up’ in our tricky attempt to sidestep the ineffability of our fluid reality.
SNAG NUMBER ONE: If a gathering is forming in the flow such as a crowd of human forms, we run into the ‘there is a tide in the affairs of man’ type of complication wherein, we may find ourselves in a situation akin to someone selling iced cokes on a blazing hot day. The DOUBLE ERROR constructions of language let us simply say that ‘we sold a lot of cokes’ which is a story about us and ‘our achievement’ as we are the SOURCE of that achievement. This sort of reality construction is the most common and it defines the ‘conservative’ view of reality which is the simple and straight forward (no complications) view of reality. “I sold a lot of cokes”. Is this TRUE?
Most Recent Comments