Archive for October, 2020
FORWARD: For those living on the surface of a sphere, ‘gathering’ is, at the same time, ‘scattering’. If we ‘stand back from visually observing either of these, we understand, instead of EITHER one OR the other wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO, the process of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE. GATHERING and SCATTERING, CLUSTERING and DISPERSING are NOT TWO but ONE. The mountain climber is intrigued by the exhilarating challenge of the climb to the summit and tends to dismiss his descent into valley-dwelling normality. Experiencing highs and lows is transformative, yet the appreciation of transformation seems, by WESTERN CULTURE habit, to be overshadowed by continuous repetition of pictures of climbers clustering around the summits. Transformation, which is nonlocal and implicit thus seems to be overshadowed by a focus on the local and explicit. The abstraction of the local and explicit is capturable with great visual acuity while transformation is the effective reality that vision can only infer. Our WESTERN CULTURE cultivates a confusing habit of substituting the explicit for the implicit in language-based reality construction.
* * *
Capturing our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum lies beyond the capability of language and grammar. The best we can do with language is to use it to construct mental representations that ALLUDE TO or INFER the fluid relational reality that lies intrinsically beyond the reach of language. In other words, since our sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field aka the Tao is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (that is the nature of the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’), … are constrained, by the limitations of language, to use language based representations to INFER the fluid reality that lies beyond EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT basics of language.
This note reviews this challenge of using language to ‘effable-ize the ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’.
I am using language to share these thoughts, and our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT language-based mode of representation has its limits that ‘show up’ in shortfalls in our ability to share sensory experience via language-based representations. Understanding the architecture associated with the reductions of sensory experience that we are forced to make in order to articulate even a REDUCED REPRESENTATION of such experience is non-trivial because the unabridged sensory experience is always out there beyond the reach of words. We can only make INFERENCE to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT by way our language being based on the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT. Sometimes we make very crude representational reductions of reality to share our experience and other times we make less crude representational reductions.
For example, we use very little experience grounded information in speaking in the visual imagery based terms of ‘the BIG DIPPER’, and use relatively more experiential grounding when we put words together to try to capture something as ‘connected’ and mobile as a CLUSTER of gnats or fruit-flies. The following is a brief review and deconstruction of our tactics for visually representing, or rather, trying to visually represent, fluid reality. The aim of this review is to point out the psychological confusion that can come with it.
* * *
There are three basic interfaces here which can to distinguished by the following class labels;
TITBAs: Things-in-themselves-by-APPEARANCE based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO: examples included ‘the Big Dipper’ which is a form based on OUR psychological ‘connecting of the dots’ that have very little to do with one another.
TITBOs: Things-in-themselves-by-ORGANIZATION based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO: examples include ‘the CLUSTERING’ of fruit flies or small insects forming ‘clouds’ which vary from smaller and more dense to larger and less dense while retaining their same population of constituents.
RAFs: Relational association FORMINGS which are NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE: examples include storming formings such as hurricaning and convecting currents which do NOT depend on the abstract (DOUBLE ERROR based) concept of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with their own (GRAMMAR-given) powers of SOURCING actions and developments that characterizes FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO conceptualization.
“(Canada) Living next to the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant” — Pierre Trudeau.
The large neighbour has no bad intention but when it rolls over in its sleep it can crush its smaller neighbour.
Neighbours are like the hexagonal cells in the beehive wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND (inhabitant and habitat, cell and matrix) are ONE. It is only NAMING and GRAMMAR and the intellect that splits FIGURE-and-GROUND-into-TWO.
The abstract splitting of FIGURE-and-GROUND-into-TWO gives rise to the abstract concept of GROWTH of the FIGURE, commonly without reference to the conjugate SHRINKING of GROUND.
GROWTH implies that THERE IS SOMETHING LOCAL that is GROWING as ‘intellectually enabled’ by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR. This LOCAL, one-sided GROWTH is understood as RATIO as in RATIONAL INTELLECTION or REASON (which obscures and SUBSTITUTES for TRANSFORMATION so that our understanding in terms of TRANSFORMATION is ABANDONED and we move forward on the abstract basis of REASON instead.
Instead of the honeybee cell belonging to a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE dynamic, our NAMING and GRAMMAR based language lets us LIFT OUT the FIGURE as if it were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF (FIGURE-and-GROUND-are then TWO) which opens the way to abstractly ANIMATING the FIGURE with GRAMMAR; i.e. the NAMING instantiated LOCAL thing-in-itself is, so we say, GROWING larger and more intricate and aesthetic (e.g. the initial circular and independent growing form called the ‘bee cell’ is TRANSFORMING, or more correctly, IS INVOLVED IN TRANSFORMATION since the hexagonal matrix is not LOCALLY SOURCED by ‘ITS’ “INTERNAL” CELLS. IN FACT, the cell matrix CANNOT BE EXPLAINED by way on ‘ITS CELLS’ since the individual cells DO NOT “KNOW” how to grow into HEXAGONS, … the HEXAGONAL configuration is the manifestation of a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE dynamic, as is basic in modern physics.
Whether we are orienting our attention to FIGURES such as CELLS or HUMANS, modern physics is informing us that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE! (Schroedinger, Bohm, Nietzsche et al)
RATIO is an abstraction that allows us to speak in terms of GROWTH of notional LOCAL-THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES given notional LOCAL EXISTENCE and LOCAL POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT, by, as Nietzsche points out, the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR. For example, we can … “SAY” … that ‘the HEXAGONAL CELL IS GROWING LARGER AND MORE PRODUCTIVE AS “ITS CONTENTS” DEVELOP, but this is a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING (the CELL) and GRAMMAR (using the verb GROW to impute a RATIO-based expansion of the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself. This is a synthetic, DOUBLE ERROR based ‘liberation’ of FIGURE-from-GROUND.
As Nietzsche points out, REASON derives from a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, for example “the TOWN is GROWING’.
We might also speak of a TOWNING in the transforming LANDSCAPE
What we have here are TWO representation options
OPTION 1: FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE. In this option, the TOWNING is like the spotting on a transforming apple. As the spot grows larger, the unspotted area shrinks in reciprocal proportion. This is the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE mode of understanding this development.
OPTION 2: FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO. In this option, the TOWN is understood as a LOCAL thing-in-itself that grows larger RELATIVE TO ITSELF. This is the so-called RATIO-NAL aka REASON based understanding and it is deeply entrenched in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT thinking. REASON is referred to by Nietzsche as ‘the DOUBLE ERROR’ of NAMING and GRAMMAR (first we name the spot on the transforming apple ‘the TOWN’ and then we conflate this with GRAMMAR and say ‘the TOWN is GROWING LARGER’. In other words we use RATIO to reference the GROWTH of the TOWN to ITSELF instead of acknowledging the pairing of the GROWING of the TOWN and the CONJUGATE SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS.
WHY DO WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use RATIONAL THINKING (OPTION 2) so extensively?
As Nietzsche pointed out, our WESTERN CULTURE language usage employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to impute LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.
This is the basis of RATIO-based aka RATIONAL aka REASON based understanding.
RATIO is a concept that, in turn, enables the concept of TRANSACTION.
Example: Fred sold three tons of topsoil to Jane.
Our understanding here is in terms of TRANSACTION, yet the reality is TRANSFORMATION; i.e. there is a hole in the ground over here and a big mound of topsoil over there. What is REALLY manifest is TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE, so WHY DON”T WE TELL IT LIKE IT IS AND SAY THAT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS TRANSFORMATION.
The challenge is that TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (purely relational) so an ARTICULATION of TRANSFORMATION would be INFINITE in the sense that it is ongoing and there is no end to it thus LANGUAGE is not up to the task of capturing TRANSFORMATION in a LOCAL and thus FINITE sense. Evidently, WE ARE INCLUDED IN TRANSFORMATION (I.E. WE ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM AKA THE WAVE-FIELD).
Of course, language is a valuable tool for sharing (SOME SEMBLANCE OF) our INEFFABL-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, so that it is worthwhile to BASTARDIZE the DYNAMIC REALITY that we would like to SHARE in order to render it SHAREABLE.
This BASTARDIZATION is achieved by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as Nietzsche has pointed out. The NAMING chops out a bit of ‘reality’ and imputes LOCAL existence to it, while GRAMMAR re-animates IN OUR PSYCHE, the chopped out bit of ‘reality’. Instead of DUNING as in NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION we have ‘the LOCAL DUNE that is GROWING LARGER and is MOVING towards the coast’
The RESULT is that we shift the focus of understanding from TRANSFORMATION to TRANSACTION. For example, when we excavate a truckload of topsoil and move it from here to there, we are, in reality, TRANSFORMING the LANDSCAPE. Such TRANSFORMATION IS “THE REALITY”, but RATIO-NALITY allows us REDUCE this TRANSFORMATION to TRANSACTION by focusing on ‘how much LESS there NOW is over here’ and ‘how much MORE there NOW is over there’ (e.g. the DESERT FLOOR is being swept bare here and the DUNE is GROWING LARGER AND LONGER over there).
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are plagued by dysfunction that is ‘built in’ to our cultural foundations, a phenomenon known as LOCKED-IN-BY-HIGH-SWITCHING-COSTS.
Einstein described this psycho-physical entrapment in terms of people who have laboured long and hard to climb to the peak of a mountain, but on reaching the summit and surveying the surrounding landscape, discover that they are not on the MAIN PEAK but only on a FOOTHILL. This predicament of LOCK-IN-BY-HIGH-SWITCHING-COSTS can not only trap people who have invested heavily in Microsoft Windows from switching to the Mac, it can trap WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS from switching from ‘reality’ based on RATIO-NAL intellection and its concept of GROWTH, to MODERN PHYSICS and EASTERN understanding of ‘reality’ based on INTUITIVE intellection and its concept of TRANSFORMATION.
For example while we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS understand as REAL, the language-inferred concept of GROWTH of a Town, EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS (and modern physics) understand this same physical phenomenon as TRANSFORMATION of the Landscape. GROWTH is a LOGICAL RATIO-based concept which is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT while TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT and while graspable by INTUITION, lies beyond the reductions of LOGIC and RATIO.
GROWTH is a psychological possibility when we notionally SPLIT FIGURE AND GROUND INTO TWO such as when we speak of the MOUNTAIN and the VALLEY as if they were TWO SEPARATE things as in FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO. TRANSFORMATION does not make this split and is a mode of comprehension in which FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.
Language allows us to play around ambiguously with these concepts such that one person (a WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT) may say ‘The Town is GROWING larger and more productive’ while another person (an EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT) may say ‘The Landscape is TRANSFORMING’.
WHICH IS REAL? Reflection will inform us that TRANFORMATION is affirmed by our sensory experience of inclusion in an all-encompassing relational TRANSFORMATION while GROWTH is a RATIO-based INTELLECTUAL abstraction which, as Nietzsche has pointed out, derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING (to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself existence) conflated with GRAMMAR (to impute the power of SOURCING actions and development to the NAMING-instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself.
While TRANSFORMATION as in ‘the TRANSFORMING Landscape’ is the relational SENSORY EXPERIENCE AFFIRMED REALITY, GROWTH as in ‘the GROWTH of the TOWN’ is INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION.
Everywhere in my philosophical investigations I keep bumping into the confusion coming from ambiguities in the basic architecture of our language; i.e. does the hurricane source the stirring up of the atmosphere or does the stirring up of the atmosphere source the hurricane?
These ambiguities are everywhere and are duly noted in the Zen koan of ‘wind-and-flag’ i.e. does the movement of the air source the movement of the flag or does the movement of the flag source movement of the air.
As modern physics and the understanding of EASTERN CULTURES will tell us, we don’t need to waste our time trying to solve this one ambiguity because it is based on the abstract concept of LOCAL SOURCING and there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING, there is only NOLOCAL TRANSFORMATION as is the nature of the Wave-field.
We are confusing ourselves with our own language; … more specifically, we are confusing ourselves by having built into our language the DOUBLE ERROR based concept of LOCAL SOURCING where the FIRST ERROR is NAMING which imputes the existence of a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF and we conflate this with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR that notionally endows the FIRST ERROR based THING-IN-ITSELF with ‘its own’ powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
This DOUBLE ERROR is how we construct the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING, and guess what this does for us. It allows us to build EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT actions and developments, whereas, without the DOUBLE ERROR, our language lacked the capability of dealing with TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
The DOUBLE ERROR doesn’t OVERCOME this problem that reality of TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE, it SIDESTEPS it by instead CONSTRUCTING A SUBSTITUTE REALITY that IS EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.
Philosophy, for me, has always been a means of putting PERCEPTION before JUDGEMENT. In the Buddhist story of the man and the horses, where his horse runs away (Maybe BAD maybe GOOD) but later returns with a pack of six wild horses (Maybe GOOD maybe BAD) whereupon his son breaks his leg when thrown from one of the wild horses he is trying to train (Maybe BAD maybe GOOD) and is passed over as the local Warlord conscripts all able bodied men to go to war (Maybe BAD, maybe GOOD), a war in which all those conscripted are overcome and killed by superior enemy forces.
As the Tai-Chi symbol of the Yin/Yang NONDUALITY suggests, putting PERCEPTION (of the transforming relational continuum) before JUDGEMENT may make sense.
These options of PERCEPTION and JUDGEMENT arise the gap between PHILOSOPHY (investigations into ‘what could be’) and RELIGION (knowledge of what is’).
This difference can crop up in regard to THANKS-GIVING as is explored in the following;
* * *
Mixing and matching (or attempts thereto) of philosophical investigations and personal theologically inspired emotions is pretty much impossible. A segue is needed to pass from the one universe into the other. A professing of religious belief that is based on love and faith is a powerful animating force. It is a force that brings with if JUDGEMENT that can divide the people of the world into separate groups, each embracing with their full heart, the understanding of their particular group, as can divide them from other groups with differing understandings.
The ORCHARD and the LANDSCAPE open the door of language-based understanding to TWO possibilities; i.e. the ORCHARD that we say ‘grows larger’ as implies the LOCAL and EXPLICIT existence of the ORCHARD and ascribes to it the DOUBLE ERROR based powers of GROWTH, … or, quite differently, … the LANDSCAPE which is continually TRANSFORMING which steals and diffuses the spotlight from the ORCHARD with its notional LOCAL thing-in-itself existence with its endowment of powers of SOURCING actions and development including it’s locally incipient GROWTH. While it is common to hear language-based conceptualizations featuring the GROWTH of the ORCHARD as if it were a LOCAL and EXPLICIT thing-in-itself as if FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO, … we also hear language-based conceptualizations featuring the transforming LANDSCAPE in which the ORCHARD has been cast in the manner of a boil in the flow wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.
If we START by imputing the existence of a LOCAL thing-in-itself (the ORCHARD) that we say GROWS larger OVER TIME, we are making use of RATIO-NAL INTELLECTION. If we, on the other hand, start with the concept of the transforming LANDSCAPE, we are appealing to RELATIONAL INTELLECTION which is purely relative and has no absolute foundation as in the case of RATIO which implies that SOME LOCAL-THING-in-ITSELF that was smaller has GROWN into a larger version of ITSELF. This conceptualizing has no dependence on influences coming from beyond the notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF; i.e. the implication is one of GROWTH in the sense of RATIO of its present larger state from its prior smaller state. On the other hand, the term LANDSCAPE implies something that is in a continual condition of TRANSFORMATION in which the ORCHARD is included, NOT as a local thing-in-itself but as a relational form in the fluidity of the transforming relational continuum.
In terms of language-based sharing of visual and other sensory experience, TALK in terms of the ORCHARD as if it were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own (GRAMMAR-GIVEN) powers of SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT such as GROWTH (of a local thing in space that ratios up over TIME), gives us a LOCAL FOCUS that is ABSTRACT but nevertheless LOCAL and FINITE and far easier to capture and share in language than the transforming LANDSCAPE which is unbounded in spacetime as are the relational features in the transforming relational spacetime continuum.
It is evident that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have opted in our reductive language-based conceptualization of reality NOT for that which is most true according to our sensory experience (the transforming LANDSCAPE) but for that which is most easy in our intellectual sharing (the local ORCHARD that grows larger (ratios up) over TIME).
In general, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use RATIO based concepts to render TRANSFORMATION that is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT in the SUBSTITUTE terms of the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, thus we speak of NON-realities such as GROWTH (and its shadow DECLINE), PROGRESS (and its shadow SETBACK) and IMPROVEMENT (and its shadow DETERIORATION). These are NOT REAL (there is only TRANSFORMATION) but, the thinking they induce has emotional impact for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.
While the RATIO-NALIZING of TRANSFORMATION delivers up abstract snapshot PICTURES that, in the culture of the EAST, only qualify for use as tools of INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … these RATIO-NALIZATIONS that are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT are employed by us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, as the basis of our OPERATIVE REALITY.
A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein – Philosophical Investigations.
* * *
This note opens up a view to why our WESTERN CULTURE is cultivating social dysfunction that is continuing to intensify. The problem is our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT orientation to RATIONAL INTELLECTION aka REASON as a FIRST ORDER tool for UNDERSTANDING REALITY.
As David Bohm, Nietzsche and others have pointed out, we have INTELLIGENCE-and-INTUITION which orient to TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, and then we have RATIONAL INTELLECTION which orients to GROWTH which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT
What is going wrong on the scale of an entire CULTURE is that our WESTERN CULTURE has put RATIONAL INTELLECTION as is capturable in explicit language (BECAUSE it is a reduction to the LOCAL and EXPLICIT) into an unnatural precedence over INTELLIGENCE and INTUITION with attunes to TRANSFORMATION which, because it is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT is NOT CAPTURABLE in explicit LANGUAGE. The title of the ORCHARD (local and explicit) and the LANDSCAPE (nonlocal and implicit) was chosen to highlight this difference in our modes of understanding; RATIONALITY which is informed by the abstractions of LOCAL and EXPLICIT and INTELLIGENCE/INTUITION which is informed by the sensory experience of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.
The concern expressed in philosophers such as Nietzsche and Alan Watts is a concern that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are taking the crude tool of RATIONALITY aka REASON as a substitute conception of REALITY. REASON can inform us on the LOCAL EXPLICITS of the ORCHARD but it CANNOT inform us on the NONLOCAL IMPLICATIONS of LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMATION. The misplaced precedence given to RATIONALITY (GROWTH of the ORCHARD) over INTELLIGENCE (the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE) and how this leads to a dysfunctional sense of ‘reality’ is the focus of this essay. REASON aka RATIONALITY which abstractly splits out the FIGURE from the GROUND (e.g. the ORCHARD from the LANDSCAPE) and constructs a reality oriented to the GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and QUALITIES of the FIGURE as if INDEPENDENT of the GROUND, can lead to an abandonment of INTELLIGENCE.
Consider how WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are locked into THINKING in BINARY LOGICAL terms. Take the concept “GROWTH” , for example. It carries with it the BINARY implications of FIGURE and GROUND as TWO, and we use it all the time in our language based representations of reality.
Newton tried to develop a science of dynamics that would handle the movement of three or more bodies under one another’s mutual influence. He couldn’t get there and had to stop with TWO BODY movement as in FIGURE and GROUND as TWO.
“An exact solution for three bodies, exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind” – Isaac Newton
I am going to connect this with Bohm’s point that we have the capability of INTELLIGENCE based understanding but commonly employ the abstractions of RATIONAL thought. Nietzsche makes the same point in his critique of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which, together, conjure up the BINARY ABSTRACTION of GROWTH. We talk about GROWTH as if it were something REAL, but it is just the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-abstracted-asTWO (otherwise the FIGURE could not GROW without the GROUND reciprocally SHRINKING to accommodate such GROWTH). What is REAL is NOT GROWTH but TRANFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in a Wave-dynamic. Since the TRANSFORMING relational continuum is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (i.e. the Wave-field is ‘everywhere at the same time’), The abstract DOUBLE ERROR concept of THING-IN-ITSELF GROWTH serves as an expedient that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.
EXAMPLE: We could argue over whether the DYNAMICS of the HURRICANE (including GROWTH) source the dynamics of the ATMOSPHERE, or whether the dynamics of the ATMOSPHERE source the GROWTH of the HURRICANE. In reality, the HURRICANE (FIGURE) and ATMOSPHERE (GROUND) are ONE TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM so we don’t have to live with the ambiguous question of whether the HURRICANE sources the stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE or whether the ATMOSPHERE sources the stirring up the HURRICANE. In the modern physics FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE understanding, there is only TRANSFORMATION of the relational continuum (Wave-field) and there is no such thing as SOURCING of LOCAL actions and developments. The WESTERN CULTURE conservative – liberal POLAR opposition as to whether SOURCING is ‘one-to-many’ (one bad apple SOURCES rotting of the whole barrel) or ‘many-to-one’ (it takes a whole community to SOURCE the raising of a good/bad child) is an unresolvable dichotomy because, in the reality or our sensory exerpience, unlike in the DOUBLE ERROR abstractions of NAMING and GRAMMAR, THERE IS NO LOCAL SOURCING, there is only TRANSFORMATION as is the basic nature of the Wave-field aka the Tao.
Ok, this is going to ‘get us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into trouble’, this reduction of everything to BINARY LOGIC as in the reduction to TWO-BODY dynamics just because NEWTON’s mathematics could NOT handle the 3+ body problem (where motion of three or more bodies derives from their simultaneous mutual influence). For example, three or more spherical soap bubbles squeezing together involves simultaneous mutual influence that manifests as transformation of the bubble spheres into hexagonal cells. Thus Newton’s theory not being able to handle the THREE-BODY PROBLEM boils down the psyche not being able to REDUCE all dynamics to EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT abstraction. TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT. If we constrain our understanding to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT as in the DOUBLE ERROR constructions of NAMING and GRAMMAR, then we exclude TRANSFORMATION from our these language-based conceptualizing of reality.
TRANSFORMATION requires the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in Wave-frield reality, while representations in the DOUBLE ERROR terms of NAMING-instantiated LOCAL things-in-themselves-with GRAMMAR-instantiated powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments gets by with the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND are TWO. The issue is not that the latter is MORE TRUE than the FORMER, the issue is that the former is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT while the latter is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT so that if we want to go with UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH LANGUAGE, we must stick with the DOUBLE ERROR constructions of NAMING and GRAMMAR, whereas if we want to understand reality in the full-blown sense of the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, we must understand that it can’t be reduced to explicit and direct language and language-based sharing and that language can only go so far as to serve as INFERENCE of the fluid reality that lies beyond FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO capture..
PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION are an abstract binary duality that fabricates the impressions of local and explicit material object based reality, … the effable substitute that we use in place of the ineffable-because-nonlocal-and-implicit TRANSFORMATION, the actual reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.
This SUBSTITUTE REALITY is NOT a REDUCTION but a SUBSTITUTE and it is BINARY
One might say that this is where EAST and WEST split, in that while this BINARY abstraction that trades out PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION for TRANSFORMATION is expedient for rendering EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT the reality of TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NOLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, it comes with BAGGAGE.