We have BINARY LOGIC and we have QUANTUM LOGIC and we can capture our impressions of REALITY using EITHER.

 

BINARY LOGIC is inherently ambiguous with respect to its deploying in representing natural phenomena; e.g. if we use MALE ASSERTING to say the HURRICANE is STIRRING up the ATMOSPHERE, we IMPLY, as a kind of GHOST possibility, the FEMALE INDUCTIVE conjugate, that the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE.

 

This conjugate splitting of reality into Male and Female ambiguity arises from the incapacity of NAMING and GRAMMAR based language architecture to capture SPHERICAL SPACE reality, our sense-experience reality of inclusion in the WAVE-FIELD, the transforming relational continuum, reality as understood in Modern physics.

Our visual sensing is easily and quickly given representation in terms of LOCAL, EXPLICIT FORMS  (its not the forms which are LOCAL and EXPLICIT but our REPRESENTATIONS of them)  which can either be CLOSED as in MALE-ASSERTING (e.g. the TOWN is GROWING, .. or FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING (e.g. the WILDERNESS is SHRINKING).   The OPTION to split our REPRESENTATION OF REALITY into TWO CONJUGAL POLAR OPPOSITES opens up AMBIGUITY in the language we use to share our experiences of reality and thus complicates the challenge of coming to some common understanding of the reality we share inclusion in.   While the WESTERN CULTURE unwritten rule is to employ the MALE-ASSERTIVE branch of the BIPOLAR optional representation of reality, the polar opposite option of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING reality representing option is also an option and has a presence like a loose cannon on a ship’s deck, making unexpected interventions in the language based representation process.

This ambiguity arises only in our WESTERN CULTURE because we employ language architecture that reduces our experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION to the DOUBLE ERROR terms of NAMING and GRAMMAR wherein we experience reality (or try to) in terms of NAMING-given LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-given powers of AUTHORING actions and development.   This scheme SPLITS “our language based representation of reality (the transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD aka the TAO, into TWO BINARY LOGIC based CONJUGATES we call MATTER and SPACE and in expressing them with BINARY LOGIC, we define them as MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of one another, whereupon the AMBIGUITY arises as to which one is in the ‘DRIVER’S SEAT’?  We are left with an open choice of “EITHER” the HURRICANE stir up the ATMOSPHERE? ….”OR” the ATMOSPHERE stirs up the HURRICANE.   This “BINARY LOGIC AMBIGUITY” is inescapable WHEN we INSIST upon a language architecture that REDUCES our REPRESENTATION of reality to terms that are LOCAL and EXPLICIT (MECHANISTIC) instead of following the practice of the EAST and Modern physics where language architecture must be able to deal with the FLUID and thus NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT nature of the transforming relational continuum as being a basic feature of reality.

So, it is WORTH KEEPING MIND that the AMBIGUOUS OPTION of MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-ACCOMMODATIVE “REPRESENTATION APPROACHES” for language based expression of “REALITY” ONLY EMERGE when we insist on a language design architecture that embodies a reduction to the LOCAL and EXPLICIT.  In those language architectures that preserve the fluid nature of the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, the TROUBLESOME AMBIGUITY DOES NOT ARISE.   And I say ‘TROUBLESOME AMBIGUITY’ because this undeclared CHOICE of reality representations really does throw a wrench into the pursuit of coming to an common understanding of the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in.   While some of us are, for example, assuming that the HURRICANE is stirring up the ATMOSPHERE (the Male-Assertive reality option), some (others) of us are assuming that the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE (the Female-Inductive reality option.

This split manifests in the polarized division between CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL since the former believe that the INDIVIDUAL is the ASSERTIVE AUTHOR of organized actions and developments while the latter believe that the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE is the INDUCTIVE AUTHOR of organized actions and developments.

(more…)