PREFACE:  We live in a WAVE-FIELD, an electromagnetic WAVE-FIELD wherein material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the WAVE-FIELD which constitutes a QUANTUM LOGIC relation.   Indigenous Aboriginals employ languages that are QUANTUM LOGIC based while WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGES (the Common Average European languages as Whorf classifies them) have an architecture which commonly employs BINARY LOGIC STRUCTURE.  When we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS “dumbed down” our LANGUAGE by giving it BINARY LOGIC based ARCHITECTURE, we introduced cognitive confusion such as FRAGMENTATION with an exposure to Schizophrenia and Paranoia as pointed out by Bohm.

Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky demonstrated that the our NATURAL COGNITIVE CAPABILITY is QUANTUM LOGIC based, and NO, this is not spoken about using the term ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ but in this essay I have explained Vygotsky’s findings which contradicted the standard WESTERN CULTURE views on language and schooling. Vygotsky pointed out that the natural process of learning employed a QUANTUM LOGIC structure, yet PIAGET and WESTERN SCHOOL TEACHING in general employs a ‘dumbed down’ BINARY LOGIC approach, as explained in this essay.  Thus the way we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘using language’ and ‘teaching children’ incorporates a DUMBING DOWN from QUANTUM LOGIC to BINARY LOGIC.  Vygotsky explains this and I have included his explanations in this essay, of course, using his terminology which makes no mention of ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ but the reader will find that he is using QUANTUM LOGIC in his key point of disagreement with Piaget, and yes, Piaget is using BINARY LOGIC where Vygotsky is pointing to how QUANTUM LOGIC is needed for a natural “LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT’ based learning experience.

Vygotsky says;

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

. . .

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.”

In Vygotsky’s first comment his ‘scientific’ relates to the ‘local and explicit’ (ontological) while his ‘spontaneous’ relates to the ‘nonlocal and implicit’ (relational unfolding).  His second comment is to critique Piaget’s treatment of these two processes as ‘independent’.

We can compare Piaget’s view to the standard WESTERN CULTURE simple viewing of ‘the TOWN GROWING’ local, explicit, ‘scientific’) and the LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMING (nonlocal, implicit) as “entirely separate, incommensurate processes” while Vygotsky opts for the ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ view wherein scientific (local, explicit) and spontaneous concepts (nonlocal, implicit) “represent two sides of the same concept formation”.  (as in; there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE which expresses the QUANTUM LOGIC relation.).

Vygotsky’s approach to education is essentially QUANTUM LOGIC based which is an approach designed to deal with inclusion in an all-including continuing transformation where the nonlocal and implicit is in a natural primacy over the local end explicit in order for the system to function in the presence of continuing transformation.

 

* * * * * *  END OF PREFACE * * * * * * 

 

:

 

The common WESTERN CULTURE understanding, influenced by Piaget (whom Vygotsky disagreed with), is that we have two separate modes of concept formation, ‘spontaneous’ (situational) and ‘structured’ (intentional) and that (according to Piaget) intentional concept formation prevails over situational concept formation. Vygotsky believed that Piaget (and thus mainstream Western thinking) had it wrong, … that there is only the one process of concept formation with two reciprocally complementary aspects (situational and intentional) and that the ‘situational’ aspect in this conjugate relation is in a natural precedence over ‘intentional’. 

 

“NOTE: compare this to the natural precedence of the FEMALE VALLEY in organizing ‘runoff’ water to comprise the ‘MALE ASSERTING ‘raging river’; i.e. the RAGING RIVER appears to have its own POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development, like the ploughing of the female furrow of the valley to author an ‘opening up’, however, it the reality is that that the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING, which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT is the deeper authoring influence while the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE-ASSERTING ‘RAGING RIVER’ is SECONDARY rather than PRIMARY. 

 

So, it is our ERROR OF GRAMMAR (as Nietzsche has coined it, that creates the illusion of LOCAL, EXPLICIT MALE-ASSERTING AUTHORING AGENCY even as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS substitute ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT that OBSCURES the NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING INDUCTIVE conjugate, the result being ‘LANGUAGE-based REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS’ which are ONE-SIDEDLY MALE ASSERTING, and while capturing GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, as if ON THEIR OWN, OBSCURES the natural CONJUGATES of SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION, these conjugates together constituting the continuing TRANSFORMATION affirmed by our sense-experience of inclusion therein.

 

The following citations from Vygotsky’s writings makes clear THIS IMPORTANT OPENING UP of our REALITY INTERPRETING approach that, in our natural mental capacities for interpreting reality, IMPLICIT awareness and EXPLICIT representation are conjugate aspects of ONE COMPLEX (real + imaginary) COMPREHENDING DYNAMIC.

(more…)