The data are coming together to say this to me, … WESTERN CULTURE is undergoing a kind of self-implosion which is captured by some (as in attached article by Gilchrist) as dropping out the RIGHT BRAIN and GOING SOLELY WITH THE LEFT BRAIN (in his two-brains model).  Although I deal in wave-fields rather than split brain theory, he is clearly talking about a real shift in the general ‘understanding approach’ of WESTERN CULTURE which is tied to our differing LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING APPROACHES.  That is, there are differences in LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING APPROACH between indigenous aboriginals who employ “FLOW-BASED” linguistic conceptualizing such as “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” wherein EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX INCLUDING OURSELVES, … to “BEING-BASED” linguistic conceptualizing such as “THE TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods”, and my friend HENRY is GROWING DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods”.

 

I am ready to publish my understanding of what is going on here, which reviews the findings of Bohm, Vygotsky and others, and so I am open to receiving suggestions from anyone in regard to potential facilitators (people who edit and ‘coach’ the writer as to how to EFFECTIVELY present such materials).  Or if anyone reading this may be interested in being a kind of EDITOR/ADVISOR, that could help me get these understandings of things into an appealing and digestible presentation form. (my contact address is emiliano@goodshare.org)

 

Basically, my presentation will take the reader (or listener or viewer) through an understanding of how our presentations to ourselves of our wave-field world, we have split into two conjugate parts (male asserting/actualizing and female accommodating/enabling  AND THEN, DROPPED OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING part (component) and SUBSTITUTED IN ITS PLACE,  ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE, so that our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING of REALITY has DRIFTED INTO a ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING based LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING scheme (e.g. we have shifted from ‘to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose’, to simply one-sided male asserting/actualizing constructs that DROP OUT the FEMALE ENVELOPE (the season which is somehow appropriate for certain types of action, as also implied in Shakespeare’s “there is a tide in the affairs of men…”.   In terms of the conjugate relational combination of female accommodating/enabling (the appropriate season) and male asserting/actualizing action, what commonly happens in our WESTERN CULTURE linguistic conceptualizing is that while our actions continue to be inductively shaped by unfolding events, our language has shifted towards purely one-sided captures of WHAT WE DO (the male asserting/actualizing conjugate aspect) DROPPING OUT the predominating, ever-present female accommodating/enabling situation.  YES, WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN ONE-SIDED PLANS OF MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING,  AND CARRY THEM OUT without sensitivity to the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING conditions.  For example, the CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE.

 

There is also the CONTRASTING views of ROBINSON CRUSOE who tried to reshape the SOUTH SEAS DESERTED ISLAND environment he was marooned on, into something more like what he had become accustomed to in European home situation, … and SUZANNE DE LA PACIFIQUE who was also marooned on a SOUTH SEAS DESERTED ISLAND and who, instead of imposing her FRENCH customs on her environment, opened herself up to a personal transformation putting her in HARMONY with the NEW ENVIRONMENT she found herself in.  In other words, we are always in this confluence of what WESTERN CULTURE might call the NATURE-NURTURE influences based on the model of the HUMAN BEING which is notionally a SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT BEING with internal action asserting/actualizing powers as well as capabilities to respond and adapt to environmental influences.   Such a model is BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM based (there are either MATERIAL ENTITIES OR EMPTY SPACE and thus very different from the indigenous aboriginal and Modern physics understandings which are NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM based where the individual is an INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT flow-feature in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

 

Vygotsky raises an important point (essential to in-depth understanding) here, in that WE CAN’T LEGITIMATELY SPLIT what is essentially the WAVE-FIELD into a PEAK (male asserting/actualizing) and a trough (female accommodating/enabling) and then KEEP THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING while TOSSING OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING, … NOT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE FEMALE COMPONENT but BECAUSE THESE TWO DO NOT SPLIT APART, THEY ARE FLIP SIDES OF A SINGLE COINAGE (which is why we have to have complex (real + imaginary) mathematics in dealing with our WAVE-FIELD reality.  Vygotsky criticized Piaget for Piaget’s SPLITTING APART of SCIENTIFIC (local and explicit) and SPONTANEOUS (nonlocal and implicit) linguistic conceptualization, pointing out that these dual aspects of language are CONJUGATE and like the peak and trough of a wave, DO NOT SPLIT APART INTO TWO SEPARATE THINGS so that one could KEEP THE MALE ASSERTING PEAK and DROP OUT the encumbering FEMALE TROUGH as in our commonly used WESTERN CULTURE linguistic conceptualizing scheme..

 

This screw up appears to come from EGO supports the notion of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development which is NOT REAL but a fabrication based on the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR; e.g. ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ which makes no mention of the conjugate SHRINKING of WILDERNESS.  ACHTUNG!  NOTA BENE!  We are making the same mistake that Piaget made that Vygotsky pointed out, THE GROWING OF THE TOWN and the SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS … ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT ACTIONS, they are CONJUGATE aspects of the ONE DYNAMIC of TRANSFORMATION of the overall LANDSCAPE.  Vygotsky CATCHES PIAGET in making the MISTAKE of BUILDING INTO OUR WESTERN CULTURE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM the practice of teaching our children (too) SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC based linguistic conceptualizing.  This is the source of many problems in WESTERN CULTURE social dynamics and it is the reason why WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have NOT accepted, as makes sense and as the indigenous aboriginals and Modern physics have, the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM as the foundation for linguistic conceptualizing.  Vygotsky has pointed out this MAJOR ERROR which persists in the WESTERN CULTURE family of linguistic conceptualizing schemes.

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific [local and explicit] and spontaneous [nonlocal and implicit] concepts represents two sides of the same concept formation”  [implying a WAVE-BASED STRUCTURE].

“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.” –Vygotsky

 

THIS is pointing to a FOUNDATIONALLY IMPORTANT ERROR in our WESTERN CULTURE linguistic conceptualizing scheme which Vygotsky is flagging; i.e. while our observations support a WAVE-FIELD based structure of the world we are living in and ‘talking about’, wherein the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MATERIAL FORMS AND THEIR ACTIONS ARE ONLY APPEARANCE (e.g. the TOWN is GROWING) while the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT ENERAGY-CHARED PLENUM is the REALITY (i.e. the LOCAL and EXPLICIT CONDENSATIONS of the PLENUM (wave-field) are only APPEARANCE (Schaumkommen, in Schroedinger’s language).

(more…)