hi X

re our brief discussion on ‘what I am working on’, here is a ‘bit’ more of an explanation.

 

We live in a world that is continually TRANSFORMING and it makes sense to devise a LANGUAGE to share our experiences in it, that is capable of dealing with TRANSFORMATION and that is what the indigenous aboriginals did and when they talk in terms of STRANDS IN A WEB, they are capturing the INTERCONNECTIONS and INTERDEPENDENCIES that are an innate aspect of the ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM that we share inclusion in.   As Zen scholar Alan Watts has pointed out, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS made a big mistake by giving the abstration of “BEING” a foundational role in our LANGUAGE based conceptualizing scheme.  For example we are stuck with saying things like ‘The avalanche crashed down the mountainside and spilled into the valley below’.   FINE, except that THE MOUNTAIN IS NO LONGER THE SAME MOUNTAIN WHEN THE AVALANCHE MATERIAL BREAKS OFF, and THE VALLEY IS NO LONGER THE SAME VALLEY as it fills up with AVALANCHE DEBRIS.  The REALITY is, as Heraclitus rightly said, “EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX” because we are living in a TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

 

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR LANGUAGE HERE?   As Zen scholar Alan Watts points out (and many others), it is not wise to use a language design that gives a foundational role to “BEING” when the world we are trying to capture with such language is a TRANSFORMING WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN CONTINUAL FLUX.  This is the problem that those working on Modern physics RAN INTO in their documenting of their philosophical investigations. For example, David Bohm, author of the 1980 classic Physics text “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”) observed the following, as cited by his associate F. David Peat;

 

What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.

 

David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.

 

A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” 

– F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

 

So, we are living in a world where EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and where “THINGS” including people, are “CONDENSATIONS of the all-including ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM aka WAVE-FIELD” in which case these CONDENSATIONS are INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, a reality that indigenous aboriginals capture in their flow-based language as follows, and I will juxtapose this with the Modern physics understanding to highlight the common understanding that we are included condensations in an energy-charged PLENUM in which case everyone is in some way INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT;

 

MODERN PHYSICS:   Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” (David Bohm).    [the CONDENSATION of the PLENUM is “BOTH” itself “AND” the PLENUM it is included in]

 

INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURE: Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.” (Chief Seattle)

(more…)