A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF HOW PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS REFUTE “WESTERN REALITY”
This reportage on philosophical investigations into the meaning of our everyday ‘reality’ as we try to establish it through language reaffirms the findings of Mach, Nietzsche and Bohm, … as well as Poincaré, Wittgenstein, Schroedinger and others. There is much commonality in these findings but also significant differences.
Disagreements over ‘what is reality’ abound and different cultures deal with this differently since, for example, while WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS believe that there reality is ‘in common’ and thus DEBATE over ‘who has the best understanding of reality’, the resolution of which is established by the tongue-in-cheek principle of Lafontaine; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’ (the understanding of the strongest is always the best). In the EAST, the indigenous aboriginal culture employs the ‘learning circle’ wherein participants share their unique personal sense-experiences of reality such that the ‘take-away’ for circle participants is an ineffable-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT ‘relational’ understanding, even though the shared ‘inputs’ are effable-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.
What ‘comes through’ generally is that in society at large, we tend to DIVIDE on the basis of understanding reality in one or more of three manners; REDUCTIONISM, HOLISM and TRANSFORMATION.
REDUCTIONISM (conservatism) is an understanding of reality based on belief in male-assertive LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments as if ‘from a single point of light’ (or ‘particle’). HOLISM (liberalism) is an understanding of reality based on belief in female-inductive LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments as if from a social collective. TRANSFORMATION is based on NONLOCAL AUTHORLESS emergence.
For example, the REDUCTIONIST/conservative will see the HURRICANE as AUTHORING a male-assertive stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE while the HOLIST/liberal will see the ATMOSPHERE as AUTHORING a female-inductive stirring up of the HURRICANE. Both of these options imply LOCAL AUTHORING and both are EFFABLE by way of NAMING-and-GRAMMAR (the ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ cited by Nietzsche).
TRANSFORMATION, on the other hand, is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and thus INEFFABLE, although it is the Wave-field reality aka the Tao which is everywhere-at-the-same-time, which is the nature of WAVE-FIELD. The COMBINED implication of the EARTH EXTRUDING new (volcano-effusing) materials and the EARTH SUBDUCTING established CRUST is TRANSFORMATION. That is, the coniunctio oppositorum of the MALE ASSERTIVE EXTRUSION and the FEMALE INDUCTIVE SEDUCTION is TRANSFORMATION wherein there is no longer any need for the notion of an AUTHOR. Instead of the EARTH EXTRUDING-and-the-EARTH-SUBDUCTING, these two imply an AUTHORLESS, androgynous EARTHING in the Wave-field.
The notion of ‘AN EARTH’ as the androgynous coincidentia opporitorum involving AUTHORING of both EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION gives way to the AUTHORLESS phenomenon of a purely relational EARTHING or PLANETING in the Wave-field. This EARTHING is NOT a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, … i.e. it is NEITHER a MALE-EXTRUDING THING-IN-ITSELF NOR A FEMALE SUBDUCTING THING-IN-ITSELF but an androgynous THINGLESSNESS without local AUTHORING properties as is the nature of Wave-field forms.
UNDERSTANDING THINGLESSNESS is by way of UNDERSTANDING HOLOGRAPHIC REALITY where ‘everything is in flux’.
UNDERSTANDING the INEFFABLE is one thing, but SHARING what we understand is another thing, and in order to develop language to support sharing of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, the INEFFABLE reality must be ‘compromised’ in one way or another (the male-assertive REDUCTIONIST compromise where ‘the HURRICANE is AUTHORING the stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE or the female-inductive HOLIST compromise where ‘the ATMOSPHERE is AUTHORING the stirring up of the HURRICANE.
In both cases, there is the psychological impression of LOCAL AUTHORING of action and development. We use language to impose this psychological SPLIT by virtue of language being incapable of directly capturing TRANSFORMATION and thus forcing the REDUCTIONIST and HOLIST splitting so that some of us speak in terms that ‘the TOWN is AUTHORING its own GROWTH and development (the male-assertive-reductionist local authoring view), … while others are speaking in terms of ‘the LANDSCAPE is AUTHORING the development of TOWNS’ (the female-inductive-holist local authoring view). DOES the TOWN author, by assertive action, the inflating and filling in of the LANDSCAPE’ in the manner of the male organ in the female receptacle, or does the LANDSCAPE author, by seduction, the emergence and expansion of the TOWN in the manner of the female organ that induces the swelling and growth of the male insertion? Is the seductive CUNTRY the primary agency or is the asserting TOWN the primary agency?
Evidently, language is not sufficiently equipped for capturing what is REALLY going on which imposes a danger to our psychological well-being insofar as our language-based constructions of reality are falling short on either the male assertive (reductionist) side of expression or on the female inductive (holistic) side of expression.
Physics, being a language-based form of knowledge-sharing has an exposure with regard to the limitations of language (such as being able to capture and share representations ONLY in a reductionist (conservative) or holist (liberal) fashion, the reality of TRANSFORMATION being NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and thus INEFFABLE (beyond language’s representation capability). BUT MEANWHILE, WE ARE NOT “UNAWARE” OF THIS SHORTFALL OF LANGUAGE BECAUSE OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE INFORMS US THROUGH ‘CHOICELESS AWARENESS’. This means that our SENSE-EXPERIENCE-INFORMED PSYCHOLOGICAL AWARENESS is more deeply informing than our intellectual-language-articulable RATIONAL KNOWING. This means that our psyche has comprehending capability that extends beyond the reach of language-stimulated intellection.
The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics. The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed. From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical,
No-one ever said that language was capable of fully capturing our sense-experience and such would seem intuitively to be out of the question, so that reducing sense-experience to language-based expression will inevitably involve ‘drop-out’. This leaves us with an exposure to schizophrenia, as pointed out by Bohm since the reduction of sense-experience to language splits into the two options of REDUCTIONISM (conservatism) and HOLISM (liberalism) available through spoken and written language communications.
PSYCHOLOGICALLY, we can make that intuitive leap from the bipolar opposites of male-assertive authoring and female-inductive authoring to AUTHORLESS TRANSFORMATION, as where we see the EARTH AUTHORING male-assertive EXTRUSIONS and the EARTH AUTHORING female-subductive INTRUSIONS, this coniunctio oppositorum, INTUITIVELY comprising the one NON-AUTHOR driven dynamic of TRANSFORMATION in which EARTHING is an included relational dynamic rather than a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF.
BUT IF WE ‘BALK’ and fail to make the intuitive leap, we are condemned to that schism which divides reductionists/conservatives and holists/liberals into POLAR OPPOSING CAMPS with their interminable-because-innately-unresolvable polarizing disagreements, and for those who don’t like to fight with their brothers and sisters, this schism can be ‘swallowed’ into one’s own psychological ‘internals’ as in ‘BIPOLAR DISORDER’ and “SCHIZOPHRENIA’. The way out for those so afflicted, beyond switching to an EASTERN culture, is to restore the natural primacy of sense-experience of inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION, over language-based rational intellection.
* * * END OF EPILOGUE * * *
There are many philosophical investigations that point to how screwed up our popular WESTERN CULTURE conceptualization of reality is, and there is a CONSISTENCY to them. By ‘them’ I include the philosophical investigations of Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm, Poincaré, Wittgenstein, Schroedinger and others. I would include Einstein in this but with the proviso that Einstein and Mach disagreed over ‘the existence of particles’ or ‘atoms’, an abstraction that is preserved in the present day ‘consensus version’ of Modern physics by probability theory (wave-particle duality). See footnote .
Now you may be thinking, how is he going to write a BRIEF account of ‘reality’ after having introduced such a complex idea as arguments over Wave-particle duality and the probability theory ‘solution’ contested by Mach, which as Mach pointed out, leads to the need to UNIFY physics and psychology. How much explanation is THAT going to take?
My approach in this note is to point to how these different views manifest in our psychological impressions of reality in terms of either FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (the Wave-field view) and FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (the Particle view) and to our WESTERN CULTURE historical architecting of language with a BUILT-IN FIGURE-and-GROUND-AS-TWO …”REALITY ARCHITECTURE”.
If we can see how this can SPLIT us into TWO DIFFERENT CAMPS, which we might call EAST and WEST (recall that Bohm acknowledges that indigenous aboriginal languages preserve the UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS of sense-experience reality as in the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE view of reality.
AND, NO, THIS REALLY “IS NOT” DIFFICULT STUFF! because we know how to employ either/both of these approaches to comprehending reality as the following SIMPLE EXAMPLE shows;
[EAST] In the relational language architectures such as indigenous aboriginal cultures where FIGURE-and-GROUND-is-ONE, … we say that “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” which accommodates reality where everything is in flux, consistent with Modern physics.
[WEST] In our WESTERN CULTURE binary logical EITHER matter OR space language architecture, the same sense-experience is reported as THE TOWN IS GROWING LARGER AND MORE POPULOUS AND PRODUCTIVE.
NOTA BENE! THERE IS A “DOUBLE ERROR” in the [WEST] language based representation of reality. The DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR is what stimulates the psyche’s construction of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments. This is of KEY IMPORTANCE in understanding the difference between the language-based REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS of WEST and EAST. — THERE IS NO “DOUBLE ERROR” in the [EAST] presentation of the same sense experience phenomenon.
One more thing to keep in mind is that this brings forth TWO types of LOGIC and we are using LOGIC in language to construct REPRESENTATIONS OF “REALITY”. The EAST’s linguistic REPRESENTATION OF REALITY employs the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE while the WEST’s linguistic REPRESENTATION OF REALITY employs the EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.
If YOU personally observe, from a hill overlooking YOUR TOWN, the changes to “THAT TOWN” in the PASSAGE OF “TIME” that you term “ITS GROWTH”, …. I will have already captured YOUR psyche in my ‘spider-web trap’ with my WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE, because ‘changes to the TOWN’ simply CONCRETIZES the abstract concept of the TOWN as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of AUTHORING growth and development. OK, its true that you may be understanding your sense experience in the EAST manner but just using language in the way of the WEST. One would have to explore further, such as your reaction to an indigenous aboriginal who is claiming that what is going on is NOT GROWTH of the TOWN as if that were a complete statement, but also, a SHRINKAGE of the WILDERNESS in which case the proposition that ‘the GROWTH OF THE TOWN is a FALSEHOOD without making mention of the conjugate SHRINKAGE of the Wilderness.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are SO ACCUSTOMED to thinking in the ABSTRACT DOUBLE ERROR terms of NAMING and GRAMMAR that we find NOTHING AMISS in that sort of DOUBLE ERROR based language. But if one REFLECTS on what that language is doing for us, one can easily see that it is CONJURING UP the psychological impression of LOCAL AUTHORING. That’s what the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR DOES! This language-based DOUBLE ERROR is a useful tool in the sense that it allows the speaker/writer to INSERT LOCAL INTELLECTUAL PSEUDO-REALITY into language-based representations of the NONLOCAL SENSE-REALITY, recasting the latter’s FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE topology into the former’s FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO topology.
By contrast, the indigenous aboriginal languages are consistent with Modern physics in delivering representations wherein EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX as in ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE. (Note that ‘towning’ in the ‘transforming landscape’ has the ‘figure-and-ground-as-one’ topology.)
While the conceptualization stimulated in the psyche by “the TOWN IS GROWING” is a RATIO-based (aka a ‘rational’ or ‘reason’ based) concept; i.e. a ONE-SIDED RATIO-nal conceptualizing which SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE OF WILDERNESS, , the conceptualization stimulated in the psyche by the proposition; ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” captures the complex conjugate REALITY supported by our sense experience wherein, at the same time as the TOWN GROWS, the WILDERNESS SHRINKS because there are NOT REALLY TWO realities going on here, but only the one reality of TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT.
NOTE THAT our WESTERN CULTURE psychological preference (or habit) is for capturing our sense experience in terms that are LOCAL and EXPLICIT, a requirement that leads to language architecture that delivers representations such as THE TOWN IS GROWING LARGER AND MORE POPULOUS AND PRODUCTIVE which gives the impression that THIS THING CALLED “THE TOWN” is a kind of CORNUCOPIA that is fountaining forth people (see the population rise on the signs which mark one’s ENTERING INTO and DEPARTING FROM … “THE TOWN”. By implying that the TOWN GROWS, we impute to the FIGURE, INDEPENDENCE OF THE GROUND; i.e. we deliver a topology of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO.
As Heraclitus wrote, when people are privy to explanations like the above, they seem to awaken and listen and hear it, but immediately fall asleep again after hearing it. That’s what will very likely happen in the case of this here explanation also, because we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have constructed a huge complex of interrelated conceptualizations based on the notional LOCAL EXISTENCE OF THE TOWN that meshes with the notion of LOCAL BEING where one ENTERS and DEPARTS from the TOWN and where PRODUCTS are PRODUCED in the TOWN and shipped out to other places, and of course, RAW MATERIALS are IMPORTED INTO THE TOWN as well. All of these statements imply a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO topology while our sense experience informs us of the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE topology of the TOWNING-in-the-TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.
INSTEAD OF EMPLOYING RELATIONAL LANGUAGE (such as Algonquin) CAPABLE OF CONVEYING TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE we use the Standard Average European language architectural rendering in terms of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to NOT ONLY INVENT THE TOWN AS LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, but also, in conjunction with this NAMING-instantiated BEING, complement it with GRAMMAR-given POWERS OF AUTHORING actions and developments. This DOUBLE ERROR language formulation gives a sense of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments as serves up WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
SHALL I NOW POSE THE SOMEWHAT OBVIOUS BUT RELEVANT QUESTION?
ARE WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ABLE TO ESCAPE FROM OUR LIFE-LONG CONDITIONING OF EMPLOYING THE FIGURE-AND-GROUND-AS-TWO “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” wherein we SPEAK in terms of “A TOWN” as a notional thing-in-itself with its own (notional) powers of AUTHORING actions and developments?
Wittgenstein posed this question in slightly different wording and answered it as well.
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.
Many of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS will not hesitate in affirming that WE HAVE SEEN OUR HOME TOWN GROW and we can talk about the New THEATRE and when it came and the new ICE-SKATING ARENA and when it came and while we can swear to the REALITY of these DEVELOPMENTS that are involved in the GROWTH of our TOWN, …. you may hear nary a word from coyote and bear concerning the SHRINKAGE of their WIlderness lands, even if those delivering their documentation-back stories of the GROWTH of the TOWN swear on a stack of Bibles as to the TRUTH of their account. If one then mentions Goedel’s theorem and the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite systems of logical proposition, this is liable to draw laughs, …although not from bear and coyote who would affirm that the PICTURES that show the TOWN GROWING ARE NOT REAL because, to paraphrase Heraclitus, the TOWN can’t step into the same COUNTRYSIDE TWICE it is NOT THE SAME TOWN and NOT THE SAME COUNTRYSIDE.
Only if the TOWN SURROUNDINGS were psychologically replaced by a SUBSTITUTE —AN ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT, could we speak of the GROWTH of the TOWN, because in that case we WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT OUR HEAD IN THE SAND, OSTRICH-STYLE AND CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE REDUCTION OF WILDERNESS THAT IS CONJUGATE WITH THE GROWTH OF THE TOWN.
Evidently, VISION is something selective because it can be LOCALLY FOCUSED. If we use vision for local SNAPSHOTS, it feeds RATIO-nality aka REASON, however, when vision is NONLOCAL as when we observe extrusions from the earth over here and subductions into the earth over there, it feeds INTUITION of TRANSFORMATION.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS all have PICTURES of our ‘HOME TOWN’ that we share with our children, reaffirming the EXISTENCE of this LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, with its notional powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of ‘more people’ along with many other “PRODUCTS”, making the TOWN out to be the SOURCE or AUTHOR of ‘GOODS AND SERVICES”
How do we GET BACK from that kind of rational-intellectual description to the understanding of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS; i.e. where there is no such thing as GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION of GOODS and SERVICES, … i.e. where there are only RELATIONAL DYNAMICS as in CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION? How DO WE “GET BACK TO THIS SENSE-EXPERIENCE GROUNDED UNDERSTANDING, after burning the picture images into our psyche along with name-labelled sub-titles; … ‘OUR TOWN’, .. ‘OUR HOUSE’, … ‘OUR STREET’, … OUR SHOPPING CENTRE’, … ‘OUR CHURCH’, … ‘OUR CITY HALL’ and many other COMPONENTS that constitute ‘OUR TOWN’.
If our pursuit of understanding looks to OUTSIDE-INWARD INDUCTION as if we are included in the dynamic of TRANSFORMATION, VISION undergoes an INVERSION, giving us an alternative means of understanding.
The two alternative means of understanding the dynamics of reality; i.e. in an inside-outward and/or outside-inward manner have been discussed, for example, by‘Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind is bearing me across the sky.’ — Ojibwa sayinThat is, while WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have opted for inquiry that delves into LOCAL and EXPLICIT AUTHORING, it is also possible to explore NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT INDUCTION. If WE START OUT TALKING IN TERMS OF THE EARTH as AUTHORING (volcanic) EXTRUSION and the EARTH as INDUCING SUBDUCTION then it is evident that we can understand this as EARTHING and ‘let go’ of the notion of LOCAL AUTHORING instead understand this in terms of the ANDROGYNOUS dynamic of TRANSFORMATION as is supported by the Wave-field concept. In this case, there is no longer any BEING-THING named EARTH as suggested by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR concept of ‘the EARTH’ and “ITS” notional powers of EXTRUDING and SUBDUCTING. Instead, this EARTHING would belong to the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field.
Coming back to the discussion in terms of the TOWN, … by the time we have INVENTED A LOT OF LOCAL DETAIL to furnish our FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO conceptualization of ‘our TOWN’, how hard is it for us to get back in touch with sense-experience reality wherein everything is in flux and FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE?.
The same question arises in the case of the EARTH, … by the time we have INVENTED A LOT OF LOCAL DETAIL to furnish our FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO conceptualization of ‘our EARTH’, how hard is it for us to get back in touch with sense-experience reality wherein everything is in flux and FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE?.
‘Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind is bearing me across the sky.’ — Ojibwa adage
IT IS SO HARD to shift back from figure-and-ground-as-two SUBSTITUTE REALITY to figure-and-ground-as-one REALITY THAT WE MIGHT WISH THAT WE HAD NEVER LEARNED HOW TO REDUCE OUR SENSE EXPERIENCE REALITY TO SUCH SIMPLISTIC TERMS BY WAY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR. But for the person who has ‘grown up to believe’ (i.e. been culturally conditioned to believe) that HE IS THE AUTHOR OF PRODUCTIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, as everyone around him is telling him he is and respecting and rewarding him for it (as they attempt to rise to the same ‘challenge’ that they see him as having risen to and excel in so doing). WHY SHOULD WE NOT BELIEVE THE DOUBLE ERROR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY ONCE IT BECOMES OUR INTELLECT-SUPPORTED RATIONAL (REASON-BASED) REALITY?
MY ANSWER IS THE SAME AS BOHM’S; i.e. by chopping up reality into separate local activities, WE SCREW UP OUR PSYCHE by putting such fragmented DOUBLE ERROR based pseudo-reality into an unnatural precedence over the UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS of our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum;
1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS (from Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm)
The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.
Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc
THIS THING WE KNOW AS WESTERN CULTURE WHICH USES THE DOUBLE ERROR TO FRAGMENT THE RELATIONAL CONTINUUM IS A CRAZY-MAKER! Once people believe that the GROWTH of the TOWN is something REAL, they are forgetting their sense-experience reality wherein there is NO GROWTH OF A TOWN WITHOUT A CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS, these conjugate language based representations coming to our sense experience as the intuition of inclusion in transformation.
TODAY’s CLASSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREW-UPS from FRAGMENTATION include the COVID 19 PANDEMIC as exemplary of WESTERN CULTURE BELIEF IN “PATHOGENS”.
There are no ‘PATHOGENS’ in a relational understanding of reality, there is only the difference between relational resonance and relational dissonance.
THE TRANSFORMING OF RELATIONAL DISSONANCE INTO RELATIONAL RESONANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED BY WESTERN CULTURE ABSTRACT THOUGHT ENCOURAGED PROGRAMS OF ELIMINATING PATHOGENS AND PROLIFERATING BENOGENS (i.e. by starving out/discouraging the AUTHORS of destructive actions and developments and feeding/encouraging the AUTHORS of constructive actions and developments).
The problem here is “NOT” that we are struggling with a proliferation of AUTHORS of destructive actions and developments aka PATHOGENS like COVID 19, the problem is OUR BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF PATHOGENS since such belief comes with the construction of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein actions and developments APPEAR TO BE LOCALLY AUTHORED. GONE, in this case, is our real SENSE EXPERIENCE reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum where there is resonance and dissonance. The challenge is NOT the elimination of, or the defense against, PATHOGENS, it is the challenge of transforming dissonance into resonance. The collection of drivers in the busy freeway may move so as to subsume dissonance/cultivate harmony. The identification of PATHOGENS and their elimination requires identifying an AUTHOR of a pathological action but as David Bohm points out in his example, of the death of Lincoln, the concept of the local author is abstract over-simplification.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. LOCAL AUTHORING IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ABSTRACTION GIVEN BY THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR.
BUT ONCE WE START BELIEVING THAT “THE TOWN IS GROWING”, WE ARE PRONE TO BELIEVING THAT “CRIME IS GROWING” because we have shifted our psychological conceptualizing of reality from relational TRANSFORMATION to DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR based on notional (NAMING-instantiated) LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with notional (GRAMMAR-given) POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “AUTHOR” of actions and developments. This concept of AUTHORING is intellectual, language-and-grammar stimulated ABSTRACTION, and we invented this SUBSTITUTE REALITY because it is SIMPLER to capture in language-based representations. WE INVENTED IT FOR THE SAME REASON WE INVENTED THE CONCEPT THAT ‘the EARTH IS TURNING ROUND’ as if the EARTH were the AUTHOR of its own movement, otherwise we would be obliged to deal with the complex sense-experience affirmed reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.
And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language. . This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion
Reflection on the observation that thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language takes us back to Newton who ‘hit a snag’ in his developing exact solutions beyond the binary in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
An exact solution for three bodies, exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind” – Isaac Newton
NOTA BENE: the BUMPER CAR PROBLEM is a three+ body problem (the problem of solving for the motion of three bodies moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. This may seem ‘esoteric’ but it is important to understand how this has impacted our taken-for-granted language-informed manner of understanding reality.
As Benjamin Whorf has shown, Newtonian physics is NOT BASED DIRECTLY ON NATURAL PHENOMENA but is instead based on LANGUAGE AND HOW WE TALK ABOUT NATURAL PHENOMENA;
It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.”
* * *
OK, THERE IS A “LOT OF STUFF” there in the above few paragraphs but it is all pointing to the same thing, that our WESTERN CULTURE language practice FRAGMENTS reality; e.g. by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which is a recipe for dismantling the transforming relational continuum by constructing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY where LOCAL AUTHORING explains all..
This WESTERN CULTURE language-based FRAGMENTATION came BEFORE NEWTON and as WHORF pointed out, NEWTON extracted his PHYSICS FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR based ARCHITECTURE of LANGUAGE wherein we split FIGURE-and-GROUND-into TWO as when we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ which imparts the abstract power of AUTHORING (its own GROWTH) to the TOWN. NO NO NO! THAT IS MISLEADING ABSTRACTION. In our sense experience reality, there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and the picture that this latter language based construction stimulates in the psyche is where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE; i.e. the TOWNING and the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE ARE ONE and the TOWNING is how TRANSFORMATION manifests or APPEARS. .
WE can SEE, as the indigenous aboriginal not only sees but captures in language, that everything is in flux. The moment we use NAMING and GRAMMAR, we establish a LOCAL AUTHORING BEACHHEAD for starting up reality without having to address the whole infinite transforming relational continuum. To start off with the words ‘the TOWN’ establishes the LOCAL AUTHORING BEACHHEAD which not only serves as a BREAK-IN to the transforming relational continuum but as a STAKE-IN-THE-GROUND that we can attach GRAMMAR to so as to induce in the psyche a notional AUTHORING POWER in the TOWN in the form a LOCAL CAPABILITY OF GROWING (in size and population) which puts our psyche into a new SUBSTITUTE REALITY where we can understand the GROWTH of a TOWN in the ABSTRACT FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO terms in which the FIGURE can GROW independently of the GROUND.
THIS FIGURE AND GROUND AS TWO ABSTRACT REALITY is a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on BINARY LOGIC wherein the FIGURE is free to GROW independently of the GROUND, in contradiction to our sense experience reality wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND are only ONE, Our sense experience understands HURRICANING in the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE sense, but our WESTERN CULTURE language serves up a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO impression which leads to ambiguity as to whether the HURRICANE is stirring up the ATMOSPHERE or whether the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE. The answer (as also in the Zen koan of wind and flag, which stirs up which) is NEITHER there is on TRANSFORMATION and there is NO LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.
DOUBLE ERROR based language uses NAMING to impute LOCAL BEING to the HURRICANE and GRAMMAR to impart to it its own power of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development.
Or, as Schroedinger puts it; SUBJECT and OBJECT are only ONE, which PULLS US INTO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING OUT AT.
IF WE CAN SIT APART AND WITH OUR CROW’S EYE FOCUS SEE ‘THE TOWN GROW’, WE ARE NOT “IN THAT PICTURE” and thus we should take care in speaking of ‘what we SEE’ since it is possible to speak in terms of ‘SEEING’ ‘the TOWN GROW’ and ‘SEEING’ ‘the LANDSCAPE TRANSFORM’. As mentioned, these two ways of seeing are discussed in Stewart and Cohen’s ‘Collapse of Chaos’.
But TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is an ALL-INCLUDING understanding that includes HUMANING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and SELFING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein everything is relate (Mitakuye oyasin) as in ONE-WITH-EVERYTHING.
IN CLOSING this note, it may be useful to repeat, for emphasis, that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are running into problems as a result of the FRAGMENTATION that comes with WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE REPRESENTATION;
Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc — David Bohm
Nietzsche has captured this FRAGMENTATION problem by pointing to its origin in the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING AND GRAMMAR which establishes the ABSTRACT concept of LOCAL AUTHORING. If we don’t like the ambiguity in the REALITY of TRANSFORMATION because it is NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT, we can (and do) employ language to CONSTRUCT A SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT which RESTARTS REALITY by way of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments. All we need for this abstracting of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY is NAMING and GRAMMAR as in — ‘the TOWN is GROWING’— implying that the TOWN has its own power of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development.
The alternative, which the EAST has stuck to, and which is Modern physics supported, is a representation of reality which retains the understanding of inclusion in a fluid continuum (the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao). Because this is a representation of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) it does not APPEAL to us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS who are by now, through our from-birth acculturation, LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS to our SUBSTITUTE REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS which are LOCAL and EXPLICIT, and which could be useful tools if we would remember that such SUBSTITUTE REALITIES are only good for INFERENCE of the sense-experience reality which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT. Unfortunately for us, as Emerson points out, the TOOL has run away with the workman, the human with the divine’. Whereas ‘humaning’ is included in the TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM in a figure-and-ground-as-one sense, … ‘the HUMAN” … is an artifact of the SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.
* * *
Mainstream science and rational thinking (viewing physical phenomena in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’) are built on an unstable foundation of ‘appearances’, and because we confuse rational worldviews for ‘reality’, we end up formulating views and designing and operationalizing actions within a dualist, logical ‘semantic reality’ that is radically unlike the physical reality of our actual experience. This fact that our rational plans and operating programs are formulated in dualist logical ‘semantic reality’ but operationalized in nondualist physical reality is the source of unanticipated (unpredicted, unaddressed) ‘externalities’ associated with precisely formulated scientific programs. This psychological-physical dualist disconnect, is termed, by David Bohm, ‘incoherence’.
But before getting into examples and explanations, it is important to take note of the ‘basics’ of what is going on here, and to note that it is “not just me making this claim” but simply me trying to share what has proven very difficult to share since the views of the people who have explored this ‘incoherence’ have been marginalized by the gatekeeping of orthodox science. Mach, for example, complained that he had to ‘quit the Church of Physics’ because it insisted on treating the atom as a ‘real thing-in-itself’, and Schroedinger, who was at the centre of quantum theory development complained until he died, that ‘he wished that he had had nothing to do with the concensus interpretation of quantum mechanics which preserved the ‘particle’ as a ‘real thing-in-itself’ by using probability theory which explained its existence ‘statistically’ so as to avoid acknowledgng, as Schroedinger and Mach would have it, the inherent natural primacy of field over matter within a field-matter nondduality.