A Personal Insight and Reflections on the PATHOGEN Concept (e.g. COVID 19)

INTRODUCTION – SYNOPSIS – PRELUDE

GROWTH is a concept that comes with a built-in dependency on another abstract concept; i.e. A LOCAL THING THAT EXISTS.
TRANSFORMATION is a relational concept that does NOT depend on LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELFNESS as GROWTH does.
While our sensory experience-based intuition UNDERSTANDS TRANSFORMATION, … TRANSFORMTION is NONLOCAL and is thus INEFFABLE since we cannot point to it and say; ‘See, transformation is going on right over there. Transformation as in the Wave-field dynamic is INEFFABLE because it is NONLOCAL and we cannot point to it and identify it by a visual sighting. We are included in TRANSFORMATION (aka the Tao aka the Wave-field) and this means that the TRANSFORMATION that can be told and pointed to and photographed is NOT the true TRANSFORMATION.

The point is that while TRANSFORMATION (the Wave-field aka the Tao) is ineffable, it is the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion within it. GROWTH is an abstract VOYEUR visualization based concept that RENDERS THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE in terms of the LOCAL, and while there is no REAL LOCAL in the transforming relational continuum, we can use language to CREATE LOCALITY by NAMING forms within the transforming relational continuum that appear to persist as LOCAL THINGS IN THEMSELVES (i.e. even if they are boils in fluid flow that have the deceptive APPEARANCE of persisting ‘thing-in-itselfness’ and thus invite us to BAPTIZE/CHRISTEN with a NAME so as to impute persisting thing-in-itself being to an innately NONLOCAL phenomenon with an associated LOCAL APPEARANCE or APPARITION.

By using NAMING to orient our attention to a LOCALLY APPEARING resonance feature, we can reduce TRANSFORMATION to terms of GROWTH of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES which we can use GRAMMAR to ‘animate’ so as to give us an EFFABLE intellectual RE-presentation of the ineffable and purely relational flow-form.

Our CULTURE (in both EAST and WEST) has come up with language and grammar that gives us a deceptively SOLID, APPARENTLY LOCAL reality by substituting GROWTH of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES for the purely RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION of the Wave-field. Of course, GROWTH is an abstraction that we ‘bring-into-being’ INTELLECTUALLY, in terms of the intellectual invention of THINGS-THAT-GROW. This is an intellectual ‘work-around’ to help us get past the limitations of language since we are faced with the challenge of TRYING to articulate (even if it has to be by inference) the ineffable ‘Tao’ (the transforming relational continuum).

In the EAST, the REDUCTION of TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH … IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYING GROWTH AS SOMETHING ‘REAL”, BUT ONLY AS A MEANS OF USING ‘GROWTH’ AS A DEVICE FOR ALLUDING TO TRANSFORMATION, WHICH IS NONLOCAL AND INEFFABLE. ‘GROWTH’, AS an innately LOCAL phenomenon is an ALLUSION that builds dependently from a NAMING-instantiated THING-IN-ITSELF. This ILLUSION of GROWTH is just that, an ILLUSION. The ILLUSION known as GROWTH is something we concoct because we need to concoct it because TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and thus ineffable while GROWTH is the effable reduction of the ineffable TRANSFORMATION. That is; the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao, but we have the ability to make the Tao crudely tellable (effable, articulable) in a reduced representation wherein we abstractly reduce TRANSFORMATION which is purely RELATIONAL and NONLOCAL (and thus ineffable) to GROWTH of a NAMING instantiated thing-in-itself which is EXPLICIT and LOCAL…. BUT WE USE THIS ONLY FOR INFERENCE AND DO NOT TAKE IT ‘LITERALLY’.

In the WEST, the REDUCTION of TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH is a ‘tool that is running away with the workman’ (Emerson). In contrast with the EAST, WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DO TAKE THE DOUBLE ERROR CONSTRUCTS LITERALLY AS IF THEY ‘SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH’. So, when the EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT declares that Robin Hood has stolen grain from the King’s Granary and Jean Valjean has stolen bread from the Baker (acts that could be confirmed by Crime Scene Investigation), he is saying the same thing as the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT, …. BUT THERE IS A VERY BASIC DIFFERENCE IN UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE THE EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT UNDERSTANDS THESE ACTS AS BEING IN THE SERVICE OF RESTORING BALANCE AND HARMONY IN THE REAL PHYSICAL RELATIONAL DYNAMIC (distribution and ingestion of nutrients). In other words, these acts by Robin Hood and Jean Valjean serve to alleviate the imbalance between regions of excess and regions of deficiency. In this case, the act of NAMING as in NAMING the PRODUCER of the PRODUCT (the grain, the bread) which is based on the intellectual double error of language and grammar, is given reality-establishing precedence over the physical relational reality. USING ‘NAMING’ or ‘TITLE’ in ‘double error’ language and grammar constructions, is, in the WEST, given precedence over an understanding of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION.

Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas did not see things in the producer-product context, but saw humans as humanings within the Great Harmony. Meanwhile, even ‘Dances-with-Wolves’ has the producer product geometry as immersion in the Great Harmony is ineffable.

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter and associated context (jailing of first nations people for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see ‘First People First Voices’, edited by Penny Petrone, University of Toronto Press, 1991]

The immanent questing for relational harmony, … the GREAT HARMONY of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, manifests as relational TRANSFORMATION. This ‘reality’ is ‘everywhere at the same time’ and comes to us as sensory experience. It comes to Jean Valjean and to Robin Hood as intuitive INSPIRATION wherein we give ourselves up to the sustaining and restoring of relational balance and harmony. This is where the behaviour of diving into the rapids or into the burning building on a rescue mission comes from. INSPIRATION is not based on logical analysis. INSPIRATION that manifests in cultivating and sustaining relational harmony fills the heart while EGO from calculated analytical thoughts of one’s ‘heroic acts and achievements’ swells the head. These ‘animators of dynamics’ differ in that EGO is inside-outward sourced as with PRIDE in notional ‘producer-product achievements’ admired by the social collective, and the avoiding of being perceived as the author of ‘producer-product’ actions that bring public SHAME, … while INSPIRATION lies beyond such self-centred (LOCAL EGO-CENTRIC BASED) motivations and seeks only to cultivate harmony in a NONLOCAL relational sense.

INSPIRATION is a NONLOCAL influence (the opposite of which is DISHEARTEN) that recalls the Wave-field and one’s experience of inclusion in a web of sensory relations while PRIDE AND SHAME are influences that act out of a notional (intellectual-logical abstracting) LOCAL CENTRE OF SELF (EGO). While the EAST in each of us keeps the former in a natural precedence over the latter, the WEST in each of us allows the latter to hijack the natural primacy of the former, putting  (intellectual calculating based) PRIDE and SHAME ahead of relational-sensation-based INSPIRATION and ENNUI/DISHEARTENING.  DIFFERENT CULTURES FORM ON THE BASIS OF WHICH OF THESE ‘DIPOLES’ ARE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER WHICH; I.E. THE DIFFERING CULTURES OF EAST AND WEST.

* * *

A Personal Insight and Reflections on the PATHOGEN Concept (e.g. COVID 19)

This is a story of an experience that was of value to me which was passed to me by others so I am just sharing it in case it can be of help to others.   (POSTSCRIPT: It is now followed by more general reflective discussion)

It is really about how it is possible to understand ‘reality’ in the manner of an indigenous aboriginal, something that indigenous aboriginal friends such as Jacques Rainville (Abenaki-Quebecois) have suggested that I may have managed to articulate more effectively in WESTERN-CULTURE-SPEAK than is often the case with indigenous aboriginals whose understanding is far superior to mine but which may suffer severely from ‘running the gauntlet’ of translation into English.

You may not ‘accept’ this ‘indigenous aboriginal’ understanding of reality (which is supported by modern physics), which I will describe in this note, but my point is just to try to share it with you and to assure you that it is the reality that makes sense to me, and to indigenous aboriginal peoples, and it is open to any of us to accept as ‘reality’, … but when we do accept it, many of our understandings of reality depart from what we habitually take to be reality in our normal WESTERN CULTURE conditioned mindset.  For example, the concept of ‘pathogens’ such as COVID 19, rapists, murderers, criminals etc. DISAPPEAR, and division into ‘conservatives’ (Republican viewpoint) and liberals (Democratic viewpoint) disappear.

What is common about these disappearances is that in the indigenous aboriginal and modern physics understanding of reality there are only RELATIONS and there are no BEINGS such as ‘human beings’, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  That reality ‘gives way’ to the relational reality wherein some philosophers like Alan Watts have renamed every thing by putting an ‘ing’ suffix on the words so that ‘humans’ become ‘humanings’, meaning that we are part of something greater than ourselves (i.e the Wave-field aka the Tao aka the transforming relational continuum).   This is the implication of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related).

Forms such as humanings are included in the Wave-field so that the world can be understood as a holodynamic where we are formings in the Field (the Tao).  There has been many allusions to this by philosophers; e.g. Heraclitus says that we can’t step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same person stepping into it.  Having explored this understanding intensively over the past twenty or more years, it makes total sense to me, makes my understanding of reality consistent with modern physics, indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta.

If we think we understand how Buddhists think from listening to the Dalai Lama, this may be so, but we may not even notice ourselves slipping into our culture-conditioned habits like thinking in terms of ourselves as ‘independent beings’ who are ‘separate from the environment’.  Our WESTERN CULTURE splitting apart of ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ is not supported by modern physics, indigenous aboriginal reality, and Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, wherein the inhabitant-habitat (FIGURE AND GROUND) split is only APPEARANCE.

If I say to you; ‘my home town is growing in size and population’, … you may not find anything ‘wrong’ with that, but in modern physics and indigenous aboriginal etc. reality, there is no such thing as GROWTH, there is only relational transformation and the concept of GROWTH of a town is abstraction that comes into our mind through the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, as pointed out by Nietzsche.    The first error is NAMING to impute thing-in-itself being to the town, and the second conflating error is GRAMMAR that imputes the power of sourcing actions and development to the NAMING instantiated thing-in-itself.   It is not ‘reality’ to say ‘the town is growing larger’.  The ‘reality’ is that if the town grows the Wilderness shrinks so that what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION and not GROWTH.   Only if our town was situated on a flat plane of infinite extent could we speak of the GROWTH of the town without acknowledging at the same time the shrinkage of the Wilderness.   GROWTH of cultivated land entails the reciprocal shrinkage of wilderness area and what is going on here is TRANSFORMATION and NOT GROWTH.   This is the general case.  There is no such thing in the reality of our sensory experience as GROWTH.

Not only is there no GROWTH of our towns, there is no GROWTH of our children and no GROWTH period, … there is only TRANSFORMATION .   If you ponder this, you will see it, and if you are surprised by how you could have believed in GROWTH of a child or a town, then you might be interested in Nietzsche’s explanation of how language and grammar fool us in this way with a ‘double error’ (as highlighted in yellow above).

So, it is language and grammar that fool us by tricking us into thinking that ‘things grow’ instead of understanding such dynamics as relational TRANSFORMATION.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GROWTH (it is a linguistic abstraction based tool for simplifying the communicating of relational TRANSFORMATION).

GROWTH implies LOCAL ORIGINATION.   In discussing ‘reality’ we need to distinguish between allusions to LOCAL ORIGINATION (SORCERY) and NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION.  In this note, I will distinguish between the two by using the abbreviations “LO” and “HI”;

LO = Local Origination.    This ties to EGO (that swells the head)

HI = Holistic Inspiration.  This ties to SPIRIT (that fills the heart).

Our actions may be driven by the pursuit of ‘make-in-happen’ results, or our actions may be inspired by the need for restoring harmony (pull the children out of the burning house).   We can speak of ‘our actions’ in both cases, but ‘our actions’ are INNATELY DIFFERENT in the manner signalled by the above abbreviations; i.e. LO (local origination) and HI (holistic inspiration) designations.  This difference is called into our attention by aphorisms such as ‘EGO swells the head’ (LO) and ‘inspiration fills the heart (HI).  CONFUSION can (and does) result from our use of language that deals with actions and developments without distinguishing between “LO” and “HI”.

As a child growing up in the WEST, I was given ‘praise’ for ‘my accomplishments’ as if they were of LOCAL Origination.  I was taught that we would be rewarded in proportion to our own accomplishments, as if we could assume LOCAL ORIGINATION.   This, to me, was CRAZY since I knew that my actions and developments were NOT REALLY MY OWN and were made possible thanks to the network of supportive relations I was situationally included in; i.e. the LOCAL ORIGINATION concept that my Culture insisted I ‘buy into’ was an unreal abstraction.  Nothing new here, this was my natural-experience based rediscovery of what Nietzsche had labelled ‘the double error’.  Of course language has the power to use NAMING to invent notional ‘things-in-themselves’ and GRAMMAR has the power to impute to those NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves, the power of sourcing actions and developments.

The distinction between LO (Local Originating) and HI (Holistic Inspiration) (and respective counterparts ‘GROWTH’ and ‘TRANSFORMATION’ is tricky, but important to our understanding; i.e. it is where our understanding splits into WEST and EAST.

For the WESTERNER, it makes sense to say; “my farm has grown from 2 acres in 1960 to 160 acres in 2010.   This use of language implies that GROWTH is something REAL (i.e. as in GROWTH of PROPERTY HOLDINGS which is NOT REAL but pure abstraction coming from TITLE).

For the EASTERNER, it makes sense to INSTEAD say; ‘the land is transforming as Wilderness is transformed into cultivated land.  THERE is no use of GROWTH since TRANSFORMATION captures in one fell swoop, GROWTH of cultivated land and reciprocal SHRINKING of Wilderness.   The term “GROWTH” is thus exposed as unreal abstraction that could only come about in an absolute space (GROUND) that was independent of the FIGURES contained therein so that the FIGURES could GROW without effecting the GROUND.

TRANSFORMATION is the physical reality while GROWTH is abstraction that derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (i.e. NAMING (my farm) that imputes local thing-in-itself being, conflated with GRAMMAR  (“is growing larger”) that imputes the power of action and development to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself.

EAST and WEST “SPLIT” in our language based constructions of ‘reality’ with EAST seeing TRANSFORMATION as a basic reality while WEST treats GROWTH as a basic reality.  AS MODERN PHYSICS AFFIRMS, WEST is in error on its casting of GROWTH as REAL, and EAST as correct in its support of reality as relational TRANSFORMATION.   In other words, there is no such thing “in reality” as GROWTH, there is only relational “TRANSFORMATION”.

* * * This point is basic to the conclusion that EAST and WEST split on their conceptualizing of reality and that EAST’s sensory experiential understanding of reality as relational TRANSFORMATION is supported by modern physics while the WEST’s intellectual understanding of reality as the GROWTH of NAMING instantiated things-in-themselves is reductive abstraction. * * *

Within ‘my own culture’ I was taught to believe in the … LO = Local Origination.    This ties to EGO … basis of reality, giving me the notion that I was the source of my own actions and developments whether praiseworthy or shameful.  in other words, I was taught to believe that I was fully and solely responsible for my own actions and achievements.  Had I been raised in an indigenous aboriginal culture, I would have instead been taught to believe in the … HI = Holistic Inspiration.  This ties to SPIRIT … basis of reality.

Starting from my youth, I had a problem believing in this LO version of reality as I watched others boast of their achievements, and experienced their encouragement of me to ‘take pride’ in ‘my own accomplishments’.   As I was experiencing being promoted to a manager of ‘an operations department’ and the administrator of over 200 employee, many of whom were academically gifted and highly qualified, I reflected on my intuitive belief that ‘taking ownership’ of personal achievement while immersed in relational web of such diverse talent was a load of b.s.  Sure, I was a coordinator of activities much like an orchestra leader but in my mind, the achievements of our group could never be explained as ‘attributed to’ or ‘coming from’ moi (or from any institutionally NAMING defined ‘manager-deemed-sorcerer’).   Understanding “my achievements” was impossible since what I was doing was interwoven within the complex relational dynamics of fellow employees, parents, family, friends and associates and surrounding influences. I could not ‘take credit’ for ‘my own achievements’ BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH THING.    I was already, by my nature, a believer in ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all related) and a disbeliever in the myth of EGO aka ‘the double error of language and grammar’ as Nietzsche termed EGO.

Much later I read Nietzsche’s forceful debunking of EGO, the abstract representing of ourselves as ‘independent beings’ with ‘our own powers of sourcing actions and developments’.  Nietzsche pointed out that this was a ‘double error’ of language and grammar; i.e. the first error was NAMING to impute independent being, and this was conflated with a second error of GRAMMAR to impute the powers of sourcing actions and developments to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself.

I also finagled for myself a formal management approved and company funded study of ‘exceptionally performing teams’ so that we might better understand how to make ‘exceptionally performing teams’ out of ‘more’ of the hundreds of ‘run of the mill’ teams in the company.  My investigative findings were nearly impossible to convey to management because the finding was, that the ‘exceptionally performing teams’ (I investigated three impressive cases, with the support of a trio of consultants from management consulting firm of Ernst & Young).  The findings were the same in all three cases, these ‘exceptionally performing teams’ had DISSOLVED THEIR OWN THING-IN-ITSELF BEING.  By this I mean that they had deliberately worked to become the collaborative servants of their customers, suppliers, service support agencies, employee families and community.  They had transformed themselves from a LOCAL, INDEPENDENT TOP-DOWN-managed organization, into a purely relational node within a relational matrix incorporating a diverse assemblage of participants.  This was – a flexible ‘design for evolution’- and it worked exceptionally well, HOWEVER, such teams were NOT BY DESIGN but emerged from intuitive people comprising the team and these ‘exceptionally performing teams’ were soon demolished by new managers coming in and imposing on them the standard format of top-down managed organization.

ORGANIZING, in NATURE, is PURELY RELATIONAL which means that it is NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION rather than GROWTH OF LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF BASED.

Our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao aka the Wave-field) but this is ineffable and in order to ‘effable-ize’ it, we use the ‘double error’ of language and grammar to  inject a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with GRAMMAR-GIVEN POWERS of sourcing actions and developments.

The hurricaning is like the humaning is like the boiling, …. all of which are words alluding to APPEARANCES or APPARITIONS associated with the TRANSFORMING relational continuum.

So, my own personal philosophical investigations ‘took me to the same place’ that Nietzsche was talking about, wherein we become AWARE of the ticks we are playing on our own psyche with language and grammar, namely the ‘double error’ trick which allows us to ‘break into’ the unbroken Tao-continuum and invent a LOCAL jumpstarting SOURCE of actions and development,…. which is what the ‘double error’ is all about.   There is ‘duning’ as ‘appearance’ within the transforming relational continuum but since the continuum is everything and impossible to capture in finite representations of language and grammar, by starting from LOCAL APPEARANCE, we can create an effable representation of the ineffable; e.g. DUNING is the manifesting of RESONANCE which is purely relational and which manifests in relational TRANSFORMATION.  Meanwhile, we can visually observe LOCAL FORMING in the TRANSFORMATION that we can use NAMING to refer to.   Once we have introduced the NAMING based identifier, our language and grammar system allows us to construct a pseudo-reality wherein we use GRAMMAR to impute the power of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT to the NAMING instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself, … in this example, ‘the DUNE’.  SINCE DUNING is an APPEARANCE within the INEFFABLE transforming relational continuum, using NAMING to implant the intellectual concept of local being to a purely relational APPEARACE or APPARITION serves our purpose of effable-izing the ineffable reality of relational TRANSFORMATION.

APPEARANCE that is REDUCED TO EFFABLE and thus easily shareable RE-PRESENTATION is extremely valuable for learning from one another’s experiences of inclusion in the ineffable TRANSFORMING RELAITONAL CONTINUUM (the Tao), … even if this learning is based on a REDUCTIVE REPRESENTATION of the transforming relational continuum; i.e. “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao”.

Here, again, is where the cultures of EAST and WEST DIVIDE in their respective understandings of ‘what is reality’ with ‘THE WEST’ employing the reduced-to-effable representation as if it were the actual reality, … while ‘THE EAST’ (consistent with modern physics) uses the reduced-to-effable representation as INFERENCE (a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’) of a reality (the transforming relational continuum) that lies innately beyond explicit capture in language and grammar.  Both WEST and EAST use language and grammar in talking in terms of ‘the FIGURE and the GROUND’ as in the case of the farm and the countryside, but while the WEST understands FIGURE AND GROUND as TWO SEPARATE THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, the EAST understand FIGURE AND GROUND as ONE (the ‘two-ness’ of ‘figure and ground’ is only ‘appearance’).    Modern physics reaffirms the FIGURE and GROUND as ONE reality of the EAST.

This takes me right back to my intuitive rejection of giving credit to the ‘individual’ for THEIR SOURCING of actions and developments, which I can now see is an abstract artefact of the double error of language and grammar that explains where WESTERN  EGO comes from which eclipses the greater reality of relational TRANSFORMATION.

LO = Local Origination.    This ties to EGO (that swells the head)

HI = Holistic Inspiration.  This ties to SPIRIT (that fills the heart).

WESTERN CULTURE embraces the LO model of reality wherein FIGURE AND GROUND ARE TWO.  This leads to the basic BINARY EITHER/OR ambiguity as to whether FIGURE SOURCES ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OR GROUND SOURCES ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF FIGURE.   EGO as associates with double error based belief in powers of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS  prevails in both of these WESTERN CULTURE ambiguous ‘realities’ and is responsible for the CONSERVATIVE – LIBERAL split, the CONSERVATIVE belief in SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS orienting to the FIGURE as active agency and the GROUND as the passive respondent, … and the LIBERAL belief in SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS orienting to the GROUND as active agency.

This ambiguity divides the WESTERN social collective into binary opposing subgroups, BOTH OF WHICH ARE BASED ON BELIEF IN ‘NAMING-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.    Since NAMING can be applied to an individual and/or to a collective, the attributing of powers of SOURCING AND DEVELOPMENT to NAMING-INSTANTIATED LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES leads to the contradiction where some assume that the NAMING-instantiated INDIVIDUAL is the source of actions and developments while others assume that the NAMING-instantiated SOCIAL COLLECTIVE is the source of actions and developments.

This leads to the CONSERVATIVE – LIBERAL polarizing on the basis of whether the social dynamic is SOURCED by individuals (It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel) or SOURCED by collectives (It takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child).   NOTE THAT THIS POLARIZATION OF VIEWS ON THE SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS DEPENDS ON FIRST MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT ‘SOURCING’ IS A ‘REAL’ DYNAMIC.

In the EASTERN CULTURE REALITY, there is only relational TRANSFORMATION and NO LOCAL SOURCING, therefore, in the EAST, the internal polarization does not develop.

TIME is an abstraction like BEING, … it is abstraction that allows us to simulate breaking into the NONLOCAL transforming relational continuum and LOCALLY jumpstarting it.  Such effable-izing of the ineffable transforming relational continuum is useful as INFERENCE as also described as a ‘Wittgenstein Ladder’ (THIS IS HOW IT IS USED IN THE EAST), but in the WEST, BEING AND TIME are given a foundational role within a notional EXPLICIT REALITY.   In other words, our use of language and grammar in EASTERN, IMPLICIT INFERENCE MODE gives our INTUITION the lead role is understanding reality and uses the LOCAL and EXPLICIT only to trigger a leap beyond them to the INEFFABLE and IMPLICIT.

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have psychologically ‘locked on’ to the ‘literalist’ use of language and grammar, as if language and grammar were capable of capturing the ineffable and conveying it without the need for an ‘inference based leap’ from the literal and explicit to an inferred ‘ineffable’.  For example, to speak of the GROWTH of the town and take it literally OBSCURES the real ‘reality’ which is NOT ABOUT GROWTH of anything but about TRANSFORMATION as where the Wilderness land is undergoing transformation into cultivated land.  To see an expanding AREA of cultivation GROW within the Wilderness area involves at the same time, the reduction of the Wilderness area, so what is going on is NEITHER GROWTH NOR REDUCTION but, instead, TRANSFORMATION.

Why would we talk about such reality in terms of GROWTH and REDUCTION when what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION?

BECAUSE, TRANSFORMATION is inherently NONLOCAL while GROWTH and REDUCTION pertain to notional LOCAL things-in-themselves such as TOWNS or FARMS or humans or other NAME-INSTANTIATED LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, … all of which are abstract reductions of relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.

The option is there for us to use these abstract reductions of the NONLOCAL to LOCAL as Wittgenstein ladders (the EAST) or as the purported literal reality (the WEST).  Employing the abstract concept of GROWTH as if it were real, as is characteristic of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is a CRAZY-MAKER.

For example, to promote the GROWTH of a town or a producer-product operation is to promote an UNREAL illusion since what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION.  The GROWTH of a town IMPLIES the REDUCTION of the Wilderness.  In FIGURE AND GROUND TERMS, we are the choice of using (a) the EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM or (b) the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED MEDIUM (aka ‘quantum logic’).

Because WESTERN CULTURE habitually employs the EITHER/OR Logic of the EXCLUDED MIDDLE, the TOWN is perceived as SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT of the Wilderness and it thus seems to ‘make sense’ to speak of the GROWTH of the town FULL STOP: … as if is a reality.  We can illustrate this imputed ‘reality’ with a series of photographs of the town at times T1, T2, T3 etc.  and compare the ‘size of the town’ so as to ‘measure ITS growth’.   Meanwhile, the universe that the ‘town’ is included in is undergoing continual transformation which ‘topsides’ the logic that comes from NAMING the town and using the unchanging NAME to imply the persisting thing-in-itselfness of the town even as ‘it’ GROWS LARGER.  Meanwhile, there are no persisting things-in-themselves in the transforming relational continuum, thus the NAMING implied notion of the town as a ‘thing-in-itself’ together with its GRAMMAR-implied power of SOURCING actions and development is unreal language and grammar stimulated intellectual abstraction.

THE NOTIONS OF BOTH ‘TOWN’ AND ‘GROWTH’ ARE INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTIONS that we mentally PASTE on relational forms in the transforming relational continuum much as the weatherman sticks a magnetic HURRICANE symbol on a white-board map projection.  ‘THEY’ and ‘THEIR ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT’ are given by the double error of language and grammar; i.e. NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself existence conflated with GRAMMAR to impute to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself the power of SOURCING actions and development.

The ‘double error’ of language and grammar sets up the illusion of LOCALLY SOURCED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT as in the PRODUCER-PRODUCT  ABSTRACTION.  This abstraction hijacks the rightful role of TRANSFORMATION as the basis of understanding reality.

Just as Heraclitus observed that “One cannot step into the same river twice, for it is not the same river and not the same person stepping into it’, … so it is with the abstracts of GROWTH and TOWN.   It is not the same town at T2 an T3 as it was at T1 so that we cannot say that THE TOWN … is GROWING because what we call THE TOWN is reciprocal to THE WILDERNESS and though we say ‘THE TOWN GROWS’, it also happens that ‘THE WILDERNESS SHRINKS’ and ‘what he town is’ depends on what it is included in, and if ‘what it is included in’ is changing in reciprocal relational to what it is included in, then the situation is the same as with ‘One cannot step into the same river twice’.

Another way of expressing this would be; … GROWTH is only possible if FIGURE and GROUND are mutually exclusive as in EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM, or alternatively, the assumption that GROWTH is possible establishes the mutual exclusivity of FIGURE and GROUND.

* * * SYNOPSIS * * *

The REALITY of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) is felt through our sensory experiencing.

Since this all-inclusive Wave-field we are included in and ‘made of’ is continually transforming, it cannot be captured and expressed in language except by NAMING relational formings in the flow, as in NAMING the ‘swirling’ in flow to give it ‘thing-in-itselfness’ and using GRAMMAR to impute to it ‘it’s own powers of sourcing actions and development.

This is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar pointed out by Nietzsche, where we start off with the INEFFABLE flowing or TRANSFORMATION, and reduce it to LOCAL NAME-instantiate things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of SOURCING actions and developments.  This gives us a means of reducing the ineffable to ‘effable’ expression.  The TRANSFORMING relational continuum is thus expressible in the reduced terms of NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves with GRAMMAR supplied LOCAL powers of sourcing actions and development.

The purely relational fluid-formings reduced to frozen things-in-themselves by NAMING serve as stubs for reconstructing reality using the above-described ‘double error’ based REPRESENTATION of language and grammar.

The REPRESENTATION, although a REDUCTION of the fluid reality, is employed in the WEST as the ‘operative reality’ while in the EAST, it is acknowledged to be a REDUCTION that can serve as INFERENCE of an ineffable reality that lies innately beyond capture in the REDUCTIVE terms of language and grammar.

Thus in the EAST, there is the persisting understanding that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ and that language is only good for use as INFERENCE as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ that can ‘point to’ and understanding of the fluid reality that lies innately beyond capture in explicit terms.  Wittgenstein describes how we must use INFERENCE to trigger intuitive understanding of the fluid reality that lies innately beyond explicit capture in language’;

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

The understanding of both the EAST (cultures such as indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta) and modern physics is that REALITY lies beyond EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION, because REALITY (the Wave-field, the Tao, the Logos of Heraclitus) is NONLOCAL and FLUID

Language and grammar provide a means of capturing and expressing a necessarily-REDUCED REPRESENTATION of  the flow-continuuum in terms of explicit LOCAL forms (e.g. ‘geometric forms’).  This allows us to ‘piecemeal’ into LOCAL forms, the NONLOCAL flow-continuum; e.g. while circulation in the ocean is an expression of the nonlocal fluid dynamics of the overall Tao or Wave-field, the double error of language and grammar allows us to intellectually-rhetorically ‘break into’ the continuum and capture a reduced expression in terms of LOCAL APPEARANCE; i.e. the ‘boil’ and the ‘flow’ ARE NOT TWO but ONE, yet language and grammar employ a ‘double error’ to recast this ONE-ness in the reduced terms of FIGURE and GROUND as TWO separate and independent ONTOLOGIES rather than as a single ontology aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the Wave-field’.

The GOOD NEWS is that our intellectual separation of FIGURE and GROUND into TWO separate ontologies allows us to ‘effable-ize’ with language and grammar, a REDUCED-BUT-EFFABLE-REPRESENTATION of the INEFFABLE (because fluid and innately transient) reality.    The PITFALL is that we have an exposure to THE TOOL RUNNING AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, meaning that just because we can use the double error of language and grammar to split apart the inhabitant and the habitat, and re-mobilize the inhabitant as if it were a (NAMING-given) independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own (GRAMMAR-given) powers of sourcing actions and developments, … this does not mean that we can use this REDUCTION, even in the case where we use it ‘to effable-ize’ the representing of OURSELVES, as the OPERATIVE REALITY.   This is because such reduction is only a TOOL OF INFERENCE of the ineffable that lies innately beyond the reach of language and grammar based ‘effable-ization’.

While the EAST does NOT fall into this pitfall of employing the REDUCED-TO-EFFABLE pseudo-reality as the OPERATIVE REALITY, that is precisely the pitfall that the WEST has fallen into.  Emerson captures this in the terms that “The tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine”.  In other words, the double error based INHABITANT – HABITAT SPLIT which RE-PRESENTS the INHABITANT (e.g. the humaning) as a LOCAL thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing actions and development, is ONLY GOOD FOR USE AS language and grammar based INFERENCE of a fluid reality that lies innately beyond EXPLICIT CAPTURE in language and grammar.

So, while the EAST employs language and grammar FOR INFERENCE of a fluid reality (the Tao, the Wavefiield) that lies innately beyond EXPLICIT, LOCAL REPRESENTATION, … the WEST has fallen into the error of misconstruing the double error based REDUCTION of fluid reality FOR THE EFFECTIVE/OPERATIVE REALITY.

While the EAST employs continual reminders such as ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related) so that language and grammar reductions to NAMING instantiated things-in-themselves with GRAMMAR instantiated powers of sourcing actions and developments are understood as JUST A WAY OF REPRESENTING a fluid reality that lies innately beyond capture in terms of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT, …THE WEST is defined by the succumbing to the PITFALL of letting the tool (of language and grammar based reduction of the NONLOCAL and FLUID) run away with the workman, the human with the divine.

In other words, the double error reduction that notionally splits into two separate things-in-themselves the INHABITANT and the HABITAT, allows us to understand the dynamics of reality via reductive representations wherein the INHABITANT is not only INDEPENDENT of the HABITAT but is endowed (by GRAMMAR) with the power of sourcing changes to the HABITAT, … and not only does language and grammar allow us to simulate action wherein the INHABITANT transforms the HABITAT but it allows us to simulate action wherein the HABITAT transforms the INHABITANT, introducing a basic SCHIZOPHRENIC DUPLICITY that shows up as the CONSERVATIVE – LIBERAL split in the social collective and as SCHIZOPHRENIA in the WESTERN CULTURE ACCULTURATED individual.

The problem begins with the double error based INHABITANT-HABITAT SPLITTING, which in the EAST is regarded as an TOOL FOR INFERRING A REALITY THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND CAPTURE IN LOCAL, EXPLICIT REPRESENTATIONS, … but in the WEST, the EXPLICITIZING/LOCALIZING double error based deliveries of the tool of language and grammar are embraced as the REAL, OPERATIVE REALITY.  THIS IS A CRAZY-MAKER that unnatural splits the fluid continuum into two separate pseudo-realities featuring DYNAMIC INABITANTS and a DYNAMIC HABITAT, raising the enigmatic question as to whether changes in the habitat are being sourced by the inhabitants or whether changes in the inhabitants are being sourced by the habitat.  This is CRAZY-MAKING because there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS in the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  The abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS is double error reduction based; i.e. it is an artifact of language and grammar based representation.  The boil in the flow is NOT A LOCAL PHENOMENON, it is the manifesting of the NONLOCAL dynamic of the Tao aka the Wave-field aka the ‘transforming relational continuum.

This WESTERN deployment of the REDUCED TO EFFABLE PSEUDO REALITY AS THE ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’ IS A CRAZY-MAKER.

EMERGENCY ESCAPE ROUTE:

IF WE REMAIN SILENT AND GO WITH OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF OUR INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, WE CAN REGROUND IN THE REALITY OF NATURE and avoid getting our mind screwed up by confusing double error based reductive representations construed as an explicit reality (that is only good for inference) as the ‘operative reality’.

Once REGROUNDED, we can employ language and grammar as tools of INFERENCE of a RELATIONAL REALITY (the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao aka the Wave-field) that lies beyond the reach of explicit capture in language and grammar.  Without such REGROUNDING, we make ourselves prey to the CRAZY-MAKING employment of double error based reality REDUCTION as if it were ‘REALITY’.

LIST OF CRAZY-MAKING WESTERN CULTURE REALITY ASSUMPTIONS;

CRAZY-MAKING ERROR # 1

-1- BELIEVING THAT FIGURE AND GROUND ARE TWO SEPARATE ONTOLOGIES.  — In order to render the ineffable reality (the transforming relational continuum) in effable terms, we RE-PRESENT the FIGURE-GROUND NONDUALITY (the boil-in-flow nonduality) in split-apart-into-two representation.  This serves to opening the way to effable-izing the ineffable ONE-NESS of REAL REALITY of the Tao, and in the EAST, this double error based effable-izing is constrained to use as a TOOL OF INFERENCE that helps us ‘make an intuitive leap’ to understanding things in NONLOCAL terms of the transforming relational continuum.  SO, THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE SPLITTING OF FIGURE AND GROUND INTO TWO SEPARATE ONTOLOGIES as a tool for coming up with an EFFABLE abstraction that can be used to trigger an intuitive leap to an understanding of the INEFFABLE that lies innately beyond it.  That is, in the Wave-field aka the Tao, as in a hologram, FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE, … but it is impossible to capture the holodynamic in terms of notional LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, NOTIONALLY WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DVELOPMENT (the ‘double error’ basis of language and grammar), BUT SUCH REDUCTION OF THE NONLOCAL TO THE LOCAL can serve as a tool of inference.  The problem of CRAZY MAKING arises in the WEST by USING THE FIGURE AND GROUND SPLIT INTO TWO … “LITERALLY” … instead of, as in the EAST, using the split to trigger intuition of FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE.  TO REPEAT, FOR EMPHASIS…. In physical reality, the boil and flow are ONE but appear VISUALLY as TWO, a visual appearance which we can and do concretize with language and grammar.  The habitat and inhabitant are a case in point, they are ONE that is otherwise known as the ‘Wave-field’ aka the Tao.  That is why FIGURE AND GROUND taken as TWO, however useful for generating a REDUCED BUT EFFABLE INFERENCE, can be a CRAZY-MAKER IF, INSTEAD OF TAKING IT AS AN INFERENCE OF A REALITY THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND IT, WE ACCEPT IT AS OUR ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’.

CRAZY-MAKING  ERROR #2

-2- OUR WESTERN CULTURE EXPOSURE TO CRAZY MAKING BY LITERAL TREATMENT OF FIGURE AND GROUND AS TWO.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and their polar opposites GOODWORKS and REWARDS.  In the REAL reality of FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE there is only the transforming relational continuum and no ‘binary splits’.  Since everything is relational (mitakuye oyasin) and NONLOCAL, there is no place in ‘reality’ for LOCAL instantiation (aka ‘sourcing’) of ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS that can be considered EITHER ‘GOOD’ OR ‘BAD’.  [NOTE: the reason for the reduction of FIGURE AND GROUND from ONE to TWO was to render nonlocal fluidity LOCAL and EXPLICIT].  This splitting opens the way to viewing actions and developments as being sourced from two different directions; i.e. from the FIGURE AND FROM THE GROUND.  This ambiguity has persisted in WESTERN CULTURE and has been the source of social divisions; i.e. CONSERVATIVES believe that the root source of the social dynamic is the individual while LIBERALS believe the root source of the social dynamic is the collective.   This confusion and social polarizing continues today BECAUSE OF THE BELIEF IN THE ‘REALITY’ OF ‘LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS’, which also cultivates the impression of ANGELS and DEMONS; i.e. those SOURCING beneficial actions and developments and those SOURCING harmful actions and developments.

NOTE THAT SUCH BELIEFS HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL DEPENDENCY ON BELIEF IN LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘LOCAL SOURCING’, THIS IS A CRAZY-MAKER (not if one uses ‘local sourcing’ as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ of inference, but if one accepts ‘local sourcing’ as ‘reality’).

In the indigenous aboriginal culture, and as is consistent with modern physics, there is no such thing as local sourcing, there is only relational transformation so that ‘harmony and dissonance’ take over as the primary reality.  The conception of ‘GOOD’ and ‘EVIL’ actions and developments comes from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar which imputes the LOCAL JUMPSTARTING of ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, abstraction based concepts that are not found in the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

* * *

SYNOPSIS

GROWTH is a concept that comes with a built-in dependency on another abstract concept; i.e. A LOCAL THING THAT EXISTS.
TRANSFORMATION is a relational concept that does NOT depend on LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELFNESS as GROWTH does.
While our sensory experience-based intuition UNDERSTANDS TRANSFORMATION, … TRANSFORMTION is NONLOCAL and is thus INEFFABLE since we cannot point to it and say; ‘See, transformation is going on right over there. Transformation as in the Wave-field dynamic is INEFFABLE because it is NONLOCAL and we cannot point to it and identify it by a visual sighting. We are included in TRANSFORMATION (aka the Tao aka the Wave-field) and this means that the TRANSFORMATION that can be told and pointed to and photographed is NOT the true TRANSFORMATION.

The point is that while TRANSFORMATION (the Wave-field aka the Tao) is ineffable, it is the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion within it. GROWTH is an abstract VOYEUR visualization based concept that RENDERS THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE in terms of the LOCAL, and while there is no REAL LOCAL in the transforming relational continuum, we can use language to CREATE LOCALITY by NAMING forms within the transforming relational continuum that appear to persist as LOCAL THINGS IN THEMSELVES (i.e. even if they are boils in fluid flow that have the deceptive APPEARANCE of persisting ‘thing-in-itselfness’ and thus invite us to BAPTIZE/CHRISTEN with a NAME so as to impute persisting thing-in-itself being to an innately NONLOCAL phenomenon with an associated LOCAL APPEARANCE or APPARITION.

By using NAMING to orient our attention to a LOCALLY APPEARING resonance feature, we can reduce TRANSFORMATION to terms of GROWTH of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES which we can use GRAMMAR to ‘animate’ so as to give us an EFFABLE intellectual RE-presentation of the ineffable and purely relational flow-form.

Our CULTURE (in both EAST and WEST) has come up with language and grammar that gives us a deceptively SOLID, APPARENTLY LOCAL reality by substituting GROWTH of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES for the purely RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION of the Wave-field. Of course, GROWTH is an abstraction that we ‘bring-into-being’ INTELLECTUALLY, in terms of the intellectual invention of THINGS-THAT-GROW. This is an intellectual ‘work-around’ to help us get past the limitations of language since we are faced with the challenge of TRYING to articulate (even if it has to be by inference) the ineffable ‘Tao’ (the transforming relational continuum).

In the EAST, the REDUCTION of TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH … IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYING GROWTH AS SOMETHING ‘REAL”, BUT ONLY AS A MEANS OF USING ‘GROWTH’ AS A DEVICE FOR ALLUDING TO TRANSFORMATION, WHICH IS NONLOCAL AND INEFFABLE. ‘GROWTH’, AS an innately LOCAL phenomenon is an ALLUSION that builds dependently from a NAMING-instantiated THING-IN-ITSELF. This ILLUSION of GROWTH is just that, an ILLUSION. The ILLUSION known as GROWTH is something we concoct because we need to concoct it because TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and thus ineffable while GROWTH is the effable reduction of the ineffable TRANSFORMATION. That is; the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao, but we have the ability to make the Tao crudely tellable (effable, articulable) in a reduced representation wherein we abstractly reduce TRANSFORMATION which is purely RELATIONAL and NONLOCAL (and thus ineffable) to GROWTH of a NAMING instantiated thing-in-itself which is EXPLICIT and LOCAL…. BUT WE USE THIS ONLY FOR INFERENCE AND DO NOT TAKE IT ‘LITERALLY’.

In the WEST, the REDUCTION of TRANSFORMATION to GROWTH is a ‘tool that is running away with the workman’ (Emerson). In contrast with the EAST, WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DO TAKE THE DOUBLE ERROR CONSTRUCTS LITERALLY AS IF THEY ‘SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH’. So, when the EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT declares that Robin Hood has stolen grain from the King’s Granary and Jean Valjean has stolen bread from the Baker (acts that could be confirmed by Crime Scene Investigation), he is saying the same thing as the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT, …. BUT THERE IS A VERY BASIC DIFFERENCE IN UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE THE EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT UNDERSTANDS THESE ACTS AS BEING IN THE SERVICE OF RESTORING BALANCE AND HARMONY IN THE REAL PHYSICAL RELATIONAL DYNAMIC (distribution and ingestion of nutrients). In other words, these acts by Robin Hood and Jean Valjean serve to alleviate the imbalance between regions of excess and regions of deficiency. In this case, the act of NAMING as in NAMING the PRODUCER of the PRODUCT (the grain, the bread) which is based on the intellectual double error of language and grammar, is given reality-establishing precedence over the physical relational reality. USING ‘NAMING’ or ‘TITLE’ in ‘double error’ language and grammar constructions, is, in the WEST, given precedence over an understanding of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION.

Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas did not see things in the producer-product context, but saw humans as humanings within the Great Harmony. Meanwhile, even dances with wolves has the producer product geometry as immersion in the Great Harmony is ineffable.

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter and associated context (jailing of first nations people for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see ‘First People First Voices’, edited by Penny Petrone, University of Toronto Press, 1991]

The immanent questing for relational harmony, … the GREAT HARMONY of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, manifests as relational TRANSFORMATION. This ‘reality’ is ‘everywhere at the same time’ and comes us as sensory experience. It comes to Jean Valjean and to Robin Hood as intuitive INSPIRATION wherein we give ourselves up to sustaining and restoring relational balance and harmony. This is where the behaviour of diving into the rapids or into the burning building on rescue mission comes from. INSPIRATION is not based on logical analysis. INSPIRATION from cultivating and sustaining relational harmony fills the heart while EGO from calculated analytical thoughts of others’ knowledge of one’s heroic achievement swells the head. These ‘animators of dynamics’ differ in that EGO is inside-outward sourced as with PRIDE in notional ‘producer-product achievements’ admired by the social collective and the avoiding of being perceives as the author of ‘producer-product’ actions bringing public SHAME, … while INSPIRATION lies beyond such self-centred (LOCAL EGO-CENTRIC BASED) motivations and seeks only to cultivate relational harmony in a NONLOCAL sense.

INSPIRATION is a NONLOCAL influence (the opposite of which is DISHEARTEN) that recalls the Wave-field and one’s experience of inclusion in a web of sensory relations while PRIDE AND SHAME are influences that act out of a notional (intellectual-logical abstracting) LOCAL CENTRE OF SELF (EGO). While the EAST in each of us keeps the former in a natural precedence over the latter, the WEST in each of us allows the latter to hijack the natural primacy of the former, putting  (intellectual calculating of) PRIDE and SHAME ahead of relational-sensation-based INSPIRATION and ENNUI/DISHEARTENING.  DIFFERENT CULTURES FORM ON THE BASIS OF WHICH OF THESE ‘DIPOLES’ ARE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER WHICH; I.E. THE DIFFERING CULTURES OF EAST AND WEST.

* * *