In nature, transforming space trumps time-based cause-effect constructivism

We are a culture [we of the globally dominating Western culture] that believes in ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ and ‘blame’ and ‘forgiveness’.  That is, we are a culture that assumes that human development and behaviour derives fully and solely from the interior of each human understood as a ‘thing-in-itself’, an ‘absurdity’ yet the cornerstone of our cultural belief system.

We believe that science and rationality, rather than being tools of convenience, are addressing ‘reality’, the real world of our experience, which is a major error, as philosophers such as Mach, Nietzsche and Poincaré have elaborated on, not that they have ever had the attention of the ‘social mainstream’.   We are stuck in a mental box that we seem unable to escape from, and Mach has put a name to it; it is called ‘three dimensional space’.

Note: There is a ‘lighter’ version of this article here.


Three dimensional space is the space of material bodies and forces. It is the space of ‘doers of deeds’ and of ‘cause and effect’.  In this space that is characterized by ‘what things do’, given our observation of an ‘effect’, our inquiry will lead back to ‘its cause’.

“The space of sight and touch is three-dimensional ; that, no one ever yet doubted.” So says Mach in ‘The Science of Mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development’.   But as he goes on to point out, three dimensional space and observations grounded in sight and touch are too limited to capture our experience wherein we are witness to things vanishing from and entering into this space.

 For example, when temperatures are warm and the jet stream is strong, there are record numbers of tornadoes in the U.S. (e.g. 748 of them in the month of April in 2011).  The same applies to hurricanes.  Once we ‘spot them’, three dimensional space along with sight and touch are adequate for ‘dealing with them’; e.g. it is convenient to say that ‘Katrina’ wreaked destruction on New Orleans.   But we need more than ‘three dimensional space’ to address the space that ‘things’ are vanishing into and which ‘new things’ are coming from.  This would be the relational space or energy-charged fluid-dynamical ‘medium’ [spatial-plenum] in which Mach’s principle applies;

“The dynamics of the habitat [eg. fluid atmospheric medium]  are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [eg. hurricanes] at the same time as the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.”

Experience informs us that relational tensions can build in an energy-charged relational space so that the energy-charged space becomes the ‘source’ of emergence/development of new things and the shaper of behaviours of presently resident things.  This fluid-medium, relational space, is a space wherein the sourcing of dynamics is nonlocal, non-visible and non-material, and it exceeds the descriptive capabilities of three dimensional space and sight and touch based observations, the foundational stuff for mainstream science [‘the science of mechanics’ and cause-and-effect etc.], but not the foundational stuff of our experience; e.g. our ability to feel heat and pressure and to sense relational tensions that suggest to us, in our real world ‘experiential space’, that ‘something is brewing’ something not yet visible nor tangible, but about to emerge from non-local, non-visible, non-material webs of spatial-relations, the stuff that as Mach notes, we drop out for reasons of ‘economy-of-thought’, and go instead with notional ‘things-in-themselves’.  As Mach says;

 “The space of sight and touch is three-dimensional ‘ that no one every yet doubted.  If, now, it should be found that bodies vanish from this space, or new bodies get into it, the question might scientifically be discussed whether it would facilitate and promote our insight into things to conceive experiential space as part of a four-dimensional or multi-dimensional space.”

Evidently, we can’t attach FULL responsibility to Katrina for what she did to New Orleans, nor can we attach FULL responsibility to the 748 tornadoes in the month of April, 2011 for the damage they did, as we do when we inquire into things by way of three dimensional space and sight and touch based observations.  These ‘causal agents’ that we can see and touch that move this way and that and grow stronger and bigger, then weaker and smaller, are continually vanishing from, and emerging into this space, but as Mach points out, science has historically chosen three dimensional space and sight and touch based observations in which to formulate its laws and descriptions of physical phenomena.

The space of our experience goes well beyond the limits of what we can model in terms of three dimensional space and sight and touch based observations.

Our experience informs us that, by way of webs of spatial relations in which we are participating inhabitants, we can condition space that is at the same time conditioning the behaviours of the inhabitants that share inclusion in space.  Just as imbalances in thermal energy charging in the atmosphere gives rise to local storm-cells born to relieve it, so it occurs within the webs of social relations; e.g. the emergence of robin-hood cells born to relieve imbalances in control over access to space and its resources.

Should we expect Robin Hood to ‘take responsibility for his own actions’?

Only if our mental modeling is stuck in ‘three dimensional space and sight and touch based observations’.

Robin Hood might ask ‘us’ [the general public including the judge, prosecutor and police] to take ownership of our responsibility for ‘conditioning the dynamics of habitat that are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants’.

What happens to a society whose mental modeling is ‘stuck’ in the limited paradigm of three-dimensional space and sight and touch based observations?

We are experiencing what happens.  We, as a collective, are ignoring the obvious, that we, as inhabitants of a common relational space are conditioning the dynamics of our habitat that are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants which are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.   Robin Hood behaviours do not simply originate with ‘Robin Hood’ as it appears in a three-dimensional space, sight and touch based mental modeling paradigm.  In the ‘real’ space of our experience, relational tensions are infused by inhabitants cultivating over-abundance for themselves that is reciprocal to impoverishment of others.  In the same sort of manner as imbalances in electrical charging, rebalancing actions are triggered from needle-points and sharp edges where the imbalances are most acutely felt.  Our sight and touch based observations allow us to pinpoint the coordinates of, and identify the needled point that launches the blitzkrieg attack, and since our scientific ‘economy of thought’ imputes local sourcing to dynamics, the identified launching point is understood to be the causal agent; i.e. Robin Hood is understood to be the causal agent, end of story.

The causal model of mainstream science, based as it is on three-dimensional space and sight and touch based observations, compels us to think in terms of ‘taking responsibility for our own actions, as if we are ‘things-in-ourselves’ with our own locally originating, internal process driven behaviours.  This, in turn, has us thinking in terms of ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ and ‘blame’ and ‘forgiveness’.

This model is innately too simple to capture the dynamics of the space of our experience, a relational space wherein “the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat”, a Machean space that, were we to use mathematical descriptors to try to characterize it, requires more than ‘three dimensions’.

Where does this ‘denial’ of the relational nature of space leave us?

Through our relations with one another and the common living space, we cultivate tensions through excess and imbalance that in turn animate or shape the behaviours of inhabitants differently, depending on their situational inclusion within the relational space.  But since we are sticking to the three dimensional, sight and touch based observational mental model, we attribute the source of individual behaviours to the individuals as ‘things-in-themselves’, thus the ‘lightning bolt behaviour’ or ‘Robin Hood behaviour’ that we observe ‘coming from’ particular individuals, who may be situationally exposed to the extremes of imbalance, we impute as arising fully and solely  from their internal processes, and we expect them to ‘take [full and sole] responsibility’ for the sourcing of their behavioural dynamics.

Where they refuse to do so, we end up ‘blaming them’ anyhow, in accordance with the three-dimensional sight and touch based observational mental model.

Evidently, our failure to acknowledge the relational nature of the space of our experience, and our continued addressing of emergent ‘disturbances’ in our society on the basis of the innately inadequate three-dimensional mental model has been exacerbating rather than alleviating the incidence of social dysfunction.  We are in a zone that David Bohm terms ‘incoherence’ since the model we are using to resolve our problems is the model that is causing them.

So, since the only tool in our tool-box that can explain ‘what is going on’ is ‘cause-and-effect’, just as if it were a hammer so that everything looks like a nail, we play the game of assigning blame as best we can.

The blame targets for our chronic social dysfunction include, but are not limited to;

 1. Politicians and/or ‘politics’ [manipulating people to move in the same direction].

 2. The rich and powerful [formerly, the ‘bourgeoisie’]

 3. The capitalist system [the ‘free market economy’]

 4. Authoritarianism [central direction/control by a supreme authority]

 5. Right wing religious fanatics [exterminators of perceived ‘evil’]

 6. A secret ‘New World Order’ conspiracy [knights templar, freemasons, bilderbergers]

 7.  Technology [alienates us from nature]

 8.  The Military-Industrial Complex [seeking growth in markets]

 9. Religion [the Catholic Church, monotheism itself etc.]

 10.  Science [mechanistic/atheistic hard logic]


* * *


Part II.  The Wake-Up Call, … How Does it Come? … Or Does it Come?

Mach, also pointed out that the realization that our mental models are too simple to capture the unfoldings of our actual experiential space, has to come through actual experience.  There was a day when we [of the Western culture] believed that the earth was flat and that we were trapped in a flat space that extended outwards in all directions to infinity.

“… with respect to the space in which we live, only experience can decide whether it is finite, whether parallel lines intersect in it, or the like.  The significance of this elucidation can scarcely be overrated.  An enlightenment similar to that which Riemann inaugurated [i.e. that non-euclidian relational geometries of space were just as legitimate as euclidian geometry] in science was produced in the mind of humanity at large, as regards the surface of the earth, by the discoveries of the first circumnavigators.”

So, we escaped from the mental trap that had us believing that we could not ‘go around the world’ as we were trapped on a flat plane extending outwards to infinity, or at least to an ‘edge’ beyond which was an abyss inhabited by dragons.  The circumnavigators had real-life experiences which shattered the flatspace mental modeling paradigm.

What would it take to break out of our current entrapment in the cultural mental modeling default paradigm of three-dimensional space and sight and touch based observation; i.e. ‘observation’ that is far less comprehensive than our full-blown sensory experiencing capacities where we can sense inclusion in rising spatial-relational tensions etc. [which informs us that the emergence of behaviours and organization, hence ‘emergent forms’, can come from the energy-charged relational space that we are included in]?

In this case we need an experience that relates to this passage from the relational space [mathematically four-dimensional or multi-dimensional space] into three-dimensional space and back again, to confirm our experience that things vanish and new things enter into the three-dimensional space of sight and touch.

[[N.B. As Mach would quickly add to statements such as I have just made, the notion of ‘dimensions’ of space is nothing more than ‘mental artifice’ to assist in exploring the nature of our ‘experiential space’.]]

One’s first thought might be that one needs to communicate back, after death, to the living, to confirm the existence of this ‘fourth dimensional space’, as in Mach’s era, that is what people tried to do, much to the chagrin of Mach since it case a spurious interpretation onto this notion of ‘the fourth dimension’.  In Mach’s words;

“Yet in such a case [as where science would postulate a higher dimensional space], this fourth dimension would, nonetheless, remain a pure thing of thought, a mental fiction.  But this is not the way matters stand.  The phenomena mentioned were not forthcoming until after the new views were published, and were then exhibited in the presence of certain persons at spiritualistic séances.  The fourth dimension was a very opportune discovery for the spiritualists and for theologians who were in a quandary about the location of hell…. We have not yet found an accoucheur who has accomplished parturition through the fourth dimension. … I myself regarded multi-dimensional space as a mathematico-physical help even prior to the appearance of Riemann’s memoir [on the equal legitimacy of non-euclidian relational spaces to the absolute space of euclidian geometry].  But I trust that no one will employ what I have thought, said, and written on this subject as a basis for the fabrication of ghost stories.”

Nietzsche who was said [by his sister and others] to be greatly influenced by Mach’s works; Analysis of Sensations and The Science of Mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development, has added a great deal to this topic, in his anti-Darwinist and anti-dialectic philosophical writing.  His ‘Will to Power’ speaks of this deeper substrate which answers the question; ‘Given that we seem to have ‘free will’, what is the source of that which wills us to have a will?’   In terms of Robin Hood’s will, that our Western Justice system would insist is born within Robin Hood, consistent with holding him fully and solely responsible for ‘his own behaviour’ [as fits with the notion of a human as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour], … his will is a local jumpstarting fountainhead.  To Nietzsche, the ‘Will to Power’ is a will that permeates the energy-charged plenum of Nature; i.e. it is an ‘evolutionary logos’ that not only inhabits the emergent forms of nature but creates them.

“The world viewed from inside, the world defined and described by its “intelligible character”—it would be simply “will to power” and nothing else. —” – Nietzsche, Will to Power, 36.

The notion is that the dynamic forms of the world such as the human organism, ourselves, are like candle flames [Heraclitus], conjugate relations between outside-inward nurturing/orchestrating influence [endosmosis] and inside-outward asserting outflux.  This is Nietzsche’s definition of ‘evolution’ and it applies to all of nature rather than just to ‘life-forms’ that infect a dead universe, as in Darwinism.

But let’s not get caught up in that debate and instead move on with our inquiry into;

WHAT IS BLOCKING US FROM GETTING IN TOUCH WITH OUR EXPERIENCE THAT VALIDATES “RELATIONAL SPACE”, the space that lies beyond three dimensional space of our sight and touch based observations.

Barely showing up on the radar screen of mainstream blame-giving is ‘language’ [or, ‘thought and language’, since these two are closely coupled].  That language is the culprit that lies at the root of our social dysfunction is the view of Friedrich Nietzsche and it has also been ‘accused’ as such by Ernst Mach, Henri Poincaré, and others, including Wittgenstein, Marshall McLuhan, Benjamin Whorf, Dan Moonhawk Alford and myself.

‘Language-as-a-key-culprit’ explains why there is such a diversity of targets to point one’s finger at. The subjectifying power of language is what gives us the mental impression that for every observable ‘effect’, there is a ‘causal agent’ responsible for it.

As Nietzsche says;

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

Ernst Mach was  just as adamant as Nietzsche that ‘cause and effect’ is pure abstraction and Poincaré also described how the ‘language games’ we play impute a determinism that is purely ‘visual appearance’ concretized by abstraction [words as simple concepts standing in for what is inherently far more complex].  As Mach says in his historical-philosophical treatise on ‘science’, ‘The Science of Mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development’;

“The basis of science is the economy of thought. … Science is communicated by instruction, in order that one man may profit by the experience of another and be spared the trouble of accumulating it for himself ; and thus, to spare posterity, the experiences of whole generations are stored up in libraries.   Language, the instrument of this communication, is itself an economical contrivance.  Experiences are analysed, or broken up, into simpler and more familiar experiences, and then symbolised at some sacrifice of precision.  … In the reproduction of facts in thought, we never reproduce the facts in full, but only that side of them which is important to us, moved to this directly or indirectly by a practical interest.  Our reproductions are invariably abstractions.  Here again is an economical tendency.”

Mach points out that ‘the first and oldest words’ are the names of “things” and that this naming is;

“… an abstractive process, an abstraction from the surroundings of the things, and from the continual small changes which these compound sensations undergo, which being practically unimportant are not noticed.”  No inalterable thing exists.  The thing is an abstraction, the name of a symbol, for a compound of elements [the sense elements of our experience/perception] from whose changes we abstract.  The reason we need a single word to a whole compound is that we need to suggest all of the constituent sensations at once.  When, later, we come to remark the changeableness, we cannot at the same time hold fast to the idea of the thing’s permanence, unless we have recourse to the conception of a thing-in-itself, or other such like absurdity.”

Science, in Mach’s view, is an economical process for reproducing facts of practical interest to us;

“In speaking of cause and effect we arbitrarily give relief to those elements to whose connection we have to attend in the reproduction of a fact in the respect in which it is important to us.  There is no cause nor effect in nature ; nature has but an individual existence ; nature simply is.  … Cause and effect, therefore, are things of thought, having an economical office. … Science itself, therefore, may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presentment of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought.  The function of science, as we take it, is to replace experience.”

In Mach’s view [and Nietzsche’s et al], the scientific world view is most often an artificial conception oriented “to the expression of actual facts, and forbids the construction of hypotheses behind the facts where nothing tangible and verifiable is found.  … [thus]… nothing is to be imagined along with these elements except the physical attributes or characteristics directly or indirectly given by observation.”

The problem in all of this, is that ‘science’, whose purpose is to replace experience with economical conceptual re-renderings that substitute for experience, be mistaken for ‘the real world’.  The masses and forces that we use in the economical re-rendering give us a view of the world as in a stage play;

“ A person who knew the world only through the theatre, if brought behind the scenes and permitted to view the mechanism of the stage’s action, might possibly believe that the real world also was in need of a machine-room, and that if this were once thoroughly explored, we should know all.  Similarly, we, too, should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Mach

If ‘mechanics’ are not foundational to the world dynamic, then ‘we have a problem’ because we are using them as such in our attempt to understand the source of rising global social/economic dysfunction.   These quotes from Mach’s 1902 or earlier already identified the problem that we were pushing the mechanical world view of physics beyond its useful application.  Mach stated that we have fallen into the trap of “overestimating [how far we can push the] economical instruments of thought”, remarking that “Physics has wrongly been made the basis of physiology”; i.e. that our sensory experiment is the basis of packets of sensations that our economization of thought reduces to masses and forces, atomic structures and so on.  It therefore makes no sense to use physics to try to explain physiology.  But Mach describes this absurd state of affairs as actually transpiring in science in his day (he died in 1916) due to science specialists lacking the philosophical understanding [of the type Mach is writing about];

“A philosophy is involved in any correct view of the relations of special knowledge to the great body of knowledge at large, — a philosophy that must be demanded of every special investigator.  The lack of it is asserted in the formulation of imaginary problems, in the very enunciation of which, whether regarded as soluble or insoluble, fragrant absurdity is involved.  Such an overestimation of physics, in contrast to physiology, such a mistaken conception of the true relations of the two sciences, is displayed in the inquiry whether it is possible to explain feelings by the motions of the atoms?”

[In Mach’s view, ‘atoms’ are conceptual abstractions that we have derived from sensations in the first place; “All physical knowledge can only mentally represent and anticipate complexes of those elements we call sensations.”…. “the notions of mechanics are economical implements or expedients perfected to represent mechanical and not physiological or psychological facts.”]

Over the past century, our global social collective has been doing exactly what Mach is warning us against doing; i.e. we have continued to push the mechanistic world view of science and rationality beyond its appropriate limit in all manner of activity.


 * * *


Part III. —Closing the loop between the Machean/Nietzschean philosophy of science and our ‘everyday thinking habits’, and particularly, the habit of ‘blame’.

If ‘cause and effect’ is not ‘real’ then there is no-one to blame for authoring an ‘effect’; i.e. ‘lightning’ is not to be blamed for the ‘flashing in the sky’, and the man holding the smoking gun is not to be blamed for the ‘effect’ he is accused of authoring; i.e. the bullet-ridden corpse lying in front of him.

Certainly [in the view of the colonizers of North America], the dead Indians who tried to stand in the way could only blame themselves for their violent deaths, a violence they stirred up by refusing to acquiesce to the will of the recently arrived ‘majority’ and failing to comply with the democratically legislated ‘laws of the land’ that introduced the notion of centrally claimed, controlled and administered ‘property ownership’ which had specified their new and reduced living quarters.

Blame’ is essentially a search for root-cause authorship of an ‘effect’.  The trooper holding the smoking gun and standing over the dead body of the Indian is merely the first step in ‘historical’ inquiry that runs back ‘upstream’ in the flow of events, from the downstream ‘effect’ to the ultimate upstream source, kind of like starting from the massive outflux from the Nile delta into the Mediterranean as the observable ‘effect’ and embarking on a search, upstream, for the ‘head of the Nile’.   Ultimately, rather than the source of the Nile and its effect being two ‘endpoints’ marking start and finish of a curvilinear channel, the source-to-effect combo is circular and spatial.  The source is a huge drainage basin, a skyward-pointing receptacle that is continually collecting moisture that is continually being contributed by the Mediterranean and the rest of the surface of the planet and continually re-depositing it in the Mediterranean, thanks to the mediating role of atmospheric flow.

The same sort of situation is exposed in the case of the trooper and the Indian and it is described by Mach’s principle of space-matter relativity; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.”

Evidently, we have two different ‘realities’ that we can ‘play with’;

Reality 1. — ‘Reality’ understood in terms of things-in-themselves and ‘what things do’.  This is the reality that is ‘reinforced’ by language and the ‘cause-effect’ model of science and rationality.   It is the world understood as ‘theatre’, the antics of masses and forces.

Reality 2. —‘Reality’ understood in terms of the dynamics of the space we experience inclusion in; i.e. the transformation of spatial-relations.  This ‘relational’ reality is the reality that we actually experience in our lives.  The experience of riding around in a world of horses-and-buggies, oil lamps etc. that gradually, without anyone planning it, giving way to a world of fossil-fuel powered vehicles gliding along superhighways, continent-wide electrical grids, jets that fly us around the world, instant global communications systems etc.

No-one plans ‘reality 2.’   Our living space undergoes continual transformation [and has done so prior to man’s emergence within it].   The film ‘Bladerunner’ is an artist’s rendition of how this transformation of spatial-relations might continue to unfold, but it is anybody’s guess.  It will be amazing and unanticipated and ‘out of our control’, because ‘our control’ is constrained to our science and rationality driven actions, and these transpire in a ‘different reality’; i.e. ‘reality 1.’ which is based on ‘economizing thought’ and ‘substituting science for experience’.

“Science itself, therefore, may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presentment of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought.  The function of science, as we take it, is to replace experience.”

As Marshall McLuhan observed, scientific man can, and indeed does, design, develop and implement Cadillac and Cornflakes factories; i.e. the production of Cadillacs is an effect whose authorship can be traced back to entrepreneuring inventors and engineers, so cause-and-effect does seem to ‘work’.  But the point that McLuhan and others were making, by this, was that there are thousands of such scientific/rational cause-and-effect programs underway in a community at any given time, and none of the scientists and rational thinkers involved, have a clue as to how the ongoing transformation of our habitat, and the manner in which we relate to one another and the habitat, will be transformed.  How our relational living space is being transformed is not something that science and rationality are drafting plans and implementation procedures for.  In the realm of ‘reality 1.’, the realm of scientific/rational plans and doer-deed implementations, everyone is doing ‘their own thing’ at the same time and in a common living space.  But they do not share one another’s goals and undertakings.  The colonizers and the colonized did not share one another’s rational cause-effect seeking goals and undertakings but they ‘threw themselves body and soul’ into achieving them and the ‘Indian wars’ were one of the results.

In general, how will all our ‘reality 1.’ science and rationality driven activities impact our ‘reality 2.’, the ‘transforming-habitat’ reality that we actually ‘experience inclusion in’, that artists/writers try to anticipate with films like ‘Bladerunner’?

Did the colonizers with their ‘reality 1.’ doer-deed plans of ‘constructing a wonderful new world in the Americas, take into account the ‘reality 1.’ doer-deed plans of the indigenous peoples to defend against the ‘destruction of a wonderful established world on Turtle Island’?

Everyone seems to be a party to some selection of ‘reality 1.’ plans in the science and rationality doer-deed mode, not to mention large groups like the colonizers and the colonized, and everyone works hard to implement them, all within a common living space, but that leaves ‘flapping like a loose sheet in the wind’, ‘reality 2’, the overall reality that we actually experience [i.e. our experiencing of living in a ‘Bladerunner’ world that emerges from millions of different ‘reality 1’ activities].   And it is impossible to imagine how it could be any other way, unless humanity can figure out how to take over control of the unfolding of Nature/Universe.


  * * *



As Mach points out, three dimensional space is the space of sight and touch based observation.  Mechanics and the doer-deed world view limits itself to this ‘observational’ space.  However, our experience informs us that things are continually coming into and exiting this three dimensional space which suggests that our experienced reality incorporates what might be called a ‘fourth dimension’, whether we call this the energy-charged spatial plenum or some other name.

Our experience informs us that we live in a relational space.  We can feel tensions brewing that we can’t see and touch, but which are about to source the emergence of a visible and touchable dynamic; e.g. we can feel the conditions of space that brew up storm-cells [tornadoes and hurricanes].  As with fields that we sense as ‘pressures’ or ‘gradients’ we are included in [thermal, electrical etc.], these relational sensations are nonlocal, non-visible and non-material, but they are real enough, according to our spatial experiencing.

Since our language is architecturally optimized for rendering our experience in terms of doer-deed dynamics, language gives a representation of our experience that REDUCES our experience to a three dimensional spatial representation rendered in terms of sight and touch based observations.  This reduced spatial representation fails to retain the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material relational dynamics of the energy-charged relational space of our experience, the deeper realm into which material forms vanish and new forms enter, and which not only inhabits visible touchable material forms but which creates them.

Language stirs our thoughts in the direction of cause and effect, but as Mach says; “There is no cause nor effect in nature ; nature has but an individual existence ; nature simply is.”

Our experience is informing us of ‘what is’ and it is far too profound to capture in words.  We therefore need to put our trust in experience beyond our trust in language-bound science.

“Science itself, therefore, may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presentment of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought.  The function of science, as we take it, is to replace experience.”

Language used in dialogue, rather than as used in debate over ‘who’s to blame’ or ‘which scientific representation of the world is more true’, may bring about the needed restoring of trust in sensory experience [access to nature as it is without loss of dimensionality] over scientific intellection and its variably competent mental modeling paradigms.


* * * * *