APN

AUTHOR’S PREFACE:  This essay LOCATES, IDENTIFIES and EXPLAINS some VERY BASIC LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION ERRORS that have become part of the  COMMON WESTERN CULTURE REALITY CONCEPTUALIZING PACKAGE.

The Miner’s Canary experience is highlighted because of the BREAKTHROUGH INSIGHT it brings, which could be described as the RETURN of the DEA ABSCONDITA (the Goddess in Hiding), which is referring to the fact that our WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION SCHEME has DEMOTED AND DROPPED OUT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING while PROMOTING the use of MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING “ON ITS OWN”, which is unrealistic since MALE ASSERTING and FEMALE ACCOMMODATING EXIST “ONLY IN CONJUGATE RELATION AND DO NOT EXIST SEPARATELY”.

Not only does it NOT MAKE SENSE to SPLIT APART the ANDROGYNOUS WAVE-STRUCTURE and talk about “WHAT THE PEAK DOES” and “WHAT THE TROUGH DOES” as if that made sense (it does NOT), but to DROP OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING conjugate (e.g. to say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ without mentioning the conjugate SHRINKING of WILDERNESS) is CRAZY because THERE CAN BE NO ‘PEAK’ WITHOUT the ‘TROUGH’ because that is the nature of our WAVE-FIELD world, but as Vygotsky points out, THIS IS WHAT PIAGET and the WESTERN CULTURE TEACHING PRACTICE IS DOINGl  As Heinrich von Kleist says, this is our FALL FROM GRACE since INSPIRATION (the nonlocal and implicit) FILLS THE HEART while EGO (the local and explicit) SWELLS THE HEAD.

The Miner’s Canary narrative reminds us that“Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” (Bohm).  The message of the Miner’s Canary is that TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS induce VIOLENT BEHAVIOURS so that we must be careful to NOT BLAME the Luigi Mangionis and Tyler Robinsons for their violent acts since we all share inclusion in the same community, where the STRAND IN THE WEB interconnection and interdependence means that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are NOT JUSTIFIED in our SCAPEGOATING of the INDENTIFIED PATIENTS, while IGNORING the rising TOXICITY in our common everyday environment.

The public support, quietly expressed for Mangioni and Robinson, is considerable and points to an intuitive awareness of the STRAND-in-the-WEB reality where the VIOLENCE that VENTS through the INDIVIDUAL STRANDS is coming from the WEB, an understanding that is radically UNLIKE the WESTERN CULTURE VIEW of INDEPENDENT BEINGS in an absolute empty and infinite SPACE in which case the ‘VIOLENT INDEPENDENT BEING’ is credited with AUTHORING the VIOLENCE, UNLIKE the VIOLENT STRAND IN THE WEB where it the STRAND is the CONDUIT that is VENTING the community’s AGGREGATED TENSIONS where the RESPONSE to VIOLENCE is the HEALING CIRCLE whose aim is to resolve the TENSIONS in the WEB in a RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FASHION.

WESTERN CULTURE, in spite of long standing critiques by philosophers and anthropologists including Jules Henry, Ronald, Lang, Ernest Becker, David Bohm, Lev Vygotsky and many more, remnains a BINARY LOGIC based DISASTER and Donald Trump is only the latest person at the political helm that keeps us LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS (programs of rewards and recognition and punishments and denigration based on BINARY LOGIC judgements).

 * * * * * * * * * 

Vygotsky’s disagreement with Piaget is to do with LANGUAGE and THOUGHT and what is important in how we EDUCATE our CHILDREN

Vygotsky rightly criticizes Piaget for ... (I will use their terminology here although terminology varies in dealing with this (real + imaginary) wave-field subject matter) .. THE SPLITTING APART of the SPONTANEOUS (the imaginary) and the SCIENTIFIC (the real) components of phenomena, AND THEN TOSSING OUT the SPONTANEOUS component (the imaginary).

Vygotsky makes the point that THESE TWO (the SPONTANEOUS and the SCIENTIFIC) ARE NOT SEPARATE THINGS AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT BE SPLIT APART, so that since we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have been following the mistaken practice of Piaget, which was operative prior to Piaget giving it a huge boost, we are introducing a ROYAL SCREW-UP INTO OUR CHILDREN’S AND THUS INTO OUR WESTERN CULTURE’S THINKING and SOCIAL DYNAMIC.  In Vygotsky’s words;

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

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.” –Vygotsky

What Vygotsky is saying, and he expends a lot of effort in explaining this in his classic work Мышление И Речь, Психологические Исследования – … Myshleniye I Rech’, Psikhologicheskiye Issledovaniya (Thinking and Speech, Psychological Research), the popular English translationg entitled “Thought and Language”, is that the child’s natural capability for language has a ‘complex’ (real + imaginary) structure which Piaget’s approach to teaching screws up by having the child DROP OUT the spontaneous (the imaginary) while retaining ONLY the scientific (the real), which is a major screw-up since the spontaneous (imaginary) and scientific (real) ONLY EXIST AS CONJUGATES AND NOT AS TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.

THIS IS IMPORTANT!  The common practice in WESTERN CULTURE has become the ERRONEOUS practice used by Piaget which PERVADES our WESTERN CULTURE language usage mode; i.e. our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING OF REALITY.

THE FIRST PIAGET ERROR (NOW THE POPULAR BUILT-IN WESTERN CULTURE ERROR) is the crafting of our operative language in a manner that suggests that the SPONTANEOUS (nonlocal and implicit) conjugate and the SCIENTIFIC (local and explicit) conjugate are TWO SEPARATE THINGS WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED ON THEIR OWN.

e.g. THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (which is one thing, the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE which includes an interesting feature, the TOWNING) which is reduced to ‘THERE IS A TOWN THAT HAS EMERGED IN THE LANDSCAPE’ (which is now TWO THINGS)

THE SECOND PIAGET ERROR (NOW THE POPULAR BUILT-IN WESTERN CULTURE ERROR) is the crafting of our operative language in a manner that DROPS OUT THE SPONTANEOUS (nonlocal and implicit) conjugate so that we no longer even mention that the SCIENTIFIC (local and explicit) is INCLUDED WITHIN the SPONTANEOUS (nonlocal and implicit).

e.g. ‘THERE IS A TOWN IN THE LANDSCAPE’ is reduced to ‘THE TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING’ … as if within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE.

WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE WITH THESE TWO ERRORS IS THAT WE ARE CONSTRUCTING A NEW BINARY LOGIC based PSEUDO-REALITY wherein we can speak of EITHER the town OR the landscape as if they were TWO INDEPENDENT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  THIS IS THE EXPOSURE TO CONFUSION THAT IS NOW THE GENERAL CASE IN OUR WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING and COMMUNICATING, which Vygotsky is pointing out.

NOTICE THAT what has been done here is that the SCIENTIFIC (the LOCAL and EXPLICIT) has been CHOPPED OUT and PRESENTED SEPARATELY AS IF IT EXISTED IN ITS OWN RIGHT (IT DOES NOT!) while the SPONTANEOUS (the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) has become the DEA ABSCONDITA (Goddess in Hiding) having been REPLACED by ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE, a restructructuring that gives the MISTAKEN IMPRESSION of a “reality” that is LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

The dropping out of the SPONTANEOUS (the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) is like mathematical DIFFERENTIATION whereby we LOSE the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT LANDSCAPE while LIBERATING the SCIENTIFIC (the LOCAL and EXPLICIT).  It is IMPORTANT TO NOTE, … and this is Vygotsky’s point, … that SPONTANEOUS and the SCIENTIFIC “DO NOT SPLIT INTO TWO SEPARATE PARTS, AS WE IMPLY IS POSSIBLE WHEN WE “LINGUISTICALLY” DROP OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING SPONTANEOUS AND GO WITH THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING AS IF ‘ON ITS OWN’.    This is a MISTAKE, in that the SPONTANEOUS and SCIENTIFIC are CONJUGATES and are NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

THERE IS “TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” but THERE IS NO “TOWN” that is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING GOODS; i.e.the TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE IS AN INCLUDED FEATURE WITHIN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE AND IS “NOT” A SEPARATE THING THAT IS CAPABLE OF ‘GROWING IN ITS OWN RIGHT’ as our WESTERN CULTURE “BEING” based LANGUAGE equips us for MISTAKINGLY ASSERTING.

This summarizes what Vygotsky’s complaint about the dumbing down of our language, a ‘dumbing down’ that Piaget has helped to reinforce which is now the WESTERN CULTURE OPERATING STANDARD; i.e. (almost) no-one is saying “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE”, but thanks to Piaget and the general trend, (almost) everyone is saying; ‘The TOWN is growing, developing and producing goods, which implies a SPLITTING APART of the CONJUGATE “TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” and DROPPING OUT the phrase; “IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE”, which REDUCES …. the TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein ‘everything is in included within the relational flux (mitakuye oyasin) …to ‘THE TOWN’, as if it were a THING-IN-ITSELF notionally with its own GRAMMAR given GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.  Instead of capturing the reality of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT town being a TOWNING FEATURE within the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (implying a conjugate relation), PIAGET and WESTERN CULTURE have picked up on the double error of NAMING and GRAMMAR based practice of SPLITTING the ONE THING (the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE WITHIN WHICH THERE IS AN INCLUDED FEATURE; i.e. the TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE), …  into TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT THINGS (the local and explicit [scientific] TOWN … PLUS the nonlocal and implicit [spontaneous]) LANDSCAPE, and then DROPPING OUT the “nonlocal and implicit”[spontaneous] LANDSCAPE.

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

The problem is, to quote Vygotsky; … “He (Piaget) assumes that development [spontaneous] and instruction [scientific] are entirely separate, incommensurate processes” … i.e. when they are instead, conjugate aspects of a complex (imaginary + real) dynamic.

The important difference here lies in how our language influences our conceptualizing of reality; e.g. if we speak in terms such as “there is towning in the transforming landscape”, using only verbs and no nouns, we convey the reality wherein EVERYTHING IS IN TRANSFORMATIVE FLUX as is supported by our sense-experience, however, if we using NAMING to SPLIT OUT what we are calling ‘THE TOWN’ (the scientific which is local and explicit) together with GRAMMAR to SEPARATELY “ANIMATE” this SPLIT OUT ‘TOWN’ and use GRAMMAR to impute to it “ITS OWN LOCAL POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT” as in “the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods”, … we are abstractly INFUSING IMAGINARY LOCAL POWERS INTO ‘THE TOWN’ that CONFLICT with the understanding captured with FLOW-BASED LANGUAGE such as “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” wherein EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX.

THE PROBLEM that Vygotsky is pointing to concerns our (Piaget’s) WESTERN CULTURE popularizing of a particular way of using language that REDUCES and SIMPLIFIES our linguistic conceptualization of a world in continual flux wherein everything is related within an all-including TRANSFORMATION.  Starting with our sense-experience, we understand that the nonlocal and implicit TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE INCLUDES the local and explicit TOWN and there is really only one thing here since “the local and explicit” (scientific) TOWN and the “nonlocal and implicit” (spontaneous) TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation”.  

In the flow-based languages of indigenous aboriginals and Bohm’s Modern physics compliant Rheomode flow-based language, there are ONLY VERBS and no NOUNS because there are no MATERIAL BEING BASED OBJECTS in the sense-experience affirmed TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OK, this note had to first of all deal with popular WESTERN CULTURE MISCONCEPTUALIZATIONS that STAND IN THE WAY AND BLOCK the explaining of the Miner’s Canary as is the primary goal of this note entitled;  “Language vis a vis the SPIRITUAL and MATERIAL (explaining the Miner’s Canary)

I have attached the short piece (following this essay)  “How the Miner’s Canary Insight Breaks the BINARY LOGIC STRANGLEHOLD”  (1140 words)

The POPULAR WESTERN CULTURE USE OF BINARY LOGIC IS A MAJOR SCREWUP which can be exemplified by considering the difference between how INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURE would handle the events involving Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson.  That is, because indigenous aboriginal cultures understand that EVERYTHING IS RELATED as in INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, there is no remedy for outbreaks of VIOLENCE by way of ELIMINATING or INCARCERATING the apparent PERPETRATOR HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN, because the situation is that of STRANDS in a WEB where DISTURBANCE IN THE WEB manifests “THROUGH THE DYNAMICS OF THE STRAND” but THE STRAND IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE VIOLENCE, ONLY THE CONDUIT and it is the BUILD-UP OF TENSIONS IN THE WEB that is the SOURCE of the VIOLENCE while the VENTING STRAND is only the CONDUIT, hence the need for RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than the PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE AS USED IN WESTERN CULTURE.

PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE, where the adventure stories of clever sleuths hunting down the GUILTY PERPETRATOR, popularized in WESTERN CULTURE by AGATHA CHRISTIE, have no equivalent in indigenous aboriginal culture with its RESTORATIVE JUSTICE where the understanding is that THERE IS NO LOCAL EXPLICIT AUTHOR of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE because VIOLENCE develops from the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as with STRANDS IN A WEB where the WEB is the generator and the reservoir for accumulated tensions, while STRANDS are conduits for the VIOLENT ERUPTIONS co-cultivated in the multi-stranded WEB.  The VENTING STRAND is NOT the AUTHOR of the VIOLENCE.  This is a simple, verifiable reality that is CONTRADICTED by WESTERN CULTURE JUSTICE based on the FALSE NOTION of “INDEPENDENT BEING” occupy an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE in which case, WESTERN CULTURE LAW SUPPORTS A MISTAKEN ‘SCAPE-GOATING OF THE “PARTICULAR INDEPENDENT BEING” HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN’, while common sense and indigenous aboriginal cultures UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONE HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN is the CONDUIT for VENTING of TENSIONS that develop within the WEB (the social-relational collective).  The WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE APPROACH IS EXPOSED AS RIDICULOUS in cases such as those involving Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson.

In any social collective, tensions and strife can arise in the many-stranded complex WEB of relations and the STRAND that becomes the CONDUIT for the VENTING of a buildup of tensions, participates along with the community in general, in a HEALING CIRCLE where it is understood that emergent VIOLENCE of a STRAND, does NOT ORIGINATE WITH THE STRAND but is a VENTING from the buildup of tensions in the WEB.  The ROOT PROBLEM is the buildup of tensions in the WEB and the VIOLENT STRAND IS ONLY THE “MINER’S CANARY” warning of the buildup of tensions in the WEB or in other words, the issue of A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT wherein the STRANDS IN THE WEB that BECOME VIOLENT, while they are LOCAL CONDUITS of VIOLENCE (building in the WEB), “ARE NOT LOCAL AUTHORS” of VIOLENCE, hence the need for RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE.

Western culture continues to HOLD ON to the absurd “DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR BASED LOCAL AUTHOR CONCEPT” and give it FOUNDATIONAL STATUS in the WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE SCHEME, even to the point that, in cases like that of Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson, where 340 MILLION PEOPLE are presumed INNOCENT while a miniscule fraction is presumed GUILTY.  This is due to the RIDICULOUS notion of the existence of 340 MILLION “INDEPENDENT BEINGS” which persists because of MALE EGO that claims SOLE AUTHORING of actions which are generally deemed GOOD and BENEFICIAL   That has opened a Pandora’s Box, however, since the BINARY LOGIC based SUPPORTIVE PROPOSITION of THEY EITHER AUTHORED IT OR DID NOT AUTHOR IT leads to results such as 1 person authored it while the other 339,999,999 INNOCENT ONES “DID NOT”, since in WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING everyone is INDEPENDENT and is the FULL AND SOLE AUTHOR of THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR.

LET’S FACE IT, AS STUPID AS THIS SOUNDS AND AS IT IS, the stake in the ground holding it place is the WESTERN CULTURE REWARDS AND RECOGNITION SYSTEM which is based on FULL and SOLE LOCAL AUTHORSHIP which is without any STRANDS IN THE WEB “BLURRING”, where the “BLURRING” is telling it like it is (we can use references to the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT versus the LOCAL and EXPLICIT to clarify what is meant by the WEB ‘BLURRING’ what goes on.

The NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) SOURCE OF “AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT” is the understanding of indigenous aboriginals that leads to their development of a RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than to a WESTERN CULTURE STYLE PUNITIVE/PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE (identify and eliminate the LOCAL AUTHOR of the VIOLENCE).  IN OTHERWORDS;….

The ROOT PROBLEM is the buildup of tensions in the WEB and the VIOLENT STRAND IS ONLY THE “MINER’S CANARY” warning of the buildup of tensions in the WEB or in other words, the issue of A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT wherein the STRANDS IN THE WEB that BECOME VIOLENT, while they are LOCAL CONDUITS of VIOLENCE (building in the WEB), “ARE NOT LOCAL AUTHORS” of VIOLENCE, hence the need for RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE.

THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING “HOW THINGS WORK’ AND ONE LEADS TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND THE OTHER TO PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE.

IN THE FIRST OPTION, THE VIOLENT PERSON (STRAND-IN-THE-WEB) IS RESPONDING TO A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, while in the SECOND OPTION, the VIOLENT PERSON IS THE LOCAL, INDEPENDENT AUTHOR OF THE VIOLENCE.

THE ELICITED RESPONSE IN THE FIRST OPTION (which is employed by indigenous aboriginals) IS THE RESTORING OF BALANCE IN THE WEB.  THE ELICITED RESPONSE IN THE SECOND OPTION (which is employed by WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) IS THE ELIMINATING OF THE PURPORTED LOCAL, INDEPENDENT AUTHOR OF THE VIOLENCE.

The “MINER’S CANARY” allusion refers to THOSE WHOSE VIOLENT or seemingly ABERRANT actions are THEIR RESPONSE TO INCLUSION IN A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, in which case there is no point hospitalizing them to cure what is assumed to be their INTERNAL ISSUE or to incarcerate them because of their INTERNAL INTENTION-DRIVEN VIOLENT ACTIONS.  These approaches are BINARY LOGIC based in that our model of reality consists of the CANARY or PERSON situated within an EMPTY SPACE in which case there is only ONE PLACE TO LOOK FOR THE SOURCE OF THEIR ABBERANT BEHAVIOUR and it is IN THEIR INTERIOR.

ONE MUST shift to a LOGIC LESS SIMPLE THAN BINARY LOGIC (where the ORGANISM WITH THE VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IS IN EMPTY SPACE) and that LESS SIMPLE NONBINARY LOGIC is the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM wherein THERE IS NO EMPTY SPACE, but what there is, is the ALL-INCLUDING ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM within which there are MATERIAL FORMS THAT ARE CONDENSATIONS of the PLENUM in which case they are BOTH THEMSELVES (the CONDENSATIONS) AND the ALL-INCLUDING ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM they are CONDENSATIONS IN.   There means that EVERYTHING (all of the CONDENSATIONS of and in the PLENUM) IS INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, as with STRANDS IN A WEB, which means that the STRAND is NOT the AUTHOR OF ITS OWN BEHAVIOUR because, while there are STRANDS IN THE WEB, THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT STRANDS THAT AUTHOR THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR.   Here we encounter the equivalent of the “THREE BODY PROBLEM’ i.e. the THREE STRAND PROBLEM which points out the impossibility of calculating the individual movements of three or more bodies moving under one-another’s simultaneous mutual influence.  The same applies to three or more interconnected strands in the web, or to three or more swimmers in a WATER BALLET where it is impossible to RATE INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR PERFORMANCE (the individual that is best to GIVING THEMSELF UP SO AS TO SUSTAIN OVERALL HARMONY AND AESTHETIC cannot be judged on something called THEIR OWN PERFORMANCE because it does not exist due to “the impossibility of calculating the individual movements of three or more bodies moving under one-another’s simultaneous mutual influence”.

The common WESTERN CULTURE PRACTICE is to impose an ABSTRACT ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME as the basis for extracting from INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT participants in a complex dynamic, their own INDIVIDUAL, SEEMINGLY INDEPENDENT DYNAMICS.  This may FEED THE EGO but it collapses the natural harmonies and resonances that and bring into play the adage (INSPIRATION FILLS THE SOUL while EGO SWELLS THE HEAD).

What happens when we shift our reference from the SPONTANEOUS to the SCIENTIFIC?

Heinrich von Kleist captures ‘what happens when we shift our reference from the SPONTANEOUS to the SCIENTIFIC’ in his essay;  “On the Marionette Theatre”

… I told him I was well aware how consciousness can disturb natural grace. A young acquaintance of mine had as it were lost his innocence before my very eyes, and all because of a chance remark. He had never found his way back to that Paradise of innocence, in spite of all conceivable efforts. “But what inferences”, I added, “can you draw from that?”

He asked me what incident I had in mind.

“About three years ago”, I said, “I was at the baths with a young man who was then remarkably graceful. He was about fifteen, and only faintly could one see the first traces of vanity, a product of the favours shown him by women. It happened that we had recently seen in Paris the figure of the boy pulling a thorn out of his foot. The cast of the statue is well known; you see it in most German collections. My friend looked into a tall mirror just as he was lifting his foot to a stool to dry it, and he was reminded of the statue. He smiled and told me of his discovery. As a matter of fact, I’d noticed it too, at the same moment, but… I don’t know if it was to test the quality of his apparent grace or to provide a salutary counter to his vanity… I laughed and said he must be imagining things. He blushed. He lifted his foot a second time, to show me, but the effort was a failure, as anybody could have foreseen. He tried it again a third time, a fourth time, he must have lifted his foot ten times, but it was in vain. He was quite unable to reproduce the same movement. What am I saying? The movements he made were so comical that I was hard put to it not to laugh.

From that day, from that very moment, an extraordinary change came over this boy. He began to spend whole days before the mirror. His attractions slipped away from him, one after the other. An invisible and incomprehensible power seemed to settle like a steel net over the free play of his gestures. A year later nothing remained of the lovely grace which had given pleasure to all who looked at him. I can tell you of a man, still alive, who was a witness to this strange and unfortunate event. He can confirm it, word for word, just as I’ve described it.”

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE BEEN DROPPING OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE FROM OUR LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS and “GOING WITH” the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONJUGATE ON ITS OWN.  THIS IS VYGOTSKY’S CRITICISM OF PIAGET, POINTING OUT THAT THE SPONTANEOUS AND SCIENTIFIC are ONE THING WITH TWO ASPECTS LIKE A WAVE WITH PEAK AND TROUGH WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO, BUT WE ARE TALKING RUBBISH WHEN WE DO IT, SPLIT THE PEAK AND TROUGH APART AND SPEAK OF THEM AS IF THEY WERE TWO SEPARATE THING, AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, TOSS OUT THE TROUGH SINCE IT SEEMS KIND OF USELESS and CONTINUE WITH A LANGUAGE CONSTUTED “ONLY” BY THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONJUGATE, as if that action was TRANSPIRING IN ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.   Such a language has THROWN OUT ITS CAPABILITY OF COMMUNICATING the full ANDROGYNOUS dynamics of NATURE such as “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” where the TOWNING is INCLUDED IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.  THE REDUCTION TO THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONJUGATE ONLY SUPPORTS ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONCEPTUALIZATIONS.

THIS LOSS FROM OUR LANGUAGE of THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE reduces our WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO SUCH CONSTRUCTS AS “THE TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING THINGS” where there is “NO MENTION OF THE CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS AND THUS NO MENTION OF THE TRANSFORMING OF THE LANDSCAPE.

What our WESTERN CULTURE DROPPING OUT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING DOES and going forward with COMMUNICATIONS that are reduced to the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING ONLY, … is equivalent to DROPPING OUT the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT STRUCTURAL COMPONENT and GOING SOLELY WITH THE LOCAL AND EXPLICIT STRUCTURAL COMPONENT, as just described.  EVERYWHERE WE WANT TO LOOK IN OUR MODERN DAY WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING, the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING HAS BEEN DROPPED OUT.  WE (OUR LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING HABIT) HAVE BEEN DROPPING IT OUT.   WE no longer say things like “TO EVERYTHING THERE IS A SEASON AND A TIME TO EVERY PURPOSE” which DOES include BOTH the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE together with the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING conjugate (BOTH the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT WAVE-TROUGH together with the LOCAL and EXPLICIT WAVE-PEAK).

NOTE THAT IN ORDER TO USE BOTH CONJUGATES of FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING which is NONLOCAL and LIMPLICIT together with MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT, the former must be mentioned FIRST because the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT provides THE SOCKET for the LOCAL and EXPLICIT to PLUG INTO (to form the conjugate relation).

BUT WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING HAS GOT INTO THE HABIT OF DROPPING OUT THE NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT SOCKET and GOING WITH ONLY, AND ON ITS OWN, THE LOCAL and EXPLICIT PLUG (the ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING PROPOSITION such as “THE TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods”.

THIS ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DEVELOP THE HABIT OF DROPPING OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING conjugate and LEADING OFF OUR LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING WITH THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING PROPOSITION (the MISTAKE WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE MAKING), which equates to the SHIFT from the SPONTANEOUS TO THE SCIENTIFIC IS WHAT Heinrich von Kleist is writing about in his essay;  “On the Marionette Theatre”

Vygotsky is agreeing with and explain how WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE SCREWING UP in the fashion described by Heinrich von Kleist and by the Neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist who captures it in the classical physics terms that “the left side of our brains have taken over our minds”

EVERYTHING that has been discussed in this essay POINTS TO THE SAME THING; i.e. the indigenous aboriginal understanding of reality is CORRECT and endorsed by MODERN PHYSICS while what now the POPULAR WESTERN CULTURE APPROACH TO LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING IS WRONG because it is DROPPING OUT the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE WHICH IS NOT ONLY PRIMARY in the sense it is the SOCKET for the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALING CONJUGATE TO PLUG INTO, BUT WITHOUT IT, LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS DEGENERATE INTO ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING, which as Vygotsky points out, IS UNREAL since the REAL structure is where the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING and the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING ARE CONJUGATES: … I.E. … THEY DO NOT EACH HAVE THEIR OWN ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE.  What is REAL is ONE ANDROGYNOUS UNUM wherein the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING is REAL while the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING FORMS are only APPEARANCE (Schaumkommen).

The TOWN THAT IS GROWING is an IMAGINARY LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION that is simply Schaumkommen (APPEARANCE).

THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is the REAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION capturing the PHYSICAL REALITY.

WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEMES based on the BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM, … of MATERIAL FORMS IN EMPTY SPACE, … are INCAPABLE OF CONCEPTUALIZING THE NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIU, … wherein MATERIAL FORMS are CONDENSATIONS of the ALL-INCLUDING ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM, which supports a REALITY wherein EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT.

These understandings are the understandings of BOTH indigenous aboriginals AND MODERN PHYSICS!

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

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

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

Regarding the title of this essay; Language vis a vis the SPIRITUAL and MATERIAL (explaining the Miner’s Canary)

When the reader considers the Heinrich von Kleist story that captures ‘what happens when we shift our reference from the SPONTANEOUS to the SCIENTIFIC’ in his essay;  “On the Marionette Theatre” … we can see where the distinction between SPIRITUAL and MATERIAL can be coming from; i.e. when our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING OF THE “WORLD’ includes BOTH FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING and MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING conjugates, we speak as if we are included in the energy-charged PLENUM wherein WE ARE CONDENSATIONS which is consistent with the STRAND IN THE WEB understanding of indigenous aboriginals.  This is where the FEMALE ACCOMMODSATING/ENABLING NONLOCAL and the IMPLICIT is the SOCKET for the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING LOCAL and EXPLICIT.   But as Vygotsky points out, Piaget supports a linguistic conceptualizing scheme that DROPS OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE (IMPOSSIBLE to break off a wave-trough in reality) and employs ONLY the notional MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING conjugate with a new partner to make up for the DROPPING OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING which is a notional ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE, thus implying that ACTIONS IN THIS NEW REALITY fabricated by WESTERN CULTURE take place within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.  This NEW LINGUISTICALLY CONCEPTUALIZED ‘REALITY’ because it now ONLY INCLUDES THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING explains what happens to the initially graceful youth who employe the SPONTANEOUS (the female accommodating/enabling) in its natural FOUNDATIONAL ROLE wherein the SCIENTIFIC (the male asserting/actualizing) was secondary; e.g. the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is the female accommodating/enabling that is in conjugate relation with the TOWNING and the YOUTHING in the TRANSFORMING, but what happens in the Von Kleist story is that the youth becomes self-conscious and egotistical and thus dependent on the SCIENTIFIC and losing touch with the SPONTANEOUS.

What has happened to WESTERN CULTURE is that the ENTIRE WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE has become dependent on the SCIENTIFIC and has been losing touch with the SPONTANEOUS.    Since the SPONTANEOUS is our natural grounding in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT wherein everything is INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, it must be the SOCKET into which the SCIENTIFIC, which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT PLUGS INTO so that the SCIENTIFIC does not become the source of FRAGMENTATION and OBSCURANTISM, which has been increasingly manifesting in the WESTERN CULTURE social dynamic.

Language vis a vis the SPIRITUAL and MATERIAL (explaining the Miner’s Canary):

Because our WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING has been steadily shifting away from “To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose” where we used language that supports the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING “SPONTANEOUS” within its conjugate relation with the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING SCIENTIFIC, and are now commonly focusing EXCLUSIVELY on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT SCIENTIFIC CONTENT without the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT SPONTANEOUS such as “the TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING’, we are DROPPING OUT the SPIRITUAL conjugate (the unbounded container) and substituting only SCIENTIFIC conjugate of local content as if within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.

The MINER’S CANARY anecdote is a reminder that “Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” –David Bohm, in which case, we may experience through our inclusion in the PLENUM, inclusion in NURTURANCE and inclusion in TOXICITY, the KEY POINT BEING that ‘our BEHAVIOUR’ is NOT simply SOURCED FROM OUR INTERIOR as WESTERN CULTURE tends to assume (using the one-sided male-asserting/actualizing model) but as the Miner’s Canary shows us, our behaviour is being INDUCTIVELY SHAPED by INFLUENCES within the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM which may be NURTURANT and may be TOXIC, in which case the behaviours of Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson may be inductively shaped by the evident toxic environments that manifest in a highly polarized WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMIC, in which case the REMEDY is NOT the ELIMINATION of the MINER’S CANARIES but the RESOLVING of TOXICITY in the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM as experienced by CONDENSATIONS aka STRANDS IN THE WEB which are IN NO WAY ‘INDEPENDENT BEINGS INSULATED FROM ONE OTHER BY THEIR NOTIONAL INCLUSION IN AN ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE’; i.e. in the energy-charged plenum, EVERYTHING (all condensations) are INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, as understood by the STRANDS IN THE WEB aphorism of indigenous aboriginals and CONDENSATIONS of the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM as understood by Modern physics, and agreement which is reaffirmed by; …  What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” .

* * * * * *

HOW THE MINER’S CANARY INSIGHT BREAKS THE BINARY LOGIC STRANGLEHOLD  (1140 words)

BINARY Logic is the EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM as exemplified by “EITHER MATTER OR SPACE” of CLASSICAL PHYSICS

NONBINARY Logic is the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM as exemplified by the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM and ITS CONDENSATIONS of MODERN PHYSICS

What we have taken to be MATERIAL OBJECTS or ORGANISMS in EMPTY SPACE are CONDENSATIONS of the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM which are INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT.  “Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” –David Bohm

The Miner’s Canary that ‘fell ill’ inside the mine was an important signal; i.e. “Canaries are more sensitive to poisons like Carbon Monoxide than humans and would show signs of distress, such as lethargy or falling off their perch, before humans. This would give miners time to evacuate the dangerous environment.”

In WESTERN CULTURE, the knee-jerk presumption in seeing symptoms of illness in a person or bird is to assume that ‘THEY HAVE AN ILLNESS’ in their internal systems, and NOT that they are healthy and sensitive and are reacting to a TOXIC ENVIRONMENT as in the case of the miner’s canary.

The CONFUSING ELEMENT here is that some HUMANS are MORE SENSITIVE (and to different things) THAN OTHERS so that if the ENVIRONMENT (e.g. the SOCIAL DYNAMIC) becomes CONFLICT FILLED aka TOXIC, the MORE SENSITIVE INDIVIDUAL MAY GO BONKERS, a BREAK-DOWN that will be interpreted by the LESS SENSITIVE MAJORITY WHO ARE CO-CREATING THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, as if the SENSITIVE INDIVIDUAL is EXPERIENCING ITS OWN INTERNAL ILLNESS WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, and will HOSPITALIZE or INCARCERATE the VIOLENT or BONKERS individual.  That is, the less-sensitive majority is UNAWARE that they are CO-AUTHORING A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, and are mistaking the ABERRANT BEHAVIOUR of the SENSITIVE INDIVIDUAL as being INTERNALLY SOURCED when it is IN REALITY EXTERNALLY SOURCED by TOXICITY they are co-contributors to.

This explains the CONFUSION of investigators into ASSASSINATIONS such as those by Luigi Mangioni (who shot and killed Brian Thompson) and Tyler Robinson (who shot and killed Charlie Kirk), in that they check out as psychologically ‘normal people’ instead of psychopaths.   This has been a common finding with mass shooters and points to an understanding wherein violent behaviour is sourced by TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS, which is why indigenous aboriginals respond to VIOLENT OUTBURSTS in the social collective with RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (gathering everyone in the healing circle) rather than with PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE (eliminating of the perceived perpetrator or ‘smoking gun holder’). The holder of the smoking gun is, in indigenous aboriginal, culture, seen a STRAND in the WEB of community (wherein the STRANDS are interconnected and interdependent).  In this understanding, the STRAND as the shooter is the CONDUIT for VENTING TENSIONS that build up within the WEB (the social collective).  There is NO LOCAL AUTHOR in this STRANDS-in-the-WEB, which is why JUSTICE is RESTORATIVE rather than purificationist.

Bohm’s statement; “Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.”

This means that the PLENUM may be TOXIC (dissonant) or it may be NURTURANT (resonant) but NOT EMPTY and while the less sensitive may not be aware of a shifting of the PLENUM from NURTURANT to TOXIC, it is evident that Mangioni and Robinson were very aware and felt ‘called into action’ by such shifts (like Miner’s Canaries that not only sense TOXICITY but act so to as try to eliminate it).

In order to understand what is going on here, the LOGIC cannot be the SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM where we focus on the LOCAL, EXPLICIT MATERIAL ORGANISM (canary or human and its INTERNAL WORKINGS.  The LOGIC in this case must be the LESS SIMPLE NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM, the standard logic in Modern physics wherein the material CONDENSATION is BOTH itself AND the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM it is included in.

It is EASY for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS to CONFUSE ABERRANT BEHAVIOUR of a human due to a TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, as INSTEAD deriving from the DYSFUNCTION in the interior neural system of that human.  The notion of internal neural system authoring is promoted by our standard use of BINARY LOGIC based language which DROPS OUT the female accommodating/enabling conjugate of the energy-charged PLENUM and constrains action to the male asserting/actualizing (what the active agent does as if in empty space).  In other words, BECAUSE OF OUR USE OF SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM based LANGUAGE, the ENVIRONMENT containing the action is constrained to being EMPTY SPACE in which case it is impossible to introduce the notion of a TOXIC environment since that ‘SLOT’ is filled by the standard fill-in of EMPTY SPACE.  In order to introduce the presence of a TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM is required.

Note that in the case of the Miner’s Canary, the full understanding was already there for us since someone had tuned in to the fact that CANARIES are more sensitive to environmental influences than humans and are great DETECTORS of TOXIC environments, so long as people do not MISTAKE their aberrant behaviours as having an internal, psychological defectiveness origin rather than a (toxic) environment induced origin.

There is NO REASON why this same TOXIC ENVIRONMENT phenomenon (since that which is TOXIC to one person may be INNOCUOUS to another who does not have that same ‘sensitivity’) WOULD NOT apply to VIOLENT outbursts in the case of the assassinations by Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson who were reacting to what, to them were TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS fuelled by those they targeted (Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk).

* * * *  as suggested earlier;

The CONFUSING ELEMENT here is that some HUMANS are MORE SENSITIVE (and to different things) THAN OTHERS so that if the ENVIRONMENT (e.g. the SOCIAL DYNAMIC) becomes CONFLICT FILLED aka TOXIC, the MORE SENSITIVE INDIVIDUAL MAY GO BONKERS, a BREAK-DOWN that will be interpreted by the LESS SENSITIVE MAJORITY WHO ARE CO-CREATING THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT, as if the SENSITIVE INDIVIDUAL is EXPERIENCING ITS OWN INTERNAL ILLNESS WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, and will HOSPITALIZE or INCARCERATE the VIOLENT or BONKERS individual.

Many people will only thinly veil their support for the actions of Luigi Mangioni and Tyler Robinson, suggesting that while the material developments are saddening; i.e. the loss of husbands to wives and families, there has been some sort of needed spiritual uplifting. As with Robin Hood and Jean Valjean, the material laws dominate even if at the expense of spiritual well-being, and when people re-prioritize the spirit over the material, there is intuitive uplift even in the presence of material loss.

* * * * * *

1140 words