PREFACE: David Bohm’s theoretical work in modern physics inured in him a philosophical outlook that had much in common with that of Friedrich Nietzsche, who was also versed in modern physics principles through his familiarity with the prescient works of Roger Boscovich who’s ‘Theory of Natural Philosophy’ (175) has been described by modern physicists such as being “200 years ahead of its time”.  The following essay is a simulated dialogue between these two great thinkers who were on remarkably similar paths of discovery.  While Bohm was developing new ideas on the physics of how things actually function, Nietzsche’s “philosophizing with a hammer” oriented to the smashing of the persisting over-simplistic conceptualizations of Newtonian physics rooted in BINARY LOGIC.  We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, as a social collective, remain in the Newtonian mindset based on belief in LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments and have in no way assimilated into our social collective, the understanding of the world that is common to Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  The Western World’s popular belief in a mechanistic substitute reality regulated by BINARY LOGIC persists while the modern physics understanding in terms of QUANTUM LOGIC (balance and imbalance) remains an outlier, as explored in this simulated dialogue between Bohm and Nietzsche.

* * *

 

NOTE: “DOUBLE ERROR” refers to the practice of using the DOUBLE combination of NAMING and GRAMMAR to impute LOCAL AUTHORING as in Nietzsche’s example “Lightning flashes” where the Lightning IS the flashing which substitutes a LOCAL and EXPLICIT AUTHORING sense for that which is in reality NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.  The combination of NAMING and GRAMMAR is used to ‘BREAK IN’ to the transforming relational continuum where the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT rule, and inject a SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring LOCAL and EXPLICIT authoring agency.

 

 * * *

 

 

FRIEDRICH (Friedrich Nietzsche) and DAVID (David Bohm) enter into dialogue as follows;

  …

 

DAVID; You know, Friedrich, … I’ve had a hell of a time trying to share with people my ideas on how the European languages we use, such as English, are confusing our understanding, and by ‘our’, I mean the general understandings we European language based cultures have developed as a social collective.

 

FRIEDRICH: As you know DAVID, I share your concern here and I have expended much effort in trying the describe what ‘we are doing to ourselves’ with our language-induced confusion.  I made the point that we use a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to FALSELY impute to ourselves the notional POWERS of LOCAL AUTHORING actions and developments.  People have ‘read my words’ and comprehended my words, BUT HAVE NOT “EMBODIED” THE MEANING!

 

DAVID:  I know, I know!  I have made the point that we FRAGMENT reality by the way we use language.  My research in physics convinced me of the fluidity of reality, of the all-including WAVE-FIELD we share inclusion wherein THERE IS NO LOCAL AUTHORING but we have a language architecture that nevertheless has us constructing representations in which we are the LOCAL AUTHORS of ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.  This puts us, psychologically, into an ALL-MALE pseudo-reality which is MISSING the FEMALE CONJUGATE that is inherent in our WAVE-FIELD reality.

 

FRIEDRICH:  Yes!  As you know, I attribute this one-sided reduction to EGO since EGO persuades us that WE ARE THE LOCAL AUTHORS of actions and developments, and of course this EXCLUSION of the role of the FEMALE, by designing a language that explains everything in one-sided MALE assertive terms, has led not only to our WESTERN CULTURE system of REWARDS and RECOGNITION for notional LOCALLY AUTHORED actions and developments, but also PUNISHMENT and DENIGRATION.

DAVID:  Once the assumption of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments is embraced as the basis of REALITY, it is HELD IN PLACE BY EGO, and then we are in trouble.  What is keeping this misguided understanding ‘in place’ and operative is that the social collective has been rallied into ORGANIZING on the basis of this belief in the merits of STRIVING TO AUTHOR GOOD WORKS since we have encouraged this with rewards and recognition, and to AVOID the authoring of WORKS that are popularly regarded in a negative light, as BAD WORKS, which draws punishment and criticism from the rank and file of our society, including PENALITIES and INCARCERATIONS or even EXECUTIONS from our JUSTICE system.

 

FRIEDRICH: As I have pointed out, our Western culture JUSTICE SYSTEM is being MISLED by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which imputes LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments, although there is no such thing as LOCAL AUTHORING in the real world of our sense-experience of inclusion in an inherently relational dynamic.   Instead of a more natural system of JUSTICE such as that of the indigenous aboriginals, where the understanding is that the LOCAL PERPETRATOR is NOT THE AUTHOR of his actions, the AUTHORING being something which develops within the dynamics of the social collective and whether a HELPFUL or UNHELPFUL action, finds OUTLET through a LIGHTNING ROD who is NOT an AUTHOR but merely a CONDUIT for the release of relational tensions developing within the social matrix.   Our WESTERN JUSTICE SYSTEM is a BINARY LOGIC based DISASTER that seeks to PURIFY our social collectives through REWARDING and PROLIFERATING of the presumed AUTHORS of GOOD actions and developments and PUNISHING and ELIMINATING AUTHORS of BAD actions and developments.

 

DAVID: OUCH!  It hurts every time it comes to mind how we are putting ourselves on this BINARY LOGIC based course of action with its over-simplistic BINARY LOGIC PURIFICATIONIST orientation that seeks to AMPLIFY “GOOD” and ATTENUATE “EVIL”, ALL OF WHICH IS BASED ON THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION OF LOCAL AUTHORING!   Once we assume LOCAL AUTHORING, there is no longer ‘room’ for QUANTUM LOGIC, the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDING medium where the relational matrix that we are included in is what ‘heats up’ so that when one of us POPS OFF, in either a HELPFUL or UNHELPFUL way, it is the relational tensions that are the ROOT SOURCE AUTHOR of such action; the LOCAL individual that experiences the POPPING OFF is NOT the ROOT SOURCE AUTHOR.

 

FRIEDRICH: There you have it in a nutshell!  Speaking of ROOT SOURCES, the ROOT SOURCE of our Western culture problem is EGO because it is EGO that has us believing in LOCAL AUTHORING in the first place.  We have taken this MISTAKEN notion of LOCAL AUTHORING and used it in the design of our JUSTICE SYSTEM.  This brings with it a whole system of BINARY LOGIC based thinking; i.e. EITHER SHE AUTHORED THAT ACT, or SHE DID NOT AUTHOR THAT ACT.  This concept of the LOCAL AUTHOR, as I have said, is abstraction born of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL AUTHOR.  We live within a transforming relational continuum which is beyond capture in terms of BINARY LOGIC, where we need QUANTUM LOGIC as shown by Roger Boscovich in his; ‘Theory of Natural Philosophy’ (1758).  Boscovich’s theory, which has been described by modern physicists such as yourself as being “200 years ahead of its time”,  builds on NONDUALITY or in other words, matter-field equivalence which is the defining relation of QUANTUM LOGIC.

 

DAVID:  Yes, Boscovich did indeed tune in to the essential aspects of Modern physics well before our ‘modern’ era’.  The QUANTUM LOGIC of matter—wave-field equivalence takes our understanding beyond abstract fragmentation by way of the BINARY LOGIC of matter and empty-space, seen as mutually exclusive realms, and it is this BINARY LOGIC abstraction that we have built into our language based representations of reality that is continuing to confuse our understanding of ‘reality’

 

FRIEDRICH:  As I have said in my writings, it is EGO that secures this belief in LOCAL AUTHORING which is BINARY LOGIC based and we are continuing to proliferate such concepts as we continue to employ the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which is a RECIPE for injecting into the mind the EGO-secured FALSE notion of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.  QUANTUM LOGIC doesn’t get a chance to register with us so long as BINARY LOGIC ‘gets in there in front of it’.  It is like the Cuckoo’s egg problem, where the lesser occupant fills the space intended for the more comprehensive solution.  As Copernicus said, it is SIMPLIER to say that ‘the EARTH TURNS ROUND’ (which implies the absolute empty and infinite space container) than to deal with the full relational matrix of resonance based planetary relations.  The INVENTING of EMPTY SPACE is a great simplifier and it gets rid of the FEMALE CONJUGATE, leaving us with a purely MALE ASSERTIVE language-based reality.

 

DAVID:  I agree with you on all of this, and I like your example of ‘LIGHTNING FLASHES’ that you have used in your writing to illustrate the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which simply INPARTS the intellectual impression of a notional LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development.   It is this LOCAL AUTHORING that FRAGMENTS reality, or rather, it FRAGMENTS our conception of reality since the all-including WAVE-FIELD of our sense-experience is an unfragmented WHOLE.

 

FRIEDRICH:  This FRAGMENTING is so easily done with the intellectual tool of BINARY LOGIC.  And we Western culture adherents are SO QUICK to SPLIT APART relational forms in the flow and then use the DOUBLE ERROR to animate the seemingly-independent FORM as if it were inside an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE of INFINITE EXTENT aka EUCLIDEAN space.  This SPLITTING APART or FRAGMENTING as you refer to it, is an attribute of our language architecture that is DRIVING US MAD.   Physical reality, as we know, manifests as QUANTUM LOGIC wherein material forms are condensations of the all-including WAVE-FIELD.  If we don’t keep this QUANTUM LOGIC in mind as imputes an ANDROGYNOUS reality, the SIMPLIFICATION of BINARY LOGIC is a persisting trap waiting for us to fall in, wherein the FEMALE CONJUGATE is replaced by EMPTY SPACE.

 

DAVID: But once we imply LOCAL AUTHORING of action to any LOCAL FIGURE as constitutes the DOUBLE ERROR, we are then using BINARY LOGIC in our representation of reality.  That is, the LOCAL FIGURE, so we say, is “EITHER” independent of the local GROUND “OR” is part of the local GROUND.  We typically assume, if the TOWN is rising up on the LANDSCAPE as new houses are constructed, that this FIGURE that is ‘the TOWN’ is ‘INDEPENDENT’ of the GROUND it is arising within.  But this is NOT WHAT OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE is telling us, it is merely the abstract representation of language and grammar which, in the case of our Western culture, is BINARY LOGIC based so that ‘the TOWN’ is SPOKEN OF as being an INDEPENDENT THING-IN-ITSELF with its own GRAMMAR-given POWERS OF AUTHORING growth and development.   Modern physics, as also indigenous aboriginal languages, would have us understand this self-same development in QUANTUM LOGIC terms wherein,  THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.  This QUANTUM LOGIC representation preserves the unity of the transforming relational continuum wherein the TOWNING is a relational feature within the transforming continuum and NOT a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF.

 

FRIEDRICH: Your TOWN and TOWNING example illustrates how we use language to CREATE AN ABSTRACT SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein we SPLIT OUT ‘THE TOWN’ from our sense-experience affirmed reality where it is a TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and set up ‘THE TOWN’ as if ON ITS OWN, within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT.  This is an exclusively ALL-MALE ASSERTIVE view of ‘what the TOWN IS’, setting it up ‘ON ITS OWN’ in EMPTY SPACE for the simplifying convenience of language-based representation.  By removing the TOWNING from the TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM, we are no longer stuck with having to try to formulate a language based representation of the overall FIGURE-and-GROUND COMPLEX, but we can instead focus on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT features of ‘the TOWN’ as if IT WERE an INDEPENDENT LOCAL AND EXPLICIT FIGURE, which it clearly IS NOT.  The all-including, transforming relational continuum of our sense-experience of inclusion is the only viable ‘REALITY’ .

 

DAVID: Once we reduce the QUANTUM LOGIC reality of the TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE to the BINARY LOGIC ‘TOWN’ that we portray as EXISTING IN ITS OWN LOCAL, EXPLICIT RIGHT as if in an EMPTY SPACE of INFINITE EXTENT, we are constructing for ourselves a NEW SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein we have DROPPED OUT the FEMALE CONJUGATE by substituting an EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT as the NEW PARTNER of the MALE ASSERTIVE CONJUGATE, a NEW “SILENT” PARTNER that not only no longer DOMINATES but NO LONGER EXISTS.  In this one-sided ALL-MALE, NO-FEMALE SUBSTITUTE REALITY, we only have to deal with WHAT THINGS DO, as if it is the actions of rivulets forming streams and streams forming rivers and rivers that carving out valleys and canyons, … AND THIS IS ALL BACKWARDS since it the valleys that INDUCTIVELY ORGANIZE the stream flows, pulling them together and giving them their growing strength.   Once we DROP OUT REPRESENTATION of the FEMALE INDUCTIVE by substituting an ABSOLUTE EMPTINESS OF INFINITE EXTENT, and go solely with the MALE ASSERTIVE, we open the way to a far simpler BUT UNREAL, MALE-ONLY LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE!

 

FRIEDRICH:  EXACTLY!  That is what I intended in my reference to the concept of BEING as “a deceptive old witch”.   Our sense-experience informs us that we live within a flowing continuum, that we are condensations WITHIN the flowing WAVE-FIELD as in Boscovich’s physics which is right on target, so what is this business of cooking up the abstract notion of BEING and giving it the foundational role in our ‘reality representation’?  I did not use the term ERROR for nothing in speaking of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR where we conjure up LOCAL AUTHORING.  Our inventing of ‘BEING’ thanks to ‘NAMING’ is a MISTAKE.  Shall I repeat what I actually said?

 

“Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” —Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer”

 

DAVID: I see what you mean.  There is no justification in our using language to introduce the abstract concept of LOCAL BEINGS occupying an EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT so that the story is ALL MALE and NO FEMALE, the FEMALE having ‘gone missing and simply HAUNTING our ONE-SIDED ALL-MALE ASSERTIVE language usage. Copernicus introduced this ‘policy of simplification’ by claiming that ‘the EARTH TURNS ROUND’ which imputed a LOCAL and EXPLICIT BEING base STATUS that, in effect, GOT RID OF the QUANTUM LOGIC understanding of EARTHING in the sense of a condensation of the WAVE-FIELD.  In my own philosophical writing, I have made clear that REASON, being based on RATIO is too simple to capture sense-experience reality because it is unrealistically one-sided.  We use RATIO aka REASON in explaining that we can DOUBLE or TREBLE our PRODUCTION of the monoculture we call WHEAT by DOUBLING or TREBLING the area under cultivation, but this says NOTHING about the CONJUGATE REDUCTION of WILDERNESS DIVERSITY that associates with our RATIO-ing up of our area of cultivation.  RATIO and REASON are like this; i.e. they are one-sided MALE-ASSERTING ONLY as implies that we are operating in a FLAT, EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT.

 

FRIEDRICH: Well said!  But this brings us back to the Cuckoo’s egg problem where once the slot is occupied by something that is too simple to PROPERLY fill the slot, it is difficult to displace.  We Western culture adherents have grown very accustomed to speaking in the RATIONAL terms of GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, … so much so that we have difficulty recalling that what is REALLY GOING ON is TRANSFORMATION because, although we are dropping out the FEMALE CONJUGATE as far as our intellectual language-based conceptualizing goes, the FEMALE CONJUGATE is alive and well in our sense-experience reality so that THERE CAN BE NO GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION (all of which are merely the MALE-ASSERTIVE conjugates) WITHOUT TRANSFORMATION which includes the FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING conjugate.  That is, as the area of monoculture cultivation of the land GROWS, so also, in conjugate relation, does the WILDERNESS DIVERSITY SHRINK, these two together comprising TRANSFORMATION, which is our sense-experience affirmed reality that goes beyond abstraction-based linguistic representation.

 

DAVID: I like your Cuckoo’s egg analogy.  Our current exposure is that BINARY LOGIC is the Cuckoo’s egg option that is always there at the ready for us to deploy in our representations and it is ALWAYS A MISTAKE but it does SIMPLIFY our language-based representations, so we continue to deploy it and in each case it not only SIMPLIFIES but DUMBS DOWN the representation.   It is SIMPLER to say that ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ than to say, as the indigenous aboriginal languages do, “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” but the latter has no need of the crutch of imputing ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT as the former DOES have need of.  I am reminded here of the complexity that associates with the actions of the bee in collecting nectar for making honey, and in the process performing cross pollination that is key to the flourishing of the complex ecosystem in which the bee is included.  To even begin by assuming the existence of the bee and imputing to the bee ITS OWN LIFE is to use language to RIP APART that which is too relationally integrated and interdependent to be understood in a parts-wise fashion as in trying to articulate the ‘life of a bee’.  There is no such thing as ‘the life of a bee’, or for that matter, there is no such thing as ‘the life of a human’ since everything is related, or as the indigenous aboriginals put it; ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

 

FRIEDRICH: It’s clear our Common Average European language architecture contains PITFALLS that are exposing us to confusion as the nature of our sense-experience reality.   Although our rhetorical approach differs, we both agree that our Western culture language is reducing our representations of reality to one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE dynamics, thanks to our SUBSTITUTION of the FEMALE CONJUGATE of the WAVE-FIELD, with a notional EMPTY SPACE of INFINITE EXTENT.  So, while we are focusing on GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION which are all one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE concepts, what is really going on includes the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate, these two together constituting the FULL REALITY of TRANSFORMATION. We are NOT IN CHARGE OF TRANSFORMATION since it is ALL-INCLUDING and we are included PARTICIPANTS within it.

 

DAVID:  Yes, we both agree that the basic issue is that we have rising social dysfunction stemming from language-based misunderstandings that points back to the drop out of the FEMALE CONJUGATE in our Western CAE language architecture.  I, for my part have focused on the greater reality of the Wholeness and Implicit order of WAVE-FIELD reality, …

 

FRIEDRICH: … and I have gone on the attack against the artificiality of “BEING”, from which the abstraction of Male-Assertive LOCAL AUTHORING pivots, a one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE SUBSTITUTE REALITY which is HAUNTED by a WITCH, the Witch of REASON which has us believing in GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, the linear extending of what is already there into more of the same which would be possible, but only as abstraction within a psychological EMPTY SPACE of INFINITE EXTENT, and not in the CURVED SPACE of sense-experience where GROWTH of the cultivated land implies CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE of Wilderness, … an overall TRANSFORMATION.  In Twilight of the Idols or Götzen-Dämmerung, I have taken aim at the abstractions of BEING and REASON that have become accepted concepts used in our intellectual constructions of our SUBSTITUTE REALITY.

 

DAVID:  As I see it then, while we are both agreed in the all-including WAVE-FIELD as the basis of our sense-experience reality, while I have focused on a new understanding based on the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, you have focused on ‘clearing a path to new understanding’ by ridding us of the confusing abstractions of BEING and REASON.   These projects are mutually supportive, yours being an initiative to remove the  Götze or ‘False Gods’ which I have likened to the Cuckoo’s egg issue where the nest or opening that implies a more sophisticated incumbent (QUANTUM LOGIC) is filled instead with a simpler incumbent (BINARY LOGIC), blocking entry of the needed ‘upgrade’.  My own approach has been to encourage direct advance to QUANTUM LOGIC , BYPASSING and thus not needing to first ‘CLEAN HOUSE’ so to speak, or to ‘philosophize with a hammer’ by SMASHING the inadequate Götze.  I see the objective as directly accessible by leap-frogging over the old without have to CLEAN HOUSE first.

 

FRIEDRICH: While we both recognize the confusing language-based reduction of the ANDROGYNOUS CONJUGATES of the WAVE-FIELD to the ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTIVE ONLY abstract SUBSTITUTE REALITY, … my view is that, as in the Cuckoo’s Egg metaphor, we must first clear the nest of its over-simplistic occupier, BINARY LOGIC, so that the opening will be made available for QUANTUM LOGIC to make its entrée.  DISCREDITING BINARY LOGIC within a social collective that has made it MAINSTREAM is not going to be an easy task, but without LETTING GO of BINARY LOGIC, the ‘slots’ will remain filled by BINARY LOGIC and inaccessible to QUANTUM LOGIC.  This what my SMASHING IDOLS, … i.e. smashing the beliefs in BEING and REASON (employing instead, BECOMING and INTUITION) .. is all about.

 

DAVID: Friedrich, you may be right, we shall see.  Myself and Krishamurti have provided a path for direct ascent to understanding in terms of WHOLENESS and the IMPLICATE ORDER by way of simply TRANSCENDING the inadequate and problematic foundations of BEING and REASON.  We believe this direct path to QUANTUM LOGIC is fully attainable without having to address LOCK-IN to BINARY LOGIC.

 

FRIEDRICH: I have reviewed your work and congratulate you on your, and Krishnamurti’s fine effort which will hopefully continue to grow the ranks of the QUANTUM LOGIC proficient.  I see our efforts as comprising two different routes which are meanwhile mutually supportive.  You present the new TARGETS, the IMPLICATE ORDER but many are so focused on the POLARIZING distractions of BINARY LOGIC that they are not yet OPEN to a transcendent solution such as QUANTUM LOGIC that lies innately beyond the reach of BINARY LOGIC.  This IS the Cuckoo’s egg problem.  BINARY LOGIC is too simple to provide the needed solutions but because it POLARIZES those who use it, their energies are fully engaged in the futile struggle to prove that conservatism is the correct way to pursue LOCAL AUTHORING, or that liberalism is the correct way to pursue LOCAL AUTHORING, this continuing on without light at the end of the tunnel since the concept of LOCAL AUTHORING is SELF-DECEPTION.   This Cuckoo’s egg problem is the reason I have undertaken ‘philosophizing with a hammer’.

 

DAVID: I hear you, and I suspect that what you say does apply to many Western culture adherents; i.e. that the BINARY LOGIC focus is so compelling that they cannot break away from it even to garner a vision of the QUANTUM LOGIC that is an innately more comprehensive approach to understanding than is offered by BINARY LOGIC.  I wish we had lived in a common era so that we might have been able to merge or respective, but complementary initiatives; … yours showing how to smash the Cuckoo’s egg IDOLS that have been locking us into over-simplistic BINARY LOGIC understandings (misunderstandings) of issues that require QUANTUM LOGIC understanding, … and mine showing how to go directly to QUANTUM LOGIC understanding without being ‘taken captive’ by the intellectual fascination with this or that LOCAL and EXPLICIT FRAGMENT.

 

FRIEDRICH: I think we have crossed our t’s and dotted our I’s for the most part, so, … “onward and upward”, as they say, … yet not in a LOCAL and EXPLICIT sense, but rather in a NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT sense.

 

* * *