“The function of education has never been to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them…acquiescence, not originality. …Schools are the central conserving force of the culture. … In order not to fail, most people are willing to believe anything and to care not whether what they are told is true or false.  Only by remaining absurd can one feel free from fear of failure.” – Jules Henry, cultural anthropologist, in ‘Culture Against Man’

….. We must never forget we have a choice …. (far side)

“It is Henry’s contention that in practice education has never been an instrument to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them. … Children do not give up their innate imagination, curiousity, dreaminess easily. You have to love them to get them to do that. Love is the path through permissiveness to discipline; and through discipline, only too often, to betrayal of self.” – R. D. Laing, psychiatrist and philosopher

I live in a double bind.  It can be depressing.  It is the culture vs authenticity double bind explored by R. D. Laing which arises when you see the world differently from your culture-supporting family and friends but to be too overt about what you are thinking/feeling would be a downer because it ‘undermines’ many of the popular upbeat beliefs and social structures of our times.


But to say nothing would be to betray oneself, and to betray one’s culture/society as well, as it continues to believe in and employ over-simplistic rational/scientific assumptions so that well-intended actions end up having us ‘shoot ourselves in the foot’.  On the other hand, to overtly critique ‘common thinking and common practice’ that may not only be ‘accepted thinking and practice’, but ‘thinking and practice’ deemed meritorious, which is rewarded and respected in our society and is encouraged in our children through our educational processes, can invite ‘backlash’ wherein others close to us, equally (but inversely) convinced, of the positive value of the ‘accepted thinking and practice’ which we are critiquing, may identify us as a misinformed ‘trouble-maker’.


So long as one does not attract any attention to speak of, one’s ‘misinformation’ is deemed innocuous, but for those who go against the grain and do attract attention [e.g. alternative medicine practitioners with ‘miracle cures’], the authoritative gatekeepers of correct ‘thinking and practice’ are quickly ‘called out’ to ‘set the record straight’ so that the general public will not be ‘confused’.  For example, some of what the gatekeeping orthodoxy calls ‘quackery’ in healthcare, is for me, exposing the over-simplified foundations of medical science rather that disproving the legitimacy of the attention-causing ‘rogue’ remedies. [examples will follow].


Henri Laborit (La Nouvelle Grille), whose research was also ‘outside of the scientific orthodoxy’ captured what it feels like to be in this double bind by saying that ‘we’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.


The thread of this write-up may seem ‘backwards’ since I haven’t yet restated what my personal research findings are [that follows next] that are putting me in this ‘double bind’ situation.  However, I just want to share upfront that my intention is not to ‘put down’ our currently esteemed institutions, thoughts and practices; i.e. I am not ‘attacking’ anything.


What I am saying [details coming up next] is essentially what Nietzsche has said, that it was a mistake made 2500 years ago, in the time of Plato and Socrates, to put ‘rational thinking’ into an unnatural precedence over our experience based intuition/instincts.   As Emerson puts it; ‘the tool has run away with the workman, the human (material) with the divine (spiritual)’. This idea that we have been using science and rationality to ‘construct twenty pound theories from ten pound axioms’ (foundational assumptions) crops up, as well, in Goedel’s theorem of incompleteness of all finite systems of mathematics.


I am not ‘out of line’ relative to the views of cultures which accept that ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘material things’ such as indigenous aboriginal cultures, nor am I ‘out of line’ with the views of Mach, Poincaré, Nietzsche, Bohm, Peat (‘Blackfoot Physics’)and Schroedinger, but these accomplished people, well recognized for their masterful works, as far as their ideas on the nuanced topic of duality/nonduality are concerned, have never been ‘mainstream’ and their views on such matters have been marginalized by the mainstream and by the gatekeepers of the scientific orthodoxy.


So, I’ll put this behind me (in this essay) now.  I just wanted to share upfront that, as with Laborit, there is no intention on my part to put anyone or anything (e.g. ‘science’) down, let alone an entire 2500 year old Western culture/civilization, but it can (indirectly) come across that way since the effective impact is to dethrone celebrated and iconic ideas, people and institutions, which can insult, disappoint and depress those who are staunch believers and respecters of them.  Hence the ‘double bind’ that a ‘whistleblower’ on incompetencies in the foundations of science finds oneself in.


* * * *


Finally, the kernal of this discussion can be expressed by way of the following example;


In the physical reality of our experience, we are aware of being situationally included in ‘relational influences’ that may build up to the point that we can no longer tolerate them, and this may trigger a sudden, perhaps ‘violent’ release of energy through us, as we seek to break out of the influence by reconfiguring the relations we are included in. We may kill someone in the process of ‘breaking free’ from the relational tensions.


What forensic science observers ‘see’ is in terms of people understood as ‘independent things’ that are fully and solely responsible for their own actions.  Their actions are seen as deriving from their internal processes (information sensing, gathering, interpreting and operationalizing) and purpose (will, intention).


What forensic science observers ‘don’t see’ and thus don’t include in their analysis is the ‘epigenetic relational influence that is inductively actualizing the genetic expression (the asserting material actions that are unfolding).  Mainstream science, in general, ignores ‘epigenetic influence’ that is the inductive actualizer of material dynamics, and commences analysis starting from the assumed ‘independent existence’ of ‘material objects/organisms/systems, as if they resided within an empty operating frame (a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that serves as a notional ‘operating theatre’).

What ‘goes missing’ here in this ‘dualist’ (matter and space as separate realms) view of mainstream science is the natural primacy of ‘field’ over ‘matter’ within a ‘field-matter nonduality’, as in the views of Mach, Bohm, Einstein, Schroedinger.


As Mach and Poincaré have pointed out, the simple, dualist, material-mechanics view of mainstream science is convenient because it delivers ‘economy of thought’ by avoiding the real-life relational complexity in nature.  For instance, in the nondual view of the cosmos, ‘everything is in flux’ (Heraclitus) so that the stars and planets and material objects/organisms/systems are continually melting into and precipitating from the energy-charged field-dynamic medium, as with storm-cells in their nondual relation with the atmospheric field-flow.  If there is a change in the storm-cell, there is simultaneously a change in the flow-field since these are not two separate things (a ‘duality’), they are a ‘nonduality’ which means that ‘things’ are ‘appearances and are NOT PHYSICALLY REAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.


 “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger



“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 problem is that noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar RE-presents ‘appearances’ such as storm-cells AS IF THEY WERE ‘real things-in-themselves’, by assigning fixed identity names (e.g. ‘Katrina’) to them and then using grammar (nouns inflecting verbs) to impute internal thing-in-itself power to the ‘apparition’ (storm-cell) that personifies it as an ‘independent thing-in-itself’ with internal process driven and directed development and behaviour; … “Katrina is growing larger and stronger”, … “Katrina is moving towards the Gulf Coast”, … “Katrina is ravaging New Orleans”, … “Katrina is moving overland and dissipating”.


Mainstream science and rational thinking (viewing physical phenomena in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’) are built on an unstable foundation of ‘appearances’, and because we confuse rational worldviews for ‘reality’, we end up formulating views and designing and operationalizing actions within a dualist, logical ‘semantic reality’ that is radically unlike the physical reality of our actual experience.  This fact that our rational plans and operating programs are formulated in dualist logical ‘semantic reality’ but operationalized in nondualist physical reality is the source of unanticipated (unpredicted, unaddressed) ‘externalities’ associated with precisely formulated scientific programs.  This psychological-physical dualist disconnect, is termed, by David Bohm, ‘incoherence’.


But before getting into examples and explanations, it is important to take note of the ‘basics’ of what is going on here, and to note that it is “not just me making this claim” but simply me trying to share what has proven very difficult to share since the views of the people who have explored this ‘incoherence’ have been marginalized by the gatekeeping of orthodox science.  Mach, for example, complained that he had to ‘quit the Church of Physics’ because it insisted on treating the atom as a ‘real thing-in-itself’, and Schroedinger, who was at the centre of quantum theory development complained until he died, that ‘he wished that he had had nothing to do with the concensus interpretation of quantum mechanics which preserved the ‘particle’ as a ‘real thing-in-itself’ by using probability theory  which explained its existence ‘statistically’ so as to avoid acknowleding, as Schroedinger and Mach would have it, the inherent natural primacy of field over matter within a field-matter nondduality.


The core difference here lies in whether we conceive of ‘REALITY’ as;


(a) in DUALIST science and rationality terms of independently-existing material things-in-themselves (material objects, organisms, systems) and their cause and effect actions and effects/results, where genetic expression is ‘all there is’, .. or,  [i.e. this is a ‘semantic reality’]


(b) in NONDUALIST experience-based intuitive terms wherein relations are in a natural primacy over fixed identity material things-in-themselves, where epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression.  [i.e. this is the reality of our actual experience]


For example, my experience-based intuition informs me that females can be held hostage and abused and humiliated so that relational tensions can build which trigger a violent release in which she kills the dominating male in order to break out of suffocating relational trap.  Dualist forensic science, because it is founded on simplifying assumptions that make it officially ‘blind’ to epigenetic influence as the inductive actualizer of genetic expression [assertive action], orients exclusively to ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what these things-in-themselves do’ as if in a space that is independent of the ‘independent things-in-themselves’ that reside, operate and interact within it.  Science does not acknowledge the primary role of epigenetic influence and here’s one reason why; i.e. science, in its historical development, chose to exclude consideration of epigenetic influence (field dynamics) as the source of material entities and their development and behaviour.


“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.

First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.

Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space. — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”


By imputing ‘local sourcing’ to physical phenomena, the outside-inward inductive actualizing influence in nature is, in effect, ‘banished’ while the ‘local sourcing’ with its inside-outwards asserting development and behavioural force usurps its authoring role.  This ‘localizing’ of the authoring source allows us to say; ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’ even though there is no local thing-in-itself in a convection cell, it is a purely relational feature wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression within a inhabitant-habitat nonduality [relational form within transforming relational flow-continuum nonduality].


Intuitively, we attune to this in our everyday life where people are credited with good or bad accomplishments which are not simply coming from their ‘their genetic expression’.  For example, we may attribute the positive accomplishments of baseball hitters as measured by their batting averages to their own hitting competencies; i.e. to their own genetic expression, but that would ignore the epigenetic influence of ‘fielding’ within the hitter-fielding nonduality.  The fielders may be very accommodating for a hitter with powerful connections (e.g. son of a Hells Angel pack leader, etc.) and very disaccommodating for a hitter with racial connections to a race disliked by the fielders.


The epigenetic-genetic nonduality is inherent in nature as affirmed by the field-matter nonduality articulated by Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger, but the dualism of mainstream science splits the nonduality into two, banishes the epigenetic influence and invests all authoring sourcing to ‘genetic expression’, hence ‘Darwinism’ instead of ‘Lamarckism’.  In Lamarck’s worldview, epigenetic influence of ‘fields’ [les fluides incontenables] which is everywhere-at-the-same-time (non-local, non-visible and non-material), inductively actualizes genetic expression that is local, visible and material; i.e. the development and animating of biological forms.  Lamarck’s epigenetic-genetic nondual view of biological dynamics has been affirmed through modern cell research; e.g;


“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’


That doesn’t mean that gatekeepers of scientific orthodoxy are accepting ‘nonduality’ as Bruce Lipton is.  They can acknowledge it as a ‘special case’ rather than as a general finding which would require them to revamp the entire structure of their science.


Similarly, in my example of the female caught in a relationship wherein relational tensions build to the point that she explosively breaks out of them (by killing her captor/partner), there is a special case phenomena in science called ‘self-organized criticality’ and/or ‘nonlinear dynamics’ that acknowledges and describes such phenomena, but no action is taken to revamp the general structure of science and scientific thinking.


As Mach says in his ‘critical review of the historical development of mechanics’, this is a prejudice that leaves us with a science with incompetent foundations.  We know that material movement, at the same time, transforms the field dynamic it is included in, and that changing the field dynamic, simultaneously changes the movement of materials within the field [Mach’s principle] such that;


“The dynamics of the (material) inhabitants of the field are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (field) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat (field) are conditioning the dynamics of the (material) inhabitants. – Mach’s principle


What do you do if you are a scientist who recognizes that the science you are ‘talking up’ and ‘educating others in’ has incompetent foundations?


One thing you can do is overtly state it, even if you have already been marginalized by the scientific concensus that is affirming the correctness of science while staying silent on its incompetent foundations; e.g. as Mach does here, and I include this because it is clearly and simply stated and because it is a relevant critique of mainstream science as it continues to be taught and employed in 2017.












Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena. Every event belongs, in a strict sense, to all the departments of physics, the latter being separated only by an artificial classification, which is partly conventional, partly physiological, and partly historical.

The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. Knowledge which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained.

 As more and more facts are discovered and classified, entirely new ideas of general scope can be formed. We have no means of knowing, as yet, which physical phenomena go deepest, whether the mechanical phenomena are perhaps not the most superficial of all, or whether all do not go equally deep. Even in mechanics we no longer regard the oldest law, the law of the lever, as the foundation of all the other principles.

The mechanical theory of nature, is, undoubtedly, in an historical view, both intelligible and pardonable : and it may also, for a time, have been of much value.  But, upon the whole, it is an artificial conception

 * * *


Make no mistake.  ‘The mechanical theory of nature’ is what mainstream science continues to employ.  It is the dualist view of physical phenomena which ignores the inherent natural primacy of epigenetic influence over genetic expression as in an epigenetic-genetic nonduality akin to the fielding-hitting nonduality using the metaphor of baseball.  [The baseball metaphor was used by Stephen Jay Gould, in the same sense as I have used it, in Gould’s refuting of Darwinian natural selection as the exclusive principle governing evolution.]


The ‘mechanical theory of nature’ that is “an artificial conception” is another name for ‘scientific thinking’ and ‘rationality’.  It is ‘genetic expression’ WITHOUT the epigenetic inductive actualizing influence, the latter being replaced, by mainstream science, with a ‘void space’ that exerts no influence whatsoever on the material dynamics going on within it, material dynamics coming from the ‘independently-existing material objects, organisms, and systems’ that we subjectively select and mentally place in this notional Euclidian operating theatre so that we can understand their actions and interactions without being encumbered by the physically real ‘participating space’ [field dynamic with its immanent epigenetic inductive actualizing influence, that not only inhabits the material entities but which creates (is precipitating) them].


I know that it is hard to ‘keep track’ of all these points and I wish I could come up with a way to express them that was more easily digestible.  But this problem ties to the fact that the architecture of the language we are using is ideal for ignoring the participation of space in physical phenomena, since its noun-and-verb structures convey physical phenomena in terms of ‘things’ (nouns which establish ‘fixed identity entities’) and ‘what things do’ (nouns-inflecting verbs which suggest that noun-subjects are the jumpstart source of actions and results).


That is, our language is purported to be the source of ‘science’ since other cultures with relational languages did not ‘get science’ and did not become habituated to putting ‘rationality’ into an unnatural primacy over experience-based intuition.  As Benjamin Whorf says;


 It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’


Stock Taking #1


Science has incompetent foundations [Mach].  Science derives from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar architecture [Whorf], which captures physical phenomena in terms of ‘independent things-in-themselves’ [noun-subjects] and ‘what these independent things-in-themselves do’ [nouns inflecting verbs].  Such simple mechanical structures, which capture superficial ‘appearances’, do not exist in physical reality of our actual experience and we need to update science from its most basic foundations up [Mach].


The semantic reality we construct using noun-and-verb language is the rational/scientific reality we are employing as our ‘operative reality’ to formulate our world views and plan and operationalize our interventional actions [in an attempt to construct a desired future].   We thus shoot ourselves in the foot because the physical reality of our actual experience is radically unlike the being-based logical ‘semantic reality’ of scientific thinking [purely mechanical thinking which is ‘all-genetic expression’ as if in a void Euclidian space and thus ignoring of epigenetic influence as the primary source within epigenetic-genetic nonduality.]   Nevertheless, science continues to ‘score successes’ because we appraise results within the same rational modeling space science makes its models and claims in, … though the space of the physical reality of our actual experience is relationally complex and beyond simple mechanical representation.



Why do we continue to acclaim and eulogize ‘science’ and why don’t we see the ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ injuries which are alleged herein?


Example: Authors like Thomas Szasz (Myth of Mental Illness), Ronald Laing (The Divided Self), Raymond Cochrane (Social Origins of Mental Disorder), Peter Breggin (Toxic Psychiatry), Kelly Brogan (A Mind of Your Own) all support the real influence of epigenetic influence in inductively actualizing genetic expression that manifests as mental distress or psychosis. The ‘science’ of ‘psychiatry’ starts from the model of a human as a ‘being’, an ‘independently-existing system-in-itself with internal process driven and directed behaviour’.


Therefore, if the behaviour is judged ‘abnormal’ relative to the statistical ‘normal’ of society [regardless of how screwed up the society is], the cause of this abnormality, according to the science of psychiatry, can only derive from the interior of the ‘independent system-in-itself’, hence the search for the answer into internal biochemistry/biophysics and the chemical lobotomies (psychotropic pharmaceutical drugs, surgical lobotomies, electric shock therapies) administered as ‘remedies’ for the abnormalities or ‘mental illnesses’ assumed by a science which ignores and/or denies the inherent primacy of epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression such as ‘emotional distress’ termed ‘mental illness’.


Science will claim that they can eliminate the problem seen as a locally arising problem (genetic expression) when in fact they are only addressing “appearances” or “symptoms” the result of epigenetic inductive actualizing influence.  The ‘successes of science’ as in psychiatry, and in general, are logical successes that eliminate the (apparent) problem (i.e. ‘the symptomatic syndrome’) while engendering ‘externalities’ elsewhere since in the relational complexity of physical reality (which science ignores by reducing physical phenomena to pure mechanics), the source of genetic expression is not local, but non-local (epigenetic).  Science will nevertheless celebrate its successes in spite of the fact that they address only ‘symptoms’ without touching the deeper root-source of epigenetic influence (relational tensions); e.g. the Nobel prize for lobotomizing people with schizophrenia; a celebration of success in eliminating symptoms troubling to others, at the cost of great injury to other inherently connected/interdependent functionalities in the ‘holodynamic’;



Doctors first began manipulating the brain to calm patients in the late 1880s, when the Swiss physician Gottlieb Burkhardt removed parts of the cortex of the brains of patients with auditory hallucinations and other symptoms of schizophrenia, noting that it made them calm (although one patient died and another committed suicide after the procedure), according to Encyclopaedia Britannica.


The Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz is credited with inventing the lobotomy in 1935, for which he shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1949 (later, a movement was started to revoke the prize, unsuccessfully).


Yale neuroscientist John Fulton and his colleague Carlyle Jacobsen had performed lobotomy-like procedures on chimpanzees in 1935. Moniz and his colleague Almeida Lima performed the first human experiments later that year. The frontal lobes were targeted because of their association with behavior and personality.


Moniz reported the treatment as a success for patients with conditions such as depression, schizophrenia, panic disorder and mania, according to an article published in 2011 in the Journal of Neurosurgery. But the operations had severe side effects, including increased temperature, vomiting, bladder and bowel incontinence and eye problems, as well apathy, lethargy, and abnormal sensations of hunger, among others. The medical community was initially critical of the procedure, but nevertheless, physicians started using it in countries around the world.

 * * *


Slowly, very slowly, we are learning that science’s reduction of physical phenomena to terms of the pure mechanics of notional ‘systems-in-themselves’ as if in a void space that is without influence is an artefact of constructing semantic realities that bear little resemblance to the physical reality of our actual experience, is inducing us to ‘shoot ourselves in the foot’.  We nevertheless ‘claim success’ by attacking and ‘eliminating symptoms’ rather than even addressing ‘root-source’ by ignoring the relational connectedness of all physical phenomena, … and in the process, we engender serious ‘externalities’ which are unanticipated because science’s purely mechanical modeling does not address the relational interdependence that is inherent in an energy-charged transforming relational continuum [the world of modern physics and our physical experience.].


In our usual, purely mechanical scientific modeling, we discern that ‘Saddam Hussein’ is the author of disturbing actions and results and that ‘Muamar Qaddafy’ is the author of disturbing results, and that by scientific/rational reasoning [pure mechanical systems modeling], it ‘makes sense’ to eliminate Saddam and Qaddafy so as to eliminate the disturbing actions and results.

As in psychiatry, science and technology can be ‘mobilized’ to eliminate the two and to claim ‘mission accomplished’ in this undertaking, as in the ‘symptom-eliminating’ ‘lobotomy’ in psychiatry.  Meanwhile, the intervention is not an intervention into a purely mechanical space as science and rationality have assumed in their modeling, … the intervention is into an inherently relational space so that unanticipated ‘externalities’ result, such as increased radicalization of the people and the rise of ISIS.  Again we see the ‘incoherence’ spoken of by Bohm that results from the fact that the semantic reality that science and rationality employ as their ‘modeling space’ [a purely mechanical world of ‘independent systems-in-themselves that operate and interact in a non-participating void] is nothing like the relationally complex physical reality of our actual experience.


The world news media and the world of Western politics proliferates rational worldviews based on ‘independently existing things-in-themselves’ and ‘what these things do’ whether these notional ‘independent things-in-themselves’ are nations, humans or corporations.  This sets us up, so long as we are using mainstream science and rationality, for ceaseless repetitions of ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ wherein we resolve ‘symptoms’ while at the same time engendering ‘unanticipated’ [because beyond the simple mechanical (non-relational) models of science and rationality] ‘externalities’.


There is ‘good money’ in resolving symptoms, even if there is a long list of ‘side effects’ or ‘externalities’.  Families who are tired of having to deal with their schizophrenic children can ‘relax’ in the post-lobotomy peacefulness as their ‘normal social dynamic’ is restored, a ‘normal’ that Ronald Laing describes as follows;


“What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” – R. D. Laing


If schizophrenics are ‘miner’s canaries’ informing us that there is something wrong with society’s ‘normal’, then our eliminating of these miner’s canaries (warning signals) is simply eliminating symptoms that are alarm signals implying deeper root-source origins, so as to lead us away from addressing the root source.


This view [acknowledging the primacy of epigenetic influence as the deeper root-source] is currently en route to mainstream status in our society, through efforts to ‘get the word out’ by confident researchers such as Kelly Brogan, a psychiatrist that came to the conclusion that mental illness is an ‘epigenetic syndrome’; e.g. see  The Game-Changing Science of Epigenetics, by Kelly Brogan 


“You may not know this yet, but the whole game has changed and we are several decades into the most powerful shift in scientific thinking in the past 300 years. Science, when handled with care, is a process, not a destination.” — Kelly Brogan


I do not mean to endorse all that Kelly Brogan is claiming or all that Bruce Lipton is claiming.  My view is that the cat is out of the bag as it needs to be although where it goes in the initial days of its liberation may lead to some excesses on the way through  the forming, storming, norming and performing cycle. I would encourage returning to the basic premises of Mach and Nietzsche; i.e. the reminder that we have put ‘reason’ as in science and rationality’, into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition and thus see ‘the Game-Changing Science of Epigenetics’ as Nietzsche’s ‘collapse of the societal practice of putting ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition.


Stock Taking #2  (appending to Stock Taking #1 to keep them in relational context)



Stock Taking #1


Science has incompetent foundations [Mach].  Science derives from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar architecture [Whorf], which captures physical phenomena in terms of ‘independent things-in-themselves’ [noun-subjects] and ‘what these independent things-in-themselves do’ [nouns inflecting verbs].  Such simple mechanical structures, which capture superficial ‘appearances’, do not exist in physical reality of our actual experience and we need to update science from its most basic foundations up [Mach].


The semantic reality we construct using noun-and-verb language is the rational/scientific reality we are employing as our ‘operative reality’ to formulate our world views and plan and operationalize our interventional actions [in an attempt to construct a desired future].   We thus shoot ourselves in the foot because the physical reality of our actual experience is radically unlike the being-based logical ‘semantic reality’ of scientific thinking [purely mechanical thinking which is ‘all-genetic expression’ as if in a void Euclidian space and thus ignoring of epigenetic influence as the primary source within epigenetic-genetic nonduality.]   Nevertheless, science continues to ‘score successes’ because we appraise results within the same rational modeling space science makes its models and claims in, … though the space of the physical reality of our actual experience is relationally complex and beyond simple mechanical representation.


Stock Taking #2


There is an increasing incidence of people ‘breaking out of the constraining structures of scientific thinking’ as in the example of psychiatry.  The basic ‘complaint’ is the same; i.e. to restore ‘epigenetic influence’ to its natural primacy over genetic expression within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality.  Yes, a person showing signs of emotional/mental distress, if modeled by science as a local, independently-existing system-in-itself will show imbalances in internal biochemistry such as neurotranmitting chemical production, however, while the simple mechanical (system-in-itself) models of science would assume this to be the ‘root cause’ of the mental ‘abnormality’, research such as that by Ronald Laing, shows that these biochemical imbalances are local symptoms while the root source is epigenetic inductive influence arising with the relational social dynamic the (sensitive) individual is situationally included in.  See, for example,  The Trap1 -Fuck You Buddy, by Adam Curtis for the section on Laing from 19:24 to 28:40.


The suggestion here is that the ‘nondual view’; i.e. the view in terms of epigenetic-genetic nonduality, is a view that transcends but includes the simple, mechanical ‘genetic-expression is all there is’ view.  Einstein describes the relationship of these views in the context of field-matter nonduality in the following terms;


“… the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created. Its final aim would be the explanation of all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone. There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality. 

  …To use a comparison, we could say that creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles of our adventurous way up.” — Einstein and Infeld, ‘Evolution of Physics’


Therefore, in the general case of moving from dualist ‘genetic expression only’ [seeing physical phenomena in terms of ‘independently-existing things and what these things do’, to epigenetic-genetic nonduality, we continue to see the simple mechanical view of the body as a notional ‘independently-existing material system-in-itself’, but at the same time we can see the body within the relational social dynamic wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression; i.e. where relational tensions are inducing imbalances in the biochemistry of the person seen as local system-in-itself.  While the dualist scientific view regards the ‘system-in-itself’ as the ‘reality’ [it is merely a ‘semantic reality’], the nondualist view of our experience-based intuition sees the transcending ‘epigenetic influence inducing genetic expression’ view in a natural primacy over the ‘genetic expression’ on its own scientific view.


The important point to retain in one’s awareness in this stock-taking #2 is that this transcendent view that includes the rational view, that Einstein is talking about, is transcendent view of the ‘self’ as also captured by Nietzsche in ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’; e.g. the smaller view is the ‘little sagacity ego-self’ where one sees oneself as an independent system that is fully and solely responsible for its own development and behaviour, and the ‘big sagacity natural Self’, where we experience inclusion within a relational dynamic greater than ourselves.  Without the enclosing onion-skin layer as in nonduality, our view of the world is ‘dualist’ so that what we see  ‘out there’ in front of us is ‘all there is’.  In this case, we are ‘our own independent ego-self’  preoccupied with our relations with the separate ‘world out there’, … while holding the enclosing onion-skin in our awareness as we look out brings us the nondual view in which we experience a sense of inclusion in that which we are looking out which allows our ‘identity’ to be situationally influenced by the relational dynamics we are included in.



[Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) of the ego-self; a military struggle, i.e. a holy war



 Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar) of the natural Self; the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self’s base desires]


[Sidenote: the nondual awareness is the awareness that comes to ‘exceptionally performing teams’ that I have studied while ‘normal’ (aka ‘dysfunctional’) teams employ the dualist view.]


* * *


Summary and Conclusions;


How does one do a ‘summary and conclusions’ for something that continues to unfold with me in it?  I am still in this ‘double bind’ and I am not among those who have ‘attracted attention’ and therefore drawn a whole lot of abusive attacks for insulting the respected and celebrated icons of the culture-in-place.  Anonymity as in ‘being a nobody’ is a great insulator and helps to preserve one’s relations with friends and family which can be stressed by negative ‘press’.

I have to avoid thinking about the degree to which my views would disappoint those in my relational circle who are most respectful and appreciative of the ‘system as it is’.  I know they are thinking in a positive sense, just as colonizing settlers did even as the colonized indigenous peoples whose lands they appropriated and whose taxes paid for military and policing resources which put the indigenous peoples into ‘prisoner of war’ camps (reserves) and conducted programs of cultural genocide that aimed to ‘kill the Indian and save the child’, which put those people in a hell-hole not of their own making.

The settlers, protected by the Euro-American colonizing powers, were able to enjoy fine lives in their ‘new digs’ and were able to focus on cultivating nurturing spaces for the children and children’s children.   What was happening to others ‘not of their own kind’ was not their business, as they saw it. They were ‘winners’ and those others were ‘losers’ in their ‘all genetics, no epigenetics’ view.  But in physical reality, as inhabitants in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality, our inhabitant conditioning of the dynamics of the habitat is a the same time conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants (all, including ourselves).  If one group monopolizes the common living space, the other group is marginalized and suffocated, on a local and global basis.  We are not ‘really’ ‘independent systems-in-ourselves’ as science and rationality would have it, we are relational nexa within a transforming relational continuum.  Without the indigenous ethic of “there are plenty of fish in the river (cod on the cod banks), leave them there”, sustainability is lost.

Sustaining harmony in our relationship with the land comes with the nondual view where we realize that we are included in what we are looking out at, and it is greater than us (it includes everything). By using science to become more efficient at getting fish out of the rivers and cod off the cod banks, we are simply looking through the dualist lenses of the little sagacity ego-self, and some of use will pay the price; i.e. we are ‘doing it to ourselves’.  Capitalism epitomizes the dualist world view, and among the self-appointed elite, there is the notion that the natural ‘winners’ in our society will be able to ‘colonize space’ so that our non-sustainable exploitation of the earth will have an ‘escape hatch’ for those who continue to scramble and hold their positions on top of the pyramidal pile that bottoms out in the starving and suffocating masses.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  The nondual understanding leads naturally towards the restoring of balance and harmony through respect of the ‘all’ of nature that is greater than us and in which we all share inclusion.

I have covered ‘the collapse of truth’ and ‘fake news’ elsewhere on the website, so I will not cover it in any detail here, other than to say that it is affirmed by this analysis; i.e. there is no such thing as ‘truth’ in a world in flux so that all of these media and political stories about ‘what is going on’ are arbitrary and come from what a culture or national or ethnic group agrees to believe in.  The appropriate observations can be brought together to support whatever that happens to be; e.g. see ‘The Post-Truth Era of Trump is Just What Nietzsche Predicted’ by Alexis Papazoglou.

This ‘perspectivism’ is described also in Nietzsche’s following observations on ‘truth’;


“What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.  

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries’ old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth.” — Nietzsche, ‘On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense’


The indigenous aboriginal ‘learning circle’ employs a shift from ‘head-voice’ to ‘heart-voice’ and facilitates a grounding in experience-based physical reality, going beyond the head-voice ‘semantic realities’ constructed in Western rational debates that are in terms of ‘that which these independent systems-in-themselves’ are doing to ‘those other’ ‘independent systems-in-themselves’.   Russia Today presents very different ‘semantic realities’ supported by verified facts and photos than does CNN News which uses their own assemblages of ‘verified facts and photos’.  How about ISIS and the many extremist groups.  They are building quite an amazing inventory of verifiable facts and images.   When will the ambiguous game-play of perspectivist sales jobs in Western society give way to physical reality grounded in actual experience?

Finally, I wanted to critique ridiculous dualist ‘scientific theories’ such as ‘man is an independent intelligence and purpose directed system-in-itself’, and the even more ridiculous botanical (plant science) theory that ‘plants’ are independent intelligence and purpose directed systems-in-themselves [‘more ridiculous’ since plants are without any brain or even central nervous system to leverage the ‘fudging in’ of this ‘anthropomorphism’].  For example, plant science theorizes that ‘plant intelligence’ is responsible for phototropism and gravitropism instead of acknowledging that plants, and humans, are relational features [genetic expressions] epigenetically induced/actualized within a transforming relational continuum; i.e. they are organism-plenum nondualities or ‘inhabitant-habitat nondualities’.


Darwinism, as well, is another of these far-fetched scientific theories, far-fetched because of all the relationally complex physical phenomena that must be ‘explained’ by a dualist theory that does not and cannot [to be science-compliant] acknowledge epigenetic influence [e.g. as Lamarckism does].   While relational forms of several types (phyla) are known to have developed ‘wings’, ideally suited to the habitat ‘suddenly’ within a few generations, we are asked to believe (in Darwinian evolution) that this is the inside-outward only result of ‘reproduction with random chance variation’!?


Science is acclaimed for its ‘proven capability for improving the lives of humans’, yet such a claim has no meaning in the physical reality of a transforming relational continuum, since it is impossible to separate ‘the welfare of humans’ from ‘the welfare (harmony sustaining capacity) of the transforming relational continuum’.  In other words, the dualist view of a space in which ‘humans’ and their welfare are separate from ‘the environment and its welfare’ is a synthetic ‘semantic reality’ which is inherently ambiguous as discussed above re ‘perspectivism’, and incompatible with the physical reality of our actual experience.


“We … 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.” – Ernst Mach


* * * * *




Footnote:  The influence of the linear-in-time notion of biological ‘reproductive lineage’.


An acknowledgement of ‘epigenetics’ along with pleomorphism will together remove dependency on the simplistic time-based ‘reproductive’ lineages of evolution that come from denial of epigenetics and the imposing of the convention of monomorphism wherein biotic forms must come from similar looking forms

In the views of Antoine Béchamp and others, ‘microzymes’ are in operation at a lower level and through differing relational associations can ‘produce’ both bacteria and body cells.  As in relational interpretations generally, ‘microzymes’ do not have to be considered to be ‘real things’ or biological ‘atomic building blocks’ but can be understood as influential relations [‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘things’]. The main point is that relational forms that develop within a transforming relational continuum have no dependence on a linear-in-time reproductive lineage.  The proliferation of bacteria within a body can be in place of the proliferation of body cells [these do not need to be two separate antagonistic processes].  The idea of ‘germ theory’ or ‘the attack of pathogens’ is an anthropomorphism.

A related example of moving away from anthropomorphisms is found in Jamie Cunliffe’s redefining of ‘the immune system’ [a foreign–organism hunting and killing system] in terms of morphostasis, the tendency of a cellular process to sustain a structurally stable form.  One of the main functions of the cell-sustaining process is the clean-up of debris from degenerating cells.  Cell debris is food for other organisms to feed on and proliferate [‘pathogens’] and these organisms also contribute to the debris.  Since there are many other ‘foreign’ microorganisms in the body that ‘the immune system’ does not hunt down and kill, the illness may relate to a lag in debris clean up and recovery may associate with the removal of all ‘stuff’ (debris and other microorganisms) that ambiguate the basic cleaned-up cell symmetry/structure.


In this case (morphostasis), there is no identification of a ‘foreign organism’ and no ‘hunting down and killing them’.  This view seems to edge towards an overall process where ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘identified ‘things’ and ‘what things do’.  E.g. the amazingly ‘crisp’ ‘morphostasis of hexagonal bee cells arises from an epigenetic-genetic nondual dynamic, as also with soap bubbles, Bénard (convection) cells etc.  The architecture and stability of these cell forms does not derive from any cell blueprint, there is none since the cell does not derive from a one-sided genetic development process but from a nondual epigenetic-genetic confluence.


As Emerson says, the genius of nature is the source of an entire relational ecosystem which includes within it, the pear-tree that the ‘genius of nature’ endows with the ‘talent’ to produce pears.  It is not necessary to chop up this story so as to have to speak in terms that the ‘pear-tree’ is fully and solely responsible for producing pears.  That would be an impression deriving from semantics put together by an observer who thought of dynamics in the simple terms of ‘what things do’.   The same for semantic construct;  ‘the human mother produced five children’.  In Emerson’s terms, the ‘mother’ [and likewise the ‘father’] is not only inhabited by the genius of nature, she is created by it [call this ‘genius’ ‘the epigenetic inductive actualizing influence’ or whatever]. In Emerson’s view, our actions are not ‘local’ in origin;


“Whilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’


The imposed convention of monomorphism in the dualist science of biology, forces evolution to be seen in terms of linear-in-time ‘reproductive lineages’, forcing us to deal with biology (organic realm) differently than the inorganic/mineral world.   Nature requires no such divisions into ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ and in Nietzschean evolution, we find a nondual symmetry as in an endosmosis-exosmosis nonduality, akin to the ‘storm-cell–flow’ nonduality.  Also in Lamarckism, it is the outside-inward epigenetic pull that is inductively actualizing the genetic expression that APPEARS to ‘push forth’ inside-outwardly.  Genetic expression, the inside-outward pushing forth aspect of the nonduality is, ‘appearances’, as in the storm-cell–flow nonduality.  Nietzsche’s evolution, like Lamarck’s, is applicable to the world as a whole without division into ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’.


Is there not an ‘Ockam’s razor’ case here for preferring one evolutionary theory rather than two theories to deal with two different divisions that we have imposed on the world?


Though the view that makes no split into organic and inorganic might be shocking to Western mindsets, it is not at all shocking Bohm and Schroedinger, nor to indigenous aboriginal understandings of nature, for whom the dualist splitting into parts never occurs; i.e. the earth speaks to us in an ‘all my relations’ sense, as with a rock;


from time without end
you rest there in the midst of the paths
in the midst of the winds
you rest
covered with the droppings of birds
grass growing from your feet
your head decked with the down of birds
you rest
in the midst of the winds
you wait
Aged one.

— Omaha, oral expression alluding to animist relational ties in nature (Abram)