How Racism and EGO are Connected

Racism and EGO are connected by way of the WESTERN CULTURE belief in the abstraction of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which gives rise to the abstract concept of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.  In the reality of our sensory experience, there is only relational TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL.   Because TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and because Wave-field dynamics which constitute TRANSFORMATION are resonance based and IMPLICIT, such dynamics are INEFFABLE.  They are the active, all-including energy field.

EGO derives from belief in the concept of a LOCAL independent SELF (thing-in-itself) with the notional (GRAMMAR-given) powers of locally sourcing actions and development.  LOCAL SOURCING IS NOT A VIABLE CONCEPT!  There is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING in modern physics wherein dynamics are understood as NONLOCAL and RELATIONAL or in other words, as TRANSFORMATION.

Just as the discussion below shows how the conservative – liberal polar opposition is based on the erroneous belief in LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, it follows, in general, that the attribution of LOCAL SOURCING ACHIEVEMENTS that differ by RACE or GENDER DO NOT EXIST.  Therefore, there can be no argument over whether DIFFERENT SOURCING AGENTS (male, female, indigenous, European, black, white) associate with DIFFERING LEVELS OF SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.

RACISM is based on the notion that individuals of different race have different capacities for sourcing actions and developments.

The argument then proceeds along the lines that, for example, WHITES have greater capacities for sourcing beneficial actions and developments than BLACKS and/or indigenous aboriginals.

The point of this article is not to DEBATE which races have greater capacity for sourcing intelligent and beneficial actions and developments, the point is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as SOURCING actions and developments, there is only TRANSFORMATION in which we, ourselves, are included.  The concept of LOCAL SOURCING is a DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar as established by Nietzsche and reaffirmed by Bohm.  As Bohm points out, RATIONAL THOUGHT is over-simplification (falling far short  of INTELLIGENCE) that secures the abstract notion of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development.  RATIONAL THOUGHT, by way of LOCAL SOURCING, gives rise to both RACISM and EGO.

The point in this article is not to argue whether racial group A has greater powers of sourcing actions and developments than racial group B, or that males have grater powers of sourcing actions and developments than females.  The point is that here is no such hing as local SOURCING of actions and developments in the transforming relational continuum of our sensory experience.

* * *

The connection between RACISM and EGO is made clear though understanding rational intellection vis a vis intelligence (in the sense given by David Bohm), as laid out in the following discussion.

Perhaps the reader would not agree with the following, however , I suspect that the majority of indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents will be far more likely to agree.

What I am talking about is the craziness of the conservative – liberal ‘biooolar disorder’

It comes from a belief in ‘rationality’ which is a concept based on RATIO.

RATIO became popular IN OUR WESTERN CULTURE because it gives us a means to ARTICULATE and SHARE our experience.

WAIT A MINUTE!  NOT “OUR EXPERIENCE” which is far too complex to capture in language, but REPRESENTATION of our experience.

The cultures of the EAST (including indigenous aboriginals) and modern physics differ from us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS in the approach used to reduce our experience to language-based REPRESENTATION.

RATIO, … which underlies RATIONAL INTELLECTION aka ‘RATIONALITY’ is our WESTERN CULTURE popular method.

RELATIONALITY is what we might call the method of MODERN PHYSICS, indigenous aboriginals, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

Here is an example to point out the difference.  Imagine that you are a farmer and have cleared an area of land and are growing wheat on it and are expanding the size of it over the years (over TIME).

RATIO:  Nietzsche points out that this RATIO method of thinking about this is a kind of incestuous defining approach based on abstract concept of GROWTH (there is only TRANSFORMATION in the reality of our actual sensory experience).

Ok, we need to ‘take care of’ this fact that GROWTH is NOT REAL as this ties to RATIO.  The point is that as our area cultivated with wheat DOUBLES or TREBLES or expands by some RAIO or another, this is very meaningful to our BANKER and our INCOME etc. …. but to the creatures of the Wilderness, GROWTH is NOT REAL, because as our cultivated land GROWS, there is a reciprocal  SHRINKING of natural Wilderness area, so that the REALITY is the combination of GROWTH of cultivated land and SHRINKAGE of Wilderness area which is the purely relational dynamic of TRANSFORMATION.

NOTE THAT TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE meaning we cannot capture it in language because it is NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (purely relational), … but IT IS REALITY.

The concept of RATIO where we talk about the GROWTH of our cultivate acreage from ten years ago to today in terms of RATIO; e.g. ten years ago we cultivated 2 acres and today we are cultivating 20 acres, LIBERATES US from having to address TRANSFORMATION which includes the REDUCTION of Wilderness land in reciprocal relation to the GROWTH or RATIO-ing up of cultivated area.

Thinking in terms of the GROWTH or RATIO-ing up in size of a LOCAL farm is a RATIONAL way of thinking about what is going on which is habitual to us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, … and this RATIONAL view comes the problem that it fails to address the reciprocal SHRINKAGE of Wilderness which, taken together with the GROWTH of cultivated land constitutes TRANSFORMATION.   TRANSFORMATIN is the more complete representation of what is going while the RATIONAL view in terms of GROWTH is an INCOMPLETE representation.

We all know (by our experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION) which is happening as a result of our WESTERN CULTURE RATIONAL (and thus incomplete) representation of what is going one (which is really TRANSFORMATION) because our feeding of a GROWTH ECONOMY fails to take into account the ACTUAL reality of TRANSFORMATION.

That’s the problem with RATIONAL thinking which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘famous for’ and which has given us more PRODUCTIVITY than cultures such as the indigenous aboriginal culture who are sensitive the greater reality of TRANSFORMATION.  That is, our WESTERN GROWTH oriented economy is RATIO-ing up those PRODUCTIVE developments such as mono-cultural agriculture (killing off the diversity and clearing off land to optimize monoculture cultivating such as endless fields of wheat).  Note that the indigenous aboriginal culture agriculture always maintained a more natural multicultural diversity in agriculture with the ‘three sisters’ growing beans, squash and corn mixed together to stay in harmony with the natural diversity.

RATIONALITY is a kind of narrow-minded way of thinking or even an idiot-savant way of thinking that characterizes our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY.  As a secondary tool, it is great, but when we use as the OPERATIVE REALITY, that’s where we are shooting ourselves in the foot, because when we push for GROWTH what we are actually getting is TRANFORMATION, as when we focus on the GROWTH of cultivated lands and while we get we wanted from this RATIONAL operation of cultivating the land to produce an abundance of the products we WESTERN CULTURE humans like, … all the while, what is REALLY going on is TRANSFORMATION which includes the SHRINKING (decline) of the natural Wilderness diversity.

HEY, BUT WE WESETERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE PROUD OF OUR RATIONAL INTELLECTION, (the tool that is ‘running away with the workman, as Emerson puts it) AS IT IS ALSO THE SOURCE OF “EGO”.

In reality, we are included in the transforming relational continuum, but RATIONALITY allows us to abstractly re-model ourselves, as Nietzsche points out, in terms of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

For example, we name the plot of cultivated land Joe’s Farm, and then Joe RATIOS UP the farmed area from 2 acres to 10 acres.

DID YOU HEAR ANY MENTION OF THE RECIPROCAL SHRINKAGE OF NATURAL WILDERNESS?  No, you didn’t, because it is our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT habit to speak RATIONALLY in terms of LOCAL GROWTH (out of the context of TRANSFORMATION) as “LOCAL GROWTH” were REALITY.

Can you imagine what the indigenous aboriginal’s understanding and related feelings might be as he/she observes us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS push ahead in this RATIONAL project of ploughing up the natural diversity and replacing it with a mono-culture crop such as wheat?

As far as the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’s RATIONAL INTELLECTION goes, he is increasing the area of agricultural production and thus enjoying the GROWTH (RATIO-ing UP) of his income.  So, this is, by definition, a RATIONAL things to do, to increase the production of agricultural products.

BUT, HEY!  What is REALLY GOING ON is TRANSFORMATION which includes the SHRINKAGE of natural Wilderness in reciprocal relation to the GROWTH of cultivated land, … so we put ourselves in a kind of Idiot-Savant mode with this this RATIONAL INTELLECTION which we also refer to as REASON (intuition taps into TRANSFORMATION, but REASON is based on RATIONAL INTELLECTION).

TEST QUESTION TO REVIEW WHAT HAS JUST BEEN SAID:

Which would you say is more supportable by our sensory experience: …. (a) RATIONAL INTELLECTION that affirms that if we double our area of cultivation of wheat, we double our production and profits, … or, … (b) RELATIONAL INTELLECTION that affirms that if we double our area of cultivation, we reciprocally shrink the area of uncultivated Wilderness which, taken together, means that the reality is TRANSFORMATION.

I suspect that you answered (b), however, in the social dynamics of our WESTERN CULTURE, the official and social operative answer is (a) because it is the RATIONAL answer.

Because this RATIONAL answer (a) is what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have opted for as the OPERATIVE REALITY, our social-agricultural/industrial dynamic orients to GROWTH and leaves TRANSFORMATION to flap about like a loose sheet in the gale.

This RATIO-ing up of GROWTH as in RATIONALITY, which is out of the context of TRANSFORMATION makes WESTERN CULTURE people and countries and companies RICH, at the same time as it blindly, reciprocally SHRINKS the natural Wilderness, a legacy which leaves our grandchildren POOR.

DOUBLE CHECK: If we go back to the TEST QUESTION and agree with (b) then we are able to see, within one mental picture, both the growing circle of cultivated area within the shrinking surroundings of natural Wilderness so that as the former RATIOS UP in size, e.g. DOUBLES or QUADRUPLES, the latter reciprocally SHRINKS so that what is REALLY going on is not GROWTH of cultivated land but TRANSFORMATION of the overall  cultivated and Wilderness complex.

HOW, and WHY, IS RATIONAL INTELLECTION SCREWING UP OUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON?

Starting with the WHY, … because we are included in a transforming relational continuum which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (that’s the basic nature of the Wave-field aka the Tao), and because language can’t capture something that is in continual flux, if we want to garner the utility of language based sharing of representations of reality, then we have to develop a language and grammar system that REDUCES the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to something that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT and the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR is one way of doing this which is common in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY.

BACK TO THE EARLIER EXAMPLE: In an aerial view of the patch of cultivated land, if we focus on the cultivated area on its own and measure its size of TIME; i.e. by measuring year after year, we can use RATIO or RATIONALITY to measure “ITS GROWTH”  as if what we are looking at is independent of the Wilderness it is inserting itself into which is more completely described as TRANSFORMATION, by taking into account the reciprocal SHRINKING of the Wilderness

As Nietzsche points out, the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR allows us to isolate our intellectual attention and orient it to what we have NAMED the ‘cultivated area’ which now serves as a stub that we can use GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing development and action to.  Thus we say ‘the cultivated area is growing’ and while it was only 2 acres in size ten years ago, it is now 20 acres in size.

WAIT A MINUTE!  THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE IS THE REALITY as affirmed by our sensual experience.   That one little spot of cultivated land is not the reality, it is abstraction that we have constructed using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.   First we NAME it to give it notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF-EXISTENCE, and then we use GRAMMAR to impute to it its own powers of SOURCING actions and development, as in ‘the cultivated area has grown from 2 acres to 10 acres’.

What is actually going on is TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT , but by using RATIO, we can recast this as something EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT and this is where the RATIONAL abstraction of GROWTH comes in to take the place of TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.

RATIONALITY is SMOKE AND MIRRORS, but it is useful for INFERENCE and we must avoid taking it literally as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are in the habit of doing.

Let’s look at the problem with RATIONALITY which is confusing because it is a very useful tool of INFERENCE that meanwhile does not qualify for use in constructing a substitute realty.   The conservative – liberal BIPOLAR division is a case in point.

The thing about RATIONALITY is that it works by imputing LOCAL SOURCING where there is none; i.e. the world of our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  As already discussed, this reality is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT so we use language and grammar (e.g. the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR) to fabricate representations alluding to the fluid reality which are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.  For example, DUNING is how transformation can manifest but it is, like all Wave-field phenomena, INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, so what we do to reduce it to something EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT is to (a) use NAMING to give a relational form a notional LOCAL PERSISTING EXISTENCE and conflate this with GRAMMAR to notionally endow this NAMING instantiated LOCAL thing-in-itself ‘its own’ (notional) powers of sourcing actions and development.

In the example of the nonlocal resonance phenomenon of DUNING, this reduction delivers up language such as ‘the DUNE is growing higher and longer and is shifting towards the cost).  What was intrinsically NONOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (fully relational) we have now reduced to something LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT… HEY!, … that’s only an abstract reduction for RATIONAL talking purposes, don’t fall into the trap of accepting it as REALITY.   The reality is the Wave-field resonance as manifests in DUNING which we can’t capture in language because it is NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (innately relational).

OK, HERE COMES THE BASIC TRAP within RATIONAL INTELLECTION THAT LEADS TO THE CONSERVATIVE-LIBERAL BIPOLAR SPLIT

JUST as we reduce DUNING to ‘the DUNE’ and ‘its growth and movement’, so also do w reduce HUMANING to ‘the HUMAN’ and ‘its growth and movement’.  That’s what RATIONAL INTELLECTION does for us and it employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR in the process.    That’s fine, in itself, so long as we don’t forget that such DOUBLE ERROR based construction is just a tool whereby we can use EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT language to at least INFER the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.

In simple words, transformation that manifests as DUNING or HUMANING  is bound up in the transforming relational continuum and that which is in a continual condition of transformation cannot be captured in language that uses NAMING because the NAME persists as if it were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF WITH PERSISTING BEING.

As you can see, we can’t really REPRESENT a fluid reality using as our basis LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES that we abstractly animate with GRAMMAR, but we aren’t claiming that this is a representation of REALITY, we are just saying that this RATIONALITY based reduction can be useful as an EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT ‘go-by’ (e.g. ‘the DUNE’) for INFERRING the fluid reality with its transient relational formings which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  For example, we don’t know where DUNING starts or ends because it is a resonance phenomenon (Wave-field phenomenon) that is included within the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.

BOTTOM LINE: In order to talk about reality that is INEFFABLE-because-NONLCOAL-and-IMPLICIT, we use tricks like the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to fabricate reductive abstract constructions THAT ARE EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.   Thus the nonlocal resonance phenomenon of DUNING is something we NAMING to reduce to DUNE and than apply GRAMMAR to impute to ‘the DUNE’ its own (notional) power of SOURCING actions and development.

WHERE IS THE TRAP?

I didn’t mention it explicitly, but it may have come into your mind that in reducing the natural dynamic of TRANSFORMATION wherein DUNING is a resonance phenomenon, to ‘the DUNE’ with its notional powers of SOURCING actions and developments, there is a splitting apart of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (dune and desert are one in our resonance-based or Wave-field based understanding), … into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO.   That is, for effable-izing purposes we now have both DUNE and DESERT AS IF THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  THIS IS PART OF THE RATIONAL INTELLECTION PROCESS.

Ok, all we want out of this is to liberate ‘the DUNE” so that we can use the DOUBLE ERROR talk in terms of a NAMING instantiated local thing-in-itself (DUNE) with its own (notional, GRAMMAR-given) powers of sourcing actions and developments, such as ‘growing higher and longer and shifting across the desert etc.).

HEY, WE JUST SPLIT FIGURE AND GROUND INTO TWO,  so we not only liberated the DUNE, we liberated the DESERT FLOOR which is like a male and female duo and if GRAMMAR can animate the DUNE so also can it animate the DESERT FLOOR.  Maybe it’s not the DUNE that is doing the moving across the desert floor but the desert floor that is opening up and inducing movement of the DUNE.

WE HAD NO SUCH PROBLEM OF AMBIGUITY BEFORE WE SPLIT FIGURE-and-GROUND (DUNE-and-DESERT) into TWO.  In our Wave-field (resonance) understanding, FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

So, this split we make, so as to render the ineffable effable; i.e. the ineffable of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (Wave-field view) into effable FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (mechanical view), … introduces an UNRESOLVABLE (because it is not real) AMBIGUITY as to whether the FIGURE sources changes in the GROUND or whether the GROUND sources changes in the FIGURE.

EXAMPLE QUESTION: Does the hurricane source the stirring up of the atmosphere or does the atmosphere source the stirring up of the hurricane?

That’s a valid question in the old Newtonian physics world which still dominates in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT viewing of ‘reality’.  It is a question involving unresolvable ambiguity.  This ambiguity comes from substituting LOCAL SOURCING for NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION.

In modern physics, the question is entirely spurious because reality is TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (the hurricane and atmosphere are NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS; i.e. there is no “FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO” in the reality of our sensory experience, it is abstraction coming from the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar which is otherwise known as RATIONALITY and/or REASON.

“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

The conservative – liberal split comes from here.  Test yourself.  How would YOU answer the question;

EXAMPLE QUESTION: Does the hurricane source the stirring up of the atmosphere or does the atmosphere source the stirring up of the hurricane?

There are many questions that arise in this ambiguous form; e.g. in terms of leadership;

Does the man source the making of the times or do the times source the making of the man?  (common examples involve Hitler and Churchill).

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  This is one of those questions that separate people into conservative and liberal camps.  The conservative view is that ‘the man sources the making of the times’ e.g Trump as he sees himself and as his supporters see him..  The liberal view is that ‘the times source the making of the man’.   Currently in the U.S.  many feel that the times are calling for a leader that will source resolving of the country’s need, and whoever Is the best person available to source resolution of this need should be called into action.  This is very different from the conservative view of the leader as the man who sources the making of the times.  This is the BIPOLAR difference between conservative and liberal.

HAVE YOU DECIDED WHICH OF THESE TWO ORIENTATIONS YOU FALL INTO?

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta all maintain that the above question is BULLSHIT because there is no such thing as SOURCING and the dichotomy is based on the abstract concept of ‘sourcing’; — Does the man source the making of the times or do the times source the making of the man? 

TRANSFORMATION is the reality and ‘local sourcing’ is abstraction that derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

SUMMARY: In our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT upbringing, we learn how to think RATIONALLY and this is where our belief in LOCAL SOURCING comes from (i.e. form the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which is part of RATIONAL INTELLECTION.   As Bohm points out explicitly and Nietzsche affirms, INTELLIGENCE is much more than RATIONALITY.  Intelligence is what we are using when we click to the artificiality (psychological abstraction basis)  of the conservative – liberal BIPOLAR opposition.

Reflection shows that the notion of LOCAL SOURCING is a  RATIONAL intellectual abstraction that stems from EGO.  HEY!  We had do something like INVENTING LOCAL SOURCING in order to be able to talk about the transforming relational continuum.  That’s why we used the notion of LOCAL SOURCING to ‘break into the continuum which is in itself INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICITT.  We engineered the ‘break in’ with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that is engineering the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.

RESONANCE is nonlocal and implicit and manifests as HURRICANING which belongs to the overall transforming relational continuum but if we want to use language as an expedient to reduce our representations to a LOCAL focus, we can apply NAMING and GRAMMAR to whatever imagery we want to enable language abased sharing of our focus.  Once we do this and split apart FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE and make it into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, … we are serving up the ingredients for ambiguity as to whether the FIGURE is sourcing a stirring up of the GROUND or whether the GROUND is sourcing a stirring up of the FIGURE.  This problem of ambiguity does not exist in REALITY of TRANSFORMATION, it arise only in the language based DOUBLE ERROR reduction of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO>

The conservative – liberal split is exemplary of this artificial ambiguity arising from RATIONAL INTELLECTION wherein we reduce reality to a one-sided prepresentaton in terms of ‘things-that-grow’, for example the growth of cultivated land, which fails to take into account the reciprocal dynamic of the shrinkage of Wilderness, the alter aspect of what is really the one dynamic of TRANSFORMATION which we DON’T TALK DIRECTLY ABOUT BECAUSE WE CAN’T; i.e. TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT as is the nature of the Wave-field aka the Tao.

In direct words, and this is only speaking to the tip of the iceberg, .. the conservative – liberal polarization is a BIPOLAR DISORDER characteristic of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE which does NOT arise in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  It arises as an artifact of using RATIONALITY to reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to terms which are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.

* * *

p.s. While most of our friends and associates would say that what I have written above is bullshit, since if it were true, the whole foundations of WESTERN CULTURE WOULD BE EXPOSED AS FALSE, … I could respond by saying that the powerful majority has no monopoly on the truth.  Furthermore, everything I have said in the above is supportable in modern physics and in indigenous aboriginal science (Blackfoot physics) and in Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  Furthermore, it is EGO which is deeply entrenched in WESTERN CULTURE social relations and recognition, that resists change as in the nonlinear dynamic of LOCK-IN-BY-HIGH-SWITCHING COSTS’.  The belief in LOCAL SOURCING underpins EGO along with rewards and recognition as employed in WESTERN CULTURE.

FURTHERMORE, how we live our lives within the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY may be very much the same as how the indigenous aboriginal families live their lives, so what goes awry in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS’ case goes awry in our RATIONAL actions and organization (most of our personal interactions are intuitive and intelligence based and thus NOT RATIONAL or REASON based.  This is good because RATIONALITY aka REASON is too binary (GODlike JUDGMENT of RIGHT and WRONG BASED) and incomplete a tool to deal with the complexities of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

“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

As WESTERN CULTURE social individuals, we use our intelligence which includes intuition and goes well beyond our RATIONALITY or REASONING but within WESTERN CULTURE organizations, we elevate RATIONALITY above INTUITION/INTELLIGENCE.

* * *