As David Bohm observed in “Wholeness and the Implicate Order’;

 

1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS

 

“… society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc

 

This can be seen as a FRAMING PROBLEM wherein the architecture of language is such as to require us to FRAGMENT the all-including transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD aka the Tao in order to build finite, shareable messages.  Our physical reality as understood in the WAVE terms of WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY as NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT wherein “the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” and where we must open up to what Krishnamurti refers to as CHOICELESS AWARENESS (while ‘letting go’ of our EGO so that we are NOT voyeurizing but are included in our awareness.).

 

One might say that, in this sense-experience of choiceless awareness, we are opening up to the WAVEFIELD mode of sense experience which is TIMELESS and RELATIONAL, perhaps comparable to a NEAR-DEATH experience where our awareness becomes NONLOCAL, releasing us from the LOCAL EGO-based VOYEUR JUDGEMENTS of WHAT’S OUT THERE as in the SELF-OTHER SPLIT which characterizes the PARTICCLE side of WAVE-PARTICLE duality.

 

The FRAMING problem comes when we leave the WAVE domain and use our PARTICLE DOMAIN comprehension.  We must choose ‘how big a BITE of the material reality we want to take.  Should we choose a FRAME that shows Robin Hood doing his rebalancing by taking from the rich and giving to the poor?   Or should we choose a FRAME that excludes one ‘giving to the starving child’ and keep within the FRAME only the act of stealing from the King’s granary?

Since our sense experience reality is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which is unbounded in space or time, and since LANGUAGE-based communications is TIME-based and we ‘don’t have all day’ and we can’t cover the whole history of the universe, … FRAMING is a practical expedient that makes language-based communication POSSIBLE IN A PRACTICAL SENSE.

 

What has become a WESTERN CULTURE habit, in this regard is implied in the above anecdote of he Robin Hood.  If we make the FRAME LARGE ENOUGH, we can see the rising disparity of RICH and POOR and the waves of insufficiency that associate with the deaths of the children of the poorest people, since children have not yet accrued the reserves of body fat that adults have, to carry them through periods of insufficiency in access to nurturance.  Since the children of the rich are doing fine, the rich may feel as if this loss of children is God’s will, as was the popular interpretation in WESTERN CULTURE as expressed by Adam Smith;

 

”Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.” —Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations 1776

 

People like Robin Hood and Jean Valjean (Les Miserables), by trying to restore balance between excess and deficiency were thus seen as fighting against God’s method of continually improving on the human species by ‘weeding out the weak ones’ in a process of ‘NATURAL SELECTION’.

 

FRAMING is a very important aspect in the interpretation of reality that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS tend to overlook.  As Chuang Tzu observes, managing the distribution of wealth can be FRAMED in more than one way, depending, for example, on the ‘social standing’ of the person influencing such distribution;

 

Moral: the more you pile up ethical principles and duties and obligations To bring everyone in line, The more you gather loot for a thief like Khang. By ethical argument and moral principle The greatest crimes are eventually shown To have been necessary, and, in fact, A signal benefit to mankind.

— The way of Chuang Tzu, translated by Thomas Merton

 

“FRAMING” is thus an important component in the language-based conveying of impressions of sene experience reality.  The Taoist story of horses is another example of how FRAMING can radically alter our understanding of reality, supporting Nietzsche’s contention that what our language based (spoken and written) representations of reality are convention based since how we FRAME our understanding is subjective and exposed to continual changing as the Taoist story of the horses demonstrates;

 

The Taoist story of the man and the horses, proceeds from where his horse runs away (Maybe BAD maybe GOOD) but later returns with a pack of six wild horses (Maybe GOOD maybe BAD) whereupon his son breaks his leg when thrown from one of the wild horses he is trying to train (Maybe BAD maybe GOOD) and is passed over as the local Warlord conscripts all able-bodied men to go to war (Maybe BAD, maybe GOOD), a war in which all those conscripted are overcome and killed by superior enemy forces.

 

This story exemplifies the manner in which FRAMING influences our understanding of ‘reality’.

 

Because our sense-experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, but our language allows us to construct a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein we RE-FRAME things in a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO sense, this GIVES RISE to BINARY LOGIC, otherwise known as the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED  medium.   In this RE-FRAMING, we are free to postulate movement and development of the FIGURE without, at the same time, modifying the GROUND.  This amounts to THE CONSTRUCTING OF A SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on FIGURES that ‘live’ within a NOTIONAL ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE GROUND.  In this SUBSTITUTE REALITY, the concept of FREE WILL is made possible.  As Nietzsche points out, this is part of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR ‘abstraction package’.

 

Our DOUBLE ERROR based SYNTHETIC LIBERATION of the ‘FIGURE’ from the ‘GROUND’ obliges us (we who are psychologically authoring this ‘Declaration of Independence’ of ‘the FIGURE from the GROUND’) to take on the obligation of AUTHORING the action and development of the now-liberated FIGURE.  Note that before this, our sense experience was informing us of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, but now we have taken on what the Presocratic philosophers called ‘THE BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS’ coming from the SCHIZOPHRENIC SPLITTING of fluid FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE TRANSFORMATION into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO MECHANICS.

 

SCHIZOPHRENIA is part of this abstracting package where we now have to separately manage, in our mind, the dynamics of the FIGURE and the dynamics of the GROUND, and there is confusion here associated with the innately AMBIGUOUS options for FRAMING.  YES, to are obliged to use FRAMING in order to EXTRACT a finite FRAGMENT of the transforming relational continuum in order to capture it in language, but NO, there is no NATURAL basis for devising the FRAME we impose to extract a hopefully MIANINGFUL in -its own right FRAGMENT of the transforming relational continuum.  Should we FRAME our extraction so as to capture ONLY Robin Hood’s removal of grain from the King’s granary?   Or should we open the FRAME so as to include the changes from the prior King’s more caring policies and the shift to the current King’s greed and intolerable taxation of the people?

 

Can we say WHICH ONE OF THESE FRAMINGS IS “THE REALITY”?   Or are we stuck with a basic ambiguity as to ‘what is reality’ as in the Taoist story of the horses where we get very different ‘realities’ depending on how we DO OUR FRAMING?

 

SCHIZOPHRENIA IS TIED UP IN THIS FRAMING PROBLEM SINCE THE DIFFERING WAY IN WHICH WE CAN FRAME OUR OWN LIFE STORY DESCRIBING ‘WHO WE ARE’ IS NOT A UNIQULY DETERMINED ‘SPLITTING OUT’.

 

In the indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, the cognitive REALITY preserves its innately relational sense as with ‘TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’ rather than ‘the TOWN that is GROWING larger and more populous and productive’.   The PROBLEM of SCHIZOPHRENIA INDUCING AMBIGUITY lies in the SPLITTING OUT of the TOWN from the COUNTRY (the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO SPLITTING) wherein we introduce ambiguity as to whether the FIGURE is stirring up the GROUND or the GROUND is stirring up the FIGURE.

 

Does the HURRICANE stir up the ATMOSPHERE or does the ATMOSPHERE stir up the HURRICANE?

 

The Modern physics (and the ZEN) answer is NEITHER, because our sense experience reality is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum and the AMBIGUITY arises from OUR SPLITTING of FIGURE-and-GROUND IN TWO for the expedient of constructing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.

 

THIS SUBSTITUTE REALITY IS NOT SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY, IT IS ABSTRACTION.  Thus, we must remember when we use it and speak in terms of ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, that this is a SIMPLIFICATION of CONVENIENCE that gives us a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that features the LOCAL and EXPLICIT that is open to VOYEUR OBSERVATION whereas our SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY is of INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMIG RELATIONAL CONTINUUM WHICH, WHILE WE HAVE SENSE EXPERIENCE OF IT, IS “NOT” AVAILABLE TO VOYEUR VISUALIZING AS FORMS THE BASIS OF OUR LANGUAGE BASED REPRESENTATION IN THE “DOUBLE ERROR” FORMAT of NAMING-based things-in-themselves with GRAMMAR-given powers of local AUTHORING of actions and developments.

 

FOLKS, THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED SUBSTITUTE REALITY HAS PROBLEMS THAT ARE SOURCING SCHIZOPHRENIA IN US USERS THIS WESTERN CULTURE REALITY-REPRESENTING SCHEME, AS BOHM IS SAYING.

 

What compounds the confusion of having to deal with TWO REALITIES, our sense experience reality and our abstract DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR rational-intellectual SUBSTITUTE REALITY is the exposure to subjective FRAMING.

 

SURE, WE WESTERN CULTURE SCIENCE FANS can brag about how our DNA identification technology can determine that Robin Hood was the one who went into the King’s granary and stole grain, but THE IDENTIFICATION OF WHO DOES WHAT fails to address the FRAMING PROBLEM, where, if we OPEN UP THE SMALL FRAME and ENLARGE IT TO INCLUDE how the King is extorting by excessive taxation, grain from the people who farm it and need it for their family’s nurturance and survival, is impacting the health and welfare of the social collective.  What we take to “REALITY” can change radically with our choice of FRAMING; i.e. as mentioned above;

 

Moral: the more you pile up ethical principles and duties and obligations To bring everyone in line, The more you gather loot for a thief like Khang. By ethical argument and moral principle The greatest crimes are eventually shown To have been necessary, and, in fact, A signal benefit to mankind.

— The way of Chuang Tzu, translated by Thomas Merton

 

Such FRAMING SPLITS different people’s understanding of REALITY; e.g. the Conservative FRAMES sense-experience in such a fashion as to portray REALITY in terms of the individual as the AUTHOR of beneficial actions and developments while the Liberal FRAMES sense experience in such a fashion as to portray REALITY in terms of the social collective as the AUTHOR of beneficial actions and developments.

 

FRAMING is ESSENTIAL for language capture of REPRESENTATIONS (and thus language-based sharing) of our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

 

BUT SPACETIME IS A WAVEFIELD.  So how do we determine whether several years of warming global temperatures are just a small ‘mound’ in a great valley in the ongoing profile of thousands or millions of years, a ‘great valley’ which is in reality only a local depression in an ever longer period mounding of higher temperatures?

 

ANSWER: WE CAN’T DETERMINE WHICH IS THE TRUE ‘AMPLITIDE versus TIME’ problem of global temperature because such AMPLITUDE VERSUS TIME REPRESENTATION is a FRAGMENTING representation of a WAVE-BASED TRANSFORMATION.  One can’t apply FRAMING and chop out a piece of an amplitude versus time graph that is rising over time (or ‘declining over time’).  There IS NO CORRECT FRAMING for determining whether something is on the rise or decline (over time) as that would be a DENIAL of the WAVE NATURE of our sense experience reality.

 

* * *

 

What we have going on here is the MEETING of TWO REALITIES, one based on Matter and Time and the other on WAVE relations.

 

The WEST has opted for the FIGURE-and-GROUND as TWO SPLITTING between MATTER and SPACE, the WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT FRAGMENTING SPLIT of BINARY LOGIC-based aka “reason-based’ SUBSTITUTE REALITY which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT

 

The EAST has opted for the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE WHOLENESS associated with the transforming relational continuum REALITY which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

 

IF we CHOOSE to REPRESENT REALITY in an EXPLICIT manner that is LOCAL and PRECISE, we opt for the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR where we say; ‘Robin Hood stole the King’s grain.

 

If we CHOOSE to REPRESENT REALITY in IMPLICIT manner that is NONLOCAL and RELATIONAL, we opt for the BOOTSTRAPPING approach as described by Wittgenstein and by Geoffrey Chew where we USE THE EXPLICIT AS A THROW-AWAY EXPEDIENT IN DEVELOPING A RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY;

 

Geoffrey Chew]: “when you formulate a question, you have to have some basic concepts that you are accepting in order to formulate the question. But in the bootstrap approach, where the whole system represents a network of relationships without any firm foundation, the description of our subject can be begun at a great variety of different places. There isn’t any clear starting point. And the way our theory has developed in the last few years, we quite typically don’t know what questions to ask. We use consistency as the guide, and each increase in the consistency suggests something that is incomplete, but it rarely takes the form of a well-defined question. We are going beyond the whole question­and­answer framework.”

 

The EXPLICIT, LOCAL and PRECISE rendering of reality is the MATTER option.

 

The IMPLICIT, NONLOCAL and RELATIONAL rendering of reality is the WAVE option.

 

As Schroedinger observed, Modern physics made A BAD CHOICE in using probability theory as the basis for its Modern physics foundation since probability theory PRESERVES THE ILLUSION OF THE THING-IN-ITSELF REALITY OF MATTER (something that Mach vehemently objected to so that when it became a generally supported view, Mach pulled out from what he felt had become THE CHURCH OF PHYSICS)

 

In the above commentary, one can see that as Nietzsche put it, the material objects are IDOLS that must be smashed in order to recover the RELATIONAL REALITY which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as is the message in the Taoist tale of the farmer and the horses which illustrates the impossibility of building an understanding of the unfolding reality we are included in FROM LOCAL PARTS.  In other words, seeking understanding by FRAGMENTING reality CANNOT WORK.   REALITY is like a continually unfolding story where what happens in the present CANNOT BE TREATED AS ‘REAL’ as if it were the FOUNDATION for constructing the FUTURE.   The coming into possession, by the farmer of a small herd of fine horses, was not a fact in a progression of facts leading to the construction of a reality that progressively comes together in space over time.

 

A change in RELATIONS can TRANSFORM the meaning of reality as when the farmer’s son’s MISFORTUNE of breaking his leg while training the wild horses became his GOOD FORTUNE by being left out of a battle force that went to its death.  The height of the joy of the lucky man who won, in a drunken poker game, a ticket on a transatlantic luxury liner was only matched by the depth of depression of the worker who had put in many hours of hard labour to earn the money to pay for that ticket on the Titanic’s maiden Atlantic crossing.  However, in very short order, what what was elation transformed into sorrow and what was sorrow transformed into elation.

 

Evidently, our WESTERN CULTURE modeling of reality we base on FRAGMENTING reality into small pieces of space and time and ‘connecting the dots’ so to speak.   Today, I am in London, five days hence, I will be in New York. I will fill you in on everything I do in those LOCAL and EXPLICIT space-time fragments.

 

The current story of the interaction of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin is being told by way of a LOCAL FRAGMENT in space and time.  Meanwhile, TRANSFORMATION is underway and is a ‘bigger story’ in the same sense that the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is a ‘bigger story’ than ‘the GROWTH of the TOWN’.   If we tell a detailed story of the GROWTH of the TOWN, the new construction, the new roads and facilities, the arrival of new residents; i.e. a story of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT, we can’t really SEE in this locally focused story how the LANDSCAPE is TRANSFORMING which is really the larger context which contains the lesser content of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT within it.

 

GROWTH is a REASON-based (RATIO-based) understanding which synthetically LOCALIZES and FRAGMENTS our understanding so that we can no longer ‘see’ the reality of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE with its conjugate SHRINKING of the Wilderness.  GROWTH and REASON remove our psyche from reality and plunk us down in an abstract SUBSTITUTE REALITY where LOCAL, EXPLICIT GROWTH is possible.

 

In Reason’ in language!  ……..(Note how Nietzsche points to ‘being’ as the underpinning of ‘reason‘; i.e).  … “Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed.”……….– oh what a deceptive old witch it (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

 

Reason is a tool for constructing SIMPLER, SUBSTITUTE REALITIES where things make sense in a different way.  Reason accepts the GROWTH of a TOWN but our sense experience does not and understands what is going on in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT terms of a TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.

 

REALITY is an understanding in a NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) sense of dynamic relations as is the WAVE-FIELD view of reality.

 

But REALITY is also an understanding in a LOCAL and EXPLICIT (mechanistic) sense of EXPLICIT material actions and developments.  This is where FRAGMENTATION happens.

 

THIS IS WAVE-MATTER DUALITY!

 

WHAT’s the DIFFERENCE?   The Modern physics MAINSTREAM is of the view that we can get from the MATTER and TIME reality to the WAVE-FIELD reality with the help of applying Probability theory to the MATTER and TIME understanding.  But this doesn’t guarantee their EQUIVALENCE as far as giving us an understanding of reality goes because the INCOMPLETENESS in the WAVE-FIELD shows up differently than INCOMPLETENESS in the MATTER and TIME.

 

In the WAVE-FIELD reality, a shortage of coverage impacts the coherency of the understanding but we still get the UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS.  It is as in a LEARNING CIRCLE where the COHERENCIES in the connective confluence contribute to a kind of holographic relational understanding.  This understanding is an OVERALL or HOLISTICE kind of understanding.

 

In the MATTER and TIME reality, the more we focus in on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT detail, the LESS ABLE we are to see ‘the BIG PICTURE’; i.e. we get a very precise picture of A SMALL FRAGMENT, as if we are looking at life (reality) under a microscope, as in the George Floyd – Derek Chauvin trial.

 

WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT WAVE-MATTER EQUIVALENCE in this case?   In the LOCAL and EXPLICIT realm of MATTER and TIME, we can move from the telescopic view to the microscopic view but in the process, we can see only a FRAGMENT in SPACE and TIME, … we no longer see the global landscape over the past century but we close our focus down and in on a local street scene over a matter of an hour, … a small FRAGMENT of SPACE-and-TIME reality.   WE seek to understand this FRAGMENT more or less IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

 

SOMEHOW, there is an equivalence between this FRAGMENT of SPACE-and-TIME MECHANICS … AND…  relational WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION.  As in the case of ROBIN HOOD’s equalizing of regions of excess and deficiency of grain for bread, and the King’s intervention, we can understand things BOTH in WAVE-FIELD terms which are relational, NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (as given priority in the indigenous aboriginal culture) where we acknowledge the relational imbalance between RICH and POOR, … and also in the SPACE and TIME MATERIAL MECHANICS terms where we can move our focus down and in on a SMALL FRAGMENT OF REALITY which contains the ‘guts’ of the matter.   Within this SPACE-and-TIME FRAGMENT (this type of FRAGMENTED VIEW is only possible in the MATERIAL realm), we can explore the material dynamics in our WESTERN CULTURE terms of BINARY LOGIC JUDGEMENTS of “EITHER” CORRECTNESS “OR” INCORRECTNESS of LOCALLY AUTHORED behaviour as REPRESENTED in a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

 

Only for the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT and NOT FOR the indigenous aboriginal, does the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MATERIAL view of the GROWTH of the TOWN ‘exist’ as ‘reality’. In Modern physics as in our sense experience and as in the reality of the indigenous aboriginal, THE LANDSCAPE IS TRANSFORMING.  It is only REASON by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that conjures up the psychological illusion of the GROWTH of a LOCAL, EXPLICIT THING-IN-ITSELF called ‘the TOWN’.   That ‘TOWN’ is NOT A LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF but is instead a relational form in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.

 

FRAGMENTATION INTO LOCAL INDEPENDENT ENTITIES BELONGS to the DOUBLE ERROR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY.

 

For ROBIN HOOD, relational imbalance and associated need for restoring relational balance was the PRIMARY reality while for the WESTERN CULTURE ‘authorities’, CORRECTNESS of SPACE and TIME MATERIAL MECHANICS WAS PRIMARY.  While the former reality is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, the latter is LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

 

OBSERVATIONS and SUMMARY:

 

WAVE-MATTER DUALITY plays out in our SOCIAL DYNAMIC, distinguishing the WESTERN CULTURE by its giving cognitive precedence to MATERIAL DYNAMICS (LOCAL and EXPLICIT) and EASTERN CULTURE by its orientation to giving cognitive precedence to WAVE DYNAMICS (NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT).

 

It is evidently the view of Bohm, Schroedinger, and Nietzsche that, in understanding sense-experience reality, the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT is in a natural primacy over the LOCAL and EXPLICIT.   As WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY is demonstrating, the INVERTED primacy of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT is FRAGMENTING our REALITY and correspondingly our social dynamic.

 

“ … each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc.” – David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

 

The current WESTERN CULTURE BINARY LOGIC based (GOOD or EVIL based) legal proceedings in the case of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin, brings to the surface the fragmenting effect of BINARY LOGIC prevalent in WESTERN CULTURE.

 

The issue is NOT ‘EQUAL RIGHTS’ since such a notion PRE-SUPPOSES FRAGMENTATION and thus REINFORCES the very thing seen as being problematic; i.e. FRAGMENTATION.

 

WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS support for the EGO-inflating concept of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development is not only a source of FRAGMENTATION but because the perceived LOCAL AUTHORING of GOOD actions and developments are LOCKED IN by a system of rewards, recognition and EGO inflation, binary logic secures the conjugate LOCK IN of a system of punishments and defamation for the LOCAL AUTHORING of BAD actions and developments.

 

Movement OUT of the dysfunction of WESTERN CULTURE into EASTERN CULTURE understanding, while suggested by the work of Bohm, Schroedinger, Nietzsche and others, is stalled by the deep LOCK-IN mentioned above and by the FRAGMENTATION built into WESTERN CULTURE in its current BINARY LOGICAL INCARNATION.

 

Meanwhile, WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY is much more than a theory applying the dynamics of WAVES and PARTICLES, it is describing EAST and WEST PSYCHO-SOCIAL DYNAMIC; i.e. EAST is WAVE-before-PARTICLE and WEST is PARTICLE-before-WAVE, and never the twain shall meet.  Of course, TRANSFORMATION could solve the problem with the ‘humaning’ in the transforming relational continuum since the sum has shown itself to be greater than the parts.

 

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, 

 

* * *