RESONANCE is a NONLOCAL phenomenon (e.g. the hurricane) that we REDUCE to LOCAL with the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar. That’s just for sharing ‘rough copy’. REALITY is nevertheless RESONANCE based and thus innately NONLOCAL

* * *

We are included in the Great Harmony aka the Tao aka the Wave-field and it is ineffable; i.e. if we remain silent and without language, we can understand the Tao through relational experience, … but if we want to use language to give representation to the Tao, we must deal with the fact that words capture fluid forms as persisting things-in-themselves; e.g. hurricane Katrina.  This name ‘stays the same’ but the form it refers to is a NONLOCAL, RESONANCE based formING that is continually transforming as is everything in the Great Harmony aka the Tao aka the Wave-field.

In other words, every form is a relational dynamic as is easy to understand in the case of hurricane Katrina (as a stirring in the vastness of the transforming relational continuum aka ‘universe’), and it is our natural understanding as natural forms that are NOT using language and grammar to reduce the transforming relational continuum we and all forms are included in.

However, in the array of differing forms in the flow we distinguish ourselves, and based on persisting form and movements and because we have language and grammar, we associate the word ‘human’ with this characteristic form, and by this NAMING, we can split out a distinctive type of form and also a particular form to reference using spoken language.  Language also has GRAMMAR so that not only can we use NAMING to split out a form as if it were a LOCAL independently-existing thing-in-itself, we can use GRAMMAR to impute to it, its own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

In the case of the hurricaning or the boiling in the flowing streaming, by fixing a LOCAL identity on the NONLOCAL relational boiling or hurricaning, we can shift the SOURCING agency from NONLOCAL to LOCAL, which essentially ‘gets by’ the INEFFABLE nature of the NONLOCAL (which goes on without end as in the cycles of relational transformation).  That is, this language and grammar-based reduction of the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL renders the ineffable (in this reduced-to-LOCAL form) effable.

Our LOCAL, effable language based reduced representations open the way to SHARING an informative semblance of our observations and experiences of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, albeit in reduced form which can only INFER the ineffable-because-fluid reality that we can’t capture directly because we (being an inclusion in it) and ‘it’, are in continual flux.

While some humanings (EASTERN, modern physics) employ the reductive representations of language as INFERENCE TO STIMULATE INTUITIVE INSIGHT of the ineffable transforming relational continuum, acknowledging that ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, … other humanings (WESTERN) employ the reductive representations of language and grammar as DIRECT AND EXPLICIT REPRESENTATIONS OF ‘PHYSICAL REALITY’.

The modern world, in so far as social relational organization (government, industry and other reason-based social dynamics) are concerned, are currently following the WESTERN practice of regarding the reductive representations of language and grammar as DIRECT AND EXPLICIT REPRESENTATIONS OF PHYSICAL REALITY.  THIS IS PROBLEMATIC; I.E. IT IS THE SOURCE OF SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION.

Social Dysfunction -1- : – EGO.

There is no such thing as LOCAL and thus no LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, but the language and grammar stimulated abstract belief in LOCAL SOURCING rives rise in the psyche to EGO wherein language and grammar inform us that WE, as LOCAL things-in-ourselves, are the SOURCE of ‘productive actions and developments’; i.e. THINK OF OURSELVES we are the PRODUCERS OF PRODUCTS, and this displaces in our understanding, the reality that we are included in a transforming relational continuum aka the Tao aka the Wave-field.


Social Dysfunction 2: The ILLUSION OF ‘GROWTH’ AND PRODUCER-PRODUCT DYNAMICS that shapes individual and collective behaviour.

There are both GROUP and NATION based versions of EGO BOTH all of which are based on belief in the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, … even though our sensory REALITY is our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.   Those who believe they are the producers of grain and see this as a good thing in that it is feeding the people of the world, may want to do more this good thing and may want to GROW their operations and increase the land they have under cultivation from 2 acres to 160 acres.

In the reality of our sensory experience, we are included within the transforming relational continuum and we are NOT the SOURCE of anything, as the above language-based representation makes out.  We are included in relational TRANSFORMATION.


As Nietzsche points out, because the dynamics of the transforming relational continuum are NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE because there are no LOCAL STARTING POINTS and it is ALL ONE (the Wave-field aka the Tao), in order effable-ize it, we have to split it up and ‘abstract’ it into LOCAL effable pieces.  We do this with the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar;

THE FIRST ERROR is NAMING where we associate a fixed and unchanging NAME with a relational form in the transforming relational continuum; e.g. we NAME a swirling in the flow ‘hurricane Katrina’ and we conflate with a SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR which imputes the (unreal) power of SOURCING actions and development to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself (i.e. to the first error).  This DOUBLE ERROR is how we insert A LOCAL VIEWING STATION into the transforming relational continuum that we are included in and cannot GET OUTSIDE.  So when we are in the windblown desert sands which are induced by solar radiation and relational planetary movements and universe wide processes and is helping to shape a local resonance so wherein sand is coming together in wind-stirred resonance piles (where sand is duning), we are included in this relational resonance and if we fall asleep we may be buried within the duning.  If we left a camera mounted on a tall camera stand to record our burial, we could later get to see a ‘VOYEUR’ view of our experience of being included in the shifting sands of TRANSFORMATION

If we wanted to share our experience with others, the filmed VOYEUR version, while radically incomplete in its capture of our ineffable sensory experience of inclusion, would be useful.  The voyeur view can be reduced to effable language and grammar representation which our sensory experience of inclusion, … of being swallowed up in the transforming relational space we are included in, … is ineffable.  That is, our language and grammar based reduction of dynamics to effable and thus shareable abstraction is based on DOUBLE ERROR reduction; (first error) of NAMING relational forms to capture them as notional independently existing things-in-themselves, conflated with (second error) GRAMMAR that imputes to the NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves, their own powers of SOURCING actions and development.

This double error REDUCTION of the ineffable to effable opens the way to sharing reduced INFERENCES of the ineffable reality.  We can use these INFERENCES to trigger INTUITION of the ineffable experience, as is the way of the EAST and modern physics.  WE WESTERN ADHERENTS have fallen into the habit of employing these double error reductions EXPLICITLY as if THEY WERE THE REALITY and not, as in the EAST, IMPLICITLY as triggers for an intuitive leap to the ineffable (inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION).

* * *

The following is a SYNOPSIS OF ABOVE comments on SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION arising from employing language and grammar based-reduction of the ineffable to effable, as the ‘operative reality’ (the DYSFUNCTION OF THE WEST), …  contrasted with the EASTERN practice of employing language and grammar based-reduction of the ineffable to effable, as INFERENCE to stimulate an intuitive leap to ineffable understanding (i.e. of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum) that lies beyond the literal and explicit terms of double error reduction.

The distinction between effable and ineffable can be gleaned from the following example;

On my cell phone, I can pick up the video monitor feed from a camera on a tall pole that ‘looks down’ on the desert tent camp I am in, as high winds proceed to stir up the sand whereupon it settles down into the relatively quieter areas as surround the tents, slowly building up until our tents are now covered so that the video monitor feed shows only empty desert.

Still within the now-sand-covered tent, my sensory experience informs me that I am included in this transforming landscape, but THERE IS NOTHING CAPTUREABLE IN “MY” VISUAL OUTLOOK that conveys this understanding.  In other words, my sensory experience is of inclusion in relational TRANSFORMATION but as a creature with binary perspective from two eyes on one side of my head, my visual perspective with its DOUBLE ERROR reporting approach, is limited and is unable to inform me, visually, of my INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION.  I can sensually-intuitively experience INCLUSION in this TRANSFORMING SPACE, which may transport me (my purported LOCAL physical being) down into the interior of the earth, fossilize me, melt my fossilized self down in a subterranean hotspot and burp me out as hot fluid from an erupting volcano.  What, really, is this thing I call ‘I”?

“ … Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as ‘I’.  What is this ‘I’?  If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by ‘I’ is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. “The youth that was I’, you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore

Nor will there ever be.”

 – Erwin Schroedinger, ‘What is Life?’

It seems to me, that the DOUBLE ERROR, which is the basis of EGO, is a kind of ‘effable place-holder’ for an ‘ineffable’ self .   This DOUBLE ERROR based ‘effable self’ is, in WESTERN CULTURE, ‘the tool that is running away with the workman’ that Emerson is referring to.

The leap from the effable to the ineffable probably sounds like a great ‘leap of faith’, but for me, it is intuitive sense-making coming from coherencies in the confluence of a multiplicity of relational insights that resonate with Schroedinger’s ‘What is Life’ reflection.


* * *