Western culture continues to foster belief in sorcery, whether in the systems sciences terms of the ‘producer-product dynamic, or the old fashion alchemical sense of ‘sorcery’.  In either case, it is pure abstraction ungrounded in the reality of our actual sensory experiencing of inclusion in the ineffable Tao, the ‘field’ of modern physics.

‘Sorcery’ is sustained in the Western psyche by the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (Nietzsche) and it abstraction that presents to the psyche in two mutually opposing ways captured in the title ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ (English title ‘The Two and the One’) by anthropologist Mircea Eliade.

The double error is the language and grammar technique we Western culture adherents are employing that sustains the illusion of ‘sorcery’, the same sorcery as believed in in the Western culture’s medieval era, which has never ‘gone away’ (Newton ‘embedded it’ in Newtonian physics); i.e. modern Western culture continues to cultivate belief in ‘sorcery’ that feeds the ego.

The belief in sorcery divides Western culture adherents into opposing camps that we call ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’.   ‘Sorcery’ does not arise in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, all of which understand reality as a relational energy field or flowing continuum (the Tao).

Believers in ‘sorcery’ divide into two mutually opposing camps that we commonly call ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’.  The conservative view is that “one bad apple sources rot in the whole barrel” while the liberal view is that that “it takes a whole community to source a [good/bad] child”.   You can see in these two sorcery-based views of ‘reality’ the polar opposition that manifests in modern day Western culture adhering politics.   It is there because of the mistake of believing in sorcery, an intellectual double error of language and grammar.

Understanding where Trump is ‘coming from’ is important, not simply for explaining his offhand views and actions, but for an understanding of the conservative liberal division which has become increasingly polarized and which preoccupies Western culture adherents to the point that their minds are too pre-occupied to see the ‘third’ view which is relational transformation and NOT sorcery based..

If we were all of the indigenous aboriginal culture (or Taoist/Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta cultures), this conservative-liberal type of psycho-intellectually sourced binary polarizing would not arise since the understanding of reality in terms of a transforming relational continuum (the Tao) does not involve ‘sorcery’ and it is belief in ‘sorcery’ where the splitting into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ is coming from.

Both of these sorcery-based views of reality are language and grammar based intellectual abstractions that, while they condition the psyche, do not derive from sentient experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  In other words, the double error based INVENTED REALITY of Western culture adherents, whether the conservative or liberal version, are abstraction based and are ungrounded in the sensory reality of our actual experience.

This is the same phony division that Jonathan Swift caricatured in Gulliver’s Travels in terms of two opposing groups of people who violently disagreed and threatened to go to war over whether one should open a boiled egg from the roundy end or from the pointy end.  The conservative liberal division is based on the same delusion of imputing ‘two’ where there is only ‘one’.  There is no such thing as sorcery, therefore there is no issue as to whether the individual sources the behaviour of the collective (conservative) or whether the collective sources the behaviour of the individual (liberal).

The indigenous aboriginal, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vendanta cultures are not skivvered on the horns of this dilemma since they see reality in terms of relational transformation and NOT in terms of sorcery, as we Western culture adherents see reality.

Since ‘sorcery’ is NOT REALITY grounded in sensory-experience, but is the abstract intellectual product of language and grammar, there is no way to settle the question of whether ‘the individual sources the action and development (one bad apple spoils the barrel)  or whether ‘the collective sources the action and development’ (it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child).

Trump is thus free to attribute sorcery of fabulous actions and developments to himself, or his daughter or whomever, and to attribute sorcery of despicable actions and developments to liberals and to his least favoured ‘sorcerers’ or to Iranians, Palestinians or whomever.

Since ‘sorcery’ is not real but the artefact of language and grammar and ‘the double error’, we can use it in whatever manner we want in constructing our INVENTED REALITY.

Science and technology have gotten better and better at identifying the source of criminal acts so that Jean Valjean’s fingerprints and DNA on the bakery counter would doubly convict him for stealing that loaf of bread that put him jail for 17 years.  However, such ‘improvements’ in forensic science still do not address the social relational imbalances that are the deeper (relational) source of the dynamic.  That is, sorcery is based on the ‘double error’ which is in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments, and Western justice is based on a double error based INVENTED REALITY.

The problem is thus not Donald Trump since he is really doing everyone a service by making a mockery of the ‘double error’ of Western culture adherence, … of curse, that ‘double error’ is ‘locked in by high switching costs’ so it’s not likely to overnight change of all of those lock-ins like egotism, nationalism and corporatism, … not in the near term’, … but such blatant collapses in the intellectual foundations of our INVENTED REALITY can move us closer towards allowing the resurfacing of our relational understanding of reality consistent with modern physics, indigenous aboriginals, Buddhists/Taoists and Advaita Vedanta adherents.

* * *