INTRODUCTION: The KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS) approach to organizing social activity is a WESTERN CULTURE popular favorite which has us elevate the LOCAL PRODUCER-PRODUCT ‘reality’ with its voyeur visualizing of ‘the construction-based GROWTH of a “LOCAL COMMUNITY” into an unnatural precedence over our actual experience of inclusion in unbounded relational TRANSFORMATION.  This leaves behind the actual reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum in the unlit reaches of our intuition, while our reason dances about in the bright light of a LOCAL intellect-fabricated PRODUCER-PRODUCT pseudo-reality.   As Goedel’s Theorem affirms, there is an inherent incompleteness to all finite systems of logic, and while CSI (crime-scenes investigation) logic establishes the steel-bolted ‘truth’ of Jean Valjean’s theft of a loaf of bread, it is blind to the more ‘complete’ reality featuring relational imbalance wherein many are swimming in surplus while others are starving in deficiency.

While TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE, the reductive PRODUCER-PRODUCT view is LOCAL and EFFABLE.  PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION are an abstract binary duality like BIRTH and DEATH that lacks the dimensionality to capture TRANSFORMATION.  The GROWTH of PRODUCTION is a popular orientation in WESTERN CULTURE social dynamics, yet it is LOGICALLY INCOMPLETE and leaves the reality of relational TRANSFORMATION flapping like a loose sheet in the winds of the psyche.   REALITY is instead TRANSFORMATION as in the all-including transforming relational continuum (aka ‘the Wave-field aka the Tao’) while PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION are Euclidian FLAT-SPACE abstractions that ‘side-step’ the reality of TRANSFORMATION; i.e. PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION DO NOT EXIST in the reality of our sensory experience.  The production and consumption of ‘forest products’ may transform a forested planet into a desert moonscape, an aberrant development turbocharged by the popular pursuit of ECONOMIC GROWTH; i.e. THERE IS NO GROWTH, there is only TRANSFORMATION.  The WESTERN CULTURE belief in GROWTH is a CRAZY-MAKER.

* * *   end of introduction * * *


As Scrhoedinger protested, one can’t capture TRANSFORMATION using binary FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO abstraction by employing the abstract device of PROBABILITY wherein the FIGURE as a thing-in-itself has a likelihood of EITHER existing OR not-existing.  That is to say; we can’t capture TRANSFORMATION in this way because the basic reality of our sensory experience is where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  For example, DUNING is a resonance phenomenon that is inherently NONLOCAL while DUNES are visual impressions that we think of as LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES in the PLURAL that are, meanwhile, NOT REAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.  As Nietzsche observes, we invent the notion of DUNES-that-MOVE with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.


Schroedinger was clear in his opposition to what became and persists as the ‘standard reality’ in modern physics; i.e. the notion of ‘waves’ as ‘local things-in-themselves’ (think of how the resonance phenomenon of DUNING could be understood in terms of DUNES that ‘gather’ and ‘scatter’).  Once we start thinking of DUNING (the NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon that belongs to the transforming relational continuum) in terms of DUNES as LOCAL material forms that are continually gathering and scattering, we need an auxiliary theory (probability) to deal with the likelihood of a particular place being ‘occupied’ by a DUNE or NOT.  This way of formulating theory accepts the LOCAL THINGNESS of the DUNE as a foundational precept and THEN tries to match the observational data with theory that deals with DUNING dynamics, preserving the concept of WAVE-MATTER EQUIVALENCE.   In Schroedinger’s view, the WAVE-FIELD is the basic reality and material objects and their dynamics is Schaumkommen (appearance).  He did not approve of theory that started from accepting  WAVE – MATTER equivalence where these were two EQUIVALENT ways of comprehending the same phenomenon.  For Schroedinger, WAVES are primary reality and MATTER is ‘appearnce’, so that he never did agree with the majority-pushed interpretation of modern physics which insisted on a particulate base moderated by existential ‘probability’;

“Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” (Schrödinger E, ‘The Interpretation of Quantum Physics’). … “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” (Erwin Schroedinger speaking about the ‘legitimate science’ interpretation of Quantum Physics).


Schroedinger’s point is; ‘why impute the LOCAL EXISTENCE of things such as DUNES and then add a mathematical device (probability theory) to modify that reality to make it fit observations.   One possible reason is actually fairly easily seen.  If we accept resonance-based (Wave-field based) TRANSFORMATION as the foundational phenomenon, since TRANSFORMATION, because it is ‘everywhere at the same time, is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and IMPLICIT, and we would be unable to say anything about it.    That would put the science in the plight pointed out by Wittgenstein in his final proposition in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophical; (Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.).


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”),


We can understand the issues here heuristically by way of the example of DUNING which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (i.e. DUNING is the manifesting of resonance in the overall transforming relational continuum so it is inherently NONLOCAL while having a LOCAL appearance, which, as Nietzsche points out, we can capture it in terms that are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR; i.e. the FIRST ERROR is NAMING that imputes LOCAL thing-in-itself-existence, and we conflate this with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR which imputes LOCAL SOURCING power to the NAMING-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’.  Thus, instead of DUNING as a NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon (as is Schroedinger’s view) we REDUCE our representation by NAMING and GRAMMAR to a ‘LOCAL thing-in-itself’ (the DUNE) notionally with its own LOCAL powers of SOURCING actions and development but whose existence is probability based as in the Schroedinger’s cat example which serves up a probability theory based achieving of the BOTH is AND is NOT ‘quantum’ logic.

For Schroedinger, the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE ‘NONDUALITY’ is basic to nature.

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger

Shroedinger’s understanding of quantum reality at the level of consciousness can be found in ‘What is Life’ (1944) where his investigation leads him to the conclusion of Deus Factus Sum (I have become God) in the sense of ‘one-with-everything’ which affirms Schroedinger’s ‘Mahavit’ view of himself).

This understanding of physical reality, of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field informs the basic shift from Newtonian physics reality to modern physics reality; i.e. from FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE.

This understanding also accords with Wittgenstein’s closing propositions 6.54 and 7.0 in ‘Tractatus’ cited above as well as with Schroedinger’s “Subject and object are only one.”.   One way to ‘see this’ is to consider the indigenous aboriginal sharing circle, wherein the multiple participants in the circle, sharing their heartfelt life experiences (and also ‘speaking for wolf’), co-develop a matrix of connecting relational references that builds an understanding space that is like a holographic reality that includes the circle participants. This is a very different understanding of oneself than comes by way of the usual constructions of one’s personal adventures which are compilations of one’s own voyeur views and personal interactions as if one’s life is centrally sourced from out of one’s own LOCAL interior where SUBJECT and OBJECT remain split.

To return to the role of the DOUBLE ERROR; … it is a big deal for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS since it opens the way for us to reduce and  render the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT in terms of EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT accounts of our experience, … WHOOPS!  … we can share DOUBLE ERROR based reductive accounts of our experience, with one another and learn from these.  NOTE TO FILE: “I must remember to account for the fact that everything I say about ‘reality’ using this DOUBLE ERROR based reduction is a reductive surrogate that merely suggests what is really going on, which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT as Wave-fields are wont to be”.  That is, the DOUBLE ERROR based reduction delivers a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ that coaches us for making an INTUITIVE LEAP to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT that lies innately beyond reach of the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT that the DOUBLE ERROR delivers.


So, if our speech is DOUBLE ERROR based talk in terms of DUNES with GRAMMAR given powers of “growing higher and longer and shifting across the “desert floor”, this enables us to share a VISUAL portrayal (visual portrayals feature that which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT) as a ‘stand-in’ for the actual sensory-experience reality that is resonance-based (Wave-field-based) TRANSFORMATION that is INEFFABLE-because NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.


The point is that the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field (the Tao) aka ‘the TRANSFORMING relational continuum’ cannot be ‘EFFABLE-ized’ and/or ‘LOCAL-ized’, hence it lies beyond the reach of language. ; “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”.  But, as we know, humanings, particularly WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT humanngs, are BIG TALKERS, … so WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT given that reality is INEFFABLE!


The REDUCTION we make in order to ‘EFFABLE-ize’ the INEFFABLE is the DOUBLE ERROR reduction which comes up in Schroedinger’s complaint.  That is, it is fine-because highly useful to use the DOUBLE ERROR (wherein ‘SUBJECT and OBJECT are TWO’) to reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT as a means of sharing/communicating a crude ‘SURROGATE REALITY’ to ‘get the point across’ if the listener accepts that our language-based representation is only good for use as inference that can tickle our INTUITION into making the leap from the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT to understanding of the sensory-experience reality which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (e.g. as resonance phenomena such as DUNING are wont to be).


Don’t forget now! … i.e. DON’T READ MY LIPS!  and walk away thinking that linguistic transmissions which are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT are ready for use as representations of reality, … they are only ready for use as PSYCHOLOGICAL SPRINGBOARDS or TEASERS that can trigger an INTUITIVE LEAP to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT reality, as in Bohm’s and Schroedinger’s ‘modern physics’.   If I say that ‘our agricultural initiative of converting Wilderness lands to cultivated land where we GROW wheat and potatoes etc. it now sounds as if THE LAND IS PRODUCING PRODUCTS, implying that the land has LOCAL SOURCING power.  If we buy into this abstract thinking, GONE from our understanding is the reality of relational TRANSFORMATION in which we, ourselves, are included.  This PRODUCER-PRODUCT thinking that features GROWTH as something ‘real’ IS A CRAZY-MAKER, a psychological aberrance.


Of course, it’s only psychological aberrance where we put our impression of the PRODUCER-PRODUCT dynamic into an unnatural precedence over our sensory experience based understanding of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.   HEY, REMEMBER, it’s only the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that is reducing the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to the ersatz EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.   Whether or not we find a DUNE at location X,Y,Z is not a question of ‘probabilities’.  “DUNES” do not exist.  “DUNES” are ‘appearances’ or ‘apparitions’.  There is only DUNING (in a Wave-field reality where everything is in flux) which is resonance that is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … BUT IF WE DEMOTE IT TO SECONDARY STATUS, AND LET THE EFFABLE-BECAUSE-LOCAL-AND-EXPLICIT ‘RULE’ OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, … WE FALL INTO THE CRAZY-MAKING STATE.


Since everything we say, by means of our WESTERN CULTURE DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR based rhetoric, is reduced to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO that we manipulate with EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium, we inject into this abstract conceptualization, an ambiguity as to whether the FIGURE is changing the GROUND or whether the GROUND is changing the FIGURE.  This is the basis of the WESTERN CULTURE conservative – liberal political split, and it comes from belief in the reality of LOCAL SOURCING which is what the DOUBLE ERROR is all about (i.e. the DOUBLE ERROR renders the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT).  To repeat again, for reading convenience; ‘in the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, the FIRST ERROR is NAMING that imputes LOCAL thing-in-itself-existence, and we conflate this with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR which imputes LOCAL SOURCING power to the NAMING-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’

 Back to the AMBIGUITY; …. this is something we inject into our model of reality when we reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to something that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.  For example, imagine the hurricane and the flow in the Wave-field sense of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE where it is just a relational feature in the transforming relational continuum (in the Wave-field aka the Tao that cannot be told because it is THE NONLOCAL RESONANCE).

While the hurricane-in-the-flow understood in FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE terms is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, … if we use the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to  RE-CAST the hurricane-in-the-flow in FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO terms which IS EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, our language gives us the freedom to notionally impute LOCAL SOURCING POWER to EITHER THE FIGURE OR THE GROUND; e.g. does the hurricane stir up the atmospheric flow or does the atmospheric flow stir up the hurricane?   TAKE YOUR PICK!  If you pick the former (the FIGURE stirs up the GROUND), you will fall in with the ‘conservative’ view of reality, and if the pick the latter (the GROUND stirs up the FIGURE), you will fall in with the liberal view of reality.  That is, ‘Does one bad apple source spoilage of the whole barrel?’ (conservative) or ‘Does it take a whole community to source the raising of the child?’ (liberal).   Note the role of the concept of LOCAL SOURCING in giving rise to this ambiguity.


If the reader is a WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT such as myself, one is first inclined to accept such EITHER/OR questions regarding the nature of SOURCING as legitimate questions, but if one has been contemplating modern physics reality or indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta reality, one rejects the validity (the  experience-grounded ‘realness’) of these questions because both question options are BUILT on the premise of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development as if LOCAL SOURCING were a legitimate concept.  LOCAL SOURCING IS “NOT” A LEGITIMATE (sensory-experience reality-grounded) CONCEPT.

Inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is our sensory experience reality and such sensory experience is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  LOCAL SOURCING is a USEFUL ABSTRACTION that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT; i.e. a ‘Wittgenstein Ladder’ to trigger an INTUITIVE LEAP to an understanding of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  BUT LOOK OUT! because it does inject a basic ambiguity in its abstract SPLITTING of FIGURE-and-GROUND-into TWO (e.g. the hurricane and the flow) in its ‘getting around’ the ineffable-ness of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE.  The result is that it is unclear as to whether the hurricane is stirring up the flow (i.e. dynamics of FIGURE sources dynamics of GROUND) or whether the flow is stirring up the hurricane (i.e. dynamics of GROUND sources dynamics of FIGURE).

In reality, the atmosphere and universe are a transforming relational continuum, but since this is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, we have to make that DOUBLE ERROR NAMING and GRAMMAR reduction to eke out the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, which is where the ambiguity infects our language and grammar based intellectual conceptualizing.   In other words, this ambiguity is the ‘price’ we have to pay to ‘inject our perspectival observing’ into the flow-continuum (ineffable) to get an effable outsider/voyeur view of things.  As Nietzsche infers, effable-izing the ineffable involves the imputing of local authorship, and this involves the imagined SPLITTING in TWO and INSERTING of a local BEING that we can use GRAMMAR to endow with the LOCAL POWER OF SOURCING actions and developments;   There are TWO steps/errors here; one step takes care of notionally SPLITTING the transforming relational continuum into TWO so as to ‘break into the continuum and give ourselves intellectual-conceptualizing traction for LOCAL SOURCING;


“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531


In conjunction with the SPLITTING into two, to crack open the transforming relational continuum to open the way for the notion of LOCAL SOURCING, we also inject the notion of a LOCAL BEING as the notional ‘container’ for the LOCAL SOURCING POWER;  This is where we invent EGO to complete the whole fairy-tale of LOCAL SOURCING.


“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


OK, WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE NOW!  We used the DOUBLE ERROR as an abstract conceptualization to break into the NONLOCAL TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM and inject LOCAL SOURCING to overcome the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT nature of our sensory experience reality.  NOW WE HAVE EFFABLE-NESS because we have reduced reality to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.   WHOOPS!   IN THE PROCESS OF SPLITTING reality into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, we introduced an ambiguity as to whether the FIGURE is sourcing the FIGURE-and-GROUND dynamic or whether the GROUND is sourcing the FIGURE-and-GROUND dynamic.  BUT GUESS WHAT!  WE never had this ambiguity problem prior to the split of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (as in the Wave-field view) into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (as in the material view).

Resonance based Wavefield dynamics do not involve LOCAL SOURCING so there is no ambiguity problem if we keep our understanding of reality in Wave-field space where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  TROUBLE IS, dynamics in this space are INEFFABLE because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  We can INTUIT that when we observe that we are included in TRANSFORMATION wherein everything is in flux as in the seasonal transformation which is decidedly NONLOCAL.  The transforming relational continuum aka the universe seems to be characterized by NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION that keeps everything ‘hanging together’ even though we may want to speak of LOCAL change because it is quicker and more expedient than having to articulate a description of the transforming relational continuum (a never-ending task).


So, if we want to stick with the INEFFABLE, we don’t have the ambiguity problem.  But if we want to reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT by way of a DOUBLE ERROR NAMING and GRAMMAR based reduction to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, the issue of ambiguity ‘raises its ugly head’ (by the way, this is where the systems science title ‘The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’ comes from., because if we split FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-is-really-ONE into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-if-it-were-TWO, and start optimizing one of the split out FIGURES (how about ‘humans’), we will surely be screwing up if the reality is FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, … which is the plight that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are presently in, which systems scientist Martine Dodds-Taljaard points our in her essay entitled ‘The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’.


Want to optimize ‘HUMAN FIGURES’ at the expense of the GROUND’ they are ‘situated’ in?   MAKES SENSE if FIGURES-and-GROUND-are-TWO separate and independent entities, as our language and grammar can so easily make them out to be, but could be the path to major screw up if FIGURES-and-GROUND-are-ONE, as modern physics claims, and as indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta also understand it.




Here’s where we get caught between a rock and a hard place.  If we want to stick with ‘reality’, because it is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (everything is in flux in the Wave-field so that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE), we have to remain silent, as Wittgenstein points out, … but if we want to speak out and share at least some reduced representations of our experiences,, we have shift to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT (NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional GRAMMAR-given powers of SOURCING of actions and developments).    In opting for the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, we open the door to the ambiguity because we use representation wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.  So, is the inhabitant sourcing change in the habitat or is the habitat sourcing change in the inhabitant?


DON’T FORGET, this ambiguity only crops up when we SPLIT FIGURE-and-GROUND-into-TWO as with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  If we retain our understanding that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in the Wave-field view, while we don’t create the ambiguity, we lose our option of articulating (some reduced semblance of) the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  In the EAST as in modern physics a la Schroedinger and Nietzsche (who was informed by Boscovich), the INEFFABLE remains primary while the EFFABLE serves as a tickler for INTUITIVE LEAPS from the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.


As Nietzsche points out, WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are stuck in a screw-up which has us putting the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT into an unnatural precedence over the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  In other words, WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, instead of using our REDUCED-TO-EFFABLE sharing of our INEFFABLE sensory experience (of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum) as a tool of inference for making an INTUITIVE LEAP to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (e.g. where we understand DUNING as nonlocal relational transformation rather than by the DOUBLE ERROR based dynamics of local DUNES with GRAMMAR-given powers of SOURCING actions and development.).


Now we can see what the ‘UPSIDE-DOWN MAN’ on Boxhill in Dorking, Surrey had in mind when he ordered his upside-down burial.  He wanted to protect the UNPSIDE-DOWN-THINKING of European Culture which puts the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT into an unnatural precedence over the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.


* * *




As Nietzsche pointed out, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘locked in by high switching costs’ since the upside-down belief is supported by EGO which is supported by the DOUBLE ERROR based belief in NAMING-instantiated LOCAL BEINGs with powers of SOURCING actions and developments.  Such intellectual-conceptual abstraction is a handy tool wherein we represent ourselves as LOCAL SORCERERS of actions and development which can SWELL THE EGO (or shrivel it).  It is a tool that can ‘run away with the workman’ meaning that we can use it to DEFINE OURSELVES as local sourcing agents.  As Emerson puts it, the tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine.  This is because the DOUBLE ERROR lets the human define himself as the LOCAL, jumpstart source of actions and developments, whereas in the reality of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, instead of LOCAL SORCERY, there is the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Wave-field’ aka ‘the Tao’.


When do “we” as the social collective of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, get to navigate our way out of this confused mess?   COVID 19 has us doing some thinking, at least.    The FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO splitting of the DOUBLE ERROR of GRAMMAR and NAMING is what allows us to invent the concept of the PATHOGEN which we are using as our model for the relational dissonance known as the COVID-19 Pandemic.   We rely on the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO abstraction to understand things in terms of the ‘attack of pathogens’ where the HABITAT is ‘out to get us INHABITANTS’ (some of us).  Of course, if we opt for a modern physics understanding or a Taoist/Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta understanding wherein FIGURE-AND-GROUND-ARE-ONE , … we no longer have available the concept of PATHOGENS AGAINST HUMANS, and have to re-conceive what is going on in the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE terms of relational dissonance among ourselves, the Two-legged, Four-leggeds, Winged and Slithering ones and teentzy-weentzsy microbial ones since the whole assemblage is the basic reality which includes us.  Thus, the question becomes one of cultivating and sustaining relational harmony (which is at the same time, the subsuming of relational dissonance’.   In this understanding, all there is is ‘relations’, there are no ‘LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’, … these are relational forms in the flow wherein everything is in continual flux and where we and everything are related (mitakuye oyasin).


What stands in the way of our navigating out of this psychological aberrance that is currently known as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is EGO and the entrenched system of values, rewards and recognitions (which impact who is currently seen as responsible for ‘changing the system’); e.g. So long as GROWTH is taken to be REAL (instead of TRANSFORMATION) and the rewards and recognition are oriented to those who contribute most to PRODUCER-PRODUCT GROWTH (as in the binary PRODUCER-CONSUMER abstraction which totally ignores the reality of TRANSFORMATION wherein we experience the decline of Wilderness in conjugate relation with the GROWTH of cultivation, and industrialization, we put ourselves in a dysfunctional cycle..  Why do we believe in GROWTH and ignore TRANSFORMATION?  Because a flat-space pseudo-reality is much easier to express in language than a curved space reality and we like to KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID; i.e. that’s how we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS got “so far ahead of the others”.   Going directly after GROWTH without Acknowledging the reality of TRANSFORMATION removes a whole lot of “encumberments”, making the KISS based view of reality the popular choice for GROWTH-oriented society.  The concept of GROWTH is a FLAT-EARTH concept.  In a spherical space the growth of cultivated land is at the same time the shrinkage of Wilderness land, an overall TRANSFORMATION.


But such considerations are ‘too complicated’ for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS  who support GROWTH based competition wherein the need is to ‘keep it simple’ in our blindered social-organizational dynamics wherein masses of people can be brought into a simple dynamic producer-product oriented coordination;


“As regards the academies, they are established in order to regulate the studies of the pupils and are concerned not to have the program of teaching change very often: in such places, because it is a question of the progress of the students, it frequently happens that the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy. And by that division in things which makes different people form different judgements, it so happens that certain people are in error contrary to their own opinion.” – Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’


While TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE, GROWTH is LOCAL and EFFABLE.   The GROWTH of factories and production are affirmed by LOCAL, EFFABLE supportive evidence.  TRANSFORMATION, as manifests in the conjugate diality of GROWTH of production and DECLINE of the Wilderness is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE.  Hey, something has been going on that we can’t point a finger to, something we can ‘feel’ and ‘experience’ as if we are included within it so that it is not ‘clearly visible out there in front of us’, something that is NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE.  If we can’t point to it and critique it, then I guess we can’t deal with it, at least not in our usual WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT sourcing of actions and developments based approach..


* * *


FOOTNOTE:  How ‘reason’ is the Cuckoo’s egg curse of WESTERN CULTURE

“In Reason’ in language.– 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’ doesn’t ‘speaks for itself’ and doesn’t care about its own completeness.  That is the surprise finding that came to us WESTERN CULTURE reason-worshippers with Goedel’s theorem in the 1930’s (i.e. it has not entirely sunk in yet).

If I formulate a logical proposition asserting that Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, WESTERN CULTURE Crime-Scene-Investigation will go into action to establish the truth or untruth of that REASONED proposition without exploring the NONLOCAL web of relational circumstances within which that action is a LOCAL ‘trand’.  That is, the relational gap between those with surplus and those deficiency set up an inductive, natural balance-seeking gradient which is clearly part of the ‘reality’ of what is going on.  But “logic” does not care about reality, logic is just an abstract tool  that we can use in constructing various different versions of reality.

Goedel’s theorem is a proof showing that all finite systems of logic are incomplete.  That is why Nietzsche is bitching about ‘reason’, because is where we get this CRAZY-MAKING notion of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development.  REASON makes use of DOUBLE ERROR based propositions where we use NAMING and GRAMMAR to construct represenations or ‘pseudo-‘ reality featuring NAMING based things-in-themselves, demonstrating ‘their own (GRAMMAR-given) powers’ of SOURCING actions and developments.

This concept of LOCAL SOURCING is a total scam and fiction that is no supported by our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  BUT WE USE IT BECAUSE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR MAKE IT AVAILABLE AS A CRUDE MEANS OF SHARING OUR INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

NOTICE HOW, when we use grammar to construct a likeness of something from our sensory experince, we reduce the representation of our experience to something LOCAL, as if it is transpiring on an empty stage that we insert a few props on to ‘set the stage’ so to speak.   OF COURSE, we cannot articulate the REALITY of the real goings on which are included in the transforming relational continuum, which is in continuing flux..  What we can make EFFABLE is going to bave to be reduced to LOCAL and our language has us do this reduction in both SPACE and TIME (our linguistic constructions INVENT SPACE AND TIME, as our sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field aka the Tao has no need them.  SPACE and TIME needed to be invented as enablers of reducing INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.   The EXPLICIT rendering of our sensory experience is where the demand for inventing LOCAL thing-in-itselfness along with SPACE and TIME for the THING-in-ITSELFness to reside in comes from.

How much detail do we need to put into our SPACE and TIME setting.  Do we have to do the whole 5 W’s bit?  WHo, What, When, Where, Why?   And if we fill in all those blanks, are we not overstepping the bounds of what can be known by experients including in a transforming relational continuum?  A lot of stuff has be tripmed down  to get infinity into a finite report.  Each of us has our own style of accomplishing such reductive trimming-down.   While I would leave in the part where Jean Valjean saw the starving child and shared her pain, Inspector Jalbert is clearly not of the same mindet and would rather box it up in a much smaller box.

There is no shortage of trimming styles to get unboudded INEFFABLE sensory experience into a tiny little intellectualized RE-presentational package; e.g;

“As regards the academies, they are established in order to regulate the studies of the pupils and are concerned not to have the program of teaching change very often: in such places, because it is a question of the progress of the students, it frequently happens that the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy. And by that division in things which makes different people form different judgements, it so happens that certain people are in error contrary to their own opinion.” – Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’

… to be continued… the theme of reduction of ineffable experiential reality to fit it into effable rational packaging.

Once these reductive choices are exercised, they get ‘locked in by high switching costs’; e.g. the lock-in of the Widows operating system and the lock-in of rewarding and respecting people for their notional LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, which is, of course, total bullshit when viewed from an understanding of reality as the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in; i.e. where emergent events cannot be separated from the full and ongoing unfolding relational continuum.  This is the point that DAVID BOHM makes in explaining ‘modern physics’ which refutes the common belief in simplistic LOCAL cause-efffect analysis as in Bohm’s example of the Death of Lincoln not simply as ’caused’ by James Wilkes Booth, but where reality is understood in the purely relational terms of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which is far more obtuse (It is, in effect, implicit and ineffable).

What is exposed here is the infinite scope for precipitating EFFABLE-becaues-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT ‘reason’ based ‘explanations’ for INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT phenomena.  If it is LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, it is NOT REAL, it is some sort of REDUCTION of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT REALITY of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao.

Our intuition draws from our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, bringing us direct-experience understanding of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  This is our ‘basic reality’.  We shouldn’t get ‘too carried away’ with the realities we construct based on a variety of linguistic reductions; i.e. different ways of reducing the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.   If we can effable-ize it, the effable-ization is NOT the REALITY.  However, our INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE based understanding can be ‘called up’ by language based intellectual constructions that are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.  The likeness to our remembered sensory experience may be strong or weak.  The virgin Ph.D. in sexual relations will have collected many ‘reduced for language transmission’ conceptualizations to inform their Vicarian rather than Carnal knowledge of the topic.

A basic problem in WESTERN CULTURE understanding is that reality is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT while what we are able to talk about and share has been reduced to that which is EFFABLE-BECAUSE-LOCAL and EXPLICIT, which is abstractly reduced to the point where it no longer retains the spirit of an unfolding in the transforming relational continuum that has become the focus of a reduction to language-based conceptualization.  If it was a butterfly flapping its wings that stirred up the hurricane -in-the-flow, … we would be wrong in doing the DOUBLE ERROR by NAMING the hurricane ‘Katrina’ and using GRAMMAR to allege its LOCALLY SOURCED of devastating actions and developments in New Orleans.

It’s true that a full NONLOCAL accounting of such phenomena would be limitless, being rooted in a ‘never-ending story’ which is what makes ‘reality’ INEFFABLE.   The approaches to EFFABLE-izing the INEFFABLE are numerous and varied and while there is ‘no correct reduction of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT, social collectives do band together in support of particular reductions, and get very serious in their promoting of their reduction as the ‘correct reduction’.

Indigenous aboriginal cultures acknowledge that there is no ‘correct reduction’, that reality IS INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.  In this case, JUSTICE orients to the continual re-cultivating of relational harmony rather than to the ‘elimination of a perceived LOCAL SOURCE’ of hurt or injury (there is no LOCAL SOURCING in the transforming relational continuum).

The belief in LOCAL SOURCING not only leads to EGOTISM and confusion, it is a CRAZY-MAKER


* * *