RESONANCE based reality:

Three levels of experiencing resonance;

-1- sensory experiencing of resonance as in inclusion in vibration,

-2- visualizing resonance as in wave motion (e.g. duning as rippling), … and

-3-  intellectually ‘snap-shotting’ visual imagery of transient ripple-forms so as to ‘capture’ them in a picture and identify the ‘picture’ with a ‘name’ (e.g. the name ‘dune’).

Sensory experience of resonance (1)  is ‘ineffable’ in that it is innately beyond visual or other explicit means of capture and representation,, … however, (2) resonance manifests ‘indirectly’ by way of visible form as in duning where sand flows like ‘waves’ within the resonance (the duning waves are secondary to the resonance; i.e. they are NOT ‘the resonance’ but ‘infer’ the deeper reality of a resonance field that is inducing the rippling or ‘duning’ that makes the not-directly-visible wavefield manifest (e.g. as in a Kundt’s tube demonstration), … , … (3) ‘Snapshotting’ the ‘image’ of a rippling allows us to examine ‘a ripple’ as if the ‘ripple’ or ‘duning’ were a fixed entity existing as a ‘thing-in-itself’, a psychological impression that language allows us to abstractly concretize by ‘naming’.

Language and grammar are devices that stimulate psychological impressions, and Western culture adherents use ‘naming’ to impute abstract ‘thing-in-itself existence’ (i.e. persisting existence) to resonance based forms such as ‘ripplings’, hence the naming of an intrinsically evanescent but visually persisting long enough for snap-shotting and naming ‘dune’ puts the wielder of language and grammar in the position of being able to RECONSTRUCT resonance from the reduced basis of snapshot images that have been ‘name-labelled’ and RE-presented as ‘things-in-themselves’ whereupon they can be ‘re-animated’ with grammar so as to give the intellectually active mind (stimulated by language and grammar) an intuitive understanding of the ineffable phenomenon of ‘resonance’ in terms of language-and-naming instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ conflated with grammar-instantiated powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The latter (in italics) is the ‘double error’ that we Western culture adherents are in the habit of making which Nietzsche identified as a chronic source of aberrant thinking in Western culture adherents.

This reduction of resonance as in ‘duning’, by means of language and grammar, to notional ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments’, opens the door to INVENTING REALITY (intellectually in the mind) in a reduced ‘mechanistic’ visual picturable ‘double error’ based representation, dropping out the fundamental reality of ‘resonance’ (which comes with sensory experience but which is ineffable and not capturable in visual picture form).

Our Western culture adherents’ employing of this ‘dumbed down’ visual picturable ‘double error’ based version of reality, while useful to us for purposes of crudely (linguistically) sharing our experience, is, where (MIS)taken as the ‘operative reality’, the source of delusion and social psychopathology.

‘Reality’ that is not based on ‘resonance’ (wave dynamics) is NOT ‘reality’ but intellectual contrivance that serves only to construct a shareable, but greatly ‘reduced’ (simplified) INVENTED REALITY.  By ‘greatly reduced reality’, I am referring to the fact that the ‘double error’, imputes ‘thing-in-itself’ based ‘sorcery’ to be the animating agency of reality, (rather than relational transformation).  Because there is an innate ambiguity in sorcery-based reality invention, it divides people on the basis of whether the ‘source’ is the ‘individual’ (conservative) or the ‘collective’ (liberal).  This is an argument that divides Western culture sorcery-believers (Western culture is built from belief in sorcery aka ‘product-product abstraction).  Since there is no such thing in the reality of our actual experience as ‘sorcery’ (i.e. language and grammar can be used to serve up an abstract ‘intellectual’ impression of ‘sorcery’).  This intellectual abstraction is also termed the ‘producer-product dynamic’.  The Western culture social division and argumentation set up by this (a) belief in the abstraction of ‘sorcery’, and (b) division of belief in ‘sorcery’ into two camps, one which believes in the individual as the source and another which believes in the collective as the source.  Both sides of the argument; conservative and liberal, are ‘tilting at windmills’ since there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in the reality of our actual experience.

It’s not like this ‘double error’ has not been publicly and openly ‘brought to light’; it has been clearly stated by Nietzsche along with the pitfalls associated with it.  The following two quotes from Nietzsche (a) point to the basic ‘double error’ problem, and (b) how this error impacts our psyche and gives rise to ego as associates with belief in one’s ‘power of sorcery’;

“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 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’


The points to remember here are;

-1- The reality of our actual experience is of inclusion in ‘field’ aka ‘resonance’.  This is the reality we are included in and it is ineffable; i.e. it is the all-including transforming relational continuum (the ‘field’ of modern physics).

-2- Physical phenomena like ‘duning’ is the manifesting of ‘resonance’.  ‘Dunes’ are not the authors of their own movement and development (shape-changing and shifting position).  Resonance is the all including wave-field resonance that we are included in which is ‘the reason for us forming, and the reason for the dune forming’.  Newtonian physics’ inventing the abstract concepts of ‘matter’ and ‘force’ eliminate, but only in language-and-grammar stimulated abstractions of the mind, ‘field’ or ‘resonance’ as the most basic aspect of our actual sensory-experiential reality.   Such language and grammar abstraction ‘eliminates’, but only in the sense of obscuring, relational experience that is ineffable, by imposing as a simplistic surrogate, an INVENTED REALITY based on ‘the double error’ of name-instantiated things-in-themselves [first error]conflated with grammar that imputes to them the power of sourcing actions and developments [second error]).

-3- Language and grammar serve as the means to construct an INVENTED REALITY based on the ‘double error’ which is devoid of resonance.  Instead of ‘resonance’ as the innate animating immanence, language and grammar based double error is intellectually understood as the ‘source of actions and developments.; e.g. the words ‘the dune is growing larger and longer.  Meanwhile, ‘duning’ is a resonance phenomenon wherein ‘sand’ [matter such as sand is also resonance or wave based] is inductively gathered and shaped within fields of resonance.  The point is that we can’t realistically attribute to the dune (a resonance-induced feature/apparition) its own powers of self-sourcing its development (its ‘own’ actions of moving and transforming) yet language and grammar nevertheless give us the means of making this ‘double error’.

4. Reality as Resonance is Sensation based and is experienced as Transformation (Becoming), Inspiration, and Harmony.   Western culture Intellectual Reality is a reduction to the Intellectual Abstractions of Being, Creation (sorcery), and Will as associate with mechanistic producer-product dynamics.  The latter reductive abstractions further impose upon the psyche the abstraction of an ‘absolute space’ operating theatre.

* * *


Western culture INVENTED REALITY is an intellectually REDUCED (being-based) reality that is no longer based in resonance (field), but is now, instead, based on the language and grammar instantiated ‘double error’.  The ‘double error’ is intellectual abstraction that employs ‘naming’ to invent notional things-in-themselves and grammar to endow the invented things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This INVENTED REALTY ‘checks out’ with visual imagery while ‘dropping out’ sensory experience-based resonance. [if we pour out some salt on the smooth surface of a table while sitting in a busy machine shop, we can both sense our inclusion in a vibratory field, and observe the salt within this resonating environment migrate into little piles].  Thus, the ‘duning’, which is resonance based, is reduced to ‘the dune’ (naming-instantiated physical structure) and this is conflated with grammar to impute to it (the dune) the powers of sourcing actions and developments (‘the dune is growing larger and is extending in a south to west direction.’).

The resonance field that our sensory experience is informing us of inclusion in, is not something that we mention in our language capture of visual imagery.  This ‘drop out’ leaves some ‘blanks’ as we develop a visual imagery base report on ‘what is going on out there’; i.e. we simply capture the ‘visual fact’ that salt is moving around and forming ‘dunes’.  In our visual reporting, we are leaving out the fact that our sensory experience is informing us of our inclusion in a resonant relational dynamic.  In other words, what we are feeling (our sensory experience) is giving us an understanding of why the salt is ‘duning’, however, our habit is to use language to capture what we ‘see’ is going on ‘out there’ and ‘leave it at that’.  WHAT WE ‘SEE’ GOING ON OUT THERE’, reduced to language and grammar, thus serves as an ‘intellectual reality’; i.e. a voyeur reality in which we are not included.

(If we are included in a resonating environment, we have extra understanding of the origins of the forming of little sand or salt dunes, beyond simple visual capture; i.e. we understand why things are jiggling around and forming dunes because we are included in the resonance field and if we were in a group sitting in chairs with spherical rollers on the legs, our chairs would be clustering (duning) as well).

Being included in a field of resonance is ‘dropped’ out of our capture of ‘reality’ when we constrain ‘reality’ to double error terms of ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments.   In that case, we are ‘dropping out’ and ‘ignoring’ the resonance field that is inductively organizing the ‘duning’, and instead attributing the ‘duning’ to the ‘dunes’; i.e. ‘the dunes are growing larger and longer, or smaller and narrower; i.e. ‘double-error-think’ takes over our psychological conceptualizing of ‘reality’.

In considering this ‘drop out’ of resonance, recall Emerson’s observation that “the tool of language runs away with the worker, the human with the divine’. In other words, our use of language and grammar drops us out of our sensation based understanding of inclusion in the vibratory (resonance) field exemplary of the transforming relational continuum.

Language and grammar are thus employed, in Western culture, to psychologically reduce what we actually experience as resonance, to abstract visualized-objects-out-there or ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and development (i.e. double error ‘sorcery’) as in the case of the ‘the dune’.  Our ‘feeling experience’ is removed in this reduction of visual forms (reduced by naming to things-in-themselves and animated by grammar conflating the notional ‘things-in-themselves with notional powers of actions and developments.

Not only the ‘dune, but we ourselves are, in the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the wave-field, resonance-based ‘apparitions’ and NOT things-in-themselves as is the psychological impression after (1) naming a visual form, and (2) conflating the naming with grammar that imputes to the named thing-in-itself its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This double error essentially removes the resonance basis of reality and replaces it with psychologically-animated (by grammar) psychologically-instantiated (by naming) things-in-themselves.  This abstract (in the unbounded-by-experience intellect) visual image based ‘mock-up’ of ‘reality’ is the ‘double error’ based substitute reality or INVENTED REALITY, from which the most profound aspect of our actual experiential reality (inclusion in a resonant energy field) has been removed.  In other words, our sensation-based understanding is, in Western culture, ‘upstaged’ by our vision-based, rational intellectual language and grammar captured constructions.  The ‘ineffable’ aspect of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the resonance field within which sentient developments or resonance structures form) IS THUS REMOVED BY LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR’S ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ which we use to construct an ALTERNATIVE INTELLECTUAL REALITY that exists ‘on its own’ without anyone having to experience it.


* * *



It is possible (and, in Western culture, popular) to ‘ground one’s understanding of reality’ in ‘the double error’ of language and grammar, and it is also possible (and popular in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhits and Advaita cultures) to ground one’s understanding of reality’ in the experiencing of inclusion in a field of resonance.  ‘Dunes versus Duning’ is an example

-1-  Understanding of Duning as resonance that could pull many lesser dunings (deemed ‘particles’) into fluid, formful confluence

Big whirls have little whirls,
That feed on their velocity;
And little whirls have lesser whirls,
And so on to viscosity.”  –Lewis Fry Richardson

One can think of ones own ‘humaning’ as a ‘human’, or of ‘duning’ as a ‘dune’; i.e. firstly in terms of a resonance that is pulling many things into a coherent relational collective.  In this case, one’s understanding of ‘duning’ is NOT the same as ‘understanding as triggered in the mind by ‘dune’.  No amount of investigation of, and description of the ‘duning’ as a ‘dune-thing-in-itself’ will yield an understanding of the actions and developments of the ‘duning’ (“its” building in size and changing in shape) and in its essence as residing in the resonances it is included in.

-2- Understanding a Dune as a structure, can be explained by invoking the abstract concept of ‘force’.   The development of the dune, as well as its transformation and dissipation, can be attributed to the ad hoc abstraction of ‘forces’ of nature. One can think of oneself, or of a ‘dune’, in terms of a material structure that has been ‘put together’ (developed) by the forces of nature, in such a manner as to endow it with the capability of sourcing actions and developments.  For example, language and grammar allow us to say; ‘The dune is growing larger and longer’, … ‘the dune is dissipating’.

This is the ‘double error’ as exemplified by a dune or oneself, as in Nietzsche’s example of ‘lightning flashes’.  The double error is the naming-instantiating of a ‘thing-in-itself’ and then imputing to it the powers of sourcing actions and developments.

What comes into play here is whether ‘resonance’ is an implicit influence that manifests as duning, … or whether the behaviour of dunes (e.g. “lining up in a row”) qualifies as ‘resonance’.

The ‘double error’ of language and grammar has us assume that ‘dunes’ are ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The modern physics understanding would be that while the word ‘dune’ signifies a persisting thing-in-itself structure, ‘dunes’ do not exist as ‘things-in-themselves’ but are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum that would more appropriately be termed ‘duning’; a relational process rather than a ‘structure’, the former (process) signifying something that ‘appears’ within a relational dynamic and the latter signifying a persisting thing-in-itself structure.

‘Resonance’ can thus be ambiguously interpreted as (1) an unembodied relational phenomenon that induces the development of multiple non-independent forms (as in topology rather than geometry).  This is a topological form of relations that we understand from pre-lingual infancy which tends to be superseded, during Western culture acculturation, by intellectual conceptualizing in terms of the solid closed form ‘things-in-themselves bodies of geometry.  The logic of the included middle (wherein the understanding is that ‘duning’ is a process within the dune spawning sand-sea medium) prevails rather than the logic of the excluded middle (wherein the understanding is that the dune is independent of the sand-sea medium).

In the latter assumption, it may appear to make sense to describe the development and movement of ‘the dune’ in the manner that one might mention the development and movement of a large wave in the ocean or the action of an avalanche in the mountains.  However, what is ‘really’ going on is relational transformation yet our language and grammar are capable of reducing this by way of the ‘double error’ of using ‘naming’ to invent ‘things-in-themselves’ and conflating this with grammar to impute to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself the powers of sourcing actions and development.

This is a philosophical and psychological problem that has plagued Western culture in particular, that shows up in the Western culture social division into ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ based on the philosophical division of perceiving ‘reality’ into two opposing camps termed ‘’realists’ and ‘pragmatists’.  It has plagued Western culture in particular because Western culture has incorporated the ‘double error’ into language based constructions of ‘reality’; i.e. the INVENTED REALITY of Western culture.


Poincaré has the following to say about this very deep and persisting psychological ‘divide’ in Western culture in his ‘Dernières Pensées’, Ch. V, ‘Les Mathematiques et la Logique’, distinguishing the ‘opposing camps with their respective very different understandings of reality by the names Cantorian-realists, versus ‘pragmatists’ (Poincaré is a ‘pragmatist’);


—“But the Cantorians are realists even where mathematical entities are concerned. These entities seem to them to have an independent existence; the geometer does not create them, he discovers them. These objects therefore exist so to speak without existing, since they can be reduced to pure essences. But since, by nature, these objects are infinite in number, the partisans of mathematical realism are much more infinitist than the idealists. Infinity to them is no longer a becoming since it exists before the mind which discovers it. Whether they admit or deny it, they must therefore believe in actual infinity.”

— “At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there are, Languages which cannot be learned.


And yet in mathematics men ordinarily understand one another; but it is due precisely to what I have called proofs. These proofs pass judgment without appeal and before them the entire world bows. But wherever these proofs are lacking, mathematicians are no better off than simple philosophers. When it is necessary to know if a theorem can have meaning without being capable of proof, who can judge, since by definition we forbid ourselves to prove it ?


There would be no other resource but to corner one’s adversary with a contradiction. But the experiment has been attempted and it has not succeeded. Many antinomies have been pointed out, and the discord has remained; no one has been convinced. It is always possible to extricate oneself from a contradiction by a change of arguments ; I mean by a distinguo.”

 —” Let us attempt therefore to study the psychology of the two opposing schools  [‘Cantorian realists’, ‘pragmatist-idealists’] from a purely objective point of view just as if we ourselves were not a member of these schools, as if we were describing a war between two ants’ nests. We shall first of all observe that there are two opposite tendencies among mathematicians in their manner of considering infinity. For some, infinity is derived from the finite; infinity exists because there is an infinity of possible finite things. For others, infinity exists before the finite; the finite is obtained by cutting out a small piece from infinity.” — Henri Poincaré


As Nietzsche has pointed out, ‘naming’ lies at the bottom of the Cantorian realist view of ‘reality’.  ‘Naming’ decrees the ‘existence’ of the named entity, not just as a ‘pragmatic approach to alluding to a form that is innately relational, as in the Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions of modern physics’, but to impute to the form perpetual thing-in-it-itself existence, the first error in the ‘double error’ that sets the stage for the second error of imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.  This is the ‘realism’ that Poincaré is talking about that divides, irrevocably, the ‘realists’ from the ‘pragmatists’.  The pragmatists use named things-in-themselves only as expedients to convey reality in relational terms (e.g. ‘Dances with wolves’).   This the same approach that Wittgenstein describes, that must be used in capturing, in language, an impression of a transforming relational continuum;

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. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus


Returning to the example of duning, which concerns this same psychological bifurcation, the question is whether ‘dunes’ ‘really are’ independently-existing things-in-themselves that can move and grow larger and disperse etc. as we can use language and grammar (the ‘double error’) to make them out to be, or whether it is simply ‘pragmatic’ to ‘talk about them as such’, … in order to facilitate ‘bootstrapping’ some intended reality that lies beyond and is purely relational (as in the bootstrapping approach of modern physices termed the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’). The latter (pragmatism) is clearly Poincaré’s choice; i.e. the choice of pragmatism and not realism.  This can be tricky since, as with poetry, what one actually says is not about ‘reality’ but simply and expedient way of jogging the listener’s mind into an understanding of reality that lies intrinsically beyond the literal meaning in the words.  This is a kind of poetic device to get beyond the limitations of language in conveying inclusion in a transforming relational continuum (an ‘ineffable’ reality’ wherein ‘everything is in flux’ [Heraclitus]).

But if our double error talk, in terms of “dunes existing, growing and developing” is just pragmatic allusion rather than reality, what is reality?  Since this double error technique for generating a surrogate INVENTED REALITY is in general use in Western culture and since we use it for humans, nations and corporations, (i.e. we impute to these ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves powers of sourcing actions and developments) what does this infer about the reliability of our double error based INVENTED REALITY that we Western culture adherents are using as the common standard ‘operative reality’?

It suggests that the ‘sharing circle’ approach of indigenous aboriginals and the similar ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics are interference-based (coherency extracting) approaches to understanding the ineffable transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in, that make sense since such approaches tend to develop the needed ‘holographic’ imaging of reality that is not dependent on name-instantiated things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments (aka the ‘double error’).