In-Corp-Oration and Transformation
The U.S. presidential election brings to the fore centuries of BIPOLAR DISORDER wherein the RIGHT and the LEFT political factions fight over whose vision of reality gets to be implemented by the social collective.
The terms LEFT and RIGHT for the polar opposite views of reality (and thus the best way to socially organize) derive from post revolution FRANCE where the PRO-royalist supporters of King Louis XVI sat on the RIGHT in the National Assembly while the ANTI-royalist supporters of the revolution sat on the LEFT.
Unlike indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents who see social organizing in terms of relational harmony FIRST, and authority-sourced as secondary, the WESTERN CULTURE choice was and remains, to make AUTHORITY the FIRST and HIGHEST level of organizing influence.
THIS IS A PROBLEM since we, and everything, are included in the transforming relational continuum wherein it makes ‘natural sense’ to give first priority to relational flexibility and use explicit structure in a supportive role in which case, spontaneous and natural sensory-experience engaging within the all-including TRANSFORMATION is not forced to play second fiddle to ‘rational’ assessments of ‘reality’.
Language comes into play as to how we conceive of these two ways of conceiving of reality; i.e. IN-CORP-ORATION and TRANSFORMATION
IN-CORP-ORATION is where we DECLARE THE LOCAL EXISTENCE of, for example, an entire complex of self-standing systems such as comprise “a TOWN” or “a TOWNING”. To “IN-CORP-ORATE” is the act of a plurality in declaring themselves to be ONE as in a single body or CORPUS. In REALITY where everything remains in transformative flux, there is only ‘TOWNING’ which is a development within the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE. TO “IN-CORP-ORATE” suggests the bringing of multiple elements together so that they can be considered ONE LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF.
In a FIGURE and GROUND sense (in the physical-experientially real sense of TRANSFORMATION), FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE; e.g. TOWN and COUNTRY are ONE. However, in the ABSTRACT terms of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, as Nietzsche points out, FIGURE and GROUND are construed as TWO (i.e. TOWN and COUNTRY are seen as TWO separate and mutually exclusive realms as in the BINARY ‘EITHER/OR’ LOGIC of the EXCLUDED medium.).
The DOUBLE ERROR break-out clears the way for using language to speak of the GROWTH of the TOWN. Notice that this language usage ABSTRACTLY SEPARATES what was a TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and ‘sets it up on its own’ as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with notional powers of SOURCING its own GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT.
LANGUAGE CAN DO THIS; i.e. language can condition our THINKING such that we SEE in our mind’s eye (imagination) the TOWN as if it were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT. We could capture this in a succession of pictures taken over a number of years, for example. This is the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT mode of visualizing, but is it fair to say that we can visually SEE GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT of the TOWN?
How can we SEE what is not really happening? What is really happening is that the LANDSCAPE is TRANSFORMING. This is the reality as is affirmed by our sensual experience, but the GROWTH of the TOWN is APPEARANCE that is NOT affirmed by our sensory experience what our sensory experience is of inclusion in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (the relational continuum)
The notion that ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ is an intellectual conceptualization which abstracts ‘the TOWN’ out of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and measures it AGAINST ITSELF, and this is what we call RATIO-nality aka REASON, so that while it is true that we REASON that the TOWN is GROWING, our SENSORY-EXPERIENCE-VISION is not showing us GROWTH. Our sensory experience supports our INTUITION of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
GROWTH is not something REAL, it is something RATIO-NAL (based on measuring the time-based measurement of the dimensions of a THING-IN-ITSELF. But just as Heraclitus pointed out that we can’t step in the same river twice, … we also can’t take the measurement of some THING-IN-ITSELF twice because it is NOT THE SAME THING. Such is clearly the case with the TOWNING on which we blithely paste the unchanging label ‘the TOWN’.
We may say that ‘seeing is believing’ but once we insert language into the game as in saying ‘The TOWN is GROWING’, this is no longer something accessible to our sensory-vision experience but is instead an INTELLECTUAL CONSTRUCTION that we superimpose over top of the sensory experience reality of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.
The POINT is that we can trust our visual sensing so long as we do not reduce the PICTURE to language because, as we have already concluded, language is too crude a tool to capture sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
The reliability of our VISION cannot survive reduction into words, thus what ‘sounds like visual affirmation’; e.g. ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, is NOT VISUAL AT ALL, it is RATIONAL ABSTRACTION that entirely bypasses the reality of the transforming relational continuum, which would require many views from many eyes as in the holographic understanding of the Wave-field. As Nietzsche observed;
There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing’; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.– Nietzsche
NOT ONLY do we need MANY EYES, we need the ‘sharing circle’ so that the errors in our reductions of visual to language can be (somewhat) reduced by bringing multiple visual perspectives into relational confluence so as to extract the coherencies therein, shaking off the rigid and explicit word shells giving us a ‘meat-only take-away’ that may come closer to wordless visualization.
* * *
The power of NAMING (NAMING PERSISTS EVEN THOUGH the form continues to be bound up in the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE TRANSFORMATION) pulls on us to KEEP IN MIND the persisting NAME even as the relational development of TOWNING that is included in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is the physical reality.
LANGUAGE-based ABSTRACTION can thus have a powerful influence on our mind as is evident when we find ourselves riding astride two horses which are about to part ways, the horse of TRANSFORMATION taking us, if we go with it, into the NONLOCAL TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and the horse of LOCAL GROWTH-and-DEVELOPMENT taking us, if we go with it, into the realm of the LOCAL TOWN that is GROWING and DEVELOPING.
One might ask, ‘If we understand the TOWN as GROWING (only a thing-in-itself can ‘grow’) how does the TOWN stay in relational connection with the LANDSCAPE it is situationally included in?’. If we understand, instead, that the LANDSCAPE which includes the TOWN, is TRANSFORMING, this question about the LEGITIMACY OF THE CONCEPT OF GROWTH does not arise.
As we know from our own history of the EAST-WEST split on such issues, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have opted to go with the abstraction of IN-CORP-ORATION, the notion that we can simply use NAMING to impute LOCAL BEING to the NAMED form regardless of whether it is purely relational development within the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.
Of course, when we do this, we take on what philosophers have called ‘THE BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS’. So long as continued to understand the forms in nature (reality) as relational forms within the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM. Once we use the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to SPLIT OUT the things we impose NAMES on and use GRAMMAR to animate as if they were LOCAL things-in-themselves, we now have to use language to manage THEIR GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT.
This is how the TOWNING as relational form in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE brings to us the BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS since once we use language to RE-PRESENT this fluid TOWNING in the NONLOCAL TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE as a LOCAL TOWN, notionally with ITS OWN powers of GROWTH, we are giving it (imputing to it) ABSTRACT thing-in-itself BEING; i.e. we are giving it ITS OWN BODY or in other words we are IN-CORP-ORATING IT from that point in time on. We can now talk about IT as if IT has a life of its own, as we do other things that we abstractly IN-CORP-ORATE such as HUMANINGS in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.
A WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE-BASED (ABSTRACT) REALITY IS THUS CREATED BY THIS PROCESS OF IN-CORP-ORATING by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.
NOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT “THE TOWN” AS IF IT WERE NOW A “LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF” AND NO LONGER A RELATIONAL FORM IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE AKA “RELATIONAL CONTINUUM” AKA ‘WAVE-FIELD” AKA “TAO”.
If this strikes you as a kind of CRAZINESS in that we are giving an abstraction on a relational form in the flow, ITS OWN LIVING AND GROWING BODY or CORPUS, … howzabout reflecting on the fact that we do the very same thing with HUMANINGS in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.
Is it REALLY possible for us to extract from the transforming relational continuum the relational complex of a HURRICANING or HUMANING or TOWNING, which the tool of language and grammar, and give these relational forms-in-the-flow THEIR OWN BODY or CORPUS by NAMING them, and then employing GRAMMAR to impute to them their own ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT?
LANGUAGE is NOT going to object to our game-blay since we invented LANGUAGE and it does what we tell it to do, no matter how ridiculous are the things we get it to say.
IN-CORP-ORATION of forms within the TRANSFORMATION is a case in point. This has become a traditional use of language within our WESTERN CULTURE, even if it remains a curious psycho habit as seen from the indigenous aboriginal cultural perspective wherein ‘everything is related’ (mitakuye oyasin).
Once we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have posted notice of the IN-CORP-ORATION, the NAME attached to this ORATION is ready to be employed in DOUBLE ERROR NAMING-and-GRAMMAR constructs which open the way to constructing an abstract SUBSTITUE REALITY wherein a purely relational TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE has now been given a LOCAL CORPUS by a kind of baptismal PROCLAMATION called IN-CORP-ORATION.
After tapping the TOWN on both shoulders with the magic sword Excalibur, and saying “you are now IN-CORP-ORATED as of today’s date and henceforth can proclaim your own LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF STATUS” … or undertaking some other such ritual proclamation.
THE RESULT IS THE SAME. ALL FOLLOWERS/ADHERENTS OF WESTERN CULTURE shall, from this date of IN-CORP-ORATION forward, accept the newly assigned LOCAL-THING-IN-ITSELF status of this now-NAMED CORPUS. The NAME of this TOWN may now be used as the SUBJECT and legitimate SOURCING AGENT in DOUBLE ERROR, NAMING and GRAMMAR constructs such that when it is said ‘the TOWN is GROWING and DEVELOPING’ it shall be understood by all (except for indigenous aboriginals who have treaty-rights of exception so long as these are not abused) that the NAME of this now IN-CORP-ORATED TOWN can be used as the SUBJECT together with transitive verbs, to invoke the notion of its own powers of SOURCING as in its own LOCAL and EXPLICIT GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT, so that it is no longer ‘at the mercy’ of relational inclusion within the overall transforming relational continuum.
HUMANINGS in the flow are automatically IN-CORP-ORATED by their ceremonial NAMING and BIRTH CERTIFICATION subsequent to which their NAMES can be used as GRAMMATICAL SUBJECTS together with transitive verbs so as to impute LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments that will be officially accepted logical currency wherein CORPUS-AS-FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.
Relational social collectives seeking to be recognized as the LOCAL SOURCE of actions and developments must be formally IN-CORP-ORATED so as to be formally issued official certification as a unique LOCAL SOURCE of actions and developments.
Overall, “IN=CORP-ORATION” is a RITUAL process, much like that of the use of a magic sword Excalibur, endorsed by the King and by Bod (through the intermediation of high priests), to establish in the eyes of all people in the land, the STATUS OF LOCAL CORPORATE (BODILY) EXISTENCE of the CORPUS as identified by the NAME assigned to it in the articles of INCORPORATION. It will thenceforth be deemed fully responsible for it’s ‘own’ actions and developments which means ‘actions’ by those formally designated as arms or agents of the CORPUS, and to have rightful claim of ownership to the gains and losses coming from such actions and developments..
TRANSFORMATION will in all cases be superseded by the claims of formally approved and registered CORPUS. For example, once the name ‘FARM’ has been formally approved for a designated area within the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, it shall thenceforth be known for ITS growth, development and production capabilities, thus rising up and out of its former inclusion in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMATION.
REORIENTATION to CORPUS COMPONENTS
Due to the extreme difficulty in capturing TRANSFORMATION with language since it is not only in continuing flux but is of an impossible-to-capture vastness of extent, language shall reorient to visible FEATURES in the TRANSFORMATION such as TOWNING which can be given the designation of a CORPUS and subsequently spoken of in the DOUBLE ERROR terms of NAMING and GRAMMAR which imputes LOCAL BEING and LOCAL powers of SOURCING actions and development, so that descriptions are no longer stymied by the lack of bounding within the transforming relational continuum. BOUNDARIES WILL BE DESIGNATED so to generate a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO BINARY LOGIC as needed to form language-based representations in terms FIGURE-CENTRIC terms such as ‘the TOWN is growing larger and more productive’. It is not necessary to point to the reciprocal shrinkage of the Wilderness as this would greatly complicate the articulation, and drag the exercise back into the reality of its INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT basic reality.
THE liberated, certified, INDEPENDENT CORPUS such as the TOWN will be spoken of in a manner consistent with BINARY LOGIC such that it is deemed to exist only within its explicitly defined bounds beyond which there may be TERRA INCOGNITA or other neighbouring INDEPENDENT CORPUSES, similarly accorded their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.
In this manner a language and grammar-based system of thought management is developed which serves as an abstract but OPERAIVE SUBSTITUTE for the troublesome TRANSFORMATION which is in itself INEFFABELE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
WARNING: While TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT and since language-based communications demand a system that is capable of LOCAL and EXPLICIT renderings, it is necessary to invent the CORPUS or LOCAL BODY as the basic component of an ALTERNATE REALITY CONSTRUCTION that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT and thus providing linguistically shareable representations, which, although SUBSTITUE REALITIES, may be received by the RATIONAL INTELLECT so as to IMPLY the FLOW-based reality that lies beyond the reach of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT but which may be suggested or INEFFERED by bringing a collection of local and explicit artifacts into connective confluence in the intuiting mind whereby the RELATIONAL COHERENCY may furnish the intended intuition. This POETIC system of language is one wherein the takeaway is purely relational and implicit and must be INTUITED. The appropriate aphorism here is; “A Man’s reach must exceed his grasp or what’s a Meta phor?’ (McLuhan et al).
The title of this note; IN-CORP-ORATION AND TRANSFORMATION is intended to flag the fact that the reality of the all-including Wave-field TRANSFORMATION is ineffable because everything is in flux, which may be ‘effable-ized by way of languages that employ relational webs as in the indigenous aboriginal ‘Dances with Wolves’ example and as suggested in modern physics by David Bohm’s ‘Rheomode’ which he discovered late in his life, had already been developed in indigenous aboriginal cultures.
IN-CORP-ORATION is a WESTERN CULTURE approach that doesn’t simply ‘go relational’ but instead INVENTS A SUBSTITUTE REAITY BASED ON LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN GRAMMAR-GIVEN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (this is the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR pointed out by Nietzsche).
WHY ‘IN-CORP-ORATE’? The main reason is to INVENT a LOCAL SOURCING MECHANISM so that the entire transforming relational continuum need not have to be dealt with in coming up with language-based representations of reality. Inventing LOCAL bodies or CORPUSES is one way to break things down into LOCAL parts, so as to avoid having to deal with the whole transforming relational continuum. This was the WESTERN CULTURE way which, although it preceded Newton, was formalized in his ‘Newtonian physics’;
“All these things being considered, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form’d matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the end for which he form’d them; and these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces: no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation.”
Newton quotes from Opticks
IT IS FAR EASIER TO BASE LANGUAGE ON THAT WHICH IS LOCAL AND EXPLICIT THAN TO TRY TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
The problem is, by starting off LOCALLY as with inventing words like ‘The TOWN’, we then have to complete this approach with ‘parts of speech’ that will deliver the impressions of LOCALLY INCIPIENT actions and development. This is where GROWTH comes from which we do not need UNTIL WE DO THIS IN-CORP-ORATING; i.e. our CORPUS based ORATING.
In our understanding in terms of the transforming relational continuum, there is no LOCAL CORPUS that gives us license to construct reality (i.e. a substitute reality) from the LOCAL and extending outward as in the case of starting with TOWN instead of with the LANDSCAPE.
After we get underway constructing what we call ‘representations of reality’ from the LOCAL in the direction of the NONLOCAL, we block out our consciousness of the conjugate reduction of Wilderness and/or TRANSFORMATION because TRANSFORMATION is where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE in which case there is no separate GROWTH of the TOWN and SHRINKAGE of the Wilderness, there is only TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.
The point is, TRANSFORMATION is REALITY and we and everything are included in it. As Lao Tzu points out, the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao, and as Wittgenstein sums it up in Tractatus; ‘of that which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence.’
But just because the Wave-field is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT, this does not justify us replacing it with a surrogate reality that IS LOCAL and EXPLICIT. In other worlds SUBSTITUTE REALITIES are only good for INFERENCE and DO NOT QUALIFY FOR USE AS SUBSTITUTES. Our WESTERN CULTURE ERROR is in our employing EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT representations of reality as SUBSTITUTE REALITIES rather than as INFERENCES of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT Wave-field reality.
Thus ‘The TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous’ is INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and IMPLICIT transforming relational continuum wherein the entire LANDSCAPE is slip-sliding and slumping and bulging and extruding and subducting and by the time we get through describing all these dynamics, there is no longer any basis for the implied ‘IT’ or ‘THING’ that is supposedly undergoing this TRANSFORMATION, there is only TRANSFORMATION, pure, relational Wave-field TRANSFORMATION with no fixed local and explicit lumps in it.
So, no wonder why we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS invented the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to get ourselves out of this fix of deploying a REPRESENTATION of the fluid Wave-field reality which is unbounded in spacetim (although we could also have developed a relational language such as the Rheomode proposed by Bohm as Bohm discovered had already been developed by the indigenous aboriginal culture;
A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’
Before we struggle to capture our experience in language, we know, intuitively, that we are in a TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, but we also intuitively know that our language, such as it is (based on NAMING-instantiated local things-in-themselves, notionally with GRAMMAR-given powers of sourcing actions and growth/development) is innately incapable of capturing our sensory experience of inclusion in NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION.
The reduction of the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL by way of imputing the existence of local particles and ‘CORP-ORATIONS’, the latter requiring public declarations of their LEGAL existence which grants them the right to their own LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, as accorded to
While TOWNING has occurred for eons without the need to INCORPORATE or formally proclaim ITS LOCAL EXISTENCE AS A LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with GRAMMAR-given powers of SOURCING actions and developments, … those attributes are what it gets with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which impute to it not only LOCAL EXISTENCE but POWERS of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments. In this case ‘THE TOWN CAN GROW’ as if in its own right and not as a dynamic inclusion withing the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
If this LOCAL GROWTH called ‘the TOWN’ does not understanding itself as included in the transforming relational continuum, it could become a CANCEROUS GROWTH that feeds and fattens itself by consuming its ‘surroundings’ (which it fails to understand as itself as in understanding its inclusion in the transforming relational continuum).
The use of language structures such as ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and is INCREASING ITS PRODUCTION’ is a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO representation that delivers to ‘the TOWN’ the identity of a cancerous growth.
Substituting IN-CORP-ORATION for TRANSFORMATION is a WESTERN CULTURE linguistic device that DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AN ALERNATIVE REPRESENTATION OF REALITY, BUT MERELY AS A SUBSTITUTE REALITY FOR STIMULATING INFERENCE OF THE INEFFABLE-BECAUSE-NONLOCAL-AND-IMPLICIT REALITY THAT LIES BEYOND THE REACH OF LANGUAGE.
As Emerson observes, ‘the tool has run away with the workman, the human with the divine. There are similar inferences in Bohm and Nietzsche’s philosophizing. The
The notion that ‘The Town is growing’ does not ‘override’ the understanding that ‘the Landscape is transforming’. The latter is consistent with the transforming relational continuum while the former is an abstract local-thing-in-itself construction which ‘exists’ only the unbounded inventiveness of the imagination. For us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS in whole or in part, to regard and act upon GROWTH as if it were something ‘real’ is a crazy-maker’.
* * *