Inspiration ain’t never been narrativized.

Inspiration fills the heart, ego swells the head.

One’s personal narrative or ‘life story’ does not exist (it can’t be unravelled from the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao).

But a ‘personal narrative’ can be fabricated using the ‘double error’ aka the ‘ego’ where we use naming to invent an ‘independent being’ and notionally animate it with grammar (the ‘double error’).  By making ourselves out to be the sorcerers of our own actions, we get to build a narrative about ourselves starting from ourselves.

“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

Our actions may be inspired.  That is, the relational circumstances we find ourselves situated in may inspire our movement (e.g. the child has fallen into the rapidly moving stream.   “We act swiftly” … so we say.   Or is it correct to say that ‘we act’?  In the transforming relational continuum the restoring of harmony and resonance is always pulling things (includigg ‘us’) together, as in ‘duning’.  There is no ‘dune’ that is the author of its own action, even though language and grammar spell it out this way (e.g. ‘the dune is growing longer and higher, the dune is shifting to the south, etc. etc.)    ‘Duning’ is a relational, resonant dynamic within the Tao, … i.e. within the transforming relational continuum.  The ‘humaning’ is like the duning.  When the little girl comes into the world, … in her prelingual, relational sensitivity, she is open to inspiration that fills her heart.  She is enthralled by the beauty of nature that she is included in, it is inspiration that fills her heart and inductively shapes her movements in infancy.

As she is taught language, she learns the technique of the ‘double error’ that replaces, through her ability to speak, the ‘inspiration that ain’t never been narrativized’, and she begins to articulate the inarticulable, very crudely at first and becoming less crude as she develops her language skills.  That is, she learns how to use language to articulate (crudely), the Tao that can’t be told, the relational continuum that she is innately included in.  Such articulation is so crude, that as Wittgenstein suggests, we can only use as a stimulus to ‘leap beyond it’, and after attained an ineffable understanding, tossing away the effable pogo-stick the supported the leap from the effable to a sentient intuition of the ineffable Tao.

When it comes to our ‘self’ and how to give representation to it in language, some trickery is required since a relational form in the transforming relational continuum is in no way an isolable thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The double error, otherwise known as ‘ego’ comes into play in constructing a ‘narrative’ to re-cast the Tao that can’t be told (the understanding of one’s inclusion in the transforming relational continuum) in a tangible form; the ineffable is made effable thanks to the double error, … that is, thanks to ‘ego’.  The ‘ego’ gives notional local substance (being) to the ‘self’ (the sensory awareness of inclusion in the Tao) that serves as a ‘stub’ for an articulation in terms of locally sourced assertive action.  Nietzsche captures this as follows;

“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’

INSPIRATION FILLS THE HEART, EGO SWELLS THE HEAD.

Inspiration ain’t neve been intellectually-linguistically narrativized, … it is like resonance in which duning occurs.  Can we describe THE ACTIONS OF THE SAND GRAINS IN COMING TOGETHER TO FABRICATE THE DUNE?  Resonance is like a divine inspiration that associates with many-as-one organizing. It is ‘wave-based’ and as Schroedinger argued, suggestive of the natural precedence of wave-field over particle dynamics (Schroedinger opposed wave-particle duality, the official interpretation made seemingly workable by the kluge of introducing ‘probability’ to save the ass of the material/particulate in its longstanding Western culture supported primacy in the psychological designing of reality.

Resonance based inspiration as the animator of relational transformation cuts out the need for ‘sorcery’.  For example, duning is transformation induced by resonance, obviating the need to use language and grammar to inject a habitat-based sourcing agency that acts upon an inhabitant as in Newtonian ‘force’ and ‘matter’ abstractions.

If we first assume inhabitant-habitat independence, the architecture of language will induce us to speak in terms of the action of the inhabitant within the habitat, in explaining the changes associated with the ‘development’ of dunes.   In the indigenous aboriginal language, ‘duning’ will suffice since it conveys the sense of ‘resonance’ and resonance (the ‘wave dynamic’) is the very heart of relational transformation.  No need, then, to objectify the ‘dune’ and to anthropomorphize it to come up the abstract language triggered psychological impression that ‘the dune is growing larger and longer and shifting to the south’.  The impression that forms from such reductive abstraction  hogs one’s psychological awareness once it is planted in our mind like the cuckoo’s egg that is planted and hatches in the nest of some very different bird and proceeds to exploit the infrastructure provided for that very different purpose, growing large and robust and pushing out the intended recipients.

The ‘resonance’ that associates with transformation is not visible and is only indirectly sensed.  But we most certainly ‘feel’ resonances (love, harmony) and our movements are inductively shaped by the cultivating and sustaining of resonance, … when we are not using our intellectual calculation based actions to ‘over-ride’ such resonance-influencing of our actions and developments.  What does Emerson mean by the following?  Is he saying that our lives are inclusion within the transforming relational continuum but that we are distracted by notionally ‘local’ goals and objectives?

A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’

What comes to mind is that Inspiration ain’t never been narrativized in conjuction with the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao (the transforming relational continuum)

The natural newly born infant is clearly inspired by the world she is included in and has not yet learned language to bring on the abstract intellectual-psychological inhabitant-habitat splitting.  In her ‘undivided self’ condition, she is in the Tao that can’t be told and it ‘can’t be told’ because there are no footholds or starting points for constructing narratives within the flow-continuum.  “Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” (Wittgenstein)

The natural born infant ‘remains within us even as acculturation has us speaking and thinking in terms of intellectual reductions that open the way for our narrative articulating of our ‘experience’.  But is this not the narrative of the ego and the ‘double error’ where we formulate rhetoric that ‘breaks into’ the transforming relational continuum and jumpstarts ‘our own story’, NOT as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, but as local name-instantiated things-in-ourselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (aka the ‘ego’ of ‘double error’ provenance)?

That Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.

We are included in something greater than ourselves, and like the prelingual infant we can have this inclusional sensory experience and understand this without learning language.  Infants can be inspired and inspiration does not depend on language, nor on the inevitably incomplete attempts to articulate our experience.  But ego seems to come to the fore by our developing the ability to use language and narrative to fashion an INVENTED REALITY wherein we portray ourselves as the author (sorcerer) of our own actions.  If we start to believe LITERALLY in this ego-based narrative, which is a dimensionally-reduced substitute for our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, … and by ‘substitute’ I mean that we start to allow this effability-enabling language and grammar account of our experience to eclipse or occlude or cover over our intuitive grasp of our ineffable experience, … then in spite of our mastery of language and grammar that facilitates the capture (reduction to an effable representation) of the ineffable, … we open the door to an exposure wherein;  the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.  That is, we may ‘become that person we are talking about; i.e. that person that is presented in language and grammar by naming which depicts the named form as an independently-existing thing-in-itself, notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’)

THIS PERSON IS NOT US! THIS PERSON IS A CRUDE ‘STAND IN’ THAT FACILITATES THE USE OF LANGAUGE AND GRAMMAR TO REDUCE THE INEFFABLE TO THE EFFABLE SO THAT WE CAN SHARE SOME POOR FACSIMILE OF OUR INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE.  THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED ‘STAND-IN’ FOR THE INEFFABLE ‘SELF’  IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘EGO’.

IT IS THE EGO THAT TELLS OUR STORY IN A MANNER THAT ‘UNRAVELS’ OR ‘DECONVOLVES’ IT FROM THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM IN WHICH IT IS INEXTRICABLY AND INEFFABLY INCLUDED.

Only our ego can ‘magically lift us out and apart from the Tao’ so that we can tell ‘our personal story’ (as if such existed, since it demands the splitting apart of the inhabitant from the habitat per the double error).  The telling of our personal story (our personal double-error based INVENTED REALITY) gives birth to the ego as the central figure in our story.  The ego is the narrator who we invent for this purpose.  The ego’s effable story is a story that can swell the head (or shrivel it), obscuring  the authentic but ineffable sentient experience of inclusion in the Tao that comes to us as inspiration that fills the heart.

It is not the ‘real self’ that writes our personal narrative, but our ‘ego-self’.  While this may be incredibly useful, … it’s utility can be over-ridden if we allow such expedient reductionism to hijack the natural primacy of our ineffable sentient understanding of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. if we allow our ego based INVENTED REALITY to become our OPERATIVE REALITY whereby  the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.

* * *