Interrupting Western Culture’s Continuing Descent into Psychosis

How we can switch from being part of the problem (of Western Culture’s Descent into Psychosis) to becoming part of the solution.

The core of the problem is our (Western culture adherents’) belief in ‘sorcery’, which as Nietzsche points out, is built into our language and grammar by the ‘double error’ i.e. by; (first error) believing in the ‘existence’ of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ and conflating this by (second error) imputing powers of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

When we Western culture social collectives construct a ‘skyscraper’, we are very proud of ‘our creation’. We are proud of our ability, as intelligent human beings, to source such skilled actions and impressive developments. But is our ‘sorcery’ ‘real’? The indigenous aboriginal observer may point to how we disposed in an out-of-sight gully, the great pile of rocks and soil from our excavation for the skyscraper’s foundation, and how there are now ‘bald patches in the forest where we took trees for lumber for the skyscraper’s interior woodwork and furnishings, and how the salmon spawning runs are blocked by hydro-electric projects needed to light up, heat and air condition our skyscraper, raising the question; IS ‘SORCERY’ AS IN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ‘REAL’? Or, is the situation as the indigenous aboriginal claims; i.e. where ‘construction and development’ ARE NOT REAL, but merely the figurative (intellectual) invention of European language and grammar, the only ‘real reality’ being the transforming relational continuum in which we and all share inclusion? Like the man driving in a heavy flow of traffic, the notion of our ‘individual action’ is an unreal abstraction that would require the intellectual inventing of an abstract ‘fixed reference frame’ and the imputing of ‘thing-in-itself’ status to each item of content moving within the abstract frame, whereas, in the reality of our actual experience, ‘relations’ are all there is and our movement is relative to the transforming relational flow-continuum we are included in.

Evidently, our intellectual reality wherein we use language and grammar to portray ourselves to ourselves as ‘sorcerers’ of ‘new developments’ does not jibe with the very different reality of our experience of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum. Could it be that Emerson is correct in discerning that, for Western culture adherents, the ‘tool of language and grammar has run off with the workman, the human with the divine?

This could be a ‘crazy-maker’ if in fact, we are locking into a surrogate intellectual INVENTED REALITY and in the process denying the reality of our sentient experiencing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

* * *

The resulting (within intellectual abstraction) INVENTED REALITY is a far cry from the ineffable reality of our sensual experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum (aka ‘the Tao’). As Emerson observes, it is not that this abstract tool of language and grammar is problematic in itself, the problem is that ‘the tool has run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.

In other words, our problem is that we are pushing the tool of language and grammar far beyond its useful capability in ‘inference’ of the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ variety, or the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ where the useful understanding we can glean from language comes from looking beyond the explicit objects identified by names, to the relations that we can indirectly imply in our manner of arranging words. We must look farther than the explicit actions of Jean Valjean (redirecting the movement of a loaf of bread) and/or Robin Hood’s action of redirecting the movement of grain from the King’s granary), essential resources deriving from nature, to an understanding of reality in terms of the sustaining of natural balancing within relational transformation.

The ‘reality’ of nature is that we, and all forms, are included within the transforming relational continuum. Language and grammar may deliver to our intellect an abstract INVENTED REALITY based on name-instantiated things-in-themselves (first error) that we use grammar to endow with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error) to invent a ‘sorcery’-based pseudo-reality.

This intellectual (language and grammar simulated) INVENTED REALITY is the ‘tool’ that as Emerson points out, has, in Western culture, ‘run away with the workman’. This psychological impression generated by this ‘double error’ tool is ‘sorcery’. And, yes, as Benjamin Whorf’s linguistic research shows, Newtonian physics was not derived from the dynamics of nature (i.e. nature as a transforming relational continuum) but was derived from a particular strain of language built around alchemy and ‘sorcery’.

There is only ‘transformation’ and no such phenomenon as ‘sorcery’ in the reality of nature understood by modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanat as the all-including transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

‘Sorcery’ (i.e. the notional sourcing of actions and developments) is abstraction that comes into psychological ‘being’, as Nietzsche points out, with the ‘double error’ of language and grammar’ as defined in bold italics in the first paragraph.

If you like watching CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) and reading Agatha Christie mystery thrillers, … you are familiar with the appeal of ‘sorcery’; understanding that is based on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar. When David Bohm points out how modern physics shows up the fallacy in assuming that John Wilkes Booth was the cause of Lincoln’s death, and our own emotions show up the fallacy in Jean Valjean’s and Robin Hood’s ‘rebalancing’ actions being judged as evil criminal acts of thievery, you know we Western culture adherents have some unresolved conflicts in the way we understand ‘reality’ that involve the concept of ‘sorcery’.

In plain and simple terms, there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in the reality of our actual experience. As Nietzsche points out, ‘sorcery’ (the God-like power of ‘creating’ from scratch) is a psychological impression that derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche

Among Western culture adherents, belief in ‘sorcery’ is foundational to Western culture INVENTED REALITY. Meanwhile, in modern physics, as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, reality is understood as a transforming relational continuum, while sorcery is nothing more than a grammatical expedient for alluding to the ineffable Tao (‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao).

CSI, however ‘hi-tech’, explicit, final and ‘tidy’ it appears to Western culture adherents, is based on the ‘double error’. The ‘double error’ does its job of psychological simplification by breaking the transforming relational continuum down into ‘separate parts’, and infusing the power of ‘sorcery’ into the ‘part’ so as to re-mobilize it as a ‘thing-in-itself’.

“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 general, language and grammar equip us language-users with this ‘double error’ technique that lets us ‘break down’ the transforming relational continuum into locally ‘sourced’ actions and developments which we can then use to construct a sorcery-based INVENTED REALITY, as in CSI and Agatha Christie thrillers (who will the ‘sorcerer’ turn out to be?

But there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in the reality of our actual relational experience, and this observation takes us back to our subject inquiry;

WESTERN CULTURE’S CONTINUING DESCENT INTO PSYCHOSIS: How we can switch from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution?

Western culture adherents belief in ‘sorcery’ leads to a psychological schism in that ‘sorcery’ (imaginary abstraction) can be conceived of in two mutually contradictory (conservative and liberal) ways, as given by the adages: ‘One bad apple spoils the barrel’ (conservative) and ‘It takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child” (liberal).

NOTA BENE: both of these lines of investigation falsely assume that ‘sorcery’ is a ‘real’ phenomenon.

This artificial (psychological) division of the natural ‘oneness’ into ‘two’, a topic in anthropology given the title ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ (English title ‘The Two and the One’) by Mircea Eliade, can be seen in the above described conflicting (conservative – liberal) language-inferred views of reality.

TODAY, THANKS TO TRUMP? … this long ignored (by Western culture adherents) admission of ‘error’ built into the ‘double error’ that supports the grammar-fabricated concept of ‘sorcery’ is coming ‘to a head’. Jonathan Swift captured this abstract (without basis in reality) conflict in Gulliver’s Travels in the guise of two cultures that go to war over their opposing views of which end of a hard-boiled egg is the correct one to open to get the egg out.

The point is, that arguments over which is the correct way to understand ‘sorcery’ are spurious arguments since there is no such phenomenon as ‘sorcery’ (let alone two different flavours of sorcery) in the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

Sorcery is an abstract concept born of language and grammar and held in place by ‘ego’ and by ‘lock-in due to high switching costs’. That is, by giving elevated authority and power over what gets changed to those seen as having exceptional powers of sorcery, … we are burning the bridges of our return to correct our erroneous belief in ‘sorcery’ that we have made the basis of an ‘INVENTED REALTY’ that we are now deploying at our ‘operative reality’.

‘Locked-in-by high switching costs’ is a systems term which explains why we stick with the inferior computer system of Microsoft Windows instead of migrating to higher quality system (e.g. UNIX); i.e. we have constructed so many applications that are explicitly tailored to fit Windows, that the overheads to switch to a other, higher quality operating systems have grown huge and constitute a huge obstacle to switching applications over to a higher quality operating system.

Western culture adherents use of the ‘double error’ in constructing an INVENTED REALITY involves this same ‘lock-in with high switching costs’.

For example, ‘Western Justice’ is based on the ‘double error’ = belief in ‘sorcery’. That is, Western ‘rewarding’ and ‘punishing’ is based on the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’ That is what CSI and Agatha Christie stories are based on, the search for the ‘source’ of an action and/or development, as if actions and developments are ‘explainable’ in terms of ‘sorcery’ rather than in terms of relational transformation.

There is no ‘sorcery’ in the ‘reality’ of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, … where ‘reality’ is the transforming relational continuum. To repeat Emerson’s point’ ‘the tool’ (of language and grammar’s sorcery-based invented reality) ‘has run away with the workman’. Sure, language and grammar based (‘double error’ based )‘sorcery’ can be useful, WHERE it is not ‘taken seriously as an explicit truth; i.e. where it DOES NOT RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN.

SO HERE WE ARE TODAY, AS WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS IN THE YEAR 2019, dividing amongst ourselves into opposing factions based on our different choices for the ‘forms’ that sorcery comes in; the pointy end choice of conservatives (one bad apple spoils the whole barrel) or the roundy end choice of liberals (it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child).

Note that both of these choices are variants on the theme of binary (logic of the excluded middle) conceptualizing, as with the EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ of the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’. This differs from the ‘quantum’ ‘logic of the included middle of IS AND IS NOT, in flow-based understanding where the ‘whirlpool’ in the ‘flow’ are not ‘two different things’ as connoted by the language terms ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’, but are only one (the whirlpool aka ‘boil’ or ‘vortex’ is ‘how flow manifests’ or ‘appears’. The ‘whorl’ is ‘appearance’ or ‘apparition’ within the flow (Tao) as with all name-designated relational forms (including humans, nations, corporations).

TODAY, THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION AMONG WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF SORCERY HOLDS TRUE OR WHETHER THE LIBERAL VIEW OF SORCERY HOLDS TRUE. As in Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ attire of Western culture adherence, debate over the correct answer to this question is like debating how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin; i.e. there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ (it is abstraction deriving from the ‘double error’) thus there is no point in arguing over which form of sorcery represents the ‘true nature’ of ‘sorcery’.

The conservative advocates for their flavour of sorcery, which stokes the individual ego, … conflicts with the liberal advocates for their flavour of sorcery, which strokes the collective ego.

The election of Donald Trump garners support disproportionately from those who see ‘sorcery’ as from the ‘pointy end’ of the boiled egg; i.e. as originating within the individual. The political forces of liberalism see ‘sorcery’ as from the ‘roundy end’ of the boiled egg; i.e. as originating from the collective.

The issue is unresolvable abstraction based since there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’. ‘Sorcery’ is abastraction that arises form ‘the double error’;

“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’

Or, in other words; (repeated here for convenience);

CSI, Western Justice and Western language and grammar-based conceptualizing of ‘reality’ in general, DECONSTRUCT the transforming relational continuum (the ineffable Tao that cannot be directly told) using the ‘double error’ technique that (first error) uses ‘naming’ to psychologically instantiate notional ‘thing-in-itself existence’, conflating this by (second error) imputing powers of sourcing actions and development to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error). This ‘double error’ abstraction equips us for INVENTING REALITY in the double-error based terms of ‘sorcery’.

WE become the notional ‘source’ of ‘our own actions and developments’. That is, language and grammar used in the ‘double error’ based ‘sorcery’ mode, gives us the egotistical impression of our own ‘thing-in-itself existence’ with our own jumpstart powers of sourcing actions and developments, and thus our own sense of pride in self-sourced positive achievements and/or our own sense of ‘guilt and shame’ in self-sourced negative achievements, both of which are bullshit notions coming to us through Western culture ‘double error’ (sorcery-based) belief traditions.

Conservatives and Liberals embrace, in common, the understanding of ‘reality’ is sorcery-based terms, the antagonism between them building on the common belief in ‘sorcery’ and arising from the differin opinions as to whether ‘sorcery’ originates from within the ‘independently-existing being’ or whether ‘sorcery’ originates from within the ‘independently-existing collective’.

WESTERN CULTURE ‘REALITY’ IS SORCERY BASED; i.e. it is based on the double error of language and grammar. THE INTERNAL DIVISION INTO CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL derives from whether one sees ‘sorcery’ as originating within the ‘independent INDIVIDUAL thing-in-itself’ or as originating within the ‘independent COLLECTIVE thing-in-itself); i.e. does one rotten apple spoil the whole barrel, … or does it take a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child? In other words, both factions assume ‘sorcery’ and division derives from whether one understands ‘sorcery’ as originating in the individual [conservative view] or ‘sorcery’ as originating in the collective [liberal view].

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta embrace understandings of reality based in relational transformation that have no dependency on ‘local sorcery’ attributable to name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’.

Modern Western culture dominated global society is currently experiencing a collapse in the foundational belief in ‘sorcery’ based on the ‘double error’. This is manifesting as growing intolerance of ‘conservatives’ for the beliefs of ‘liberals’ and vice versa, the difference in these belief systems, both of which depend on belief in the ‘double error’ of ‘sorcery’, being in terms whether ‘sorcery’ incubates in the individual or whether ‘sorcery’ incubates in the collective.

Resolving this question is impossible since ‘sorcery’ is non-existing abstraction born of the double error of language and grammar.

Of course, there is ‘massive lock-in-with high switching costs’ holding this polarized contention in place, among Western culture adherents (believers in sorcery). Those adherents of modern physics understandings, indigenous aboriginal belief traditions, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, are more or less ‘waiting in the wings’ for their Western culture adhering brothers/sisters to come to the needed realization that ‘sorcery’ is an illusion born of the Western culture ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

The new developments that have ‘shaken things up’ include the internet (the Loudspeaker capability cited by Ivan Illich) which is now freely available to everyone through applications like Facebook, extending the phenomenon of individual viewpoint amplification as begun with the loudspeaker monopolizing the ‘commons of silence;;

“Few people there had ever heard of such a thing [microphone and loudspeaker]. Up to that day, all men and women had spoken with more or less equally powerful voices. Henceforth this would change. Henceforth the access to the microphone would determine whose voice shall be magnified. Silence now ceased to be in the commons; it became a resource for which loudspeakers compete. Language itself was transformed thereby from a local commons into a national resource for communication… The encroachment of the loudspeaker has destroyed that silence which so far had given each man and woman his or her proper and equal voice. Unless you have access to a loudspeaker, you are now silenced.” – Ivan Illich, ‘Silence is a Commons’

Of course, what was being ‘upstaged’, at least among Western culture adherents, by the dominating of those messages coming from access to the microphone and loudspeaker, was the unique reality of our actual sensory relational experiencing of inclusion in the ineffable transforming relational continuum. Overcoming our innate inability, as individual samplers of this ineffable reality, was being worked on within the indigenous aboriginal culture and other relations oriented cultures, by such approaches as ‘sharing circles’ that serve to cultivate a ‘holographic’ understanding that is purely relational and without any hard dependency on ‘things-in-themselves’. In other words, our individual visual observations are limited to our own uniquely situated ‘perspective’ whereas what we would like to ‘visualize’ is the transforming relational continuum in which we are situationally included.

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

In other words, while our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, our individual visual perspective is highly limited; i.e. it is the self-other-dividing perspective of the voyeur observer which lacks the ‘dimensionality’ of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao.

As Western culture adherents, we have chosen to compare these various ‘perspectives’ and ‘select the most accurate one’ which turns out to be decided on the basis of ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. In other words, ‘selecting the best perspective’ is an aberrance-inducing default. What we need is to get beyond ‘perspective’ to the ‘holographic’ understanding (of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum). This is the aim of the ‘sharing circle’ of indigenous aboriginal cultures and the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics.

We Western culture adherents remain stuck on the tactic of selecting ‘the most accurate single perspective’ in the context of the ‘double error’ based or ‘sorcery’ based view of ‘reality’, an over-simplistic approach to conceiving of ‘reality’ that is dividing us on the basis of the differing belief as to whether sorcery derives from the ‘individual’ (conservative) or from the ‘collective’ (liberal).

This ongoing political debate distracts both of the opposing sides from coming to the realization that ‘sorcery’ is a language and grammar based ‘double error’; i.e. an ‘illusion’ (delusion). As Erich Jantsch (physicist and system scientist) has shown in his ‘three levels of reality’, getting stuck in debate as to whether the lowest level (3) of individual sorcery. or the next lowest level (2) of collective sorcery is the ‘correct reality’, … preoccupies the combatants so that the are unable to ‘backoff’ and see a more comprehensive reality in terms of relational transformation, exposing ‘sorcery’ as over-simplistic rational abstraction (the ‘double error’ of language and grammar).

That about sums it up, so to recoup or ‘close the loop’; … this was where we ‘came in’;

WESTERN CULTURE’S CONTINUING DESCENT INTO PSYCHOSIS: How we can switch from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution?

The psychosis is manifesting through the polarizing of the public on the basis of two differing views of ‘sorcery’ (conservative and liberal).

The ‘way out’ of this dilemma is via the abandonment of LITERAL belief in ‘sorcery’. This is easier to say than do since ‘sorcery’ is anchored in place by ‘ego’, at least in the case of the positive high achievers in notional ‘sorcery’.

N.B. As relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, we can only be channelers as there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ and no such things as ‘sorcerers’. The belief in sorcery also gives rise among Western culture adherents, to alienated categories of achievers of negative sourcing actions and developments and to under-achieving sorcerers. These ‘sorcery’ based assessments set up a social values hierarchy that is giving Western culture adherents ‘direction’ in their social undertakings.

Living within a transforming relational continuum is based on relational involvements, the ethics of which orient to cultivating harmony and subsuming dissonance. These are the flip sides of a single coinage; e.g. when we drive within the flow of a crowded freeway, our movements are relational rather than of an absolute (self-sourcing) nature so that it is NOT ‘OUR movement’ (as would imply movement within a fixed coordinate system) but our participative inclusion within the ongoing relational flow dynamic, wherein relational transformation is ‘all there is’ [beings with the power of sourcing actions and developments are an intellectual double error based abstraction].

So, to close this out by repeating the question, once again;

WESTERN CULTURE’S CONTINUING DESCENT INTO PSYCHOSIS: How we can switch from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution?

Putting our behaviour in the service of the ethic of cultivating and sustaining relational balance and harmony is well known to us, and is the reason why we celebrate the harmony cultivating values in ‘Les Miserables’ and the adventures of Robin Hood and his merry men.

Of course, even if we let our movements be shaped in the service of cultivating and sustaining relational harmony, our language and grammar can still capture this in the double error terms that casts us as a name-instantiated independent being with its own internally incipient powers of sorcery. The challenge is, as has been captured by Emerson; i.e. to avoid letting the tool of language and grammar run away with the workman; i.e. one may articulate one’s actions in the double error based terms of sorcery without having to believe that such articulation is anything more than a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ that is alluding to one’s ineffable (beyond articulation) inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

What we need to avoid is letting the tool of language and grammar ‘run away with the workman’, however, that ‘runaway’ mode is characteristic of Western culture adherent ‘normality’. We don’t want to go there and we don’t have to go there (we may fall into it but we don’t have to embrace it). Modern physicists like Bohm and Schroedinger do not intentionally ‘go there’ and neither do indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents. Western culture ‘normality’ is an intentional aberrance; i.e. it is intentional through the double error based belief in the ‘reality’ of sorcery, and it is aberrant because there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ (i.e. ‘sorcery’ is a psychological abstraction born of the double error of grammar).

What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” – R. D. Laing, author of ‘The Divided Self’

As we continue our philosophical reflections, We Western culture adherents continue to divide and polarize on the basis of belief in ‘sorcery’ and the distraction of whether ‘sorcery’ derives from the individual (conservative) or from the collective (liberal). Meanwhile, there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’, there is only Tao (relational transformation).

* * * * * END OF ABOVE TEXT WHICH WAS WRITTEN AS A SUMMARY OF THE TEXT WHICH NOW FOLLOWS * * *

dear all

Listening not to me, [and not to your local newspaper and radio station], it is wise to consider that all things are one’ –Heraclitus

REVELATION IS AT HAND! …. just kidding with the dramatization, but there are distinct signs IN CURRENT TIMES of a leak in the Western culture INVENTED REALITY bubble.

As Nietzsche pointed out, there are no solid truths. We are included in a transforming relational continuum. This understanding ‘checks out’ and is the basis of modern physics. Newtonian physics is based on alchemy/sorcery that is built into language (‘the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that uses ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself existence [first error] and conflates this first error by [second error] imputing to the imputed name-instantiated thing-in-itself the power of sourcing actions and developments). This is the language and grammar based ‘double error’ of Western culture that gives us the psychological impression of ‘sorcery’ or the powers of jumpstarting actions and developments. As Nietzsche put it’ we (Western culture adherents) can’t get rid of the concept of God with powers of jump-starting the emergence of things with powers of action and development because we (Western Culture Adherents) have built it into language and grammar.

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche

The double error of language and grammar serves as the basis for constructing an INVENTED REALITY.

Ok, this reduction of the ineffable to something that we can share in the explicit terms of language and grammar makes a new form of communications, or a reduced version of the ineffable, possible. One might say that this is of great utility PROVIDING THAT WE DO NOT FORGET THAT THE EXPLICITIZED “INVENTED REALITY” IS JUST A ROUGH ‘GO-BY’ FOR THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE INEFFABLE TRANFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM AKA ‘FIELD’.

In modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, there is acknowledgement that ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’; i.e. language is not capable of capturing the ineffable ‘flow-field’ or ‘Tao’ that is all inclusive and includes us.

Nevertheless, language is useful for sharing rough articulations of our experience which expands our sense of ‘the global reality’ through our voyeur (language based) surrogate experiencing of what others have experienced. In other words, by sharing our limited personal experiences, we can enlarge our impression of the vastness of the world we share inclusion in, well beyond the limited sampling coming from our own personal experiencings.

Of course, these extensions to our picture of the world are not the same as actual first hand experience; i.e. the young well-educated virgin may know far more about the techniques of the Kama Sutra and the biological and anatomical and physiological intricacies of sexual relations, than her highly sexually experienced older sister or brother, but this only points to the huge gap between ‘experience’ and ‘knowledge’. As Heraclitus said; ‘the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding’ and ‘carnal knowledge’ (experience) is sensation based rather than intellectual abstraction based.

Language and grammar stimulated INVENTED REALITY is what the intelligent, educated ‘virgin girl’ is in possession of, and she may express great confidence as to the accuracy of her knowledge, as if such knowledge gives her an ‘understanding’ of such things even though, her ‘understanding’ is limited to an intellectual INVENTED REALITY.

There is clearly a significant gap between sensory experience based understanding and intellectual (language and grammar) based understanding, yet the WESTERN world social dynamic is primarily seen and (Western culture adherents seek to control and manage it) on the basis of intellectual media (books, newspapers, magazines and ‘radio and television broadcasts).

How often does one hear, in Western culture social intercourse; “I withhold my views on what is going on in those places and situations I have no direct experience of?” NEVER! Everyone seems to have opinions about everything and ‘never having been there or never having experienced that’ is not holding Western culture adherents back from having firm opinions about what they have no direct experience of. As with the virgin teenager who is more ‘knowledgeable’ about sex than her older highly experienced sister/brother, the former may be more trusted and influential in her highly ‘informed’ (by knowledge rather than experience) mastery of what goes on in such dynamics.

Because there is plenty of guidance in the language based media to get one ‘up to speed’ on ‘reality’ in places you have never been to and experienced for yourself; e.g. those living in a Christian culture social dynamic may have never experienced living within a Muslim social dynamic, but ‘thanks to language and grammar’, we can be highly informed on such matters’ through the Western ‘news media’. Like the virgin youth on matters of sex.

Ok, this whole belief in second hand intellectual understanding of reality, which Western culture adherents have traditionally put into an unnatural primacy over actual sensory experience, is currently collapsing, as it must; i.e. it is a ‘house of cards’ that, however useful, is not to be taken seriously; i.e. INTELLECTUAL ‘HEARSAY’ IS NOT FIT FOR, BUT IN ANY CASE TENDS TO BE, … PUT INTO AN INAPPROPRIATE PRIMACY OVER THE UNDERSTANDING COMING FROM DIRECT SENSORY EXPERIENCE. My accounts of my own personal experience of living in Libya in the 1969-72 era, could not dislodge contrary opinions of my friends back in Canada, coming from the international press, that latter seeming so much more ‘authoritative’ and globally endorsed, as if Giordano Bruno was wrong in claiming that ‘the majority has no monopoly on the truth’ as they took him to be burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome in 1600.

Just as Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) did not know what it felt like to experience starvation in pre-revolution France, there is this general shortfall of intellectual knowledge relative to sensory experience.

Western culture is an aberrant culture because it is a culture wherein, as Emerson puts it; ‘the tool [of language and grammar] runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’. Reality of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum is ineffable. While the tool of language and grammar can employ the ‘double error’ to reduce the reality of the ineffable Tao to something ‘articulable’; i.e. to thing-in-itself based sorcery, such language and grammar based reduction is not the equivalent of the reality of our actual sensory experience.

Nietzsche was a great fan of Emerson and continued to dig down where Emerson had, expressing the ‘tool running away with the workman’ problem in terms of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; i.e. in terms of the Western culture nutty belief in sorcery [our ‘nutty belief’ is where we mistake the tool’s explicit conceptualizations or ‘Wittgenstein ladders’ for ‘reality’ rather than just an expedient, abstract visualizing tool]. That is, language and grammar, as used in Western culture, give us the impression that we ‘independent beings’ endowed with the powers of sourcing actions and developments. BUT WAIT A MINUTE! THIS DOES NOT AGREE WITH MODERN PHYSICS (recall that Newtonian physics is essentially alchemy) WHICH SAYS THAT THE WORLD DYNAMIC THAT INCLUDES US IS AN INEFFABLE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (‘THE FIELD’) AND THAT WE ARE RELATIONAL FEATURES WITHIN THAT CONTINUUM AKA ‘THE TAO’.

Ok, there are many people in the world who are starving while others such as ourselves are ‘living high off the hog’ and swimming in excess. According to the ‘double error’ that is because we, as (notional) independent beings our own powers of sorcery (double error based) are the source of our own superior performance and achievements; that’s what the double error’ tells us. But we also appreciate, in an empathetic (sensation-induced) manner, stories such as ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Robin Hood’ wherein people let the quest of sustaining and restoring relational balance and harmony be their natural modus operandi. That is a very different understanding of reality as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all related).

YES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR THAT SAYS THAT WE ARE EACH THE SOURCE OF OUR ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS? — NO! LET ME CORRECT THAT REMARK I JUST MADE…. ‘THE DOUBLE ERROR’ SPEAKS OF ‘NAMING’ AS THE FIRST ERROR WHERE WE INVENT A ‘NAME’ THAT THEN SERVES, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, AS THE JUMPSTART FOUNTAIN OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. ‘NAMING’ IS NOT CONSTRAINED TO HUMAN INDIVIDUALS, ‘NAMING’ CAN BE USED TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY INSTANTIATE, NATIONS AND CORPORATIONS ETC. AS NOTIONAL INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES THAT WE CAN CONFLATE WITH GRAMMAR TO IMPUTE TO THEM POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

In other words, we can use the ‘double error of language and grammar’ to ‘turn not only humans into sorcerers’ but to turn other abstract name-instantiated concepts such as ‘nations’ and ‘corporations’ into ‘sorcerers’ (both of which we DECLARE INTO EXISTENCE IN A FORMAL NAMING CEREMONY (baptism or ‘in-corp-‘oration’), to be ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ (in some Western culture ritual manner with or without blessing them with holy water or tapping them on the shoulder with the magic sword Excalibur).

‘Sorcery’ and the ‘ego’ that accompanies it, come into being (in the language-and-grammar stimulated psyche, and nowhere else) with our use of the ‘double error’. THE INVENTED REALITY OF WESTERN CULTURAL ADHERENCY IS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS DOUBLE ERROR BASIS.

The point is, that this ‘house of cards’ INVENTED REALITY (however useful provided we do not take it ‘literally’) cannot replace the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum. It is only an intellectual tool based on a ‘double error’ of language and grammar, and that ‘double error’ serves the purpose of injecting notional local sourcing of actions and developments into language and grammar INVENTED REALITY construction.

The INVENTED REALITY … (a way of intellectually thinking about the world dynamic aka ‘reality’ that is nothing like the relational reality of our sensory experience or that of modern physics, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta) … features ‘local sourcing’ aka local ‘sorcery’ based on the abstractions of ‘being’ and ‘will’, as described by Nietzsche. NOTA BENE: These observations of Nietzsche hit the nail on the head!

* * *

WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY, TRIGGERED BY TRUMP AND FACEBOOK, IS THE COLLAPSE OF THIS HOUSE OF CARDS DOUBLE ERROR BASED INVENTED REALITY!

Western culture has constructed its (our) whole system of (discursive) ‘operative reality’ on abstraction; i.e. on a house of cards belief in ‘double error’ sorcery and associated ‘ego’.

Locally, we can operate ‘naturally’ on the basis of our sensing of inclusion in a relational reality; i.e. we don’t have to reduce our understanding to language, we can simply participate within the relational dynamics we find ourselves experientially included in, which are, at base, ineffable since we are included in them, and the voyeur views we can reduce to language are not the equivalent of our sensory experience of inclusion in the ‘ineffable’ Tao (the transforming relational continuum).

As Wittgenstein notes in his final proposition in Tractatus; “of that which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence’. (‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’).

THAT’S THE BACKGROUND TO WESTERN CULTURE ‘INVENTED REALITY’, I.E. IT’S A ‘HOUSE OF CARDS’ DOUBLE ERROR BASED CONSTRUCTION … SO NOW WHAT’S GOING ON?

HOW DID WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ESTABLISH A SINGLE REALITY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO A WHOLE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE? In other words, how did we Western culture adherents get by Giordano Bruno’s observation that “a majority has not monopoly on the truth”, and the Taoists’ “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’? Reflection shows that Lafontaine came up with the answer to this puzzle with his satirical comment; “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. The reasoning (reality) of the most powerful is always the best.”

There is no explicitly articulable ‘reality’ in our experience of inclusion in the ineffable transforming relational continuum. That’s the whole point of the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ approach and the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’, and the ‘’learning circle’ of indigenous aboriginal cultures; EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO ‘CHEAT’ WITH THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ SO AS TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY INSERT A LOCAL STARTING POINT FOR THE SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. THAT’S WHAT THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ IS ALL ABOUT.

But recall the exposure to this double error practice, articulated by Giordano Bruno and by Lafontaine; i.e. this system of INVENTING REALITY is based on nothing other than ‘common belief’, … that’s what makes it a ‘workable’ abstraction. Of course different groups of people can come up with their own ‘INVENTED REALITY’.

Reality in China or Russia is very different from reality in the U.S. and Canada. What I am referring to by the word ‘reality’ is ‘intellectual reality’, not to be confused for the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, which is in no way generalizable as the abstract intellectual reality captured in ‘double error’ terms (name-instantiated things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments).

In indigenous aboriginal cultures, in order to get to a more general understanding of ‘reality’ in a world wherein ‘everything is in flux’, there is the ‘learning circle’ wherein groups come together to share their experiences and in so doing, develop an inarticulable ‘holographic’ understanding based on the ‘constructive interference’ (coherencies) implied by the multiple experiences. This understanding from the sharing circle is not explicitly articulable, but it is intuitively comprehensible (it is relational coherency based, as in holography).

The indigenous aboriginal technique of the sharing circle protects that culture from the arbitrariness of the ‘single intellectual view’ of Western culture wherein ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.

TODAY, with the help of Facebook and the internet, the TRADITIONAL SINGLE ARTICULABLE VIEW OF REALITY (which was only sustained by political power structure) is under stress as anyone can trigger and avalanche of replications of individual ‘INVENTED REALITY’ views.

NOTA BENE: IT WAS NEVER THE CASE THAT REALITY COULD BE REDUCED TO SOMETHING EXPLICITLY ARTICULABLE, BUT IT WAS THE CASE THAT WESTERN SOCIAL DYNAMICS CULTIVATED PROCESSES WHEREBY THE MAJORITY WERE ABLE TO SUSTAIN AND PROPAGATE A SINGLE INVENTED REALITY AS A COMMON VIEW, as in ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. Note that the reality of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum is not articulable (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao).

Getting the many on the ‘same page’ with a single view of reality was facilitated by the printing press and by the invention of the loudspeaker, as bemoaned by Ivan Illich in ‘Silence is a Commons;

There is no reason to presuppose that there is a single reality since everyone’s personal experience is unique, yet also ‘real’. Nevertheless, modern communications technology tends to ride roughshod over unique personal reality and promotes a ‘common reality’, as described by Ivan Illich in ‘Silence is a Commons’;

This, of course, is what happens in Western culture, but not in cultures such as the indigenous aboriginal culture where ‘sharing circles’ are employed to co-cultivate the holographic understanding of the reality of our experiential sensations that is beyond capture in explicit ‘double error’ based terms.

That is, as individuals, our sensory experience is ‘connective’ since it is our sensing of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, however, our visual sensing is disconnective; i.e. it is ‘perspectival’ and makes us into a voyeur of the visible, … a self-other splitting that opens the way to notional self-other’ inter-active abstraction thanks to the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

Western culture uses its social power structures to select a SINGLE perspective that will be used as the basis for a politically pushed out INVENTED REALITY.

This is an ‘unstable equilibrium’ since the selection of an INVENTED REALITY on the ‘double error basis’, which is what goes on in Western culture, is inherently ambiguous, and the determination, as Illich pointed out, is controlled by whomever has control over the largest loudspeaker.

The ‘INVENTED REALITY’ problem of Western culture adherents does not arise in Cultures that make use of ‘sharing circles’ that orient their understanding of ‘reality’ to ‘experience’ rather than constructing INVENTED REALITIES on the basis of intellectualized visual perspectives.

Bohm’s point is that the visual perspective of John Wilkes Booth shooting of Abraham Lincoln is radically incomplete for being taken directly as ‘reality’. Visual perspectives DO NOT INFORM US ON REALITY. REALITY IS ACCESSIBLE BY WAY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE.

In Nietzsche’s terms it would be the ‘double error’ based pseudo-reality that is in terms of ‘sorcery’ (the abstract product of language and grammar), whereas experiential reality is ineffable as in inclusion in the transforming relational continuum. In order to get to the holographic view, we need many eyes, as Nietzsche points out. Single perspectives from which we select the one that best matches our pre-established biases is meanwhile, the Western culture basis for constructing an INVENTED REALITY. That ‘selection’ as Ivan Illich pointed out, is in our high tech world, is biased by who has access to the microphone attached to the largest loudspeakers’, …. and that is changing with technologies such as Facebook.

It’s not that Facebook is the problem per se, … the basic problem is ‘the double error’ and how it has Western culture adherents believing in ‘sorcery’. Facebook and the internet simply amplify the exposures to fallacy that are already built into Western language and grammar by way of the ‘double error’.

There is no solid foundation of ‘truth’ in a transforming relational continuum, that we can unearth and make available through the internet etc.

“What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms — in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all…” – Nietzsche -‘On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense,’

MY ‘BOTTOM LINE’ TAKE ON WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ‘TRUTH’ ON THE INTERNET

‘Truth’ in Western culture has been based on the ‘double error’ INVENTED REALITY which is essentially a belief in ‘sorcery’ (i.e. belief in name-instantiated things-in=themselves with grammar instantiated powers of sourcing actions and developments).

It has been promoted through language and speech and what prevails are those pronouncements coming through the biggest loudspeaker systems from those who have microphone access to them. The ‘state’ has traditionally had control over this and revolutionary groups have always tried to gain access to radio transmissions etc. to get their version of reality to take hold in the social collective. Today, with the internet and tools like Facebook that can facilitate a message ‘going viral’ regardless of what we call ‘the truth’, a term that is fundamentally problematic.

Of course, we may think of Trump as ‘warping the truth’, but since there is no basic truth, outside of the truth of our own experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, Trump’s ‘warping of the truth’ can be understood instead as a change in style of the usual ‘serving up double-error based fiction’ as ‘truth’. Trump has recognized that ‘speaking the truth’ is a game that is used by politicians, and he is therefore overtly conjuring up truth as he goes along, as seems to support what he himself senses are things that should be respected, protected and further developed. In other words, one can begin from an idea that appeals, such as putting up walls around one’s nation to ‘keep others out’ and retain the character of the nation as a ‘thing-in-itself’ as if ‘all that makes it great’ derives from its internal contents seen as ‘the right stuff’, … i.e. ‘what makes this nation great’. This assumes, as is standard in Western culture, the double error view wherein ‘naming’ instantiates a notional thing-in-itself (first error) conflated with grammar that (second error) imputes the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

Trump is playing the same game as has generally been played in Western cultures but he is playing it in a less subtle fashion. The double error based INVENTED REALITY is still the basic problem which has not changed. What is changing is how different people are gaining access to the double error based INVENTED REALITY game play through the internet etc. In Ivan Illich’s terms, one might say that ‘access to the microphone has been ‘democratized’. But let’s not forget Nietzsche’s point that ‘truth’ as a generalization that describes ‘what is going on out there’ DOES NOT EXIST.

There is the truth of our own personal sentient experiencing, and the possibility to pull a diversity of such experiencing into coherent confluence (as in a holographic understanding), but there is no ‘truth’ in terms of a ‘reality’ that is available to the voyeur observer, that can be linguistically articulated. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao..

When people first participant in ‘sharing circles’ they rave about the value of sharing real life relational experiences that give the circle participants deeper understanding of the REAL transforming relational continuum we are ALL situationally included in. This ‘feels’ very different than hearing each individual deliver his/her own intellectual view of the world dynamic and how ‘we all’ need address the issues of the day’, as is the way of Western ‘politics’, which is based on the belief that there is a ‘reality’ ‘out there’ that we, as ‘independently-existing things-in-ourselves’ must ‘interact’ with.

We (Western culture adherents) have been using the news media with its double error based INVENTED REALITY productions to service this Western culture adherent belief in ‘the existence of reality’, a ‘Tao that can be told’.

Even if you consider yourself to be a constant purveyor of ‘the truth’, if you are a Western culture adherent expounding on ‘reality’ as you see it, what you are claiming is ‘the objective truth’ is the ‘double error’ based truth since our language and grammar is constructed so as to deliver double error ‘truth’; i.e. ‘truth’ that is in the double error terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments. This ‘double error’ truth is intellectual abstraction that is far from the truth of our sentient experiencing.

We must ask ourselves; “Do I really believe that individuals, nations, corporations are ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments’ as in the psychological double error of Western culture? Because, if I do believe that, such a definition of ‘truth’ is totally out of whack with the relational reality of our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which innately unique and personal. In other words, there is no ‘general reality’ and Giordano Bruno was correct in observing that ‘the majority has no monopoly on the ‘truth’. Neither does, as Ivan Illich pointed out in “Silence is a Commons’, the operator of the loudest loudspeaker have a monopoly on the truth’.

What we are experiencing today, with confusion over stories being propagated on the internet, Facebook etc. and being popularized as ‘the truth’, is really an ‘exposing’ of the non-existence of ‘truth’ as coming through intellectual rhetoric, … ‘truth’ being reserved to what we learn through our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, the sort of truth that we can expand our coverage on through ‘sharing circles’ where we share heartfelt experience and NOT intellectual double-error based interpretations.

As Alexis Papazoglou observes;

As Nietzsche saw it, once we realise that the idea of an absolute, objective truth is a philosophical hoax, the only alternative is a position called “perspectivism” – the idea there is no one objective way the world is, only perspectives on what the world is like. … according to perspectivism, we agree on … things not because these propositions are “objectively true,” but by virtue of sharing the same perspective. When it comes to basic matters, sharing a perspective on the truth is easy – but when it comes to issues such as morality, religion and politics, agreement is much harder to achieve. People occupy different perspectives, seeing the world and themselves in radically different ways. These perspectives are each shaped by the biases, the desires and the interests of those who hold them; they can vary wildly, and therefore so can the way people see the world.”

“For Nietzsche, each perspective on the world will have certain things it assumes are non-negotiable – “facts” or “truths” if you like. Pointing to them won’t have much of an effect in changing the opinion of someone who occupies a different perspective.”

“A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche’s philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one’s own view on everyone else under the pretense of rationality and truth”.

Even if he was right that all we have to go by are our different perspectives on the world, he didn’t mean to imply we are doomed to live within the limits of our own biases. In fact, Nietzsche suggests that the more perspectives we are aware of, the better we can be at reaching a watered-down objective view of things.

At the end of his 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morality, he writes:

“The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our ‘concept’ of this matter, our ‘objectivity’ be.”

– Alexis Papazoglou, Royal Holloway University of London

Where do some of us get this feeling that we are in possession of the truth? And where does Western justice get this idea that in giving testimony in court, we must “Tell the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God”…. if there is no such thing as ‘truth’? Perhaps the legal counsel should instead read, that we must;

“Share our perspective, our full perspective and nothing but our perspective”.

The point being, that our ‘perspective’ is all we can share, and it is innately incomplete; i.e. we may have been an ‘eye-witness’ to Jean Valjean’s taking that loaf of bread without paying for it, but our account of that can’t be any more than an incomplete perspective, since it is without knowledge of the crying of starving children that inductively shaped the action of Jean Valjean in his action, which amounted to a kind of Robin Hood ‘rebalancing’ action. No matter how terrible the consequences of the ‘have’ – ‘have-not’ division can become (and how they can serve to build natural ‘re-balancing’ relational tensions), they do not ‘register’ in a simple visual perspective of a man taking a loaf of bread without paying for it. That is the whole point of Victor Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables’ wherein Western culture has evolved the practice of putting hard, cold logical reasoning into an unnatural precedence over the sensations of relational experiencing. ‘Truth’ and ‘falsehood’ in logical terms is limited to our particular and innately ‘incomplete’ perspective, which is Nietzsche’s point as in the above citing by Papazoglou.

News reporters who feel that they have maintained a high standard of ethics in objectively reporting on ‘newsworthy events’ are, in the Western culture present (2019) appalled at how easy it is for any individual, untrained/undisciplined in truthful reporting of newsworthy events, to spread their stories around the globe through internet applications like Facebook, where the ‘raciness’ of the telling of the story is what ‘fuels its propagation’; i.e. this is the same sort of exposure to the hijacking of ‘The Commons of silence’ by ‘access to the microphone’ as was Ivan Illich’s concern, such ‘hijacking’ having been made even more accessible by internet applications such as Facebook.

But AGAIN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO SCRUTINIZE THE NATURE OF THE ‘TRUTH’ that Western professional journalists feel they are ‘protecting’. It is is NOT THE TRUTH AT ALL, BUT ’PERSPECTIVE’.

And, the ‘problem with perspective’ is that it is intrinsically ‘incomplete’ (as Goedel’s theorem shows is an exposure in all finite systems of logic). According to our visual perspective, Jean Valjean DID take the loaf of bread without paying for it and James Wilkes Booth did shoot Lincoln, but these visual perspectives are innately incomplete in that such events are the superficial manifesting of deeper relational dynamics as in the ‘transforming relational continuum’, reminding us that ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.

Our linguistic capture of visual perspective is something we articulate as DOUBLE ERROR BASED MIS-REPRESENTATION OF THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL RELATIONAL EXPERIENCE. This double-error based misrepresentation encourages us to believe in, as if ‘real’;

NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (FIRST ERROR)

CONFLATED WITH NOTIONAL POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (SECOND ERROR)

THIS IS THE BASIS OF ‘TRUTH’ THAT WESTERN JOURNALISTS ARE ‘TRYING TO PROTECT’; I.E. IT IS EGO-BASED ABSTRACTION, AN ‘IMPOSTER’ THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN SINCE MEDIEVAL TIMES AS ‘SORCERY’. It is perspectival viewing.

The double error based powers of sorcery is the underpinning of ‘ego’ in Western culture individuals, nations and corporations.

To sum this up in a ‘one paragraph summary’.

“Western culture is a ‘crazy-maker’ that induces belief in the double error; i.e. belief in name-instantiated things-in-themselves with their own innate powers of sorcery’. Sorcerers can be humans, nations or corporations or any psychologically name-instantiated ‘organisms/organizations’. This aberrant understanding manifests in our psyche as an INVENTED REALITY that eclipses and obviates the need for understanding reality in terms of relational forms in the transforming relational continuum. The ‘double error’ façade is currently being exposed (through technological developments such as the internet and Facebook) as a contrived INVENTED REALITY by those who have demonstrated their ability to establish arbitrary pseudo-realities as the general public ‘operative reality’ (‘public opinion-shapers’). Philosophically, there is no support for the concept of one real ‘authentic reality’ so, in effect, what is being called into question is how the hell we came to believe that there is such a thing as an ARTICULABLE all-serving ‘reality’. The problem here ‘points back’ to the ‘double error’ basis of our Western culture INVENTED REALITY, … that has come into widespread use as the Western culture ‘operative reality’ which is ‘locked-in’ by ‘high switching costs’; i.e. the belief in people and nations and corporations having ‘powers of sorcery’ give them egos and has the general public (ascribing to such belief) rewarding the exceptional sorcerers with disproportionate rewards and authoritative powers over fixing or changing how the social system does its valuing and rewarding , thus ‘locking in’ the current ‘double error’ based INVENTED REALITY that is serving Western culture as its/our ‘operative reality’.

Language and grammar used in ‘double error’ mode is the crazy maker. The straight-forward use of such language must be avoided if language is used to share understanding of a relational reality that is implicit and beyond capture in explicit terms.

What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.

David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.

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’

The current problem with ‘anything goes reality manufacturing’ produced by way of the ‘double error’ (belief in the concept of ‘things-in-themselves’ with powers of sorcery) is simply bringing back to our surface awareness, the ineffability of the sensory relations basis of the reality of our actual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

The cat is out of the bag (‘reality’ is being cheapened by anyone being able to author it through technologies such as internet/Facebook) ‘the ‘powers that be’ (those WE have been giving disproportionate influence over the design and adjustments to the social system on the basis of their perceived ‘superior powers of sorcery’) may have difficulty in putting it back in the bag so as to recover/sustain ‘control’ over ‘what is reality’; i.e. retaining the belief in ‘sorcery’ as the basis for rewards and recognition.

The key points in the above analysis are;

-1- Western culture adherents belief in ‘sorcery’ (it is implicit in ‘the double error’).

-2- The exceptional sorcerers have more than average influence over any alterations being made to our sorcery-based INVENTED REALITY that we Western culture adherents are using as our ‘operative reality’ (Note that this Western culture double error based INVENTED REALITY is radically in disagreement with the relational reality of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

-3- There is a need to soften ‘Truth’ to ‘Perspective’ as in such perspectives as ‘Jean Valjean took a loaf of bread without paying for it. As we know, all finite systems of logic a innately incomplete (as Geoedel’s Theorem shows).

-4- REALITY; i.e. the reality of our sentient experience of inclusion as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum. This all-including transforming relational continuum is also known as ‘the Tao that can’t be told’ (directly). In other words, we are limited to a voyeur observer ‘perspective’ that splits apart observer and observed, and the way to get to an understanding of reality that ‘we are included in’ and which is not simply ‘out there’ for scrutiny by our voyeur viewing senses, is by such ‘holographic imaging’ techniques as ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ and/or the ‘sharing circle’ of indigenous aboriginal cultures.

-5- FACEBOOK is helping us to blow a hole in the hull of the ship we have been sailing in which has had us believing in the existence of an articulable ‘reality’. NOTA BENE, … indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents never did believe, as Western culture adherents have believed, that there is a real, language and grammar articulable ‘objective reality’ ‘out there’ apart from ourselves that we can capture in our voyeur viewing and linguistic articulations. FACEBOOK is an expedient tool for users to fabricate their own ‘reality’ from and sharing it with masses of others. The popularity of such individual fabricated ‘reality’ is on the basis of how it ‘tickles the fancy’ of the general public, and there is no need for any ‘factual grounding’.

-6- WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEED FOR FACTUAL GROUNDING IN REALITY? One has to refer to Nietzsche’s comment on ‘perspectivism’; i.e. there is no ‘one reality’ available to the individual, there are only ‘perspectives’. In Western culture, what has served as ‘reality’ is the perspective of ‘the most powerful’; i.e. “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure”. Therefore, Western culture method of establishing ‘reality’ based on individual ‘perspective’ has always been a house of cards waiting to collapse. This exposure is not present in those cultures that assumed, ‘from the get-go’, that reality is an all-including ‘flow’ (the Tao), and therefore not something we can ‘get outside of’ and study ‘objectively’ in ‘voyeur of the visible’ mode. REALITY AS AN EXPLICIT, ARTICULABLE WORLD OF STRUCTURES DOES NOT EXIST. WESTERN REALITY IS AN ‘INVENTED REALITY’ BASED ON THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

-7- The Western culture traditionalists who have believed that there is an objective reality, have been basing such reality on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; i.e. on the abstract notion of ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments. (human beings, nation-beings, corporation-beings). Such beliefs in abstraction are why ‘Les Miserables’ etc. were written, to expose the innately limited form of understanding that comes from perspectival viewing (the splitting out of the observer from the observed and giving him the ‘crows-eye’ judgemental view, suggestive of Van Gogh’s mental conflicts). The sense of inclusion in nature is note ‘explicitly’ capturable with the ‘perspectival’ (voyeur) view, as noted by Nietzsche re the need for multiple perspectives to impute the ‘deeper reality’ of one’s inclusion based sentient experience that lies innately beyond perspective viewing and linguistic articulating as in ‘double error’ based constructions.

The ‘bottom line’ is that explicit articulations of ‘reality’ (reality that is common to all) have never been on a ‘solid footing’ but are popularized by majority support, often stimulated by an influential figure such as a king or priest or magician or even by a ‘magic sword’ (Excalibur). The ‘double error’ based ‘pseudo-reality’ is an INVENTED REALITY that is ‘whatever is supported by a majority. When Christians colonized the Americas, they brought their style of INVENTED REALITY with them (us) and it has never been ‘bought into’ by indigenous aboriginals, whose relational understanding is upheld by modern physics, an understanding that Western culture adherents haven’t picked up on due to ‘lock-in-by high switching costs’ i.e. the Western culture social structures and reward/punishment systems are based on a belief in ‘sorcery’.

* * *

Interrupting Western Culture’s Continuing Descent into Psychosis

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Archives

Recent APNewsletter Posts

Recent Ted's Blog Posts

Most Recent Comments

Related 'Inclusionality' Links

Search APNewsletter Site

Login

History/Credits