Living a life of productivity and purpose, … does that sound appealing to us?

How about; living in (and co-cultivating) inspiring surroundings which continually beckon us to ‘rise to the occasion’ to fill a need that we had never contemplated would ‘call us to action’?

This is NOT an EITHER/OR question because we experience both the internal self-asserting ‘purpose and internal ‘’getting fired up’ with a personal achievement drive’ and we also experience the world calling to us to ‘rise to an occasion’ not of our own making, but a calling that INSPIRES us, where the FIRING UP is outside-inwardly SE-ductive as contrasted with inside-outwardly-PRO-ductive.

 

But just as EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST and ‘never the twain shall meet’, … we may fall into the PROUD BOYS mode of placing in the highest priority, GETTING THINGS DONE THAT NEED GETTING DONE AND GETTING THEM DONE PROPERLY, or then again, we may fall into the INSPIRED FEMALE mode of throwing ourselves body and soul into something that ARISES OUT OF THE BLUE that CALLS TO US  to throw ourselves ‘body and soul’ into ‘the vacuum’ of some needed action; e.g. to rescue the child being carried away in the raging rapids or to join others in pushing the car safely off the railway tracks before the train arrives.   We have BOTH PROUD MALE and INSPIRED FEMALE CAPACITIES which have been contrasted by the differing roles of the chicken and pig in an egg and bacon breakfast.

In our WESTERN CULTURE, there seems to be a MALE-FEMALE association with involvement and commitment.  The expression ‘My father was a famous engineer, my mother had no name’ underscores the fact that WESTERN CULTURE VALUES  tend to be TILTED to MALE-ASSERTIVE “PRODUCTIVITY AND PURPOSE” whereas EASTERN CULTURE VALUES tend to be TILTED to FEMALE INCLUSION and MAKING WHOLE” (FILL-FULLMENT).

This MALE and FEMALE ‘topological’ difference between INVOLVEMENT and  COMMITMENT has been captured in the following aphorism;

Question: In a bacon-and-egg breakfast, what’s the difference between the Chicken and the Pig?

Answer: The Chicken is involved, but the Pig commits! (has ‘skin in the game’)

THE PROUD BOY “INVOLVEMENT” can lead to Living a life of productivity and purpose,

THE INSPIRED FEMALE “COMMITMENT” can lead to Living a life of inspiration-induced fulfillment.

* * *

These are not simply TWO SEPARATE and POLAR OPPOSITE CHOICES as our expression of them in English language makes it seem, but they are instead a CONIUNCTIO OPPOSITORUM which has been depicted in medieval era by the Ouroborus, the snake that is continually TRANSFORMING that appears to be consuming itself by continually swallowing its own tail, a symbolic representation of TRANSFORMATION.

The POINT IS, HOLD UP ON THIS QUESTION OF “WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE;

”EITHER” THE PROUD BOY orientation to productivity and purpose, … “OR” the INSPIRED FEMALE orientation to inspiration-induced fulfillment..

WHY “HOLD UP?” … because our language is only capable of simple representations based on the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, as Nietzsche has pointed out, where we make DOUBLE ERROR propositions like; ‘The TOWN is GROWING’ when the REAL REALITY is that the LANDSCAPE IS TRANSFORMING and THERE IS NO ‘TOWN-THING-IN-ITSELF’ that we get the impression ‘exists’ and ‘grows larger and more populous’ from our DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR based constructions.

WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED HERE is that these APPARENT choices ARE NOT REAL; i.e.

THE PROUD BOY “INVOLVEMENT”: – Living a life of productivity and purpose,

THE INSPIRED FEMALE “COMMITMENT”’ –Living a life of inspiration-induced fulfillment

because they are the psychological-inferential artifacts of a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO based abstraction of reality, and when we try to express the reality of TRANSFORMATION by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, we have to SPLIT TRANSFORMATION (the primary reality which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT as is the nature of the Wave-field aka the Tao) INTO TWO, which is where the MALE and FEMALE CONJUGATES comes from which are EFFABLE-because-LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

It’s NOT REALLY that the MOUNTAIN is slumping down and filling in the valley, just because we NAMED the MOUNTAIN the MOUNTAIN and NAMED the VALLEY the VALLEY as if the ONE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE could be REDUCED  to TWO SEPARATE COMPONENTS.  The DISCRIMINATING power of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR is great for EFFABLE-izing the, IN-REALITY, “INEFFABLE”, and such CONTRIVANCE is what makes LANGUAGE possible because there is no way to capture, in EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, the REAL REALITY of the transforming relational continuum;

As Lao Tzu observes, “the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” and that is because the REALITY (aka the Tao aka the Wave-field) is the all-including transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.

With this ‘in mind’, lets come back to our two CHOICES OF REPRESENTING (in the limited tool of language) the REALITY of the transforming relational continuum;

THE PROUD BOY “INVOLVEMENT”: – Living a life of productivity and purpose,

THE INSPIRED FEMALE “COMMITMENT”’ –Living a life of inspiration-induced fulfillment

NEITHER OF THESE “POSSIBLE MODES OF OPERATIION” SEEMINGLY AVAILABLE TO US, ARE “REAL”.  BOTH ARE ‘DOUBLE ERRORS OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR as we might associate with the activities of MOUNTAIN and VALLEY or HURRICANE and ATMOSPHERE.

Which do we prefer for our understanding of TRANSFORMATION; the Mountain lives a life of productivity and purpose by filling in the Valley, or the Valley lives a life of inspiration-induced fulfillment by seducing the mountain?

TRANSFORMATION IS CONTINUOUS and is NATURE’s FUNDAMENTAL DYNAMIC; i.e. it it is the all-including Wave-field dynamic aka the Tao.  LANGUAGE based REPRESENTATION has the challenge of trying to REPRESENT something that is ALL-INCLUDING and thus that is not accessible to VISUAL REPRESENTATION.  That is, we can visually observe one another and see how we are included in the TRANSFORMATION but since everything is in flux, there is no way to RE-PRESENT TRANSFORMATION with any fixed structure representation as is the basis of words in language or photographic views or vistas or anything that captures PERSISTING FORM/S.

What we could do is to capture a number of visual pictures such as volcanic eruptions from the earth and also capture subduction where the earth is swallowing some of itself, in an ouroborical fashion such that our intuition comes to the rescue and puts these visual-picturable representations together in the mind as an IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING of the non-EXPLICITLY PICTURABLE TRANSFORMATION.   In this case we don’t actually SEE TRANSFORMATION, but we INTUIT TRANSFORMATION because we can’t SEE the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM that we and everything are INCLUDED IN.

TRANSFORMATION is a dynamic wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE in which case the EARTH and the SPACE are ONE (the material aspect is a precipitation of the Wave-field, as Einstein points out, so that there is no ABSOLUTE SPACE that is separate from notional ‘material things-in-themselves’).

Space is not Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.”…”Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.” . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Einstein.

YES BUT HOW CAN WE USE LANGUAGE FOR REPRESENTATIONS WHEN EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX AND WHERE “THINGS” are RELATIONAL FORMS IN THE FLOW?  FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO WE SPEAK OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH?

WHO SAYS ‘THE EARTH MOVES’?  That is already the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

Poincaré has the following to say about such abstractions as ‘THE EARTH MOVES’, pointing out that this FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO abstraction is something we fabricate with the DOUBLE ERROR because it SIMPLIFIES the representing of reality, as Kepler also pointed out, it is a case of opting NOT FOR THAT WHICH IS MOST TRUE BUT THAT WHICH IS MOST EASY.  In Poincaré’s words;

And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language. . This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion

Likewise, it is easier to speak of the EARTH AUTHORING VOLCANIC EXTRUSIONS and the EARTH AUTHORING SUBDUCTIONS OF ITS OWN CRUSTAL MATERIAL, when the reality is that THERE IS NO “EARTH” THING-IN-ITSELF that has the powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of EXTRUSIONS and SUBDUCTIONS, there is TRANSFORMATION aka the Wave-field dynamic that is NONLOCAL and RELATIONAL, however, just as; It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language”, … it is more convenient to say that the EARTH is the AUTHOR of both EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION since thus the laws of physics are expressible in a much simpler language.

OK, having exposed that EXPEDIENT SHORT CUT we are using in our language based representation, lets return to our exploration of these two ‘opposites’ (extrusion and subduction) while asking ourselves how TRANSFORMATION might fit in here, since it seems that our language based representations are always trying to AVOID TRANSFORMATION, and instead making use of representations in terms of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES and HOW DIFFERENT THINGS HAVE DIFFERENT MODES OF AUTHORING POWER, IN PARTICULAR, the MALE and FEMALE different forms of AUTHORING POWER.

THE PROUD BOY “INVOLVEMENT”: – Living a life of productivity and purpose,

THE INSPIRED FEMALE “COMMITMENT”’ –Living a life of inspiration-induced fulfillment

NOTICE ANY UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTIONS HERE?

How about the FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO assumption wherein the MALE AUTHORS ASSERTIVE PURPOSEFUL PRODUCTION while the FEMALE AUTHORS INDUCTIVE FULL-FILLMENT?

Does the HURRICANE stir up (AUTHOR) the ATMOSPHERE or does the ATMOSPHERE stir up (AUTHOR) the HURRICANE?

Here is that AMBIGUITY of AUTHORING SOURCE that comes with the abstract reduction of reality representations to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO; i.e. is it inside-outward (MALE-ASSERTIVE) AUTHORING or is it outside-inward (FEMALE-SEDUCTIVE) AUTHORING?

These TWO CONJUGATE POLAR OPPOSITES OF MALE AND FEMALE AUTHORING SOURCE offer us a CRUDE means within the context of DOUBLE ERROR (naming-and-grammar) language-based representation, of triggering a psychological impression of TRANSFORMATION, but THIS BIPOLAR TRICKERY OPENS THE DOOR TO CONFUSING AMBIGUITY as in the example of HURRICANE (MALE) and ATMOSPHERE (FEMALE),… WHICH STIRS UP WHICH?

PICK YOUR OWN FAVORITE, … THIS IS HOW PEOPLE DIVIDE INTO CONSERVATIVE (hurricane/individual stirs up atmosphere/social collective) AND LIBERAL (atmosphere/social-collective stirs up hurricane/individual) POLAR OPPOSING FACTIONS.

ALL OF THIS POLARIZATION IS BECAUSE THE REALITY OF TRANSFORMATION IS BEYOND CAPTURE IN OUR DOUBLE ERROR (NAMING AND GRAMMAR) BASED LANGUAGE REPRESENTATION OPTION, or, in other words;

… It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language.

The following MESSAGE is pointing to the origin of much WESTERN CULTURE CONFUSION deriving from SIMPLIFICATIONS of convenience that WE (as a social collective have agreed to make)  have made and have forgotten about having made;

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

MAJOR POINT OF NOTE:

Language-based representation falls short of being able to represent TRANSFORMATION so we have a WORK-AROUND for using language that implies LOCAL SOURCING in lieu of TRANSFORMATION, … IN EITHER OF TWO DIFFERENT (MALE and FEMALE CONJUGATE) APPROACHES, NEITHER OF WHICH REPRESENT “REALITY” which is TRANSFORMATION

In the example of the TRANSFORMING ATMOSPHERE which we can REPRESENT in EITHER of TWO WAYS; (a) in the MALE terms where the HURRICANE is said to be authoring the stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE, and (b) in the FEMALE terms where the ATMOSPHERE is said to be authoring the stirring up of the HURRICANE.   In reality, there is no LOCAL AUTHORING of any such MALE or FEMALE dynamics, THAT IS ALL TALK, there is only TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and RELATIONAL.

Because we use language that we can simplify by simplifying our representations of reality; e.g. … It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language, … we FALL INTO THE TRAP of confusing our own simplified REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY for “REALITY” which is where the ambiguity of the MALE and FEMALE representations come in.  This ambiguity arises when we reduce FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE wherein ‘the ATMOSPHERING is HURRICANING’ to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, where we introduce the abstraction of AUTHORING as where the ATMOSPHERE IS AUTHORING a NAMING-instantiated LOCAL BEING, ‘the HURRICANE’ with the GRAMMAR-given powers of AUTHORING a ‘stirring up of’ the ATMOSPHERE (One can picture the Ouroborus in this.)

In our attempt to escape the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and thus INEFFABLE nature of TRANSFORMATION, we end up inventing an OUROBORUS by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

So, on our attempt to develop a language-based REPRESENTATION of TRANSFORMATION which is AUTHORLESS CHANGE, we introduce a MALE-FEMALE OUROBORICAL type of AUTHORING AMBIGUITY, as Nietzsche points out;

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

So, because of the limitations of language and our need to capture some sort of language-based representation of inherently NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION by gosh or by golly, we resort to constructing REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY based on NOTIONAL LOCAL AUTHORS of actions and developments which gives us TWO CONJUGATE OPTIONAL WAYS OF ‘BREAKING INTO NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION’ and fabricating a MALE ASSERTING LOCAL SOURCING option or a FEMALE-INDUCING LOCAL SOURCING OPTION (the male-assertive HURRICANE that stirs up the ATMOSPHERE and the female-inductive ATMOSPHERE that stirs up the HURRICANE)..

As it turns out, SOME OF US prefer the MALE-ASSERTIVE LOCAL (aka ‘conservative’) SOURCING OPTION and OTHERS OF US prefer the FEMALE-INDUCTIVE (aka ‘liberal’) LOCAL SOURCING OPTION.  EITHER WAY, we SIDESTEP the obstacle of the INEFFABLE nature of TRANSFORMATION.

THE FALLOUT, however, is that in the pursuit of the simplest form of representation, WE ERR;…   “…it frequently happens that the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy. And by that division in things which makes different people form different judgements, it so happens that certain people are in error contrary to their own opinion.” – Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’

HEY, WE ARE FORGETTING THAT THE CONSERVATIVE SIMPLIFICATION IN TERMS OF INDIVIDUAL BASED LOCAL SOURCING AND THE LIBERAL SIMPLIFICATION IN TERMS OF THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE BASED LOCAL SOURCING. … ARE BOTH WRONG, because they were only ‘good for use as tools of inference’ or Wittgenstein ladders that we could use to INFER the INEFFABLE TRANSFORMATION which, because it is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, lies beyond language-based expression in LOCAL and EXPLICIT terms.

If our propositions are in terms of the LOCAL AND EXPLICIT, they do not speak of reality since reality is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, but it is nevertheless possible to employ the LOCAL and EXPLICIT to INFER the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, as Wittgenstein has pointed out;

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

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

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

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

OK, ‘NUFF SAID’, The above commentary seeks to share the understanding that, while TRANSFORMATION is our sense-experience REALITY (of inclusion therein), our language-based representations CAN’T DIRECTLY GET THERE, and we must fall back on using language in an INTERFERENTIAL MODE, but one must not forget to make the intuitive leap of INFERENCE.   Where things become confused where we make the MISTAKE of regarding the LOCAL and EXPLICIT propositions of language as if they were capable of representing REALITY “DIRECTLY”.  As Wittgenstein points out, our propositions are only good for INFERRING REALITY (as TRANSFORMATION) since TRANSFORMATION lies innately beyond the representational capability of DOUBLE ERROR based logical propositions based on NAMING and GRAMMAR.

AUTHOR’S SCHOLIUM

All of the above text was a philosophical exploration pivoting from a lead-in dichotomy;

Living a life of productivity and purpose, … does that sound appealing to us?

How about; living in (and co-cultivating) inspiring surroundings which continually beckon us to ‘rise to the occasion’ and fill a need that we had never contemplated would ‘call us to action’?

The point of the exploration is that these two BIPOLAR OPTIONS are abstract REPRESENTATIONS that constitute a MALE and FEMALE approach to INFERRING that which lies beyond direct and explicit expression; i.e. TRANSFORMATION which, while it is the REALITY of our sensory experience of inclusion therein, is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (since TRANSFORMATION is where everything is in flux).

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have become distracted by POLARIZING DISPUTES that arise from MISTAKING these BIPOLAR SUBSTITUTE REALITY OPTIONS (based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO) for “REALITY”.  NEITHER are REALITY!  REALITY is TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as in the relational dynamics of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE.  WESTERN CULTURE social polarization derives when we employ FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO based representations of reality since these abstract representations are INNATELY AMBIGUOUS in a MALE and FEMALE sense (i.e. does the HURRICANE stir up the ATMOSPHERE or does the ATMOSPHERE stir up the HURRICANE).  The answer is NEITHER because reality is TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (HURRICANE AND ATMOSPHERE ARE ONE), … while the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO conceptualizing derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

It is a case of language’s inability to capture TRANSFORMATION in ONE rendering and the associated use of DOUBLE ERROR representations which are of TWO AMBIGUOUS MALE and FEMALE types of representation.  If you prefer to think that ‘the HURRICANE stirs up the ATMOSPHERE, go for it and become part of the conservative group, and if you prefer to think that ‘the ATMOSPHERE stirs up the HURRICANE’, go for it and become part of the liberal group.  Or, in you prefer NOT to become a member of a polarized grouping, hold out for TRANSFORMATION which avoids the polar break-out.  In understanding reality as TRANSFORMING, THE CONCEPT OF LOCAL AUTHORING FALLS AWAY AND WITH IT THE TWO TYPES OF EGO, INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR-EGO AS IN THE CONSERVATIVE POLAR GROUPING AND SOCIAL COLLECTIVE-AUTHOR-EGO AS IN THE LIBERAL POLAR GROUPING.

In the transforming relational continuum, LOCAL AUTHORING is nowhere to be found, having been an abstract precipitate of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

* * *