Migrating From BEING-based to TRANSFORMATION-based Language

hi X

re our brief discussion on ‘what I am working on’, here is a ‘bit’ more of an explanation.

We live in a world that is continually TRANSFORMING and it makes sense to devise a LANGUAGE to share our experiences in it, that is capable of dealing with TRANSFORMATION and that is what the indigenous aboriginals did and when they talk in terms of STRANDS IN A WEB, they are capturing the INTERCONNECTIONS and INTERDEPENDENCIES that are an innate aspect of the ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM that we share inclusion in.   As Zen scholar Alan Watts has pointed out, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS made a big mistake by giving the abstration of “BEING” a foundational role in our LANGUAGE based conceptualizing scheme.  For example we are stuck with saying things like ‘The avalanche crashed down the mountainside and spilled into the valley below’.   FINE, except that THE MOUNTAIN IS NO LONGER THE SAME MOUNTAIN WHEN THE AVALANCHE MATERIAL BREAKS OFF, and THE VALLEY IS NO LONGER THE SAME VALLEY as it fills up with AVALANCHE DEBRIS.  The REALITY is, as Heraclitus rightly said, “EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX” because we are living in a TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR LANGUAGE HERE?   As Zen scholar Alan Watts points out (and many others), it is not wise to use a language design that gives a foundational role to “BEING” when the world we are trying to capture with such language is a TRANSFORMING WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN CONTINUAL FLUX.  This is the problem that those working on Modern physics RAN INTO in their documenting of their philosophical investigations. For example, David Bohm, author of the 1980 classic Physics text “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”) observed the following, as cited by his associate F. David Peat;

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’

So, we are living in a world where EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and where “THINGS” including people, are “CONDENSATIONS of the all-including ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM aka WAVE-FIELD” in which case these CONDENSATIONS are INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT, a reality that indigenous aboriginals capture in their flow-based language as follows, and I will juxtapose this with the Modern physics understanding to highlight the common understanding that we are included condensations in an energy-charged PLENUM in which case everyone is in some way INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT;

MODERN PHYSICS:   Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” (David Bohm).    [the CONDENSATION of the PLENUM is “BOTH” itself “AND” the PLENUM it is included in]

INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURE: Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.” (Chief Seattle)

Here we can see why indigenous aboriginal JUSTICE is RESTORATIVE because as strands in an interconnected and interdependent web, there is NO SUCH THING AS A LOCAL AUTHOR of its own actions and development, as is the WESTERN CULTURE ASSUMPTION that comes from assuming the existence of INDEPENDENT “BEINGS” that purportedly move about and interact within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE which is what our WESTERN CULTURE has built into our LANGUAGE and UNDERSTANDING and our PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE SYSTEM where we identify, punish and eliminate BAD BEINGS  and identify, reward and celebrate (proliferate) GOOD BEINGS.

I want to make the point that THIS IS A BIG SCREW-UP THAT WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE NOT RESOLVED in which case we continue to experience PROBLEMS that would never happen in an indigenous aboriginal community or a Taoist/Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta community where the understanding is, consistent with Modern physics, that we live in a transforming relational continuum wherein “Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm … and where everything is interconnected and interdependent so that we are like STRANDS IN A WEB where, when the one strand GOES BONKERS and authors some mass killings, it is wise to keep in mind that Man is merely a strand in the web  so that his own actions are NOT SIMPLY “LOCAL AND EXPLICIT” and AUTHORED BY HIMSELF but are “NONLOCALLY AND IMPLICITLY” INFORMED by the WEB (even if one VIOLENTLY DANCING STRAND catches our eye and our LANGUAGE supports our saying “See what that STRAND is doing!”, this does NOT OVER-RIDE the physical reality wherein the WEB IS THE AUTHOR of “WHAT THE STRAND IS DOING”.   “THE WEB IS THE AUTHOR” is likewise the case for THEFT, MURDER and RAPE which is why RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is employed in indigenous aboriginal culture, in all such cases (the ACTIVE STRAND is the “CONDUIT” FOR WEB-SOURCED ACTION WHILE THE WEB IS THE “AUTHOR”).

NOTA BENE:  What we see here is the understanding that what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS commonly speak of as LOCAL, EXPLICIT actions of the VIOLENT STRAND, are IN REALITY, the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT dynamics of the WEB, and ONLY APPEAR to be LOCAL and EXPLICIT (the dynamics of the STRAND).   The WORLD IS LIKE THIS and what we tend to forget is Goedel’s Theorem of the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite logical propositions. YES, the STRAND IS FLAPPING ABOUT, THAT IS TRUE.   IT IS TRUE, but as with all LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS ACCORDING TO GOEDEL’S THEOREM, IT IS INCOMPLETE AND THUS IS NOT GIVING US THE FULL STORY which includes the fact that the WEB DYNAMIC is the source of the VIOLENT ACTION OF THE STRAND, … which translates into … the social collective is the source of the VIOLENT ACTION of the individual.  In the indigenous aboriginal culture, the understanding is that the social collective (THE WEB) is the nonlocal and implicit source of (THE STRAND’S) local and explicit venting of VIOLENCE.

Justice must therefore be RESTORATIVE as it is in indigenous aborginal culture since the SOURCE of the VIOLENT ACTION is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational and coming from the WEB) and merely VENTS THROUGH THE STRAND.   This IS AT ODDS WITH the PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE of WESTERN CULTURE which FOCUSES ONLY ON THE VIOLENCE OF THE LOCAL, EXPLICIT STRAND which the OBSERVER MAY PSYCHOLOGICALLY ISOLATE, seeing it as if it were the FULL and SOLE AUTHOR of the VIOLENCE.   While the STRAND IN THE WEB structure opens up the possibility (more accurately the probability) that the VIOLENT ENERGY that is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (WEB-SOURCED) will “MAKE ITS APPEARANCE” as LOCAL and EXPLICIT (STRAND-SOURCED) VIOLENCE.

While the former RESTORATIVE JUSTICE UNDERSTANDING derives from the awareness of interconnection and interdependence of actions as in the STRAND-in-the-WEB relation, where the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE CO-AUTHORS THE VIOLENT ACTION, … the latter WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE UNDERSTANDING derives from the MISTAKEN NOTION that there is a LOCAL, EXPLICIT AUTHOR of the VIOLENCE, a MISTAKE that Nietzsche has pointed out derives from a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which ESTABLISHES THE IMPRESSION OF LOCAL, EXPLICIT AUTHORING, and by so-doing, SHUTS OUT the less simple AWARENESS OF THE OVER-RIDING NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (RELATIONAL) WEB-SOURCING INFLUENCE.

TOO MANY WORDS?  A SIMPLE SUM-UP is as follows;

In the Modern physics and indigenous aboriginal “REALITY” where everything is RELATED so that OUR LOCAL, EXPLICIT ACTIONS ARE SHAPED BY THE NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT INFLUENCES OF THE ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM, we cannot PUNISH or REWARD INDIVIDUALS as if they were INDEPENDENT when they are in fact STRANDS in an INTERCONNECTING, INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONAL WEB.

We must REJECT the WESTERN CULTURE SIMPLIFIED AND MISTAKEN “PSEUDO-REALITY” where everything is deemed “INDEPENDENT” where our PURPORTED LOCAL, EXPLICIT “SELF-AUTHORED” ACTIONS have given rise to a system of REWARDING and PUNISHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, which is INAPPROPRIATE, CONFLICT GENERATING and DYSFUNCTIONAL being that we live in a STRANDS-IN-THE-WEB REALITY characterized by INTERCONNECTEDNESS and MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

X, this is just ONE of the changes in thinking we have to make in switching from our regular Newtonian physics based worldview to Modern physics based worldview, and it is NOT COMING QUICKLY because we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are LOCKED IN TO OUR SIMPLE-MINDED BINARY LOGIC based WORLDVIEW by the HIGH SWITCHING COSTS THAT ARE INVOLVED.

For example, the concept of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments HAS TO GO, but as we know, our WESTERN CULTURE REWARDS AND RECOGNITION SYSTEMS as well as our PUNISHMENT AND DENIGRATION SYSTEMS are based on BELIEF IN LOCAL AUTHORING.   In Modern physics, AUTHORING IS understood as NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational).   For example, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS speak and think of things in terms of OUR OWN POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS; e.g. WE FETCHED OYSTERS from NANOOSE BAY.  But this is just the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING ASPECT and there’s also a FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE which the indigenous aboriginals would include; .e.g WE WAITED FOR 9 days for the LOW TIDE that made it possible for us to FETCH OYSTERS from NANOOSE BAY.   One might say, “To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose” but we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are in the HABIT of SPEAKING AS IF IT IS ALL ABOUT OURSELVES AND WHAT WE DO, as with WE FETCHED OYSTERS from NANOOSE BAY.   This is where we bump into, once again, Goedel’s Theorem of the INCOMPLETENESS OF ALL FINITE LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS.  This here is an example of an INCOMPLETENESS in our LOGICAL PROPOSITION that WE FETCHED OYSTERS FROM NANOOSE BAY, in that it made no mention of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED which was that we had to hang around for a week for a low tide that facilitated our gaining easy access to the oyster beds.

Indigenous aboriginals traditionally used flow-based languages that GET IT RIGHT while we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have inherited the JUDAIC, CHRISTIAN, ISLAMIC practice of using language with a BINARY LOGIC base, which has come from the religious concept of GOOD and EVIL and HEAVEN and EARTH.  Neither Modern physics NOR indigenous aboriginal languages use BINARY LOGIC.  IT DUMBS THINGS DOWN because in NATURE we have RESONANCE and DISSONANCE which is RELATIONS based but no “EITHER GOOD OR BAD” which is “BEING” based.  There is no foundational role for BEING in MODERN PHYSICS nor in indigenous aboriginal culture because EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX.  So, in indigenous aboriginal culture, one can say that THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE but one cannot say ‘THE TOWN IS GROWING’ because that gives a foundational role to the ABSTRACTION OF BEING and that is not possible in either MODERN PHYSICS nor in indigenous aboriginal understanding;

As the Anishinabe say, … in the real world of our sense-experience, there is no place for BINARY LOGIC (in WESTERN CULTURE, BINARY LOGIC  is the source of DIVISION, FRAGMENTATION and STRIFE);

“At the core of our spiritual beings we make no artificial distinction between the sacred and the profane. Unlike Western culture, we have not suffered through that artificial separation”

https://anishinabeknews.ca/2015/05/13/divergence-traditional-aboriginal-spirituality-and-mother-earth/

 According to Tomoko Masuzawa, any cosmology without a sacred–profane binary was rendered invisible by the field of religious studies, privileging Christianity [and Islam and Judaism] at the expense of non-Christian systems because the binary was supposed to be “universal”,  –Wikipedia

* * * * * * * * * * *

X, this is an intro to what one gets into in studying language that is capable our describing our world which is a TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka a wave-field based world which requires as less simple LANGUAGE than the LANGUAGE we are using, which has gotten progressively simplified.  For example, we used to say things like Shakespeare’s “there is a tide in the affairs of man, which, taken on the flood, leads to good stuff but, if MISSED, can leave one up shit’s creek” (excuse my Shakespeare).

X, we need to change our language but we are unable to do so.  The SYSTEMS SCIENCES would describe this as being LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS.   For example BINARY LOGIC is too simple and has to go but we have built it into our popular language and into our PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE SYSTEM and it is ubiquitous in the holy scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, … although indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents all get along fine with the less simple NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM which is FLOW-BASED and is consistent with Bohm’s Rheomode language, a flow-based language which was developed out of the necessity, in Modern physics, of avoiding DEPENDENCE ON BEING, an avoidance that involves the REMOVAL of all usage of BEING so as to UNBLOCK the openings that need upgrading to the more fluid TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

BEYOND THIS POINT, THERE IS MORE TEXT WHICH DELVES DEEPER INTO THE DIFFERENCE IN UNDERSTANDING COMING FROM MODERN PHYSICS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS, TAOISTS/BUDDHISTS and ADVAITA VEDANTA, which require LESS SIMPLE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS that are NOT ACCESSIBLE when we are using LANGUAGE that has a BINARY LOGIC based foundation because BINARY LOGIC, while supportive of BEING based CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF REALITY, is TOO SIMPLE to support FLOW-BASED REALITY.   That is, BINARY LOGIC supports EITHER/OR CONJECTURE but what we need is BOTH/AND LOGIC OF THE INCLUDING MEDIUM which can deal with the all-including ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM wherein material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the PLENUM.  As is evident, the relationship between the CONDENSATIONS of the PLENUM and the PLENUM is BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM based.

So X, that’s my intro to this topic, which is alive and operative in our society but NOT MAKING MUCH HEADWAY because, as mentioned, WE ARE LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS such as WESTERN CULTURE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN THE BINARY LOGIC OF GOOD AND BAD, which in order to accommodate the less simple conceptualizations of indigenous aboriginal cultures and Modern physics would REQUIRE THE SWAPPING OUT of the BEING BASED FOUNDATION and the SWAPPING IN of the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM that supports less simple relational conceptualizations (e.g. RELATIONAL DISSONANCE AND RELATIONAL RESONANCE/HARMONY are using NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM.

Imagine the example of the swimmers in a water ballet team who are emulating the opening of a Lotus blossom.  Here the forming of the blossom is purely RELATIONAL and without an ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME to isolate and judge the movement of an ‘individual performer’ as being EITHER good OR bad.  In this case we can only ‘judge’ group performance in terms of relational HARMONY and DISSONANCE.  “RESTORATIVE JUSTICE” orients to the restoring of relational HARMONY of the group since the understanding is ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ‘everything is related’ (interconnected and interdependent).

In treating of phenomena in RELATIONAL rather in in BEING based terms we have the NONBINARY OPPOSITES of HARMONIOUS RELATIONS and DISSONANT RELATIONS where RESTORATIVE JUSTICE strives to, WITHOUT HAVING TO ELIMINATE BAD BEINGS and REPLACING them with GOOD BEINGS, subsume DISSONANCE and promote HARMONY.   While WESTERN CULTURE JUSTICE is PURIFICATIONIST and operates using language based NAMING to IMPUTE BEING to relational forms and then conflates this first error (as Nietzsche refers to it) with the second error of GRAMMAR to tag some BEINGS as BAD BEINGS and some BEINGS as GOOD BEINGS, setting the stage for the use of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS to effect ELIMINATIONS and REPLACEMENTS.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS NOTE shares a variety of examples BASED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLES of GETTING RID OF BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM and INSTEAD employing NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM as has been done by indigenous aboriginals, Taosts/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta as well as by MODERN PHYSICS

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

X, I have appended more material below this point but it is not necessary to read it to get the main gist of what this is all about, as I have tried to get that in the above text.  I included the following because sometimes if there is difficulty in interpreting something, having a miscellany of optional views into it can help… ted

The response to emergent violence in indigenous aboriginal culture is the HEALING CIRCLE which moves so as to subsume the eruptions of violence in the interconnected, and interdependent social-relational web of community.  This is in radical contrast to WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE which SCAPEGOATS the individual HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN who is NOT IN FACT AN INDEPENDENT BEING but a STRAND IN THE WEB of interconnections and interdependencies which calls for RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE which SCAPE-GOATS the STRAND IN THE WEB that is the VENTING OUTLET FOR TENSIONS GENERATED BY THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (THE WEB).

It is important to keep in mind that ‘EVERYTHING IS RELATED’ which is why JUSTICE needs to be RESTORATIVE rather than PURIFICATIONIST (where the persons holding the smoking gun are SCAPE-GOATED while the dysfunctional social collective gets off Scot-free so that the dysfunction that resides and ferments within the social-relational matrix is never addressed, and as dysfunction intensifies, we see the emergence of MASS SHOOTERS (the reality is that the WESTERN CULTURE penchant for SCAPE-GOATING the “IDENTIFIED PATIENTS” not only does NOT resolve the dysfunction which resides in the social collective aka ‘the web’ that simply VENTS through ‘the strand’, but by bypassing the REAL source of dysfunction which lives and breeds in the WEB (the violent strand is NOT the local, explicit author of the violence but the CONDUIT that vents the nonlocal and implicit build-up of tensions).

Supposing indigenous aboriginals and Modern physics are correct in their assumption that we are all related (interconnected and interdependent) like STRANDS IN A WEB so that JUSTICE must be RESTORATIVE (since the authoring of violence etc. is nonlocal and implicit/relational rather than local and explicit; i.e. where the local and explicit is only APPEARANCE or Schaumkommen).  This would mean that our WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE is imprisoning and eliminating those who are NOT AUTHORS of violence those who are the VENTS or CONDUITS of VIOLENCE which derives from the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT WEB.  WESTERN CULTURE’S HABIT OF WRONGLY INTERPRETING THE LOCAL and EXPLICIT, which is only APPEARANCE, for AUTHORING SOURCE, … supports WHAT APPEARS TO BE A RESOLVING OF THE VIOLENCE ISSUE by INCARCERATING or ELIMINATING the perceived LOCAL AUTHOR.  HOWEVER, given that the AUTHORING is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational), the REAL, NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT SOURCE (i.e. the relational social matrix aka the WEB) which is the REAL SOURCE of VIOLENCE that the WEB merely CHANNELS THROUGH the STRAND, will remain UNADDRESSED (because of the SCAPE-GOATING of the PERCEIVED LOCAL AND EXPLICIT VIOLENCE AUTHORING SOURCE which is WRONGLY assumed to RESOLVE the ISSUE).

We can see how the indigenous aboriginal society is ON THE RIGHT TRACK with RESTORATIVE JUSTICE since it is based on the CORRECT ASSUMPTION that sourcing of violence is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (coming from within the interconnecting and interdependent matrix or WEB) thus AVOIDING THE MISTAKEN assumption, based on APPEARANCE, that the source of VIOLENCE is LOCAL and EXPLICIT as if the STRAND was NOT A STRAND-IN-THE-WEB but is a LOCAL and EXPLICIT MATERIAL AUTHOR of VIOLENT ACTION.   This is where things go in WESTERN CULTURE due to the MISTAKEN belief that a MAN is an INDEPENDENT BEING ACTING ON HIS OWN WITHIN AN EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE, instead of the CORRECT, REAL, SENSE-EXPERIENCE AFFIRMABLE understanding that MAN

There is a DIVISION in the world based on different ways of speaking about the world; i.e. different types of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING, an AWARENESS of which I “bumped into” in my teens (I’ll share that story in a minute). The are TWO VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING one of which is reflected in the different way that indigenous aboriginals speak, think and conceptualize the world we live in versus the ways that we European descent folks speak, think and conceptualize the world.   Both of these different modes of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING continue to be in use and both are available to any of us, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE TWO LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING ARCHITECTURES IS DOMINANT IN THE WORLD.  These two APPROACHES TO LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION are not neatly and concisely formulated and described, but they show up in how different people have different descriptions of how the world works.  For example, the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky sees things differently from the famous Swiss Psychologist Jean Piaget who has been the world’s accepted authority on educating children (my philosophical investigations agree with Vygotsky and, as was the case with Vygotsky, point to ERRORS in Piaget’s approach to educating children, which I also see).   There is a general issue here which points to two very different “LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING CAMPS” which I will refer to as (A) and (B) which I will describe in one sec.  NOTE that the DIVISION into (A) and (B) is like the division referred to by “EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET”.

Here we go, then.  As a person interested in Modern physics, I am aware of the SPLIT in how Modern physics thinkers define the structure of the world we live in (they are still DISAGREEING), … or is that the structure of our brains as some (non-modern physics) researchers like to focus on to understand and explaining the origin of differences in wave dynamics that may RELATE TO the different way in which indigenous aboriginal culture adherents understand things versus WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.

The SPLIT that is ‘out there in the global populace’ in how we use LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING to give ourselves an understanding of ourselves and the world, that I became aware of naturally (spontaneously) as many people do, without being ‘explicitly’ told about it, can be described in terms of the different forms of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING, as follows;  NOTE: don’t worry about the references to Jantsch’s 3 levels of AWARENESS, the main ‘take-away’ is that WE HAVE THE OPTION TO THINK OF OURSELVES EITHER AS IN (A) MODERN PHYSICS WOULD SEE OURSELVES IN TERMS OF NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC OF THE INCLUDED MEDIUM, AS BEING  INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENT by being CONDENSATIONS of ONE ALL-INCLUDING ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM [the condensation-thing is BOTH, at the same time, ITSELF and the ENERGY FIELD it is included in], … which is how indigenous aboriginals think of themselves (mitakuye oyasin means everything is related like strands in a web) and then we have (B) AS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS of JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM which give a foundational role to BINARY LOGIC (GOOD OR EVIL).

In these religions, in their orthodox forms, WE WOULD SEE OURSELVES, AS BEING “INDEPENDENT” and thus FULLY and SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (meriting REWARDS for good acts and PUNISHMENT for bad acts) … RADICALLY UNLIKE the MODERN PHYSICS and INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL NONBINARY LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM understanding wherein EVERYTHING IS RELATED, meaning INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENT so that if there is harmony in the relational matrix the credits go to the group and likewise if there is dissonance in the relational matrix, the debits go the group (because everything is interconnected and interdependent like strands in a web).  This is why indigenous aboriginal JUSTICE is RESTORATIVE.   This is consistent with Modern physics wherein everything is related because all ‘things’ are condensations of the all-including PLENUM.  We can think of this condition where we as a group are like a water-ballet whose members’ movements are relative to the group dynamic and NOT relative to a fixed reference frame, so that if our ballet involves emulating the flossoming of a lotus and the participants are petals of the lotus, there is NO BINARY LOGIC “RIGHT OR WRONG” about an individual’s movements since the movements of the petals are relation to themselves and there is NO REFERENCE FRAME and the coherence of the relational configuration cannot be measured by rating the correctness of individual performance due to the THREE+BODY PROBLEM, i.e. “the impossibility of calculating the individual movements of three or more bodies [strands] moving under one-another’s simultaneous mutual influence”.

The following definitions capture the two WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING OF “WHO WE ARE”; (A) The Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM understanding, and (B) The BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM (empty space medium wherein we are all INDEPENDENT) of the ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS of JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM.

(A)–––  NONBINARY (BOTH/AND LOGIC OF THE INCLUDING MEDIUM) INCLUSION OF MAN-IN-EARTH (CONDENSATION OF WAVE-FIELD IN WAVE-FIELD): 

This we know, the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”— “Chief Seattle”

This is supported by Jantsch LEVEL 1 (TRANSFORMATION) MODE of AWARENESS where we see ourselves as included in an ALL-INCLUDING  TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.  However, we continue to struggle with lesser, BINARY LOGIC based forms of AWARENESS

(B)––– BINARY (EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM) SPLIT OF MAN AND EARTH (“MATERIAL BEING” IN EMPTY SPACE): 

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This is supported by the LEVEL 3 CONSERVATIVE and LEVEL 2 LIBERAL modes of AWARENESS wherein we conceive of ourselves (or believe ourselves to BE) INDEPENDENT BEINGS with our own DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR-given powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments as if we were NON-INCLUDED INDEPENDENT BEINGS acting and interacting in an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.

Ok, that may seem like “a lot of stuff” to remember, but ONE USEFUL WAY TO REMEMBER IT is by the different JUSTICE SYSTEMS that these two respective CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF REALITY give rise to.

The MODERN PHYSICS and indigenous aboriginal understanding leads to RESTORATIVE JUSTICE because the understanding is that we are related (mitakuye oyasin) in the manner of STRANDS in a WEB or CONDENSATIONS in a PLENUM in which case WHEN THERE IS RELATIONAL DISSONANCE in the social collective, the natural response is TO RESTORE RESONANCE in the social collective.  The indigenous aboriginals use such techniques as HEALING CIRCLES.  The key point is that IF THERE IS A RAPE OR MURDER, the spontaneous response is that THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE THINKS “SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH US” as a social collective because it is AUTOMATIC to understand the EMERGENT VIOLENCE in terms of the INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT STRANDS-IN-THE-WEB-like SOCIAL COLLECTIVE GETTING OUT OF BALANCE AND BECOMING DISSONANT and a feature of that DISSONANCE OF THE WEB is the VIOLENT STRAND which is VENTING the energy building in the WEB.   In this understanding, the VIOLENT STRAND is not the AUTHOR but the CONDUIT for VIOLENCE that has been brewing up in the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (the WEB).

The REMEDY for the emergent violence, in indigenous aboriginal culture, is NOT TO SCAPE-GOAT THE STRAND THAT IS VENTING THE VIOLENCE because THAT STRAND IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE VIOLENCE but is the VENT FOR DISCHARGING THE BUILDUP OF TENSIONS IN THE WEB (the social collective).  That is why indigenous aboriginal JUSTICE IS RESTORATIVE.

WESTERN CULTURE JUSTICE  is BINARY EITHER good OR bad PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE (The BELIEF is based on simple BINARY LOGIC where the understanding is that there is a LOCAL AUTHOR OF VIOLENCE so that the REMEDY is to PUNISH OR ELIMINATE HER/HIM/THEM, the LOCAL AUTHORS).   We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have a long history of preferring to SCAPE-GOAT THE ALLEGED “PATHOGEN” that, IN REALITY, is just the VENT for TENSIONS DEVELOPING IN THE WEB (social matrix) and NOT A PATHOGEN OR LOCAL AUTHOR OF VIOLENCE.

NOTA BENE: “PATHOGEN” is a BINARY LOGIC BASED ABSTRACTION that WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use to DESCRIBE conditions of IMBALANCE.  For example, in indigenous aboriginal culture, where there is IMBALANCE and some are short of food while others have plenty, they have a POTLATCH and those with plenty share what they have with those who have a deficit;

As Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas observes;

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of it, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest.  We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return tem, with interest, and our hearts feel good.  Our potlatch is our bank”  — ‘First People First Voices’, edited by Penny Petrone

Colonizers realized that indigenous aboriginals had social systems that worked very well, no doubt because they did not employ BINARY LOGIC based thinking (he is either ENTITLED or NOT ENTITLED to a generous land grant).   BINARY LOGIC IS FOREIGN TO INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS who naturally employ NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM wherein the STRAND is BOTH itself AND the WEB it is included in, as is reaffirmed in Modern physics wherein the CONDENSATION is at the same time the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM IT IS INCLUDED IN.

The following comment by Friedrich Engels (of Marx and Engels fame) records the fact that indigenous aboriginal NONBINARY LOGIC based systems were very effective.

“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [In Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.”  Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social concensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin.  Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials.  All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gerdens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy.  The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility  towards the aged, the sick and the disabled in war.  All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders.

X, my aim is NOT TO FLOOD YOU WITH UNFAMILIAR SYSTEMS OF REASONING, but my experience in working with these ideas is that WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have learned things from birth onward, through immersion in our CULTURE, that we were never prepared to challenge, and installing them in the foundations of our thinking.  AND IN ORDER TO EVEN “SEE” views like the indigenous aboriginal view of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, one has to see beyond the limitations of BINARY LOGIC so see that there is a legitimate basis for NOT SIMPLY PUNISHING OR ELIMINATING (executing) THE RAPIST OR MURDERER which comes from the WESTERN CULTURE CONDITIONED understanding of people as a DISCONNECTED COLLECTION OF INDEPENDENT BEINGS, rather than STRANDS in an interconnecting, interdepending WEB.

Modern physics supports this indigenous aboriginal understanding, in which case, where there are outbursts of violence (rape, murder etc.), the VIOLENCE can only come from dysfunction in the WEB and VENT through a STRAND in the WEB because a STRAND does NOT POSSESS ITS OWN POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments (that is just ‘APPEARANCE’ aka ‘Schaumkommen’.  As Nietzsche has pointed out, the notion of LOCAL AUTHORING is a BOGUS NOTION coming from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR; e.g. we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ but that is NOT REAL because the GROWTH OF THE TOWN cannot occur without the CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS which means that the REALITY is TRANSFORMATION of the overall LANDSCAPE.  Therefore ‘GROWTH’ is NOT SOMETHING REAL but is instead a LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION as where, for example, ‘the TOWN is said to be seen to be GROWING LARGER’ … BUT WAIT A MINUTE, that only happens if we “PUT IT INSIDE OF A FIXED REFERENCE FRAME” so that RELATIVE TO THE FIXED REFERENCE FRAME there is this action that we are calling GROWTH, … which OPERATES on a notional LOCAL EXPLICIT THING-IN-ITSELF called THE TOWN, which ‘lives in’ a notional ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE CONTAINING SPACE’ wherein LOCAL, EXPLICIT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES LIKE ‘TOWNS” are free to GROW AND ENLARGE ON THEIR OWN, without mentioning how their REAL SURROUNDINGS MUST SHRINK TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH GROWTH.

Ok, can we agree that THERE CAN BE NO GROWTH OF A TOWN WITHOUT CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS?   NEXT STEP, WE CAN TELL OTHERS EVERY TIME THEY USE THE TERM “GROWTH” THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “GROWTH”.  REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS LIKE TRUMP “LOVE THE TERM GROWTH” because THE GROWTH OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MEANS THE GROWTH OF REVENUES  (The VICTIM of this GROWTH that goes unmentioned is the SHRINKING WILDERNESS FOREST that is being chopped down, suggesting that WE REALLY DO NEED THE MORE REALISTIC TERM of TRANSFORMATION that takes into account the SHRINKING of WILDERNESS.

* * * * * * WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHILE ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMATION IS OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE AFFIRMED REALITY, WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have the habit of SPEAKING OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE REDUCED TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (the male asserting/actualizing conjugate) WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SHIRINKING OF WILDERNESS (the female accommodating/enabling conjugate).  * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  Time to segue to a ‘childhood experience’ with the trickiness of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  LET’S NOT FORGET THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE THESE TWO (A) and (B) CHOICES IN OUR APPROACH TO LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  If we use (A)  for our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING, EVERYTHING IS RELATED (interconnected and interdependent) as with STRANDS IN A WEB (NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM) while if we use (B)  EVERYTHING IS BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM BASED in which case EVERYTHING IS INDEPENDENT.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SEGUE:   After this SEGUE,  we can tie things together in the context of THE (A)  and (B)  CHOICES IN OUR APPROACH TO LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION

As a teenager in grade 12, the English teacher gave us an assignment to get some practice in writing our résumé since many of us would soon be leaving school and looking for a job.    The teacher’s guidance was basically aimed at having us make ourselves ‘look good’ in the résumé, and I brought up the issue that came to my mind that was that most of my developing capabilities had come from jobs that my father or neighbours or friends had helped me find.  But my teacher wanted me to focus my résumé solely on the jobs I had done and the skills I had gained from them.    Since I was aware of having had a lot of help from family and friends in getting my work experience and was also aware that there were quite a few people in my school that didn’t have access to that sort of adult assist, I thought it was deceptive for me NOT to mention in my résumé that I had a ‘adult based teenager support team’ working on my behalf where others in my school weren’t so lucky.

What I was intuiting on my own hook was that the world dynamic has an androgynous (wave-field) structure where ‘what we do’ is not simply “AUTHORED BY US” as if we were living in an empty space, but that we live in an ‘energy-charged plenum’ which can vary from being accommodating…  to being disaccommodating.

As the saying goes “To everything there is a season and at time to every purpose”, or Shakespeare’s “There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.”.  IN BOTH CASED WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES.  Note that it is possible to use LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING wherein WE ARE THE FULL AND SOLE AUTHORS OF OUR ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS as in (B) and/or LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING wherein we are INCLUDED PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORLD DYNAMIC AKIN TO STRANDS IN A WEB as in (A) .  So, for example, should we use (B) and say that “WE GATHERED OYSTERS FROM NANOOSE BAY” which exemplifies our use of (B)  wherein this is all about “us” as if we are operating in AN EMPTY SPACE AND ARE THUS the FULL and SOLE AUTHORS of our ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  WE COULD ALTERNATIVELY SAY that we waited for the low tide which implies that WE ARE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES as is the point made by Chief Seattle in his famous web-of-life comment that ECHOS our Modern physics based understanding that WE ARE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES;.

MODERN PHYSICS:   Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” (David Bohm).    [the CONDENSATION of the PLENUM is “BOTH” itself “AND” the PLENUM it is included in = NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM]

INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURE: Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.” (Chief Seattle)

BY JUXTAPOSING THESE TWO FORMS OF WRITING, WE ARE POINTING OUT that the dynamics of the world do not only consist of WHAT PEOPLE DO (male asserting/actualizing), the also include WHAT OPPORTUNITIES THE WORLD OPENS UP AND OFFERS TO US THAT ARE INDUCTIVELY SHAPING OUR INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

This is getting at what I was complaining about in the résumé writing.  I was making the point that opportunity was being opened up for me (by my parents and friends helping me in finding summer employment etc.) which was assistance that not everyone was lucky enough to get, which is saying that it is misleading to use the one-sided male-asserting/actualizing only conjugate while dropping out the female accommodating/enabling conjugate which is an over-riding influence.   The kid who always gets hired and gets the best jobs may have AL CAPONE for his father.  If we simply say ‘the KID was hired’… FULL STOP, as if ‘on his own merits’, we need to reflect on Goedel’s Theorem of the INCOMPLETENESS OF ALL FINITE LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS because while that PROPOSITION of his getting hired IS TRUE, it is INCOMPLETE and filling in the blanks is IMPORTANT.  It has been referred to as “The DEA ABSCONDITA” (Goddess in hiding) since it is a real FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING INFLUENCE that is conjugate to the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING INFLUENCE that, in our WESTERN CULTURE linguistic conceptualizations, is habitually DROPPED OUT.

We have seen the TRICKERY that goes on here in the example of the THIN SKULL RULE in WESTERN CULTURE PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE where the male asserting/actualizing AUTHOR OF THE PUNCH is given FULL and SOLE AUTHORING CREDIT for the damage to the Punch-recipient’s SKULL EVEN IF THE Punch-recipient’s SKULL was SUPER-THIN and ready to CRUMBLE given the tiniest of blows so that the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING contribution to the SKULL DAMAGE was far greater than the MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING contribution to the SKULL DAMAGE.   WESTERN CULTURE JUSTICE would have us IGNORE the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING contribution to the SKULL DAMAGE because WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING IS DROPPING OUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE (ignoring the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) AND IS ACKNOWLEDGING ONLY THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONJUGATE (acknowledging the LOCAL and EXPLICIT which is only “APPEARANCE” aka “Schaumkommen”).

So, back to my recounting of my experience, I did get a variety of summer jobs and if my résumé looked better than some of the others, it did not mean that IT WAS ME THAT WAS DOING BETTER than my counterparts since I HAD A VERY COMPETENT (SUMMER JOB-FINDING) TEAM helping me out that not everyone had.  My intuitive feeling was that we should somehow include that information in the résumé but I was told by my teacher that the object of the résumé was to make oneself look good and to leave out the details on the family and family friend help that I had received and just stick to the transactional facts.

I saw this DROPPING-OUT of relevant information as part of the bigger problem of TOO MUCH BULLSHIT in our society (particularly in people like TRUMP who were encouraging the TRADING OUT of INSPIRATION THAT FILLS THE HEART for EGO that SWELLS THE HEAD).  In fact, In WESTERN CULTURE, there is a common practice of citing the male asserting/actualizing action while dropping out all mention of the female accommodating/enabling conjugate even though IN REALITY, there is only the conjugate combination of BOTH.  There can be no GROWTH OF THE TOWN without the CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS, and these conjugates together are informing us of the TRANSFORMING of the LANDSCAPE.  THE “ONLY” REAL THING GOING ON HERE IS “TRANSFORMATION” which is NOT MISSED in verb-based languages where one would speak in terms of TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE which captures the understanding that “EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX” as captured in the indigenous aboriginal aphorism ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

My interest in Modern physics and in indigenous aboriginal culture’s natural ‘tuning in to Modern physics’ has, ever since my studying physics in school, SENSITIZED and ALERTED ME to how OUR WESTERN CULTURE is using the SIMPLIFICATION of BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC to support the simplifying use of the abstraction of “BEING”, giving it a FOUNDATIONAL ROLE in our linguistic conceptualizing practice (e.g. we imply that there is EITHER MATERIAL BEING or EMPTY SPACE being implied IN PROPOSITIONS SUCH AS “THE TOWN IS GROWING”).  While the linguistic concept of “A BEING” suggests a persisting MATERIAL ENTITY, we have the need for language that can deal with the Modern physics understanding wherein there are NO BEINGS; i.e. INSTEAD, there are CONDENSATIONS in an ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM or STRANDS in a WEB, both of  these describing the Modern physics understanding of the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM based relationship where material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the all-including PLENUM aka wave-field in which case the CONDENSATIONS are “BOTH THEMSELVES AND THE PLENUM THEY ARE INCLUDED IN”, in the same manner that WHORLINGS IN FLOWING ARE BOTH THEMSELVES AND THE FLOWING THEY ARE INCLUDED IN.

I am mentioning this stuff because I want to put on the table the points that have been made by a number of philosophical investigators (Bohm, Schroedinger etc.) and while these points have been accepted and affirmed by philosophers, they HAVE STILL NOT BEEN PICKED UP AND ACCEPTED IN OUR WESTERN CULTURE MAINSTREAM LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING HABIT due to its LONG and DEEP ENTRENCHMENT IN BINARY LOGIC.

That is, we live in a WAVE-FIELD WORLD which people are equipped for dealing with by having a brain with a RIGHT and LEFT LOBE where the LEFT LOBE deals with the LOCAL and EXPLICIT while the RIGHT LOBE deals with the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (the two aspects of the wave).  HOWEVER, RESEARCH HAS BEEN SHOWING THAT WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE PROGRESSIVELY DROPPING OUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE and using in our language (our popular linguistic conceptualizing scheme) ONLY THE MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONJUGATE. 

Here are some comments on what is happening to us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS (for lack of a better name-tag) by what amounts to our switch to SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC in our common language use, which CAN HANDLE ONLY MATERIAL OBJECTS IN EMPTY SPACE and because of its BINARY EITHER/OR SIMPLICITY, CANNOT HANDLE CONDENSATIONS IN THE ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM (which is BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR).  So here is a note where I quote a Canadian Neuroscientist who is sounding the alarm that WE ARE INCREASINGLY EXPLOITING THE WORLD WE SHARE INCLUSION IN by reducing our conceptualizations to a simple BINARY LOGIC basis (which is equivalent to DROPPING OUT the female accommodating/enabling conjugate and using only the male asserting/actualizing conjugate in our everyday language.   For example, we no longer say things like “There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune’ even though this reminder that we are included in something greater than ourselves (we are like strands in web) IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE.   I will say: “I gathered oysters in Nanoose bay”, and that is only the male asserting/actualizing part.

WAIT A MINUTE, because “in saying that, I MAKE NO MENTION of how I waited for many days and the right time of day (to get the low tide that facilitated access), so there was more to it than my cited male asserting/actualizing dynamic; i.e. there was an over-riding female accommodating/enabling conjugate aspect exposing my male asserting/actualizing as being SECONDARY). NOTICE ALSO THAT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING IS NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT while MALE ASSERTING IS LOCAL AND EXPLICIT “APPEARANCE”).  In other words, I made it sound as if the oyster harvesting operation was fully and solely mine (“I fetched the oysters”) without acknowledging that mother nature was ‘orchestrating may actions so that I was dancing to her tunes’ as in ‘to everything there is a season’ [such as the favorable tide in the oyster fetching case.].

There is a general principle here, that has been captured in Goedel’s Theorem of the incompleteness of all finite logical propositions, … as exemplified in the example where i said “I gathered oysters in Nanoose bay” because MY STATEMENT WAS INCOMPLETE IN THAT I MADE NO MENTION OF WAITING AROUND FOR A LOW TIDE; i.e. I did not acknowledge that “to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose”.   We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are in the habit of using BINARY LOGIC based propositions where one says “I fetched oysters from Nanoose Bay” which makes it sound as if I AM IN FULL AND SOLE CONTROL OF THE WHOLE OPERATION.

If we want to GET HONEST and admit that we have to cow-tow to the whims of the TIDAL influences, gravity fields and electromagnetic fields etc. that we are inextricably included in, then BINARY LOGIC IS TOO SIMPLE  and we have to switch to something more competent such as INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL FLOW-BASED LANGUAGE which is NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM based

SO, THE POINT IS … that we have inserted, in our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING HABITS, incompetent BINARY LOGIC “plugs” into many, many “sockets”,.. SO THAT, before we can insert the NEW, MORE COMPETENT NONBINARY OPERATORS INTO OUR LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS,  we must FIRST RETRACT OR REMOVE the TOO SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC BASED PROPOSITIONS.   WHEN WE INTERROGATE THE STRAND IN THE WEB AND ASK; ‘WAS IT YOU THAT WAS BEHAVING VIOLENTLY’, THE HONEST ANSWER OF ‘YES’ is an INCOMPLETE ANSWER which WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS will jump to the conclusion that THIS STRAND MUST BE REMOVED SINCE IT BEHAVES VIOLENTLY.  This is BINARY LOGIC IN ACTION which fails to acknowledge that the VIOLENT ACTION of a STRAND IN THE WEB MAY BE OF A NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT ORIGIN (venting of tensions developing in the WEB that are merely channelling through, but are not authored by, the STRAND) rather than LOCAL and EXPLICIT (authored by the STRAND).

PEOPLE may be PROUD of CONSTRUCTING A MAR A LAGO which is conceived of as a LOCAL and EXPLICIT ACHIEVEMENT.   There may be NO REMINDERS that this can only come with the SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS.  The PROUD AUTHORS OF THE what is being cast as a LOCAL and EXPLICIT ACHIEVEMENT may not appreciate, and may not be willing to CORRECT THE MESSAGE and acknowledge that WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IS THE TRANSFORMING OF THE LANDSCAPE which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT while the claim that something LOCAL and EXPLICIT was CONSTRUCTED is an INCOMPLETE PROPOSITION.  All finite logical propositions are INCOMPLETE as Goedel’s Theorem proves, … SO THOSE OF US USING A BEING-BASED LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEME HAVE A MAJOR EXPOSURE TO CONFUSING OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING by DROPPING OUT THE FEMALE CONJUGATES TO OUR MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING (INCOMPLETE) PROPOSITIONS.

As Neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist points out in “The Divided Brain”, we have infused into our thinking (our linguistic conceptualizing scheme)

“A WAY OF THINKING THAT IS REDUCTIVE, MECHANISTIC AND HAS TAKEN US OVER, … WE BEHAVE LIKE PEOPLE THAT HAVE RIGHT HEMISPHERE DAMAGE .   (WHO) TREAT THE WORLD AS A SIMPLE RESOURCE TO BE EXPLOITED, THAT’S MADE US ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL, ITS ENABLED US TO BECOME WEALTHY, BUT IT’S ALSO MEANT THAT WE’VE LOST THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD, … TO MAKE SENSE OF IT, …TO FEEL SATISFACTION AND FULFILMENT THROUGH OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD.

WHAT McGilchrist IS TALKING ABOUT IS OUR WESTERN CULTURE HABIT OF DENYING OUR NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM RELATIONSHIP wherein “EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED and INTERDEPENDENT” IN THE MANNER OF STRANDS IN A WEB (Condensations in an ENERGY_CHARGED PLENUM) and SUBSTITUTING A FRAGMENTED PSEUDO-REALITY BASED ON BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED (EMPTY ) MEDIUM that has us CONCEPTUALIZING OURSELVES as INDEPENDENT MATERIAL BEINGS MOVING ABOUT AND INTERACTING WITHIN AN ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.  The PSYCHO-SOCIAL LOCK-IN to the “FALL FROM GRACE” wherein THE INSPIRATION OF INCLUSION IN AN ALL-INCLUDING UNUM THAT FILLS THE HEART, is TRADED OUT for the COLD BINARY LOGIC POSEUR ROLE of EGO-DRIVEN EXPLOITER OF A DETACHED WORLD OF CONSUMABLES, … IS NOT GOING TO BE EASILY UNDONE.   PICTURE DONALD TRUMP on his INDEPENDENCE-EXTOLLING “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” SUBOPTIMIZING SOAPBOX, switching to Chief Seattle’s “Man did not weave the (interconnecting, interdependent) web of life, he is merely a strand in it.” 

 What we have here are two very different forms of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION.  In the former conceptualization the subject (TRUMP) is portrayed as a LOCAL AUTHOR of EXPLICIT actions and developments which implies an ALL MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING dynamic as if within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE (i.e. uninvolved) SPACE.  In the latter conceptualization, the interconnecting and interdepdendent strands in the web structure implies NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT INFLUENCE (from the WEB) so that the LOCAL and EXPLICIT action of a particular STRAND is only APPEARANCE (Schaumkommen).  HERE WE CAN SEE THE BASIS ON WHICH WESTERN CULTURE HAS OPTED FOR PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE based on LOCAL AUTHORING versus the DIFFERENT BASIS ON WHICH INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS (AND MODERN PHYSICS) OPT FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE based on NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT AUTHORING of actions and development (the STRAND that manifests VIOLENCE is VENTING ENERGIES FUNNELING IN FROM THE WEB).

McGilchrist is ‘complaining’ about the WESTERN CULTURE HABIT of DROPPING OUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING wave conjugate and using a form of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATION based on ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING which sources LOCAL and EXPLICIT APPEARANCE because it DROPS OUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING (e.g. we say ‘the ‘town is growing’ without mentioning the conjugate ‘ shrinking of wilderness’  and thus without acknowledging the full reality of TRANSFORMATION of the landscape which is what is ACTUALLY occuring and WHICH IS ALL INCLUDING and INCLUDES OURSELVES.  In this case, we belong to, and are included within the all-including TRANSFORMATION and while we say WE CONSTRUCT CITIES, that is NOT THE HALF OF IT because we CONSUME FORESTS in the process which means that we ARE PARTICIPATANTS WITHIN (but ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF) THE ONGOING PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION that is ALL-INCLUDING and has been OPERATIVE prior to “OUR” EMERGENCE as PARTICIPANTS WITHIN THE ONGOING TRANSFORMATION. 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/neuroscientist-argues-the-left-side-of-our-brains-have-taken-over-our-minds-1.6219688#:~:text=*Originally%20published%20on%20October%2022,understand%20them%20as%20a%20whole

Before we LEAVE this discussion, LET US NOT OVERLOOK the PATTERN that is showing up here.  For example, the point has been made that when WESTERN CULTURE develops its LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, it comes up with propositions such as ‘they fetched oysters from NANOOSE BAY’ which is a MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING CONCEPTUALIZATION which FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY that ‘they waited serveral days for a low tide’ which brings to mind “To everything there is a season and time to every purpose” or in other words “WE ARE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES WHICH HAS A WAVE-LIKE NATURE that tends to inductively orchestrate and infuse relational harmonics in our individual and collective behaviours (i.e. an all-including WAVE-FIELD).   It is POPULAR, in our WESTERN CULTURE, to speak as if we are the FULL AND SOLE AUTHORS OF OUR OWN BEHAVIOUR and we have built that into our PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE SYSTEM, however, that only applies IF and WHERE we follow INTELLECTUAL RULES OF BEHAVIOUR, which CLASH with the WAVE-DYNAMICS of the world of our SENSE-EXPERIENCE that we PHYSICALLY (and not just MENTALLY/INTELLECTUALLY share INCLUSION in.   This DIFFERENCE in whether to respond to SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES of INTELLECTUAL RULES gives rise to the difference in JUSTICE SYSTEMS  (RESTORATIVE VERSUS PURIFICATIONIST) of indigenous aboriginals and WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE draws from the STRAND IN THE WEB understanding where the actions of the STRAND are NOT LOCALLY AUTHORED BY THE STRAND but DEVELOP WITHIN THE WEB and VENT THROUGH THE STRAND.  This understanding is supported by NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM wherein the STRANDS are BOTH THEMSELVES and the WEB they share inclusion in.  This understanding is supported by Modern physics wherein material forms (STRANDS) are CONDENSATIONS of the ALL-INCLUDING (interconnected and interdependent) ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM (WEB)

PURIFICATIONIST JUSTICE is the JUSTICE OF WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS that have put a STAKE IN THE GROUND BELIEF in LOCAL AUTHORING, in spite of this concept being the UNREAL ARTIFACT of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as pointed out by Nietzsche.  “LOCAL AUTHORING”, while a DOUBLE ERROR based ABSTRACTION, PERSISTS BECAUSE OF ITS EGO-INFLATING INFLUENCE.

When I affirm that “I fetched oysters from NANOOSE BAY”, I am using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to OVER-RIDE that which REALLY OCCURRED which was that I had to wait around for over a week for favorable TIDES to open up easy acccess to the oyster beds.  By DROPPING OUT MENTION of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE one can use the one-sided MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING conjugate on its own, which deals in the LOCAL and EXPLICIT as if  THERE WERE NO NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (implying, in its place, AN ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE CONTAINING SPACE).  That’s what is implied by “I fetched oysters from NANOOSE BAY” which DIFFERS FROM indigenous aboriginal language and Modern physics flow-based languages which ACKNOWLEDGE THE ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM within which all activities are included by way of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) TRANSFORMING PLENUM and WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT OF NOTIONAL LOCAL, EXPLICIT MATERIAL ENTITIES/BEINGS as require for their very existence an ABSTRACT EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE as is also required for “THEIR (notionally local and explicit) ACTIONS” and ‘THEIR (notionally local and explicit) INTERACTIONS”.

HOW TO DEVELOP LANGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON “BEING” (i.e. where EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX);

NONBINARY LOGIC is relational and WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON ‘THINGS’, and we use it to come to understand things PURELY by way of relations.  Geoffrey Chew is a Modern physics  researcher and he describes ‘BOOTSTRAPPING’ (building understanding up solely from relations), as follows;

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

X, I have included “A LOT OF STUFF” in this note, but as Nietzsche has pointed out, “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  As this implies, when we bring things together into a collective confluence, we may extract the relational coherencies from the confluence.  This is known as BOOTSTRAPPING and this concept has been explored by Wittgenstein and by Modern physic researchers including Geoffrey Chew.   This is all on the same trail of investigation of (A) NONBINARY LOGIC based CONCEPTUALIZING and (B) BINARY LOGIC based CONCEPTUALIZING;

NONBINARY LOGIC is relational and WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON ‘THINGS’, and we use it to come to understand things PURELY by way of relations.  Geoffrey Chew is a Modern physics  researcher and he describes ‘BOOTSTRAPPING’ (building understanding up solely from relations), as follows;

[Geoffrey Chew]: “when you formulate a question, you have to have some basic concepts that you are accepting in order to formulate the question.  But in the bootstrap approach, where the whole system represents a network of relationships without any firm foundation, the description of subject can be begun at a great variety of different places.  There isn’t any clear starting point.  And the way our theory has developed in the last few years, we quite typically don’t know what questions to ask.  We use consistency as the guide, and each increase in the consistency suggests something that is incomplete, but it rarely takes the form of a well-defined question.  We are going beyond the whole question-and-answer framework’.

BOOTSTRAPPING is a Modern physics version of getting to a STRAND-IN-THE-WEB based understanding.  Schroedinger articulates the Modern physics version while Chief Seattle repeats the same understanding;  “The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived.  Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” –Schroedinger.  This is an alternative re-statement of the indigenous aboriginal “Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it.” –Chief Seattle

I hope that the difference between our two CONCEPTUALIZING OPTIONS is becoming clear in this discussion.  One might keep them in mind by way of the fetching oysters example where we are familiar with how we can THINK in terms of our inclusion in something greater than ourselves which is wave-based or ‘harmonic’ as in ‘to everything there is a season’ such as in the oyster fetching example.  Here we can perhaps see that “Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it.”

The WESTERN CULTURE CRAZINESS, meanwhile, is our continuing to THINK OF OURSELVES AS IN CHARGE OF THINGS LIKE ‘INDEPENDENT NATIONS’ which is CRAZY, right?   NATIONS ARE NOT “INDEPENDENT”.  WE cannot actually secure INDEPENDENCE by using military force to get people to believe in IMAGINARY LINE BASED NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, we can only ‘make this work’ with the help of Herdenmensch as Nietzsche has pointed out, where the Herdenmensch masses WILL STOP AT IMAGINARY LINE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, and line up to show passports while whizzing by them are the winged ones and the four-leggeds, carrying on as if the imaginary lines did not exist, a BELIEF for which Herdenmensch will be punished by having their imaginary boundary line PASS CARDS cancelled.

The belief in IMAGINARY BOUNDARY LINE BASED FRAGMENTATION leads to PSYCHOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION as David Bohm has pointed out, which may be a fitting point to close out this overview of my PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

We have seen FRAGMENTATION build in our WESTERN CULTURE populace, not only through “DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE” on the part of more than 193 United Nations member states but in society generally.   In David Bohm’s 1980 Book Wholeness and the Implicate Order spoke of the rising FRAGMENTATION in the world.  In that era, Walter Crankite as News Anchor and Johnny Carson as Television talk show host were highly popular across the full political spectrum (i.e. with both conservatives and liberals) but the FRAGMENTATION, as Bohm warns of, into polarized socio-political groupings has been ongoing.

While the PUBLIC seems to be unaware of it, political jockeying “is REDISCOVERING GOEDEL’S THEOREM of the INCOMPLETENESS of all FINITE LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS.  This leads to an EXPOSURE to the FORMING of POLARIZED GROUPS, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE STRONGLY HELD CONFLICTING BELIEFS WHICH THEY CONFIDENTLY, BACK UP AS BEING TRUE.   In spite of long-standing, energetic HEAD-BUTTING, there is no RESOLVING of their CONSERVATIVE-LIBERAL DIFFERENCES, not because one of them is WRONG but refusing to admit it, but because THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT but their RESPECTIVE PROPOSITIONS, while CORRECT, ARE INCOMPLETE AS IS THE CASE FOR ALL FINITE LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS.

WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE THUS STUCK IN THE PLIGHT OF UNRESOLVABLE HEAD-BUTTING since both of the OPPOSING CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL GROUPS, while CORRECT IN THEIR PROPOSITIONS, are missing the point that ALL FINITE PROPOSITIONS OF BINARY LOGIC are INCOMPLETE.

Modern physics and indigenous aboriginal cultures DO NOT USE SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC and thus “DO NOT BUMP INTO THE GOEDEL’S THEOREM LOGGERHEAD” of supporting OPPOSING PROPOSITIONS which are BOTH TRUE but INCOMPLETE IN DIFFERING WAYS (i.e. see Erich Jantsch’s THREE LEVELS of AWARENESS, where the LOWEST 2 LEVELS of AWARENESS are CONSERVATIVE AWARENESS (LEVEL 3) and LIBERAL AWARENESS (LEVEL 2).  The highest level of AWARENESS (LEVEL 1) is the AWARENESS OF INCLUSION IN AN ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMATION.  This LEVEL 1 AWARENESS is NOT ACCESSIBLE with SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM, which is our WESTERN CULTURE DEFAULT LOGIC; i.e. LEVEL 1 AWARENESS requires NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM), the logic of STRANDS in the WEB and CONDENSATIONS in the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM.

* * * * * * * 

1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS  (from Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm)

The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

 Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPENDIX I:  ….  Migrating From BEING-based to TRANSFORMATION-based Language

VYGOTSKY’S POINTING OUT THE ERROR OF PIAGET THAT PERSISTS IN INFUSING MISUNDERSTANDING INTO WESTERN CULTURE THINKING 

It is important to keep in mind that WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are using a SIMPLIFIED linguistic conceptualizing scheme which is BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC based and that we are LOCKED INTO THIS MISTAKE by HIGH SWITCHING COSTS.  For example, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have chosen to build into our language, the capability of speaking in the BEING based terms of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT, as in ‘The TOWN is GROWING’.

CONTRAST THIS with Modern physics and indigenous aboriginals whose less simple linguistic conceptualizing schemes have the built-in capability of capturing TRANSFORMATION as in flow-based language such as ‘THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.   We can describe this difference in terms of our being included in a world that is in continual flux, as Heraclitus pointed out and which Modern physics and indigenous aboriginals affirm in their THOUGHT and LANGUAGE (THINKING AND SPEAKING).  This understanding has been captured and described by (“the father of Russian Psychology”) Lev Vygotsky in his classic book “Thought and Language” (Мышление И Речь, Психологические Исследования – … Myshleniye I Rech’, Psikhologicheskiye Issledovaniya (Thinking and Speech, Psychological Research)

I have thoroughly explored this book and have it handy as I write this, because it is APPARENT TO ME that Vygotsky has captured in his writing, the WAVE-FIELD based nature of the world we are living in.   I know what Vygotsky is thinking but when we was writing up his findings neither the Russian language nor English offered him the means of expression that he needed, to convey the understanding that we live in a WAVE-FIELD WORLD which WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE IN DENIAL OF and OUR CURRENT MIND-FART is that we (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) CONTINUE to use language that REDUCES the conjugate (wave-field) structure of our sense-experience to ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING ONLY dynamics, DROPPING OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE.  In highschool, in practicing to write a résumé I wanted to include mention of how my parents and their friends helped me find summer jobs that were important my ongoing development and progress, but my teacher insisted on me limiting the comments in my résumé to the first person (i.e. I got this job and did this and I got that job and did that).   All of which was TRUE but INCOMPLETE in that it omitted any documenting of the support I was getting from parents and other adults which many of the other kids were NOT getting.

In my mind, I could NOT LET GO of the fact that an UNDERSTANDING of my growth and development of cognitive capabilities and knowledgeability was strongly fuelled by my parents and adult relatives and friends, so not only was my development impacted by MY OWN MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING dynamics … BUT MY DEVELOPMENT was also fuelled by the AMBIENT SUPPORTING MATRIX of ADULT FAMILY AND FRIENDS which was a FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING DEVELOPMENTAL INFUSION.

I “KNEW THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE” and that “MY DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRESS” could NOT be simply captured in “WHAT I DID” but included the INFUSIONS coming from the unique social-relational situation I was immersed within; i.e. the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING (NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) INFUSIONS OF COGNITIVE NURTURANCE that worked together with my OWN PERSONAL MALE ASSERTING/ACTUALIZING (LOCAL AND EXPLICIT) INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS.

To some extent, CHILDREN are treated like GEESE supporting the production of ‘foie gras’ by having to ‘open up’ to the inserting of an auger and submit to infusive force-feeding.   There is an ANALOGY here to STUDENTS that are being “PREPARED TO ENTER THE WORK-FORCE’.   In Vygotsky’s research into HOW CHILDREN LEARN (or “ARE TAUGHT”), he discovers the WAVE-FIELD like dynamic where ‘learning’ can come from LOCAL, and EXPLICIT focus in combination with involuntary inclusion in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.    Here is Vyotsky’s citing of how these two different forms of learning contribute to our development.  In this citing, VYGOTSKY EXPRESSES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE WESTERN CULTURE EDUCATIONAL APPROACH which in his view is THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER (throwing out the SPONTANEOUS and keeping the SCIENTIFIC);

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific [local and explicit] and spontaneous [nonlocal and implicit] concepts represents two sides of the same concept formation.” –Vygotsky

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.” –Vygotsky

PIAGET IS MAKING A “DOUBLE ERROR” HERE BY (A) TREATING THE TWO CONJUGATES OF SCIENTIFIC and SPONTANEOUS AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS, and (B) EMPLOYING THE “SCIENTIFIC” ON ITS OWN [it does not exist ‘on its own’, it only exists in conjugate combination with the SPONTANEOUS].

WESTERN CULTURE CONTINUES TO CRIPPLE THE EDUCATED CHILD’S MIND by CONSTRAINING HIS VIEW TO THE SCIENTIFIC CONTENT; in the REAL WORLD of our SENSE-EXPERIENCE, we are aware of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE but in the PSEUDO-WORLD of our LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, we say ‘the TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING GOODS’.  THIS IS FALSE in the sense of INCOMPLETE because it fails to convey the understanding of REALITY wherein THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE…. AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “TOWN IN ITSELF” that “GROWS, DEVELOPS and PRODUCES GOODS”, because EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and there is only TOWNING IN THE ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.

VYGOTSKY IS SAYING THE EQUIVALENT OF THE FOLLOWING: “WE LIVE IN A WAVE-FIELD WORLD wherein EVERYTHING IS IN A COMPLEX FLUX with REAL and IMAGINARY COMPONENTS (SCIENTIFIC and SPONTANEOUS COMPONENTS).   These CONJUGATE COMPONENTS DO NOT EXIST SEPARATELY AS IN “EACH IN THEIR OWN LOCAL and EXPLICIT RIGHT” because they are CONJUGATE ASPECTS of a SINGLE COMPLEX (WAVE-FIELD) DYNAMIC which is, AT BASE, NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) where its LOCAL and EXPLICIT aspect is only “APPEARANCE” aka Schaumkommen (Schroedinger).

This means that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “SCIENTIFIC” (LOCAL and EXPLICIT)  and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “SPONTANEOUS” (NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) so that IT MAKES NO SENSE in THINKING OF THINGS in terms that “development (“spontaneous learning) and instruction (scientific explanation) are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them.

When I say that ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SCIENTIFIC’ AND/OR ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SPONTANEOUS’, I am referring to THE REALITY that THESE ARE TWO CONJUGATES, NEITHER OF WHICH EXIST IN THEIR OWN STAND-ALONE RIGHT, THEY ONLY EXIST AS A COMPLEX DUO, HOWEVER, AS VYGOTSKY IS POINTING OUT, PIAGET IS ‘USING THEM’ IN THE CONTEXT THAT THEY ‘EXIST” AS TWO SEPARATE, ‘LOCAL, EXPLICIT INDEPENDENT “PROCESSES”, and having GRAMMATICALLY IMPUTED TO THEM THEIR OWN EXISTENCE, OPENING THE WAY (MISTAKENLY) TO INVENTING TWO SEPARATE PSEUDO-REALITIES, THE CONSERVATIVE PSEUDO-REALITY WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE “SCIENTIFIC” (MALE, LOCAL and EXPLICIT) CONJUGATE-CONCEPT, … and THE LIBERAL PSEUDO-REALITY WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE “SPONTANEOUS” (FEMALE, NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT) CONJUGATE-CONCEPT.

Here we can see that the CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL views are MERELY CONJUGATE ASPECTS OF ONE COMPLEX WAVE-FIELD VIEW WHICH IS ONLY THE SOURCE OF FRAGMENTATION WHEN WE LOSE SIGHT OF THE REALITY THAT THE CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL views are like the LOCAL and EXPLICIT versus the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT views, they DO NOT EXIST IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, they ONLY EXIST IN THEIR CONJUGATE RELATIONAL FORM.

The WESTERN CULTURE CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL POLARIZING FRAGMENTATION is coming from the SPLITTING APART INTO POLAR OPPOSITES of THAT WHICH IS ONLY ONE COMPLEX (WAVE-FIELD TYPLE OF) ENTITY THAT, WHILE IT HAS TWO POLAR OPPOSITE COMPONENTS, DOES NOT SPLIT APART AND MUST BE DEALT WITH BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONJUGATE NATURE OF THE INFLUENCE.  WESTERN CULTURE, MEANWHILE, HAS EVOLVED THE PRACTICE, NOW BUILT INTO OUR LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEME OF (A) PSYCHOLOGICALLY SPLITTING THE WAVE (CONJUATE) STRUCTURE INTO “SEPARATE” MALE ASSERTING AND FEMALE ACCOMMODATING COMPONENTS, and (B) DROPPING OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING COMPONENT AND SUBSTITUTING IN ITS PLACE, ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE.

WESTERN CULTURE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL POLITICS ARE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESIDUE OF THIS MISTAKEN FRAGMENTATION THAT HAS BEEN BUILT INTO WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEMES WHERE IT IMPACTS THE WESTERN CULTURE PSYCHE, GIVING RISE, AS BOHM HAS OBSERVED, TO “FRAGMENTATION” where: many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc.

* * * * * * * * *

APPENDIX II:  The Equivalence of Indigenous aboriginal and WESTERN CULTURE Evolutionary Theory;