More on: Designing our language architecture.
The commentary in this note is a ‘follow-up’ to the essay at; https://goodshare.org/wp/revisiting-the-errors-we-made-in-designing-our-language-architecture/
I find it very curious when I step back and take a look at the architecture of the language we are using, and then return to my usual use of language because when I’m discussing language architecture, the screw-up is so obvious, but when I return to normal usage mode, I am using English to try to express my self as clearly as possible but it really doesn’t matter how carefully I choose my words, its still the same language, English, and the psychological mind-screwing is NOT in my words, it is in the language I am using (English).
Let me be clear on this, in the same manner that Goedel has been clear in his Goedel’s Theorem of the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite logical propositions.
EXAMPLE: I say that my farm has been GROWING; e.g. it was 2 acres and it “HAS GROWN” to 40 acres. We understand this RATIO-NALLY or by way of REASON, and we can IMAGINE how something GROWS BIGGER OVER TIME, like a CHILD which grows from an invisible fertilized ovum into a two hundred pound youth. This a REASONABLE understanding, not of the ‘workings of NATURE’ but of the ‘workings of our REASONING INTELLECT’. It is a WESTERN CULTURE way of understanding ‘reality’, or rather of CONSTRUCTING REALITY, because we have recently come around to a different understanding, which accords with indigenous aboriginal culture mode of understanding which accords with Modern physics, where we GET RID OF the abstract concept of GROWTH which is based on RATIO and understand what was formerly GROWTH in terms of TRANSFORMATION. We did this because we recognized that GROWTH was a one-sided MALE-ASSERTING abstraction that failed to include conjugate SHRINKING that is part of NATURAL phenomena such as when we have a potted plant in our home that, as it GROWS, is accompanied by a CONUGATE SHRINKING of navigable open space, which TRANSFORMS the pattern of our movements which are relative to the GROWTH of the plant.
DOES TRANSFORMATION ALWAYS ACCOMPANY GROWTH? There is a trickiness in language which shows up here because GROWTH is ABSTRACTION based on RATIO which keys to a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF and HAS NO DEPENDENCE ON THE WORLD IT IS INCLUDED IN.
We say that ‘the FARM’ has GROWN from 2 acres to 40 acres, WITHOUT MENTIONING THE CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF THE WILDERNESS yet the combination of this changing constitutes overall, TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE that INCLUDES the FARM. We know that this is affirmable from our sense-experience whereas GROWTH is abstraction based on the belief that that are LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, an abstraction that we dish up with the DOUBLE ERROR combination of NAMING and GRAMMAR, as Nietzsche points out. GROWTH is thus ABSTRACTION based on something LOCAL which EXPANDS as if in empty space, without ‘engaging’ with its surroundings. This is where the DEA ABSCONDITA is conjured up because THERE IS MORE TO IT (growth) than simply LOCAL AUTHORING of EXPANSION of the LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, … which RATIO, and thus RATIONALITY, convey (plant in the psyche).
If we contemplate what is really going on here in our felt-experience realm, beyond the intellectual manipulations based on language and grammar that we put in play in our psychological practice of REASONING, we find that there THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE IS TRANSFORMED in a manner we CAN’T FULLY GRASP because of Goedel’s point about the INCOMPLETENESS of all FINITE SYSTEMS OF LOGICAL PROPOSITION. GROWTH is one of those LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS where we say that THIS FARM has GROWN from 2 acres to 40 acres. OK, FINE, but what about the CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE of the WILDERNESS whose acreage is impossible to quantity? Something very complex is what is REALLY going on here, as we can ascertain from our sense experience which is not limited by language and this “something very complex’ it is known as TRANSFORMATION. TRANSFORMATION is what is happening on an OVERALL basis and it is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT so it is NOT ONLY impossible to capture in our common LOCAL and EXPLICIT language based representation, where we use the ABSTRACT concept of RATIO-based GROWTH of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES so that we don’t have to ‘dirty our psyche’ with the messy stuff of TRANSFORMATION because GROWTH doesn’t give a damn about REALITY which includes the conjugate shrinkage of Wilderness or simply the conjugate shrinkage of whatever we drop out as we LIFT OUT a LOCAL, EXPLICIT FRAGMENT of the overall TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM and use it as the ‘stub’ for ‘GROWTH’.
Who would argue that this DOUBLE ERROR based SPLITTING OUT of a LOCAL FRAGEMNT of the reality continuum doesn’t give us the advantage of BEING ABLE TO TALK ABOUT “IT” IN A FINITE NUMBER OF WORDS, … but those ‘scare quotes’ around “IT” are to signal that the FRAGMENT is no longer representing the TRANSFORMING WHOLE, so ‘the FISH is NOT IN THE NET’, and we are not going to be able to deal with TRANSFORMATION by playing around with a broken out FRAGMENT where our habit is to go into great detail in describing the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT of this FRAGMENT such as ‘the TOWN’ taken out of the LANDSCAPE and discussed as if it were a SEPARATE, LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF that we could come to understand by its PARTS such as streets and avenues, major structures, population, production of goods and services and many other such ‘parameters’ BASED ON THE INITIAL DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR WHICH SETS UP THE IMPRESSION OF LOCAL BEING AND LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. Does THE TOWN GROW or does THE LANDSCAPE TRANSFORM?
Goedel’s Theorem says that if we say ‘the FARM is GROWING’, this is a LOGICAL PROPOSITION that is innately incomplete. It is INCOMPLETE because it depicts that which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT. The FARM is only SUPERFICIAL and since it extends down into the ground only a couple of feet and its chemicals radiate out into the surroundings beyond its notional ‘boundary limits’, it would make more sense to DROP the imputing of the FARM being a notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of AUTHORING production of wheat or vegetables, and understand it within the larger context of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE; i.e. as a FARMING within the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE in which case we would DROP OUT the notion of LOCAL AUTHORSHIP aka PRODUCTION of FARM PRODUCTS (there’s that DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR once again that imputes LOCAL AUTHORSHIP).
NOTA BENE: The DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR serves up the makings of the BINARY LOGIC proposition, which allows us to build abstract constructions from local base-point without acknowledging the conjugate excluding of what is already ‘in place’. THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL ABSTRACTION called GROWTH which is the conjuring up of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY obscuring the sense-experience affirmed reality of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is not only INCOMPLETE, it is RADICALLY INCOMPLETE since TRANSFORMATION is what is really going on which is an all-including continuum which makes it INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (relational). BUT SPLITTING REALITY UP INTO NOTIONAL PARTS RENDER “IT” (no longer ‘sense-experience reality’ but a SUBSTITUTE REALITY) EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT. This is a good TOOL for INFERRING the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT reality of TRANSFORMATION, but we are screwing ourselves when we use the intellectual FRAGMENTIZED SUBSTITUTE REALITY NOT AS INFERENCE of the sense-experience reality that lies beyond EFFABLE capture but as the OPERATIVE REALITY. For example, WHEN WE BUILD A SOCIAL-DYNAMIC SHAPING ‘ECONOMY’ ORIENTING TO THE “GROWTH” OF “PRODUCTION” VIA THE “GROWTH” OF CULTIVATED LAND, which is, in sense experience reality, NOT GROWTH but TRANSFORMATION which includes or takes into account the CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE OF WILDERNESS (uncultivated land).
CAN WE NOT SEE THAT TRANSFORMATION IS AFFIRMED BY SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY WHILE “GROWTH” IS RATIO-BASED ABSTRACTION, AND THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE “GROWTH” OF CULIVATED LAND AND “PRODUCTION”, the sense-experience reality will be of our inclusion in TRANSFORMATION wherein OUR VISUAL FOCUS is on the expanding superficial layer of planted wheat etc, which is what the LANGUAGE based construction of SUBSTITUTE REALITY is focused on as in the GROWTH of PRODUCTION of wheat etc….. WHEN THE SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY is of our INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION.
YES, WE ARE INCLUDED IN THIS ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM THEREFORE OUR REPLACEMENT OF NATURAL DIVERSITY WITH MONO-CULTURE AGRICULTURE IS TRANSFORMING THE RELATIONAL CONTINUUM WHICH INCLUDES OURSELVES.
So, NO, we are NOT IN CONTROL, because that abstract thought requires the BINARY LOGIC of the SELF-OTHER-split which is UNREAL abstraction that cannot occur within the transforming relational continuum, but IT CAN OCCUR IN OUR ABSTRACTING PSYCHE where BINARY LOGIC is available to our intellectual constructions of SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, rather than, as QUANTUM LOGIC would have it, FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (mitakuye oyasin).
So, it is pretty obvious that WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are confusing this BINARY LOGIC based SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO (i.e. INHABITANT and HABITAT are TWO) … FOR REALITY; i.e. we are employing the FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on NAMING and GRAMMAR …. AS OUR OPERATIVE REALITY! This is INSANE. It is the INSANITY OF WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY. Sure, we are all capable of “letting the soft animal of our body love what it wants to love” as in a poetic, relational understanding, … but that is secondary to what goes on in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY which has us THINKING in terms of the PRODUCTION of GOODS and SERVICES as if PRODUCTION were REAL.
If PRODUCTION is REAL, then TRANSFORMATION CAN’T BE REAL, because reality is not big enough for both, and while TRANSFORMATION is the basis of our SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY, PRODUCTION belongs to RATIO-based intellectual SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
As already mentioned, sense-experience reality is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT as is characteristic of the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao. Our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT problem is NOT that we have devised an EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT LANGUAGE BASED WAY OF ARTICULATING AND SHARING REPRESENTATIONS of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY (the substitution gives us an EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT representation that we can share with language), which can be very useful for INFERENCE, … our problem is that we are using it as if it were the OPERATIVE REALITY.
Our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT problem IS that ‘the TOOL has RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, the HUMAN with the DIVINE’, … as Emerson has aptly put it, … because the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING AND GRAMMAR that lets us split the FIGURE out of the GROUND, mesmerizes us into thinking of OUR SELF as a FIGURE that is INDEPENDENT of the GROUND,
So, instead of being used as an EFFABLE-izing SUBSTITUTE REALITY constructing TOOL that serves up a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT which we have engineered for INFERRING the REAL SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY that is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) as is the nature of the Wave-field, aka the Tao, … this SUBSTITUTE REALITY TOOL is running away with OUR SELF, the TOOLMAKER, splitting us out as INHABITANTS of a HABITAT that our language has us understand as ontologically distinct and separate from the INHABITANTS in the sense of CONTAINER AND CONTENT and TWO SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT ONTOLOGICAL ENTITITES rather than in the sense of a TRANSFORMING relational continuum which is fluid so that that the forms and the flow are only ONE with the FLOW as with Waves and Ocean. Or, more generally as in Modern physics wherein material forms are CONDENSATIONS OF THE FIELD.
We may ask ourselves, in our guise as LANGUAGE DESIGNERS, how to design a language that will capture the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE nature of reality, and one way is to architect a language that is FLOW-BASED and inherently RELATIONAL as was the option taken by indigenous aboriginal cultures. Another way (the way of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) is to employ a DOUBLE ERROR technique where we use NAMING to impute LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF BEING to a relational flow-form, and complement this with GRAMMAR to impute the power of AUTHORING action and development to the NAMING instantiated things in themselves. This latter language architecture, instead of keeping a fluid foundation and employing fluid forms so as to satisfy QUANTUM LOGIC of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE, (inhabitant and habitat as ONE) … injects a BINARY LOGIC of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (inhabitant and habitat as TWO).
This latter language became the foundation for CLASSICAL PHYSICS with its abstract concepts of LOCAL FORCE and FORCE-based ACTIONS and INTERACTIONS, an ABSTRACT representation of reality confused for (substituted for) sense experience reality that we are still trying to recover from. As Benjamin Whorf pointed out, CLASSICAL PHYSICS derives from early WESTERN LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE and NOT from sense-experience of natural phenomena.
It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” –Benjamin Whorf
We are STILL USING the SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as our WESTERN CULTURE “OPERATIVE REALITY” even though it was only ever qualified for use for INFERENCE of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) reality that is INEFFABLE and can only be spoken of INDIRECTLY by using INFERENCE, as is the nature of our being included in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.
THIS CONFUSION that has us employing the DOUBLE ERROR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY that is ONLY GOOD FOR INFERENCE as our OPERATIVE REALITY is the SCREW-UP!
WHAT WHERE WE THINKING when we came up with a language architecture based on the abstract DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO which makes this representation dependent on BINARY EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium? Some philosophers have suggested that WHAT WE WERE THINKING OF was OUR SELF and our EGO based sense of a notional power of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments, because that’s what our language architectures brings for us; i.e. an EGO that swells the head, rather than, as in a sense of inclusion in the GREAT MYSTERY (TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM), inspiration that fills the heart.
WE REMAIN STUCK with the pitfalls in these FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO based SUBSTITUTE REALITY constructions, thinking in terms of GROWTH and PRODUCTION as if these were REAL. These SUBSTITUTE REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS are NOT REAL as far as sense-experience goes, they are only supported by a HOUSE OF CARDS CONSISTENCY as where we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ (without any mention of the conjugate shrinkage of the Wilderness). Here is where we use RATIO which is one-way extension of things as if space were empty; i.e. we can ENVISAGE the TOWN as if it were spreading out and growing larger in a RATIO-based LOCAL sense as if in an absolute space of infinite extent (Euclidian space). The indigenous aboriginal, who does not have a DOUBLE ERROR based language architecture that employs RATIO to convey the notion of LOCALLY AUTHORED GROWTH in SIZE and PRODUCTION as is employed in our WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY CONSTRUCTION, understands sense-experience reality in terms of INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION.
The HOUSE OF CARDS SUPPORT comes from all of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS letting our actions be coordinated by the same set of falsehoods such as the notion that the GROWTH of PRODUCTION is a DYNAMIC that we should CELEBRATE and ENCOURAGE. The availability of cheap lumber supports the construction of new houses and the training and employment of more carpenters who will have purchasing power for more tools and the construction of new homes means more new roads and more surface mining of aggregate for roach construction and resurfacing. These numerous interdependencies keep inducing GROWTH of the whole interdependent network. While we may focus our attention on GROWTH and PRODUCTION, there is also the conjugate CONSUMPTION of natural resources through logging and mining and fishing and hunting and there is also destructive actions on the land through growing domestic and industrial encroachment. Overall, there is TRANSFORMATION, as always, and TRANSFORMATION is the REAL DYNAMIC. The WESTERN CULTURE economy is thus like a HOUSE OF CARDS in that SUPPLY and CONSUMPTION draw on one another in the manner like COOPERATING PARTNERS who are OBLIVIOUS to the reality that TRANSFORMATION is what is REALLY going on, while GROWTH and PRODUCTION are ABSTRACTIONS
We hear PROPOSITIONS SUCH AS “THE PEOPLE OF THE VALLEY CONSTRUCTED A NEW TOWN with many NEW HOMES, BUSINESSES and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES”. THEY ARE THE PRODUCERS OF MANY GOODS AND SERVICES WHICH CONTRIBUTE to the NATION’S GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT”.
As forests are reduced to industrial parks and playing fields, should we not be talking in terms of TRANSFORMATION rather than in terms of GROWTH and PRODUCTION?
In terms of SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY, there is no such thing as LOCAL GROWTH and LOCAL PRODUCTION. GROWTH and PRODUCTION belong to SUBSITUTE REALITY where we focus on THE TOWN and its power of AUTHORING (i.e. “PRODUCING”) goods and services. BUT THERE IS NO “TOWN” WITH POWERS OF PRODUCING goods and services. That only happens in the SUBSTITUTE REALITY. In sense-experience reality, there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING continuum. There are definitely no such things in sense-experience reality as LOCAL TOWN-THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with POWERS of AUTHORING GROWTH of POPULATION AND PRODUCTION.
In the indigenous aboriginal understanding, which remains grounded in sense-experience, what is going on is TRANSFORMATION as in a TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM rather than any conceptualization in the abstract SUBSTITUTE REALTIY terms of ‘the TOWN’ as a LOCAL EXPLICIT THING-IN-ITSELF situated within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT (an abstraction that rearranges our mind, removing the TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and SUBSTITUTING a LOCAL TOWN-THING-IN-ITSELF with ITS OWN POWERS of AUTHORING GROWTH and PRODUCTION of people, goods and services).
SHOULD WE SAY THAT OUR WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, in its coming up with REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR … IS IN ERROR? NO, it is just a SUBSTITUTE REALITY meant to INFER our ineffable sense-experience reality of inclusion in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (the transforming relational continuum). We might own up to the fact that we have had a problem in that we (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) have fallen into the habit of regarding the SUBSTITUTE REALITY construction, NOT SIMPLY AS INFERENCE of the INFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT sense-experience reality, but as a LITERALLY TAKEN OPERATIVE REALITY. ARE WE TO BELIEVE IN the GROWTH of things like TOWNS and INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, and to INVEST in these things for our own PROFIT? Because if we do this, we FORGET THAT “GROWTH” IS NOT REAL WITHOUT INCLUDING ITS CONJUGATE “CONSUMPTION” OF WILDERNESS AND THUS THE OVERALL ‘REALITY’ OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE LANDSCAPE. If we invest in the abstract notion of GROWTH, then TRANSFORMATION, which is the sense-experience affirmed reality, will be flapping around like a loose [sail-] sheet in a gale) .
Well, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have chosen a language architecture that employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which invokes BINARY LOGIC based representations of a SUBSTITUTE RALITY wherein FIGURE and GROUND are TWO, and instead of using this SUBSTITUTE REALITY as a rough ‘go-by’ or ‘inference’ of the ineffable-because-nonlocal-and-implicit sense-experience reality, we have fallen into the habit (trap) of employing our abstract SUBSTITUTE REALITY as our OPERATIVE REALITY, treating GROWTH, which is abstract LOCAL RATIO based, as if it were REAL; e.g. as if the GROWTH of the TOWN and its PRODUCTION were REAL when what is REALLY GOING ON is not GROWTH or PRODUCTION (these are both ratio-based abstractions) but instead, TRANSFORMATION.
So, now we have this language architecture in which we can split things up into LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, notionally with their own powers of AUTHORING actions and development so that we can construct SUBSTITUTE (pie in the sky) REALITIES that become our local operative go-by wherein we actually COMPETE to produce as much or more as our neighbours and all the while, what is REALLY GOING ON (in our sense-experience reality) is TRANSFORMATION, … an all-including TRANSFORMING which includes us and our purported ‘producing activity’ (in other words, OUR PURPORTED LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT). Sure this is a handy use of language to SIDESTEP the ineffable-because-nonlocal-and-implicit nature of sense-experience reality, but WE ARE NOT AUTHORS OF ANYTHING because we are INCLUDED in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, so this TOOL of language based representation that employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR abstraction that makes LOCAL AUTHORS out of us (or out of whatever we want to NAME and apply GRAMMAR to) is RUNNING AWAY WITH US because we are using it to DEFINE OURSELVES and make ourselves out to be LOCAL AUTHORS of actions and developments such as the CONSTRUCTION OF TOWNS and the PRODUCTION of goods and services.
The understanding of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is GONE in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY where we have used language based representation to construct a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that features HUMANS in the role of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with their own powers of AUTHORING actions and developments. THANK YOU VERY MUCH “DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR”, but NO THANKS to SWOLLEN EGO that gives us ‘LOCK-IN by HIGH SWITCHING COSTS’ that is trapping us inside this DELUSION of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which never should have been taken to be anything more than a TOOL or useful INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao).
* * *
Ok, what is keeping us ENTRAPPED is this split between the Conservatives (e.g. U.S. Republicans) and the Liberals (e.g. U.S. Democrats), BOTH OF WHOM have bought into belief in the DOUBLE ERRROR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY and have fallen victim to the basic ambiguity that happens when one uses language to FRAGMENT the continuum.
The ENTRAPMENT derives from the fact that TRANSFORMATION is like weather in the atmosphere with its high pressure aspect (male assertive) and low pressure aspect (female inductive). The weather is fluid and ongoing and the ‘goal’ of the ‘opposites’ is TRANSFORMATION and NOT HEAD-BUTTING ‘COMPETITION’. This is what comes of QUANTUM LOGIC: the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDED medium (think of the Tai-Chi symbol wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE). Change comes through TRANSFORMATION in this case. In WESTERN CULTURE political POLARIZATION, there is BINARY LOGIC based WIN/LOSE COMPETITION which in the fully degenerate case which leads to an angry stalemate or a violent clash.
There is an association between CONSERVATIVES and MALE-ASSERTIVE (One bad apple spoils the barrel) and an association between LIBERALS and FEMALE-NURTURING (it takes a whole community to raise a child) so that there is a ‘polar’ difference here which can degenerate to HEAD-BUTTING OPPOSITION. This depends on the form of LOGIC that becomes OPERATIVE. When the OPERATIVE LOGIC degenerates from QUANTUM LOGIC which is the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, … to BINARY LOGIC which is the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium, this can bring forth HEAD-BUTTING polarization.
Which of the two LOGICS is being used impacts the view of the ECONOMY; i.e. If BINARY LOGIC is assumed, the question becomes; is it the PUSH of the assertive individual that is the AUTHOR of production of goods and services or is it the PULL of the social collective that is the AUTHOR of the production of goods and services. That is, if one sticks to BINARY LOGIC, an unresolvable question/argument arises as whether it is the SUPPLY SIDE or the CONSUMER SIDE that is the basic AUTHOR of a PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY.
COMMENT: There is no such thing as LOCAL AUTHOR or LOCAL PRODUCTION, there is only TRANSFORMATION, in which case, BOTH are WRONG, as also in the Zen koan of Wind and Flag (does the air author the moving of the flag or does the flag author the moving of the air?). ANSWER: There is no AUTHORING in transformation.
COMMENT: There is pervasive social dysfunction deriving from (mistaken interpretation of) the architecture of language which invokes LOCAL AUTHORING in order to SIDESTEP the problem of INEFFABILITY arising from sense experience reality of inclusion in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT dynamic of TRANSFORMATION. To mistake LOCAL AUTHORING for reality is DELUSIONAL. This is a pitfall built into WESTERN CULTURE by way of its language architectures, hence David Bohm’s following observation;.
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
* * *
“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way —an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one. BUT ITS TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated”.
– Benjamin Whorf, (1940) “Science and linguistics” in: MIT Technology Review Vol 42. p. 229-31.
“WHORFIAN” AGREEMENT amongst us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS:
We hereby agree to apply NAMING and GRAMMAR to gathering-scattering resonance features such as ants gathering around a drop of honey and scattering with their load of honey. Naming allows us to impute LOCAL BEING to the gathering-scattering configuration or ‘resonance’ feature while GRAMMAR allows us to impute to this abstraction of the NAMING instantiated local being, ITS OWN POWERS of AUTHORING actions and developments so that this purely relational gathering-scattering resonance feature can be RE-CAST as a LOCAL AUTHOR of ITS OWN GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT. We can enVISAGE the LOCALLY AUTHORED “GROWTH” of this GATHERING-SCATTERING resonance as in the act of VISUALIZING based only on AMPLITUDE and NOT taking into account PHASE (the cyclic aspect of gathering and scattering; i.e. the cyclic aspect associated with of inflow-based building and outflow-based decline).
NOTA BENE: the focus on the AMPLITUDE of the LOCAL CROWD of ANTS orients shifts our focus to a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein the CLUSTERING which is a purely relational RESONANCE FEATURE is REPLACED with a NOTIONAL LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF that is CAST AS the LOCAL AUTHOR of its own GROWTH and SHRINKING. The NONLOCAL IMPLICIT REALITY wherein everything is in flux departs from intellectual consciousness (this departure of the basic sense-experience reality is the DEA ABSCONDITA and what remains). This LOSS of the relational phase information that leaves only the AMPLITUDE of the LOCAL feature that is seen as GROWING and SHRINKING, the NONLOCAL reality being psychologically DISCARDED. The NONLOCAL CONTAINER that is the real source of this idealized-as-LOCAL GROWING and SHRINKING FIGURE which is now seen as INDEPENDENT of the GROUND, becomes the DEA ABSCONDITA. which, while it has “DEPARTED” from our psychological conscious focus and attention, remains an integral aspect of our sense-experience reality. Our ENGLISH language architecture does this DROPPING OUT on a routine basis, and this is what has us thinking in terms of LOCAL AUTHORSHIP as in a NEW, SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
Instead of a HOLOGRAPHIC sense-experience reality wherein we understand our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao, by DROPPING OUT the oscillatory phase aspect of the GATHERING-and-SCATTERING and focusing on the GROWING and SHRINKING AMPLITUDE of the ant TOWN, we make psychological entry into the SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, notionally with their own powers of AUTHORING actions and developments such as GROWTH and PRODUCTION. This is essentially an intellectually ‘sponsored’ REDUCTION IN DIMENSIONALITY of our sense-experience which can be explained as follows, via this excerpt from the Nobel prize award presentation to Denis Gabor for his discovery of holography (discovered in 1947) describing how the holodynamic is captured/represented optically;
“ The photographic plate preserves for us a picture of a fleeting moment, which perhaps we may make use of over a long time period for measurements, or it transforms a wave-field of heat rays, X rays, or electron rays to a visible image. And yet, important information about the object is missing in a photographic image. This is a problem which has been a key one for Dennis Gabor during his work on information theory. Because the image reproduces only the effect of the intensity of the incident wave-field, not its nature. The other characteristic quantity of the waves, phase, is lost and thereby the three dimensional geometry. The phase depends upon from which direction the wave is coming and how far it has travelled from the object to be imaged. Gabor found the solution to the problem of how one can retain a wave-field with its phase on a photographic plate.” – Erik Ingelstam, in presenting Gabor with his Nobel Prize in Physics (for holography) in 1971
The holographic sensory experience is an INCLUSIONAL experience that overcomes the limitations of the VOYEUR visual experience that limits us to views as might be seen by an observer-subject that is an infinite distance from the observed-object (i.e. where the imagery does not ‘balloon out and around’ as we move deeper into the space that we, the viewing subject, share inclusion in with the viewed object). Our sense-experience is a holographic experience wherein, as Schroedinger points out SUBJECT and OBJECT are only one; i.e. there is only the all-including wave-field with its condensations where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.
BASED on AMPLITUDE ONLY of the size of the ant cluster, we can speak of the GROWING and the DIMINISHING of the ANT TOWN as if the ANT TOWN were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of AUTHORING GROWTH and DECLINE. This understanding in terms of GROWING and DIMINISHING obscures our sense-experience awareness of GATHERING and SCATTERING which is innately NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as in the holographic awareness which MUCH MORE THAN an intellectually scrutinizable VIEW in that it is a sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field aka the Tao.
Whorf’s observation is that LANGUAGE derives from unspoken agreements such as this; i.e. that we will speak of the GROWTH of the ant-cluster as if it were LOCAL TOWN THING-IN-ITSELF AUTHORED by the ANTS and give this a foundational role in our construction of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein inherently NONLOCAL GATHERING-SCATTERING FEATUERS. This is a NONLOCAL phenomenon where we have no idea, and it doesn’t matter anyway for our purposes, where the participants are coming from and going to, the BEAUTY of reducing this TOWNING of ants in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE lies in its ability to SIMPLIFY our expressing of this un-corral-able, NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon in REDUCING it to a pseudo-LOCAL BEING-THING notionally with its own powers of AUTHORING actions such as its own GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION. That is, the purely relational, NONLOCAL gathering-scattering feature, thanks to our new LANGUAGE, is recast thanks to NAMING as the LOCAL ANT-TOWN with GRAMMAR given powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of ‘its own’ GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION of food and children and housing structure.
The appeal of this SUBSTITUTE REALITY which reduces gathering-scattering resonance in a NONLOCAL RELATIONAL dynamic, by way of NAMING and GRAMMAR, to a notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, notionally with ITS OWN POWER OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT (e.g. ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more POPULOUS and PRODUCTIVE). This WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE TRICKERY APPEALS TO THE EGO sine the DOUBLE ERROR combination of NAMING and GRAMMAR creates the artificial sense of a LOCAL BEING with its own (notional) POWERS OF AUTHORING actions and development and production. No more TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE that is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational), since LANGUAGE is able to recast this NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION in terms of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring a LOCAL TOWN (thanks to naming) notionally with its own POWERS (thanks to grammar) of AUTHORING its own GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS endorse this WHORFIAN agreement to deploy this LANGUAGE based on NAMING and GRAMMAR which reduces the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT to a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT, … as our WESTERN CULTURE AGREED OPERATIVE REALITY. When we say; ‘the TOWN is GROWING LARGER and MORE POPULOUS AND PRODUCTIVE, we intend that we should all speak and move and act as if this were REALITY regardless of conflict with our sense-experience reality with its gathering-scattering version of reality. This language and the SUBSTITUTE REALITIES we can construct with it provide us with a COMMON BASIS for SHARING REPRESENTATIONS of our sense experience, which, although they do not REPRODUCE our sense experiences, stimulate thought based representations which, while SUBSTITUTE REALITIES, enable language based sharing so as to put us on ‘the same page’ whether or not that ‘page’ is a more or less accurate REPRESENTATION of sense-experience reality.
The key to this LANGUAGE scheme ‘working’ that as a group of users, we must agree, implicitly, to attach the same understandings to the same name and grammar constructs, thus when we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, we need to leave behind alternative interpretations such as where there is TOWING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein TOWNING is a GATHERING-SCATTERING RESONANCE phenomenon which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE because our LANGUAGE architecture is based on the DOUBLE CONSTRUCT of NAMING and GRAMMAR that sets up a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on NAMING-instantiated LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-given powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.
When we say; ‘the TOWN IS GROWING”, we don’t want anyone blurring this with notions of TOWNING as a GATHERING-SCATTERING resonance feature that implies a NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FLUID REALITY wherein RELATIONS are in an INNATE PRIMACY over ‘things’. We want ‘the TOWN’ to be understood as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of AUTHORING GROWTH and PRODUCTION of people and products.
Language WORKS by way of multiple members of a social collective understanding the same thing on hearing the same utterance or seeing the same written words. This puts a social collective ON THE SAME PAGE whether that “SAME PAGE” is INTELLECTUAL FANTASY or SENSE-GROUNDED EXPERIENCE.
SENSE EXPERIENCE REALITY is of inclusion in continuing flux so it is NOT a candidate for capture in LOCAL and EXPLICIT terms. Indigenous aboriginals employ a flow-based language that speaks of the ants that are gathering and scattering and their resonance clustering as TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein everything is in flux. OUR WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE avoids dependency on the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and reduces TOWNING to the LOCAL TOWN, supplementing this with GRAMMAR which imputes local powers of AUTHORING to the NAMING-instantiated TOWN-THING-IN-ITSELF so as to picture the TOWN as a LOCAL ENTITY having its own powers of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.
INSTEAD of acknowledging TOWNING as a resonance feature WITHIN the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE REDUCES this NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TOWNING to the LOCAL and EXPLICIT “TOWN” by NAMING IT and by using GRAMMAR to impute to it ITS OWN POWERS OF AUTHORING GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and the POWER OF PRODUCING goods and services.
The GATHERING-SCATTERING resonance feature such as the TOWNING of ants, can, thanks to NAMING and GRAMMAR, be recast in the SUBSTITUTE REALITY terms of a LOCAL TOWN notionally endowed with ITS OWN AUTHORING POWERS of actions and developments.
CAN YOU SEE THE ADVANTAGES TO THIS SUBSTITUTE REALITY? This DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR technique opens the way for us to CONSTRUCT A SUBSTITUTE REALITY where we can do an END-RUN around the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT sense experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum. In this DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR based SUBSTITUTE REALITY, our reality constructions can commence from a LOCAL BASE such as ‘the TOWN’ (instead of the NONLOCAL TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM which goes on and on and on and which therefore only be IMPLIED as in the words TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE where we never have to commit any finite beginning and ending since the implication is that ‘everything is in flux’)
But in this resonance feature ANT-TOWN that is a gathering-scattering resonance where “IT” appears to GROW and SHRINK even though THERE IS NO “LOCAL “IT”” to which to attribute ITS own POWERS OF AUTHORING GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, … there is only the NONLOCAL gathering-scattering resonance feature within the transforming relational continuum.
OK, if you are ready to become a member of our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE CLUB, you are going to have to obey the LANGUAGE CLUB RULES in order for there to even be a workable language here, so when I use the DOUBLE ERROR and say; ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, you have to intercept those words with the same construction rules I am using, which means NONE OF THIS INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL OR MODERN PHYSICS BASED INFERRING OF TOWING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE as if TOWNING were a resonance phenomenon that was purely relational rather than a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own grammar-given powers of AUTHORING GROWTH, PRODUCTION and DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE THE RULES FOR THIS WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE WE CALL “ENGLISH”. IN ORDER TO HAVE A WORKABLE LANGUAGE, WE MUST ALL ACCEPT THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING and GRAMMAR that supports the notion of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.as with the TOWN that GROWS LARGER and MORE POPULOUS AND PRODUCTIVE. NONE OF THIS BUSINESS OF “TOWNING” IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE WHICH MIRES US DOWN IN THE NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT DYNAMICS OF GATHERING-SCATTERING RESONANCES. OUR WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE WON’T WORK UNLESS WE ALL COMPLY WITH THE COMMON SET OF PREMISES SUCH AS NAMING AND GRAMMAR THAT IS THE KEY TO BREAKING REALITY DOWN INTO LOCAL FRAGMENTS WHICH ARE CAPTURABLE IN A FINITE NUMBER OF WORDS, … AVOIDING THE INDIGENOUS ABORIGNAL TECHNIQUE OF CONSTRAINING LANGUAGE TO RELATIONS WHICH PRESERVE THE NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT AS IN A FLOW-BASED REALITY.
* * *