Introduction to; CHOICELESS AWARENESS, SPHERICITY, Two-party Politics and QAnon 

As Lao Tzu pointed out, reality is ineffable because everything is in flux, as is the nature of a our Wave-field world.


I think that this corresponds to Krishnamurti’s ‘choiceless awareness’, as is needed to experience our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.


What bothers our understanding is LANGUAGE because we use language to try to EFFABLE-ize the INEFFABLE, which leads us into INVENTING a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that “IS” EFFABLE.


That’s fine except that that which is EFFABLE is only a kind of DEAD PRECIPITATE of the INEFFABLE Wave-field.  Can you imagine yourself standing and looking out at the world and describing it, and all the while you are having psycho-emotional feelings that your description of ‘what’s out there’ is not capturing.   In other words, you have a SUBJECTIVITY that is an integral part of your experience as you OBJECTIVELY capture what IS OUT THERE.  This subjectivity and objectivity is experienced in ineffable conjugate wholeness.

Mach points to the fact that we study PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY separately but in order to RE-CONSTITUTE REALITY, we must bring PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY into CONNECTIVE CONFLUENCE.  I think of that in terms of our experience of looking at a hologram encoded in a funny-coloured display in a magazine and one has to ‘let go of’ our rational crows-eye scrutinizing of the display in order to experience the HOLOGRAPHIC view.  It seems to me that Mach is speaking, in very general terms, of the same sort of thing in his book ‘the Analysis of Sensations’;

“The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical.

Here is an example exercise for GOING BEYOND THE LITERAL or PURELY PHYSICAL aspect that I have had to do in pursuing such physical-psychological investigation.  In my text, I am adding an ING to NAMES to imply that forms are relational features in the flow (the Tao aka the Wave-field).  We know that PLANETING is a Wave-field phenomena, even though we speak of it in terms of PLANETS as THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES that ROTATE “AROUND THEIR OWN AXIS” and ORBIT around other CELESTIAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES such as ‘the SUN’.  Clearly, this THING-based talk is a LOAD OF CALCULATED BULLSHIT designed to construct a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that will serve as INFERENCE of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.   It is not SENSELESS BULLSHIT but MEANINGFUL BULLSHIT and quite USEFUL BULLSHIT so long as we don’f forget it is BULLSHIT.

In my writing, I often hit the wall and come up against the INEFFABLE as in the case of “PLANETING”.   There are no PLANETS in a TRANSFORMING WAVE-FIELD, there is only PLANETIING, so when we think about EARTHING, keeping in mind Mach’s above point of bringing physics and psychology together, we can imagine the roundness of the paneting we are calling EARTH, in terms of EXTRUSION and INTRUSION working together as ONE (FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE or PLANETING and FIELDING as ONE) so, if you let your understanding ‘flex’ as when you are opening your mind to see the hologram on the flat-page colour pattern, you can understand EXTRUSION and INTRUSION in terms of a TRANSFORMING PLANETING, …. where one LET’S GO’ of the LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF BASE and understands that the PLANETING is a FIELD-FEATURE.

NOTE that we are NOT FABRICATING ANYTHING here because there is ONGOING EXTRUSION and INTRUSION as in a continuing cycle, so we can reflect on the fact that it is our SNAP-SHOTTING of the PLANETING that is the source of our DIVIDING IT UP INTO a LOGICAL DUALITY of MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING dynamics as we VISUALLY OBSERVE it and FREEZE-FRAME the DYNAMICS using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

Note that our OBJECTIFYING language has us keep referring back to a IMPLICIT SUBJECT as in IT IS EXTRUDING and IT IS SUBDUCTING when in the Wave-field reality, THERE IS NO IT, and we are falling into the DOUBLE ERROR treatment pointed out by Nietzsche where we INVENT a subject that we can ATTRIBUTE SOURCING of the TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE to;

Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

In the case of the change that is going on in regard to SPHERING in the Wave-field, we INVENT AN AUTHOR and that AUTHOR is ‘the SPHERE’ that we say is the SOURCE of EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION as if it were DOING IT TO ITSELF like the old OUR-BORUS.  This is the same sort of the thing as RATIO-nalizing GROWTH in that the abstract concept of RATIO allows us to impute LOCAL SOURCING such as GROWTH of a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, .. setting up in our PSYCHE the notion of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO, the MALE-ASSERTIVE FIGURE OF THE “EXTRUSION”, that we use language to construct with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as something INDEPENDENT and having a CONJUGATE RELATION with the FEMALE-INDUCTIVE “INTRUSION”, that we use language to construct with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

So, our language-based REPRESENTATION “LOOK LIKE” the OUROBORUS which is either swallowing its own tail or sticking its own head up its ass, but in any case using a CONJUGATE RELATION to SUGGEST the ONE DYNAMIC of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (ASSERTING MALE and ACCOMMODATING FEMALE ARE ONE) as in the case of the SPHERING of the earth wherein EXTRUSION and INTRUSION are ONE and while the TALK is in terms of the SPHERE having the powers of LOCAL SOURCING of EXTRUSION and INTRUSION, the reality is TRANSFORMATION which does not involve LOCAL SOURCING.

IN WHICH CASE, we must BACK OFF our imputing of LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELNESS to the SPHERE and instead conceive of what is going in terms of the dynamics of the FIELD and we are going to need the HOLOGRAPHIC dynamic here to GET RID OF THE LOCAL BEING OF THE SPHERE because the notion of a SPHERE that is EXTRUDING and SUBDUCTING is UNTENABLE in that both of these dynamics are CHANGING the SPHERE IN OPPOSITE WAYS.  It is a COINCIDENTIA OPPOSITORUM as the ancients called it, which, like the OUROBORUS implies some NEW LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF out of ITSELF, a TRANSFORMATION which is LOCAL and which doesn’t depend on anything else.

NO WONDER, the AETHER CONCEPT has persisted as the notion of a local field of energy that supports what goes on with the material objects within the AETHER.  The relation between two opposites such as MATTER and EMPTY SPACE is problematic in that it requires abstract BINARY LOGIC to keep the two separate, so that MATERIAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES can GROW and can MOVE ON THEIR OWN, as we VISUALLY OBSERVE THEM.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, the FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in a HOLOGRAM in which case we could understand SPHERING in HOLOGRAPHIC terms aka WAVE-FIELD terms.  It would then follow that ALL FORMS are HOLOGRAPHIC and the UNIVERSE was an overall HOLOGRAM or WAVE-FIELD, so that, as EINSTEIN suggested, MATTER-and-FIELD-are-ONE (FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE);

“Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter. Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.” — Einstein, ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity’

We could then understand PLANETING in terms where EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION ARE ONE which would imply TRANSFORMATION in a HOLOGRAPHIC sense.  It would be in a HOLOGRAPHIC sense since such dynamics would then be AUTHORED BY THE FIELD, which would resolve the PROBLEMATIC imputing of AUTHORSHIP TO A LOCAL SPHERE (an abstract geometric form) which we have been saying ‘rotates’ ‘around its own axis, … a kind of incestuous dynamic that is a form of ANTHROPOMORPHISM that borrows from our own language-based MOCK-UP of our SELVES in DOUBLE ERROR NAMING and GRAMMAR based terms.

IT SEEMS CLEAR that we can understand PLANETS in terms of PLANETING and HUMANING ETC. ETC. within the WAVE-FIELD which suggests also a HOLOGRAPHIC WAVE FIELD based reality which is in keeping with EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and also in keeping with ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.

The key ‘picture’ here, for me, is the picture of the sphering as in a planeting or particle-ing featuring the conjugate (coincidentia oppositorum)  MALE-ASSERTIVE – FEMALE INDUCTIVE dynamic of TRANSFORMATION.  This is what is actually going on in PLANETING as in the case of EARTHING while such phenomena are fully INCLUDED in the field, we, in our VISUAL OBSERVER STATUS, are always OUTSIDE LOOKING IN where we see PLANETS instead of PLANETING, and as soon as this occurs, we flip into DOUBLE ERROR representational mode where we impute the POWER OF CHANGE AND MOTION to the LOCAL FORM WE CALL ‘THE PLANET’, … and its GOODBYE to the REAL reality wherein PLANETING is a phenomenon belonging to the WAVE-FIELD, … and HELLO ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE EUCLIDIAN SPACE which MAKES POSSIBLE our FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO REPRESENTATION, NOT OF REALITY, but of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein relational forms in the flow ARE NOW RE-PRESENTATED as if they are LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, thanks to the language-based suggestion to our psyche to BUY IN to the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO SUBSTITUTE REALITY.

This holographic Wave-field reality featuring planeting and humaning as features within the holodynamic are precisely where Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta implicitly ARE.  That is why, for example, “we can’t step into the same river twice, for it is not the same river and not the same person stepping into it”.  In a holographic reality, everything is in flux. … i.e. That does not meant that EVERY “THING” is in flux, but it means that FLUX is the basic reality so that THERE ARE NO ONTOLOGICAL THINGS, there are only relational flow-forms that APPEAR as persisting things, like the BOIL-ING in the river bend that we like to reduce to ‘the BOIL’ and use the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to impute to it ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT (e.g. that BOIL is getting larger and stronger).  Such ANTHROPOMORPHISM OBSCURES THE ORIGIN of the BOILING which is the FLOW-FIELD which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS don’t like to mention because IT IS UNBOUNDED IN SPACETIME and that exposes our LANGUAGE as being a HOUSE OF CARDS SUBSTITUTE REALITY.

This “introduction” aims to alert the reader to the problem of the INEFFABILITY of reality  (the incapability of language to capture our sensory experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum wherein everything is in flux), and aims also to point to how we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are constructing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that IS EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT… THANKS TO THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR

In this SUBSTITUTE REALITY our words conjure about visual pictures such as ‘the planet is revolving around its own axis’.  In saying this, we implicitly construct a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO which ABSTRACTLY LIBERATES the FIGURE and endows it WITH ITS OWN LOCAL BEING and with its own GRAMMAR-GIVEN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS such as ‘evolving around its own axis’ and growing as an ellipsoid due to centrifugal force etc.  This kind of talk sets up a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which now depends on the NOTIONAL EXISTENCE OF AN ABSOLUTE SPACE THAT IS EMPTY AND INFINITE AND SERVES AS A NON-PARTICIPATING ‘PLAYING FIELD’ for our linguistically declared as INDEPENDENT THING-IN-ITSELF PLANET to strut its stuff; i.e. to demonstrate ITS OWN MOVEMENTS such as ROTATION and its own ORBITING.  This construction of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO, as Benjamin Whorf has pointed out, came well before Newton and was incorporated on WESTERN LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

 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.” 

That is, Newtonian pace, time and matter derived from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The point is that this DOUBLE ERROR based schema IS BUILT INTO OUR LANUAGE BASED REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY, which is what is giving us representations of SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein, for example, EXTRUSION and INTRUSION (MALE and FEMALE dynamics) are USURPING (SUBSTITUTING FOR) the real dynamic of TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE because NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (as where everything is in flux, as in the Wave-field).

We don’t have get EXPLICIT and LITERALIST about language interpretation and we can use our INTUITION to make the leap to the INEFFABLE as where we can understand the CONJUGATE male and female duo of EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION in the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE terms of TRANSFORMATION of the Wave-field, as is the ‘reality’ in Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.


The GLOBAL ECONOMY is based on the pursuit of GROWTH and PRODUCTION.  If there are two neighbouring villages on the one is understanding themselves as included in the transforming relational continuum and thus in a natural model of sustaining relational balance in a FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE sense, … they will in no way be ‘competitive’ with their neighbour that believes in their own FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO based INDEPENDENT STATUS wherein the concept of SUB-OPTIMIZATION of the FIGURE (as if in its own right) seems to ‘make sense’.  DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE support such BIPOLAR DISORDERED THINKING.  As systems sciences theorists such as Martine Dodds-Taljaard have pointed out in such papers as ‘The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’, our EGO-pushed pursuit of SUB-OPTIMIZATION is a CRAZINESS which, meanwhile, can deliver unbalanced RICHES to the SUB-OPTIMIZER.  Such one-sided initiative will eventually self-destruct in the manner of the WEED-KILLER ‘ROUND-UP’ which works by ‘fixing’ a plant so as to speed up its internal production processes well beyond the natural balance prevailing in the relationally-interdependent ecosystem it is included in.

Opinion: Sooner or later, we have to stop economic growth — and we’ll be better for it

The end of growth will come one day, perhaps very soon, whether we’re ready or not. If we plan for and manage it, we could well wind up with greater well-being.

by Richard Heinberg

January 8, 2019 — Both the U.S. economy and the global economy have expanded dramatically in the past century, as have life expectancies and material progress. Economists raised in this period of plenty assume that growth is good, necessary even, and should continue forever and ever without end, amen. Growth delivers jobs, returns on investment and higher tax revenues. What’s not to like? We’ve gotten so accustomed to growth that governments, corporations and banks now depend on it. It’s no exaggeration to say that we’re collectively addicted to growth.

The trouble is, a bigger economy uses more stuff than a smaller one, and we happen to live on a finite planet. So, an end to growth is inevitable. Ending growth is also desirable if we want to leave some stuff (minerals, forests, biodiversity and stable climate) for our kids and their kids. Further, if growth is meant to have anything to do with increasing quality of life, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it has passed the point of diminishing returns: Even though the U.S. economy is 5.5 times bigger now than it was in 1960 (in terms of real GDP), America is losing ground on its happiness index.

 * * *




If the Wave-field is an all-including fluid dynamic, our experience of inclusion within it will be INEFFABLE because NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

This REALITY makes our attempts at REPRESENTATION of reality very challenging, in fact, we will have to engineer a SUBSTITUTE reality that we can REPRESENT to do an ‘end run’ around the INFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT flow-based Wave-field reality.

The SUBSTITUTE reality can break us SUBJECTS out by doing a SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLIT wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO where we think of ourselves as VOYEURS of “A WORLD OUT THERE” which cannot be the REAL WORLD because we are INCLUDED IN THE REAL WORLD.

“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.” – Erwin Schroedinger

REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY are something other than our sensory experiential CHOICELESS AWARENESS of inclusion in the world.

Once we get into the schemes for REPRESENTING the world; i.e. in constructing vision-accessible representations of the world, we are TAKEN INSIDE A SUBSTITUTE REALITY since our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka the Tao is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT.

Sensory experience FEELING-WISE, we can understand that we are INCLUDED in the TRANSFORMING relational continuum, but we also have INTELLECTUAL-REPRESENTATION capability where we can make pictures and annotate them with language to effect an INTELLECTUAL REPRESENTATION OF ..OF… ????   NOT of “REALITY” but …OF an EFFABLE SUBSTITUTE REALITY that is on the OBJECT side of our contrived SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLITTING which is where it must be to be visible to us.

Sensory experience-wise, we can FEEL our inclusion in TRANSFORMATION but while a natural aspect of our inclusion within it is that it is not visualizable in a voyeur subject-object splitting representation, we must ask ourselves “WHAT IS THIS VISUAL REPRESENTATION that I see in my VOYEUR observational mode if it is NOT REALITY?”

Whatever it is, we can intuit that animals with eyes on the opposite sides of their heads must experience less SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLITTING than we humans with eyes on one side of our heads, a perspective that seems to concretize an “OBJECTIVE WORLD OUT THERE” and a “SUBJECTIVE WORD IN HERE” SPLIT.

As Schroedinger and Mach both noted, somehow, we have to put the OBJECT WORLD WE SEE OUT THERE and the SUBJECT WORLD WE SENSE “IN HERE” back together.

We normally pass over issues like this and go straight to OBJECT side of our SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLITTING VISUALIZATION where we try to capture and deliver a representation of the OBJECT as if it were easily separable from any SUBJECTIVE ‘contamination’, and we put the result in a language-based REPRESENTATION of ‘what is going on out there’.

Some philosophical investigators, like Ernst Mach in ‘The Analysis of Sensations, and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical’, … have pointed out that we have to bring the physical and psychical into connective confluence in order to understand a reality in flux in which we are included;

“The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical.

However, the popular interest, among us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, is not to ‘go there’ but to keep hammering away on differences in our OBJECTIVE interpretations of the physics, as if we could ‘get to the bottom of things’ in that one-sided manner, WITHOUT HAVING TO INCLUDE THE PSYCHICAL AS A TOTAL PACKAGE.

But what SUBJECTIVE ASSEMPTIONS might we be employing that might ‘colour’ and ‘put our own bias’ on the OBJECT of our INVESTIGATION?.   Can a male observe a female in the same objective manner as a female observing a female, or a white observe a black as a black would observe a black?

This note that I am now writing; CHOICELESS AWARENESS, SPHERICITY, and QAnon is a brief exploration of where and how confusions and ambiguities come into play through our different approaches to reducing the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.  It is in such reduction where we use the ‘double error of NAMING and GRAMMAR’ to inject the abstract concept of LOCAL SOURCING.

This is a philosophical inquiry into the concept of LOCAL SOURCING.

* * *

There is a problem with the concept of SOURCING or SORCERY.   it leads to the conservative and liberal and QAnon split.

Trump promotes an arm-waving “I sourced the gathering of this huge crowd, the greatest crowd ever for a presidential inauguration, for MY presidential inauguration”.

This sort of propositional claim promotes the notion of his personal sourcing powers (what about when the masses that turned on Mussolini?  …. when the myth of his personal sourcing powers collapsed?

Does the man’s power make the crowds gather or do the gathering crowds make the man’s power?    Do the masses cultivate their own figurehead?  If the opportunistic orator can suss out what the crowd NEEDS to hear, however misguided that may be, he can follow that lead and be lifted up on their shoulders like the saviour that has arrived.

[Author’s interjection: — A hint of a non-sorcery-based Wave-field interpretation here; i.e. gathering and scattering can be conjugate aspects of transformation as with subduction and extrusion that sustain, for example, the transforming sphericity within the Wave-field that we have called ‘the Earth’.  There is no ‘sphere’ that ‘locally sources’ aka ‘authors’ extrusions and subductions, the phenomena are nonlocal and implicit (relational).  Naming and grammar invent local ‘sourcing’.  Meanwhile, LOCAL SOURCING DOES NOT EXIST whether on not one’s EGO persuades one that one is LOCALLY SOURCING crowd gathering.  There is TRANSFORMATION which is ongoing and which manifests as relational gathering and scattering.]


Returning to our inquiry into TRUMP, it is not that the crowd support HIM, but that he has sussed out what they want to hear even if it is fiction.   … e.g. possible rhetoric is; “We must embrace this source of greatness within us and let our light shine so as to become the guiding force in the world.”  THIS IS SORCERY TALK!

CONTRAST THIS SORCERY based “REALITY POLITIC” with MITAKUYE OYASIN (everything is related) wherein there is NO LOCAL SOURCING, where the REALITY is one’s INCLUSION within the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka the Wave-field aka the Tao.


We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS continue to believe that SORCERY is the basic animator of reality and three INTELLECTUAL CONTRIVANCES hare shown up to support this WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein everything is explained in terms of SORCERY.

-1- Conservatism.  SORCERY derives from within the INDIVIDUAL

-2- Liberalism.  SORCERY derives from within the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE

-3- QAnon – SORCERY is a LIGHT or DARK force that certain people are CHANNELERS for.  the channelers of LIGHT FORCE must be supported and the channelers of DARK FORCE must be eliminated, then ALL WILL BE WELL.

The notion that the SOURCE of LIGHT (POSITIVE OUTWELLING) CHANNELS THROUGH a PERSON and that the SOURCE of DARKNESS (NEGATIVE OUTWELLING) CHANNELS THROUGH a PERSON, … modifies the concept of SORCERY in that in the Conservative and Liberal options, SORCERY is locally incipient, arising either from the INDIVIDUAL (Conservative view) or from the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (Liberal view), …. BUT BOTH CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL OPTIONS SEE SORCERY as ORIGINATING LOCALLY, either from within the individual or within the social collective.

THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE for SORCERY is the CHANNELING option wherein certain people are CHANNELS of ENLIGHTENED CONSTRUCTIVE forces and certain people are CHANNELS of DARK DESTRUCTIVE forces.


* * *

In Modern physics, as in the EAST; i.e. indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, the reality dynamic is understood to be NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as in the all-including TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field).  THERE IS NO SORCERY IN THE MODERN PHYSICS AND EAST VIEW OF REALITY, THERE IS ONLY TRANSFORMATION WHICH IS RELATIONAL.

PROBLEM: If Modern physics and the EAST are correct in their understanding that reality is constituted by NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION as with the Wave-field understanding, then WESTERN CULTURE pursuit of understanding of reality in terms of SOURCING is on a wildgoose chase.  In particular, the LEADER like TRUMP cannot lay claim to the beneficial results of actions and developments sourced by the social collective, not because of ambiguity as to whether the individual or social collective is the rightful AUTHOR of such beneficial results, … BUT BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “AUTHORING”.  “AUTHORING” IS JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR “SORCERY”.

In the transforming relational continuum of Modern physics, the mother is not the AUTHOR of the child because mother and child are both relational forms within the transforming relational continuum wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  It is the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR which BREAKS APART FIGURE-and-GROUND-into-TWO so as to give BINARY LOGICAL CONSISTENCY, a type of consistency which is ABSTRACT AND UNREAL and based on believing in the two separate mutually excluding choices as in the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium, which has been superseded in Modern physic with ‘quantum logic’, the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

IN OTHER WORDS, SORCERY, is the BYPRODUCT of BINARY LOGIC and BINARY LOGIC is INNATELY INCAPABLE of capturing TRANSFORMATION.  BINARY logic can suggest to us that (a) there is areal GROWTH in our cultivating of the land, and (b) there is CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE of the Wilderness area, and both of these developments can be CHECKED, VERIFIED and AFFIRMED on the basis of LOCAL EVIDENCE (the LOCAL SOMETHING that is growing larger or shrinking smaller).

But this sort of understanding, such as the GROWTH of topographic features (rising hills and mountains)  by volcanic EXTRUSION and the SHRINKAGE of topographic features, by tectonic SUBDUCTION (deepening valleys and sink-holes) can only allude to what is REALLY going on which is the spherical dynamic of TRANSFORMATION.  When a spherical flowing form such as the PLANETING or EARTHING extrudes from its interior to its exterior and is at the same time intruding from its exterior into its interior, WHY ARE WE USING LANGUAGE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO IMPUTE AUTHORSHIP TO THE SPHERICAL FORM?  Nietzsche explains that this is a double error used to impute LOCAL SOURCING.

By the same token, we are included in a transforming relational continuum featuring ‘sphering’ or ‘planeting’ which we capture in language-based representation by assuming that “every change must have an author” and thus we deploy the NAME ‘sphere’ as the author of the dynamics of EXTRUSION and INTRUSION, but in reality, the conjugate combination of EXTRUSION and INTRUSION is SPHERING, so, as always, as is pointed out in Zen, our talk in terms of LOCAL THINGS, reduces, upon inspection, to relational dynamics.  IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO “SPHERE”, THERE IS ONLY “SPHERING” which is a Wave-field phenomenon that DOES NOT DEPEND ON LOCAL SOURCING of EXTRUSION and INTRUSION, such descriptions being due to the LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE in trying to capture the INEFFABLE dynamic of TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.


The answer to this question is;

Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. – Nietzsche

Transformation does not involve LOCALLY AUTHORED CHANGE.

Why did Bohm say that James Wilkes Booth was NOT the SOURCE of the death of Lincoln?

It was NOT that Bohm was saying that Booth DID NOT SHOOT Lincoln.  Bohm was saying that we create a MYTHOLOGY that separates THAT WHICH EFFECTS FROM THE EFFECTING.

When I am in my BUMPER CAR in the CIRCUS GAME, and the collisions render impossible the isolating of MY SOURCING ACTIONS from the complexly unfolding matrix of relational bumper-car dynamics I am included in, … our intuition supports the reality that establishing LOCAL AUTHORSHIP is impossible and that our SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF LIFE IS LIKE THIS.  Meanwhile, language is OUR GAME and we can WRITE THE RULES and we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have formulated the rule that;

every change must have an author

In other words, local sourcing plays a major role in WESTERN CULTURE language and thinking.

The injury of one of the BUMPER CAR operators is a change that must have an author and how the hell are we to precisely establish authorship in such an innately ambiguous situation?  The way to simplify is by invoking LOCAL SOURCING where we use NAMING as in PERPETRATOR and VICTIM.  All we need to do then is to identify a PERPETRATOR and establish, without a shred of a doubt, that he is the SOURCE of the VICTIM’s injury.  Once we ISOLATE the incident using the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, we can apply BINARY LOGIC (EITHER the alleged perpetrator is the source of the crash and the injuries to the victim OR he is not.  Is this allegation TRUE or FALSE?).  The inventing of the concept of LOCAL SOURCING sidesteps the reality of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

Once the psyche BUYS IN to the BINARY LOGICAL concept of PERPETRATOR and VICTIM we have inserted into our logical assessment, the pseudo-reality that every change must have an author

More than this, we are ignoring Goedel’s theorem which says that “All finite systems of logic are incomplete” which means that ESTABLISHING that James Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln does NOT establish the full physical reality any more than establishing that Robin Hood took grain from the King’s granary is the full story.

Booth and Lincoln could be understood as participants in a BUMPER CAR GAME, in which case LOGIC can be used to select a LOCAL PERPETRATOR and VICTIM even though real-world phenomena are NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) as suggested by the BUMPER CAR GAME.

Indigenous aboriginal cultures understand reality in the BUMPER CAR sense where the problem is RELATIONAL DISSONANCE that is INHERENTLY NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and thus the response to CONFLICT orients to the RESTORING of relational harmony by the starving out of relational dissonance.  THERE IS NO PURSUIT OF “WHERE THE BUCK STOPS” LOCAL SOURCING because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL SOURCING in the real world of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  LOCAL SOURCING is something we FABRICATE within our LANGUAGE-based-REPRESENTATIONS, with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

* * *


“The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical.

“Choiceless awareness’ would seem to offer us ‘direct access’ to sensory awareness of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  Sphericity is a similar understanding wherein we remove the notion of authorship from the sphere (as if the sphere ‘were rotating’ and ‘evolving around the sun’.  This removal of notions of LOCAL SOURCING points to problems in our WESTERN CULTURE in trying to overcome the biases of representations based on LOCAL SOURCING.

The concept of SOURCING is ONE WAY of notionally INTELLECTUALLY BREAKING INTO THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM so as to come up with a method of REPRESENTATION that can help us PICTURE what is going on IN THE WORLD OUT THERE.   Note that inclusion in a flow continuum does not involve a SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLIT and such inclusional awareness IS NOT PICTURABLE.

Notice that when we (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) are coming up with different forms of REPRESENTATION, we are building in a SUBJECT-OBJECT SPLITTING which is very ‘BINARY’ and by ‘very BINARY’, I am recalling the topology of human visual perception wherein the visual sensors of our subject-side viewing are on one side of our head which forces a very binary SUBJECT-OBJECT splitting mode of VISUAL perception, unlike that which might be expected of a horse, for example, and unlike the CHOICELESS AWARENESS of our full-blown gravitational inertial guidance informed sensory activation.

LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, as given representation in the intellect by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR is a radically REDUCED REPRESENTATION.  We are dealing with two different things here; i.e. the abstract symbols of language that stimulate the intellectual construction of representations and the psychological sensori-motor responses that such representations may stimulate or ‘flesh out’.  An example of the potential for confusion here comes to mind in the story where two females in a convertible pass a male driver who is going in the opposite direction and yell out to him PIG! Taken aback, he quickly responds BITCH!   That is just before he crashes into a large pig that has got through the fencing and is in the middle of the highway.

WESTERN CULTURE leaning on the concept of LOCAL SOURCING is very much tied up in the QAnon confusion.  QAnon thinking can be seen as an attempt to escape from the shortcomings of both conservative and liberal REALITY both versions of which are based on LOCAL SOURCING.  The QAnon attempt at redeveloping an understanding of SOURCING that avoids both Conservative and Liberal shortcomings makes a different tradeoff between the PHYSICAL and the PSYCHOLOGICAL.

“The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.”

The point is, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have not yet addressed the point made by Mach;

it is only when they (the science of psychology and the science of physics) are united that a complete science is formed

* * *