We all have at our disposal, the psyches of East and West and modern physics has elucidated the conjugate contributions of the twain to our understanding of;…  the reality of our sensory experience, and; …the reality of our intellectual rationalizations.

Most recently, modern physics has given support to the Eastern understanding of reality as the Tao, the all including wave-field wherein all ‘forms’ including the human form, are understood as fluid ‘features’ within the Tao (wave-field) wherein ‘everything is in flux’ (as Heraclitus also noted).  The Western (pre-modern physics) conceptualizing of reality has used language and grammar to objectify the innately fluid forms in nature, and has used the intellect to construct an ‘invented reality’ wherein the objectified froms are understood as ‘things-in-themselves’ locally inhabiting an absolute space.

The psycho-linguistic localizing and discretizing of relational flow-forms is what allows us to effable-ize the ineffable Tao, which opens the way to discursive sharing of (a reduced semblance of) our sensory experiencing within the ineffable Tao.  Language and grammar give us the intellectual tools for effable-izing the ineffable.  While the understanding that language and grammar allows us to share is a reduction of the spiritual (ineffable) experiencing of inclusion in the Tao-that-cannot-be-told; … i.e. a reduction to the effable-intellectualization that-can-be-told, such sharing expands the horizons of our understanding well beyond the limited scope of our personal experiential reach.  With language-based sharing of experience, the self can better understand the experiences of the other, … the male, the female, … the child, the adult, … the white, the black.   Of course, only the ‘self’ ‘s understanding is of inclusion in the ineffable Tao while the linguistically shared understanding can only be in the reduced terms of the ‘effable’.

The individual thus has an exposure to switching her understanding of herself through her own ineffable experience, to an understanding of herself as mirrored back to her through the effable reductions of herself as seen by others.  Will the real, ineffable ‘she’ make herself known?   Or will the ‘real ineffable she’ be ‘replaced’ even in her own understanding by the effable voyeur view of her as reported by to her by others and by her rational scrutinizing of herself as in a mirror?  There is an exposure here to her trading out of her ineffable self coming directly from her sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao, for an effable voyeur view of herself as mirrored back to her through the articulated voyeur views of others views of her, and even through her own voyeur viewing of herself reflected back to her in mirrors, photographs, videos, written mentions of her, and from the facial expressions of others during her social encounters.   The availability of all this ‘mirrored’ viewing of oneself gives rise to an exposure wherein one bypasses/eclipses one’s own ineffable ‘sense experiencing self’ and instead opens the way for ‘the tool  (of language based mirroring) running away with the workman, the effable-human with the ineffable/divine.’

* * *

Understanding things in terms of the flowing wave-field worldview (the Tao) clarifies so many misconceptions that come from the ‘thing-in-itself’ producer-product world view that is the popular and ‘officially’ dominating Western world view.

In the wave-field worldview, everything is in flux and there is no explicit distinction between forms and flow.

Because everything is in flux, reality can’t be captured in language that ‘names’ the forms in the world since ‘names’ impute fixed ‘being’ to the innately non-fixed forms in the flow.   Naming brings with it ‘the burden of concreteness’ whereby we are obliged to come up with ‘grammar’ to represent ‘flow’ in the revised terms of the movement of name-instantiated things-in-themselves.  This intellectual abstraction delivers for us a surrogate reality that is then in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar-given powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This ‘re-envisaging of the flow we are in (the Tao) in the intellectually contrived tools of language and grammar deliver for us a REDUCED-TO-MAKE-SHAREABLE surrogate-but-articulable rendering of the reality of our sensory experiencing of inclusion in the Tao.  THIS REDUCED-TO-PERMIT LANGUAGE-BASED RENDERING surrogate reality delivers the huge benefit of being able to linguistically/intellectually share knowledge of (a reduced semblance of) our experience so that we can learn from one another’s relational (form-in-flow) experiences of inclusion in the Tao to; (a) avoid experiences which are unpleasant and injurious, and (b) become aware of and increase our involvement in experiences that are pleasurable and nurturant.

In order to understand or ‘model’ this flow-forms-in-flow dynamic using language and grammar, we can ‘mentally model’ the purely relational flow-forms such as ‘humanings’  in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ aka ‘humans’ as notional ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ notionally with their own local, internal powers of sourcing actions such as thinking and acting. This reduction of the humanings (flow-forms) in the Tao puts them (reduces them) to articulable concepts.  That is, duning or humaning, as understood in the wave-field reality of modern physics (otherwise known as the Tao), may reduce forms-in-the-flow by ‘naming’ them and thus INTELLECTUALLY REDUCING THEM to conceptualized ‘things-in-themselves’ and intellectually re-animating them with grammar, so that these forms that are intrinsically inseparable from the Tao are notionally (INTELLECTUALLY) extracted from their inextricable inclusion in the transforming relational continuum and INTELLECTUALLY RE-ANIMATED WITH GRAMMAR.

Thanks to this language and grammar based reduction of the relational forms in the transforming relational continuum of our sensory experience, to intellectual language and grammar based abstraction, we reap the huge benefit of being able to share (a reduced, abstract ‘effable’ (shareable) conceptualizing) of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao.

Of course, the tool of language and grammar delivers a REDUCED impression of the reality of our sensory experience since the ineffable Tao is not in itself ‘reducible’ to the intellectual abstractions of language and grammar.  The whole challenge in re-rendering the ineffable Tao in effable terms lies in finding a way to ‘localize’ the innately nonlocal so as to render the ineffable effable.

The wave-field continuum (the Tao) is innately ‘ineffable’ and thus beyond capture in language and for this reason, unshareable, … so a reduction of the reality of our sensory experience is required in order to harvest the shareability benefits of a (necessarily) reduced expression of our ineffable experience.  THIS IS WHERE THE POSSIBILITY (LIKELIHOOD) OF OVERESTIMATING THE REALITY-CAPTURING POWER OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR HAS BEEN FLAGGED; I.E. Emerson’s warning that we must not let the reductive tools of language and grammar RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE (i.e. we must not let the effable supersede the ineffable).  BUT FALLING INTO THIS TRAP IS THE DEFINING FEATURE OF WESTERN CULTURE.

That is, the reduced-to-effable pseudo-reality of language and grammar constructions, the ‘shareable-because-reduced version of reality) has dropped into Western culture like a Cuckoo’s egg and hatched out to become the basis of the ‘operative reality’ of Western culture.   In this situation, “The tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine”, as Emerson warns us.

This is a ‘crazy-maker’, … to use the reduction that is so valuable in that it enables sharing OF THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR ABSTRACTION BASED REDUCTION OF THE REALITY OF EXPERIENCE, as if this reduction could do full service as our ‘operative reality’.    Meanwhile, the ‘dropout’ in language to render the ineffable effable is the dropout that reduces ‘duning’ (relational resonance) to ‘the dune’ (a name-instantiated thing-in-itself) that we are obliged to ‘re-mobilize’ with grammar; e.g. ‘the dune is growing larger and longer’ (IMPUTING TO THE NAME INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF (‘the dune’) ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT), … ‘the dune is shifting to the West’ (IMPUTING TO THE NAME INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF (‘the dune’) ITS OWN POWERS OF MOTION.  Wave-field resonance is eclipsed by this language and grammar reduction.

Clearly, it is possible to RE-CONSTRUCT REALITY on the basis of this ‘double error’ of language and grammar;

“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

WELCOME TO THE WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE-AND-GRAMMAR SURROGATE REALITY

The ‘reality’ of we Western culture adherents is this cuckoo’s egg surrogate reality based on TAKING LITERALLY the language and grammar REDUCTION-BASED PSEUDO-REALITY that is giving us this huge benefit of rendering the ineffable in a reduced BUT SHAREABLE form.  The benefits are huge but so are the losses if we let the effable reduction leapfrog the ineffable.

You know what I mean if I say, ‘the dune is growing larger and longer and is shifting to the West’… because you can ‘visualize’ it, and our visualization informs our intellectual-linguistic apparatus without doing any ‘philosophical investigations’ as to what the potential ‘dropout’ may be such as the reduction of relational transformation as manifests in ‘duning’ to terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (dunes) notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and development (e.g. “the dunes are growing larger and are shifting to the West” — an example of the ‘double error’).

CAN YOU SEE IN YOUR OWN “MIND’S EYE” THE PICTURE SHOW OF SHIFTING DUNES?  Do you notice how the visual focus in your mind has closed in on ‘a dune’ even though there may be an ocean of duning as in a sand-sea suggesting a much more comprehensive (transforming relational) phenomenon than the visual picture of the ‘shifting dune’?

Notice how language and grammar ‘go together’ with such visual picturing, … the language ready to reduce the ‘forms’ in the visual picturing to name-instantiated things-in-themselves, and thus to deconstruct the fluid continuum by breaking it down, with naming and grammar, to notional local things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the double error of language and grammar).

EVEN THOUGH I AM REPEATING THIS ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ FOR EMPHASIS TO GET IT TO LODGE IN OUR MINDS, … SUCH UNDERSTANDING IS GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN OF OUR TOTAL WESTERN CULTURE INGRAINED TEACHING, where we are informed since we were very young, that WE CAN UNDERSTAND “REALITY” in the ‘double error’ based terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

The problem is that language and grammar puts ‘pictures in our mind’ and once these pictures are in place, it is hard to ‘see beyond them’; i.e. ‘duning’ is nonlocal wave-field resonance which can swallow us up as we sleep in our tent in the desert-dynamic, while ‘dune’ has no physical existence, but is an intellectualized visual, geometric form that we impose as a substitute for the sensual reality of our relational experience.  But once we get the ‘picture’ of a form in our mind, tagged with the name ‘dune’, it is hard to get rid of and so its continuing mental-foreground presence blocks the opening up of our view to the unbounded relational continuum.

A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein

STOP!  WHERE ARE WE IN OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION?

I am ‘stopping’ to reflect on where we are because our understanding is very much ‘exposed to error’ because of the language we are herewith using; i.e. this language I am using employs name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments (the ‘double error’) in a foundational manner in sharing understanding.   As already conceded, we can’t directly share our experience of inclusion in the Tao, because it is ineffable, SO IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF ‘HOW’ WE REDUCE OUR EXPERIENCE to render it shareable in language and grammar, and here we have to consider that THERE ARE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TECHNIQUES  for reducing our ineffable experience to effable reductions which involve differing distortions and losses.

Language-based shareability of (reductions of) sensory experience comes at the price of the PARTICULAR AND DIFFERING reductions that are made to render the unshareable ineffable as a shareable effable.

For example, in modern physics, there is mention of the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ (quantum physics researchers Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler’).  This approach tries to get to ‘flow’ based capture of reality by ‘bootstrapping’; i.e. using an interfering web of inferences  based on things-in-themselves but arranging them so as to extract the relational nature and let go of the things; (e.g. instead of ‘John Dunbar’, … ‘Dances with wolves’).

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 our 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 question­and­answer framework.”

This problem of ‘getting thing-based language out of the way of itself’ so as to get to the relational reality is a basic challenge in designing such a language.

HOW TO DESIGN A LANGUAGE CAPABLE OF FLOW-BASED EXPRESSION.

  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’

WHERE ARE WE TODAY, ON ALL OF THIS?

Evidently, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS continue to use the ‘double error’ based language that radically distorts the reality of our experience by imputing to us, ourselves, and all name-instantiated things-in-themselves, ‘independent being with powers of sourcing actions and developments’, whether individual humans, groups of humans (nations, corporations) and ‘dunes’ and machines and hurricanes and whatever else we want to pin a name on so as to portray forms in double error fashion, as a thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY MOVE TOWARDS THE REDUCING OF THE INEFFABLE TO THE EFFABLE BY WAY OF the less distortive, flow-preserving techniques of a ‘rheomode’ or indigenous aboriginal type of language wherein ‘duning’ would be primary and ‘dune’ (the flow-form-come-thing-in-itself supplemented by grammar and deployed within the double error) would no longer be needed.

WHERE WESTERN CULTURE IS TODAY ON THIS, … IS IN THE PROCESS OF EXPERIENCING INCREASING MANIFESTATIONS OF THE CRAZINESS THAT IS INDUCED BY BELIEF IN THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ and behaving according to this REDUCED REALITY while, in ‘real’  experiential reality, living in the very different and ineffable transforming relational continuum.

The crazy-making that is promoted by the double error is stirred up by the following corollary-to-double-error beliefs;

-1- The belief in producer-product abstraction which gives rise to ‘ego’ and to the ‘capitalism’ understanding that is based on it (e.g. the land-owner is deemed to be the producer of the product ‘wheat’ in conflict with the greater reality of the transforming relational continuum which has no ‘producers of product’, these being language-based abstraction.

-2- The belief in EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, which gives rise to the concepts of EITHER ‘innocent’ OR ‘guilty’ in a ‘producer-product’ sense of ‘sourcing EITHER ‘good’ OR ‘bad’ actions and developments.  This logic-based reduction is in place of relational understanding in terms of dissonance and harmony (as in a transforming relational continuum wherein there is no abstract ‘producer-product’ dynamic since these abstract concepts derive solely from language and grammar).

-3- The belief (which splits Western culture adherents into polar opposing camps) that the collective dynamic is EITHER (a) instigated by individuals within the collective (“one bad apple spoils the barrel”) OR (b) instigated by the collective (“it takes a whole community to raise a child”).

-4- The belief in ‘reality’ as being comprised by a multiplicity of independently-existing (name-instantiated) things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments; including ‘human beings’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’ IS A CRAZY-MAKER (It puts one, in one’s mind, in an abstract ‘constructed reality’ that is at odds with the ineffable reality of our actual experience).

The ‘Crazy-Making’ comes in the following forms (in no way a complete list);

(a) The belief in the double error tracks back the ‘sourcing’ of developments of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ import, to ‘things-in-themselves’ so as to accord reward (for good sorcery) and punishment (for bad sorcery) to the identified ‘things-in-themselves’ that are the alleged producers of these products.  Thus Jean Valjean is deemed guilty of theft rather than his actions being understood in a relational rebalancing  (Robin Hood) sense. The popularity of modern TV shows such as CSI focuses on tracking down and prosecution in a double error based context, which ignores the ‘real reality’ that informs us of relational imbalances in the transforming relational continuum, relational reality that is REDUCED BY LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR to the abstract double error based reality that is in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with ‘their own’ notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This ‘system of justice’ differs radically from the justice in indigenous aboriginal cultures where the assumption is ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all related) so that ‘theft’ derives from relational imbalance and is not reducible to a simple local in space and time ‘double error’ action.  The more imbalance grows through measures approved by the social collective (e.g. wherein the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), the greater the incidence of naturally occurring ‘short-circuits’ between regions of excess and regions of deficiency.  The double error supports the TRIO of the producer product based source of affluence;  the producer-product based source of impoverishment, and the producer-product based source of thievery.  In all cases, we can expect to find a local ‘producer’ of actions and developments.  In a world view that is NOT BASED ON RELATIONS, the producer-product model will be invoked to explain all manner of dynamics, including its use in dumbing down relational transformation; i.e. from Abraham Maslow’s The Psychology of Science, … I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

(b) The manifestation of growing confusion in Western culture adhering society is deriving from a growing failure of ‘reason’ which continues to be ‘pushed harder than ever’ in attempt to reduce the rising chaos that is coming from the use of ‘reason’ (rather than relational sensing) in our ‘constructions of reality’.  ‘Reason’ is reductive abstraction-based on over-simplifying of relational forming to ‘beings’ (‘duning’ to ‘dunes’).

“In Reason’ in language!  ……..(Note how Nietzsche points to ‘being’ as the underpinning of ‘reason‘; i.e.  … “Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed.”……….– oh what a deceptive old witch it (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

‘REASON’ IS DRIVING US NUTS!  ‘REASON’ IS ABSTRACTION BASED OVER-SIMPLIFICATION THAT COMES WITH THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ WHEREIN WE UNDERSTAND DYNAMICS IN ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ TERMS.

THERE IS NO PRODUCER-PRODUCT DYNAMIC, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AS IN THE ‘TAO’.  The abstraction of ‘reason’ is an expedient THAT IS ONE APPROACH for reducing the ineffable to the effable.

CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) intrigues us by the manner in which modern technology coupled with reductionist rational intellection can ‘get to the bottom of a (supposed) producer-product dynamic’ and identify the ‘sorcerer’ of an action and development.  Jean Valjean’s DNA found at the Bakery on the shelf from which the loaf of bread was stolen, informs us without a shadow of a doubt, that Jean Valjean was guilty of this thievery’. Thus, modern CSI can be used to bring to quick and solid and final closure, investigations into criminal activity, so that the perpetrator of criminal activity can be conclusively identified and punished.

Of course, the fact that the investigative trail ENDS with the identification of a local sorcerer of the action stems from the particular ‘model’ of dynamics we are using; i.e. in this case, the producer-product (cause and effect) model that is foundational to Western culture rational-intellectual reality construction.  In an indigenous aboriginal culture where the understanding of reality is ‘relational’, such rebalancing movements wherein a loaf of bread is moved from regions of surplus/excess to regions of shortage/insufficiency would be seen as a Natural, balance and harmony-cultivating dynamic.

The CSI investigators are like traffic police that investigate collisions in the bipolar sense of perpetrator and victim, … even if the situation is one in which, in the heavy flow of freeway traffic, someone swerved and braked for a rabbit crossing the freeway, and after a long pulse of disturbance of swerving and braking, which can, on a circular race-track, continue as a disturbance that keeps moving upstream even making multiple circuits back up and around in the flow inducing a few ‘collisions’ wherein CSI investigators will determine a ‘perpetrator’ and a ‘victim’ in their ‘localizing’ manner of perceiving crime.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ‘LOCAL EVENT’ IN THE REAL WORLD OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO (THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM).

It is easy to use our ‘producer-product’ grammar to speak of the ‘construction of a city’ without mentioning the greater reality of the relational transformation in which it is included.  We are accustomed to orienting our language to name-instantiated ‘things’ like ‘buildings’, and failing to mention the quarries dug into the earth for building stone, and for sand and gravel for concrete, and the pits mined for metal ore for smelting and rolling steel etc.; i.e. failing to mention the ‘relational transformation’ that Is the ‘GREATER REALITY’ that we ignore when we speak in producer-product (constructivist) terms, … a habit that is so prevalent in Western culture that we have come to understand ‘reality’ NOT in the sense of a transforming relational continuum in which we and everything are included, but in terms of ‘cities’ that we can visualize ‘being built out there in front of our voyeur eyes’, ‘cities’ that we understand as things-in-themselves, and no longer as included within the transforming relational space that we, too, are included in.

I have brought up ‘Crime Scene Investigation’ because it is a popular theme in Western culture where there is a continuing move to improve CSI so as to stem the rising tide of crime and violence.   The plays and film showings of ‘Les Miserables’ remain popular even though they present a very different story that is in terms of the growing ‘unjust’ division of society into ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, a RELATIONAL ‘injustice’ that gives rise to the RATIONAL ‘injustice’ of those like Jean Valjean that seek justice in terms of relational balance rather than in rational (abstract absolute) terms of ‘ownership’ of ‘property’ and Western society’s first priority of maintaining RATIONAL justice in which case ‘RELATIONAL justice’ is eclipsed and occluded (Jean Valjean is not going to be heard when he tries to explain that a starving child inspired him to move nourishment from a region of surplus to a region of deficiency.

The relative prioritizing of the RATIONAL over the RELATIONAL   if ‘rational’ is put first, because rational judgements are ‘absolute’, the ‘relational’ can be put off balance to great extremes.  If relational is put first, the rational can still be employed in a secondary ‘support’ role as in left brain reasoned support for right brain sensory emotion induced actions.

Western culture has chosen the inverted priority of ‘rational over relational.  For example, in Adam Smith’s 1776 treatise; ’Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, people are judged and appraised as ‘independent things-in-themselves’ rather than in a relational context;

“Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.” —Adam Smith

This ‘superior’ – ‘inferior’ rating of people as determined by their relative ‘prosperity’ didn’t sit well with Jean Valjean and Robin Hood.  The ‘rational or ‘reasoned’ view’, unlike the ‘we are all related’ (‘mitakuye oyasin’) view, is instead based on ‘producer-product’ aka ‘double error’ based conceptualizing.

In systems sciences terms, Western culture ‘has its ladder up the wrong wall’.  The improved ability of CSI to apprehend criminals in the sense of those who are working on REDUCING the obscene polarizing of those with surplus and those with deficiency (e.g. Robin Hood, Jean Valjean) puts ‘rational intellection’ into an unnatural primacy over ‘relational sensory experience’ (We know what it ‘feels like’ to be starving in a region of scarcity while aware of the proximity of regions of surplus; i.e. where it feels like there is an opportunity for rebalancing).

We also know that for us Western culture adherents, the rational reasoning based laws come first and we know that Western courts and policing back up these rational (absolute) laws ‘absolutely’ which means that rebalancing that cannot come relationally must come through revolution that ‘blows away’ the prevailing rule-forming-and-policing social structures and, subsequent to rebalancing, installs new ones.  This is the WESTERN CULTURE WAY which puts binary absolutisms (propositions deemed EITHER ‘correct’ OR ‘incorrect’) into an unnatural precedence over relational harmony based balancing, as the mediating apparatus for change. Relational harmonizing does not, in nature, defer to rational absolutes based on of ‘reason’.

“In Reason’ in language!  – oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

 

The CSI type clean-up mindset is the problem rather than the solution.

* * *