Overview of ‘How Western Culture Breeds Psychosis’
See also, in this trilogy, in addition to this article ‘Overview of How Western Culture Breeds Psychosis;
* * *
In plain terms, the source of aberrant thinking derives from ‘the double error’ (Nietzsche) of language and grammar that is ‘built in’ to Western language and grammar. This double error has us believing in ‘sorcery’.
Instead of understanding reality as in modern physics, through experiencing inclusion within the transforming relational continuum, reality in Western culture is understood ‘intellectually’, through everyday language and grammar discourse, in the ‘double error’ terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments (‘sorcery’).
In reality as understood NOT as in the Western culture mainstream’s ‘operative reality’, but in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta cultures, visible, tangible ‘forms’ are NOT understood as local, solid material ‘things-in-themselves, but as relational features in the flow (Tao) which can be thought in the same sort of sense as sand ‘duning’. Language and grammar allow us to reduce the intrinsically relational phenomenon of ‘duning’ to terms of ‘dunes’, notional things-in-themselves that are no longer resonance based features in the overall flow (transforming relational continuum).
‘Naming’ is a kind of ‘black magic’ that operates on the psyche to reduce resonance patterns such as ‘duning’ to notional ‘things-in-themselves’ we then refer to as ‘dunes’, grammatical ‘subjects’ that then serve as the ‘mental stub’ or ‘intellectual launching pad’ for the notional ‘sourcing’ actions and developments. Nietzsche has shown how Western culture adherents have come to employ this ‘double error’ in a foundational role in INVENTING REALITY. That is, while ‘duning’ is a purely relational ‘interference’ phenomenon, a ‘dynamic pattern’ that manifests as a shifting local mound or depression (‘sand wave’), language and grammar can RE-PRESENT IT in the ‘double error’ sense of (first error) a ‘thing-in-itself’ with (second error) its own powers of sourcing action and development. Certainly, the mounding aspect of this interference pattern (duning) shifts around as interference patterns are wont to do, but INTERFERENCE PATTERNS ARE RELATIONAL (WAVE) PHENOMENA; … THEY ARE ‘APPEARANCES’ OR ‘APPARITIONS’, and NOT ‘things-in-themselves’. NOT UNTIL WE GIVE THEM A NAME, such as ‘dune’ and then ‘they’ get the benefits of noun-subjects in language and grammar where ‘they’ lay claim to ‘their own independent being’ and ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and developments. Confusion then reigns because, as Emerson puts it; ‘the tool (of language and grammar) runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’.
In one fell swoop, thanks to a language and grammar based ‘double error’, the ineffable transforming relational continuum with its interferential apparitions (relational features that are continually forming and re-forming) is reduced (in the intellectualizing psyche) to ‘double-error’ terms of an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself (first error) with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error). The relational-interferential process of transformation is thus reduced to a ‘local structure’ notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments. This double error is the essence of ‘sorcery’ which was not ‘left behind’ in the middle ages but dressed up in new clothes and called ‘the producer-product effect.
This ‘double error’, which has been made foundational in Western culture ‘INVENTED REALITY’ and dressed up in the Emperor’s new clothes, is the same old medieval ‘sorcery’, a belief in the powers of name-instantiated things-in-themselves to source actions and developments (we Western culture adherents impute this power of sorcery not only to ‘humans’ but in general to ‘names’ (nouns) signifying things-in-themselves, such as nations, corporations, collectives etc. Meanwhile, the ‘double error’ aka ‘sorcery’ aka ‘producer-product effect’ is BULLSHIT (psychological self-deception) retained and supported by ‘ego’ (the sense of God-like Creator-power that the double error gives to ‘believers’ (Western culture adherents).
In reading this Overview of ‘How Western Culture Breeds Psychosis’
it is worth noting that the author cannot ‘decode’ every ‘noun’ or ‘name’ as an interference-based apparition, consistent with the world experienced as a flow-continuum, because our language has ‘built it in’ for efficiency reasons (Mach’s ‘economy of thought’), ‘names’ like ‘dunes’, that while they allude to complex relational phenomena (duning), simplify (by hiding natural complexity) the communicating of visual impressions. Consider the phrase ‘the dune is growing larger and realigning in a more East-West orientation’. The understanding of the duning as a relational interference-based phenomena is ‘eclipsed’ and ‘wallpapered over’ by the language and grammar instantiated double-error based picture of a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own powers of sourcing actions and development. The actual interference phenomenon is no longer available to the psyche.
Ok, that is the background that applies generally to this discussion, but I can’t keep repeating it each I run into it because, in using this Western culture language and grammar that I am using, my communications are ‘double error based’ while my intended meaning lies beyond the double error based phrases I am formulating. The indirect approach (poetic etc.) to linguistically sharing understanding of reality is essential, and where one finds explicit language, it is not dealing with the reality of our actual experience; i.e. reality can only be ‘implicit’. This is why modern physics practitioners resort to ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ and Wittgenstein uses his ‘ladder’ based a matrix of references that convey understanding through the coherency implied in their relational interference.
BOTTOM LINE — reality is implicit and language that is explicit can only be used to construct a relational matrix wherein the take-away understanding is ‘in the interstitial inferences between the explicit propositions’. The ‘double error’ moves the mind in the opposite direct, from the implicit to the explicit, from the ‘duning-as-relational-process’ to the ‘dune-as-structure-with-its-‘own’-powers-of-sorcery’.
With that explanation in hand, that our language is based on ‘explicits’ and our challenge is to use language to convey that which is purely implicit and relational, I will continue with this Overview. Please remember this contention; … that we Western culture adherents are in the habit of regarding the ‘double error’ based INVENTED REALITY’ (sorcery based reality) as our ‘operative reality’ (which is why ‘Western Culture Breeds Psychosis’).
* * *
‘Duning’ is a ‘process’ that illustrates the divergence between our SENSORY EXPERIENCE based understanding of ‘reality’ and our language and grammar based INTELLECTUAL understanding of ‘reality’.
— ‘duning’ is a relational (resonance) process that has no dependency on ‘fixed being aka ‘structure’ (‘structures’ are ‘appearances’ within the ‘resonance’). ‘Duning’ is a dynamic relational process we can understand through experience that does not depend on language based ‘naming’ that serves as the launch-pad for abstract grammar-based animation.
—‘a dune’ connotes ‘a structure’; i.e. an abstract (intellectual-conceptual) thing-in-itself structure that psychologically ‘concretizes’ a relational dynamic (i.e. the uttering of a ‘thing-in-itself name’ psychologically reduces relational process to structure). ‘Naming’, in general, is intellectual abstraction that reduces continuing relational process to notional fixed (concretized) structure. ‘Naming’ a resonance-based fluid form such as ‘duning’ impresses our psyche with the abstract sense of ‘persisting existence’ of the named form; i.e. naming has the effect of repeating ‘the same definition’ over and over again to us in association with persisting aspects of the form as can be associated with the abstract ‘perfect solids’ of geometry (pyramid, sphere, ellipsoid, cube, cylinder) distracting the psyche from our experience-grounded awareness wherein ‘everything is in flux’; i.e. awareness that we are included in a transforming relational continuum.
What results is the ‘hijacking’ of our sensation-based relational-inclusional experience by the mesmerizing intellectual reduction of visual imagery to ‘local structures’ such as the ‘perfect solids’ of geometry. What results is that “the tool” of vision-based reductionism “runs away with the workman” (Emerson), “the human with the divine”. That is, the infeffable ‘process’ of the transforming relational continuum is ‘wallpapered over’ by ‘structure’ formed in the intellect from the images of (closed form structures) of geometry, reducing resonances in the flow (psychologically) to name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ . These structures serve as ‘stubs’ for ‘sourcing’ grammar-based ‘re-animation’ of ‘reality’ aka ‘sorcery’ (e.g. the ‘dune-structure’ is growing larger and longer’.
—‘grammar’ is an intellect-orchestrating tool that compensates for the psychological reduction of relational process to fixed structure’. That is, ‘grammar’ is a tool that seeks to overcome the language-imposed ‘burden of concreteness’ that comes with ‘naming’. Grammar allows us to re-animate the structure (‘dune’) that we have intellectually abstracted from the relational resonance process (‘duning’) within what becomes a ‘double error’. While the ‘first error’ is to abstractly reduce the duning ‘process’ to a fixed thing-in-itself structure (‘the dune’), grammar conflates this first error with the second error of imputing to the name-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’ (first error) the power of sourcing action and development (second error); e.g. ‘the dune is shifting to the east’, … ‘the dune is growing taller and broader’ … ‘the dune is dissipating’. IN THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (BEFORE WE SPEAK) THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL RESONANCE (‘DUNING’), the so-called ‘dune’ is a phantom ‘shape’, a resonance feature, within the transforming relational continuum. Sure we can name it, as we do the boil in the flow we call a ‘hurricane’, but while the naming imposes a fixed and persisting reference, transformation prevails over the concreteness that is psychologically injected by ‘naming’ since ‘everything is in flux’ (Heraclitus/modern physics). By way of ‘naming’ our acceptance of ourselves as inclusions in a continuing transformation is ‘eclipsed’ and we take upon ourselves the ‘self-conscious’ (intellectual-analytical) ‘burden of concreteness’;
A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’
We are included in ‘change’ (in the transforming relational continuum) and if [we imagine we are independent beings our own powers of sorcery] as in the ‘double error’, we may think in terms that ‘we construct a farm and a farmhouse, and town’, the apparent persistence of these things, while it is concretized by language and grammar, does not take precedence over the continuing relational transformation that is all-including. Making the town and farm the grammatical subject that we can intellectually (with language and grammar) animate with actions and development, does not over-ride the innate primacy of the ineffable transforming relational continuum these notional ‘developments’ are included in. The RESONANCE that is experienced as ‘duning’ cannot be REALISTICALLY pre-empted in our understanding of reality by the name-instantiated structure ‘dune’ that we grammatically ‘re-animate’ within a ‘double error’. Resonance is something we ‘feel’ that ‘can’t be photographed’. Visual imaging reduces resonant process to structure as in the case of ‘duning’. Visual images of slowly shifting resonance features, as with duning, are not ‘things-in-themselves’, yet giving these resonating lobes the name ‘dune’ and describing ITS movements and developments, makes a convincing ‘story’ in which we PSYCHOLOGICALLY repackage the animating energy and grammatically push it down and inside the purely relational resonance feature which we have used ‘naming’ to RE-INSTANTIATE as an abstract notional ‘thing-in-itself’. This ‘is’ the ‘double error’.
THAT IS; … WHAT ARISES THOUGH OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCING OF INCLUSION IN A RESONANCE-BASED DYNAMIC, by way of the intellectual processes of language and grammar and their ‘double error’ capability, ENDS UP AS THE PSYCHE-BASED LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR ABSTRACTION OF A THING-IN-ITSELF-STRUCTURE WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT (the ‘dune’ that grows and shifts). Duning is relational form within a sea of relational resonance; all process and no structure. Fixed structures are illusions concretized IN THE PSYCHE by ‘naming’. Illusions do not have powers of sourcing actions and developments. ‘Sorcery’ is not ‘real’, it is language and grammar stimulated intellectual abstraction.
In Western culture, SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN A RESONANCE/WAVE-BASED TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM thus ‘gives way’ to INTELLECTUAL DOUBLE ERROR BASED ABSTRACTION. … The ‘tool of language-and-grammar based abstraction, … runs away with the workman who is using it to reduce (in the psyche) inclusion in resonant relational process (aka ‘transformation’) to concrete structures based on ‘the perfect solids’ of geometry (first error) psychologically animated (second error) by grammar.
‘Duning’ is a purely relational resonance based phenomenon wherein resonance is the mother of locally persisting resonance forms or ‘duning’. ‘Dunes’ are name-labels we mentally ‘paste’ on these swelling, shrinking and shifting resonance forms or ‘apparitions’. These resonance-based apparitions (dunes) are NOT ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘they’ do not ‘shift’ or ‘grow’ or ‘shrink’, they are appearances or ‘apparitions’ within the resonance field. The resonance based transformation ‘process’ of ‘duning’ is the reality, whereas the ‘shifting of the dunes’ is psychological abstraction triggered by language and grammar; i.e. the ‘dunes’ [flow-forms that are given ‘being’ by ‘naming’] that are ‘shifting’ [endowed by grammar with their own powers of sourcing movement and development] is the ‘double error’ of language and grammar exposed by Nietzsche. It is ‘sorcery’
THIS EXPOSURE OF THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ [the abstraction known as ‘sorcery’] APPLIES GENERALLY in Western culture and the discussion on the ‘duning’ resonance phenomenon also applies in the case of the resonance that we could call ‘HUMANING’ by analogy to ‘duning’. ‘HUMANING’ …. (in the same manner as ‘duning’, is reduced, by the psychological abstracting power of language and grammar, to the abstract-thing-in-itself-structure ‘dune’ and abstractly (mechanistically) re-animated with grammar) …. IS REDUCED by the psychological abstracting power of language and grammar to the abstract thing-in-itself structure ‘HUMAN’ AND ABSTRACTLY (MECHANISTICALLY) RE-ANIMATED WITH GRAMMAR (the ‘double error’ routine.
The inventing of a ‘local thing-in-itself’ structure by naming and the endowing it with powers of sorcery with grammar imposes on its ‘creator’ (language and grammar) the obligation to explain its powers of sorcery as locally incipient powers, since it has been ‘conceived’ as an independently-existing thing-in-itself. The dune and the human must therefore have their powers of sourcing actions and development bundled within them. This is achieved by simply using language that makes it seems so; i.e. the dune is growing larger and longer, the dune is moving to the East etc. The same can be done for the ‘human’, making any allusion to resonance and relational transformation unnecessary, at least for the construction of this type of INVENTED REALITY’.
We are very familiar with how Newtonian science (alchemy) has taught us how ‘sorcery’ can explain changes in our Western culture version of ‘reality’ without ever having to invoke transformation. Grammar is the basis of sorcery. As Nietzsche observes, grammar IS God (grammar is the basis of [the psychological impression of] sorcery via the ‘double error’).
‘Naming is the ‘first error’ in the ‘double error’ pointed out by Nietzsche.
—‘grammar’ is the ‘second error’ that conflates the first error of ‘naming’ to impute persisting thing-in-itself existence by imputing powers of sourcing action and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.
Such discourse gives rise to an INVENTED REALITY featuring people, nations and corporations and other name-instantiated ‘free agents’ that we picture as ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own powers of sourcing actions and development. This is pure intellectual abstraction that is unsupported by reality understood through modern physics as a transforming relational continuum. The social-behavioural aberrations that associate with ‘illusions’ (‘delusions’) include the following;
-1- Ego in a sorcery (producer-product) context: In the double error based INVENTED REALITY, the individual is understood as an ‘independently-existing being’ with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments. This stems from the middle age concept of the ‘sorcerer’. The belief in ‘ego’ arises from grammar through the double error wherein ‘naming’ is used to impute independent thing-in-itself existence (first error) to a relational form, and conflating this first error with grammar (second error) that imputes to the first error the powers of action and development; e.g. ‘Katrina is growing stronger and more threatening!’. ‘Local sourcing’ is thus implied’.
This is an ‘anthropomorphism’ that draws from a double-error based ‘sorcerer’ archetype of the ‘human being’, notionally endowed (by grammar) with powers of sourcing actions and developments. In physical reality, there are no ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments, there is only relational transformation as in the transforming relational continuum.
Because this anthropomorphism is embedded in grammatical structure, it can bring its notional power of ‘sorcery’ to any ‘name’ or ‘noun’, whether the name of a human, nation, corporation, animal, collective or whatever; i.e. the utterance of a name implies the ‘double error’, the existence of a thing-in-itself with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.
This ‘double error’ is NOT found in modern physics where change is by way of relational transforming rather than by ‘double error based sorcery’, nor is it found in the language and grammar of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
-2- Language that does NOT invoke ego. The double error (from which sorcery and ego arise) can be avoided in English, European and similar languages through ‘poetic’ use of the language or non-explicit ‘inferential’ use in general, as in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’, or as in similar techniques where ‘things-in-themselves’ are used as throw-away expedients for building shareable concepts that are innately relational and implicit, by assembling a network of relations wherein the name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ used to develop the relational network are secondary to the web-of-relations based inferential meaning. This is described by Wittgenstein as follows;
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Language based inference developed in this manner provides a means of rendering dynamics in purely relational (implicit) inference terms, as needed to address flow-based reality and thus avoiding any persisting language-invoked sense of ‘explicit’ ‘thing-in-itselfness’ in the recipient psyche.
-3- Chance versus Sorcery/Causality
The notion of ‘sorcery’ is ‘double error’ based. The indigenous aboriginal Pot-latch is a tradition of sharing based on belief that abundance is fortuitous and NOT producer-product ‘sourced’. Therefore ‘periods of abundance’ are seen as being ‘determined’ by ‘providence’ rather than by the ‘producer’s powers of sorcery’. This is important because of Western culture’s entrenched belief in ‘sorcery’. ‘sorcery’ is ego-based, or rather, ‘ego’ is belief in sorcery. They are one and the same thing.
Meanwhile, Western culture language and grammar continues to promote ‘sorcery’ (the ‘double error’) and therefore ‘ego’ as the explanation of abundance or deficiency. This is an ‘error of grammar’. ‘Sorcery’ aka ‘producer-product’ aka ’cause and effect’ are not ‘real’, they are language and grammar based abstraction.
Where, then, does abundance come from? It ‘sure looks like’ it comes from ambitious and energetic ‘producers of product’ aka ‘sorcerers’.
This clash of ideas forces us to re-examine what we consider to be ‘reality’. I am naturally suspicious about this purported ‘reality’ wherein we see ourselves as the producers of product, BECAUSE, there is only transformation and ‘production’ is a one-sided concept that comes from where? It comes from the double error, as Nietzsche pointed out. First error is; … ‘here’s a piece of land, let’s consider it a thing-in-itself capable of [sourcing actions (growth of plants) and ‘developments’ abundant production of products. This is the double error of language and grammar. To accept it as ‘reason’ is to believe in ‘sorcery’. It is ‘logical’ but Goedel’s theorem establishes the incompleteness of all finite systems of logic.
Goedel’s theorem test of the logic of ‘the double error’.
Don’t forget, ‘quantum physics logic’ is the ‘logic of the included middle’ while standard logic is the ‘logic of the excluded middle’. This was the basis for my disagreement with systems science’s pioneer Russell Ackoff. Ackoff supported ‘producer-product logic’; i.e. the logic of the excluded middle. Example: consider the flow in a river to be the suprasystem and the whirlpool it stirs up to be the ‘system’. Standard logic of the excluded middle sees these two systems are ‘interacting’. Do you agree?
In the logic of the excluded middle, we assume that these two systems (suprasystem and system) influence each other. This leads to ambiguity of the ‘conservative’ – ‘liberal’ type; i.e. does the system ‘drive’ the suprasystem or does the ‘suprasystem’ dirve the system? Is the country driven by the strong and independent citizens, or are the citizens driven by the strong and independent country?
What most Western culture adherents ‘don’t see’ is that that ‘there is no such thing as ‘sorcery”, so it is neither the case that the suprasystem sources movement of the system, nor that the system sources movement of the suprasystem.
The greater reality is given in Erich Jantsch’s three levels of reality wherein these two sorcery based levels are the lowest levels 3, and 2 while the highest level, 1, there is no sorcery, there is only relational transformation. Therefore, the division between liberal and conservative is as Jonathan Swift called it in his satire on Western society, ‘Gulliver’s Travels’; i.e. it is like taking opposite stands on which end of a boiled egg should be opened, the pointy end or the roundy end.
Sorcery has this innate ambiguity in that sorcery implies a ‘product’ as in ‘producer-product’. As Nietzsche points out this concept of producer-product presumes sorcery and sorcery presumes producer-product. This splitting into producer-product is ‘the double error’. His example was lightning flashed (producer of the flash is lightning, the product is the flash). ‘Flashing’ is a process of transformation. The ‘flash’ is not a ‘thing-in-itself’ just like the ‘dune’ is not a thing-in-itself. There is only ‘duning’ just as there is only ‘flashing’. The ‘double error’; turns this into ‘sorcery’ and invents a ‘sorcerer’.
“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
Sorcery ‘infects’ Western culture language and grammar. If our Western rhetoric is not in poetic mode, it is in ‘double error’ mode, speaking in the bogus terms of ‘things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments. There are no so things. There is only relational transformation.
Western culture rational rhetoric is double error (sorcery) based. That’s also where ‘ego’ comes from, the belief in one’s own powers of sorcery, … the belief in one’s nation’s powers of sorcery, … the belief in one’s corporation’s powers of sorcery. It is all psychopathology and it permeates Western culture INVENTED REALITY. Western culture reality is INVENTED by virtue of the fact that it is based on language and grammar cultivated belief in ‘sorcery’.
Indigenous aboriginal cultures do not build the ‘double error’ into their language and grammar usage, therefore, they do not have a belief in sorcery, nor do they have the associated sorcery-based ego, nor the sorcery-based rewards and punishments scheme based on it. Modern physics would have us understand reality as relational transformation, abandoning the ‘sorcery’ based understanding of reality of Newtonian physics. As Benjamin Whorf has shown, Newtonian physics came from language and grammar which incorporates the ‘double error’. Invoking ‘force’ is invoking ‘source’ as in the ‘source’ of actions and development, an understanding that bypasses ‘transformation’ and makes it unnecessary.
Given that a ‘dune’ is like a ripple in the flow, there is no point in trying to understanding ‘it’ in terms of ‘its growth’, ‘it’s movement’, ‘its shifting’ since ‘it’ is NOT a ‘thing-in-itself. In fact, ‘it’ is a process and not a ‘structure’ and the process can’t be understood by examining the dune. One must examine, instead, ‘duning’ (resonance).
-4- The Dysfunction of Rewards and Punishments nased on the Double Error
The ‘double error’ establishes ‘sorcery’ and ‘sorcery’ is the basis of rewards and punishments in Western society. As in Bohm’s rejection of ‘sorcery’ in the case of James Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the ‘rejection’ of this logic comes from the exposing the ‘double error’ basis of ‘sorcery’. The issue is NOT whether Booth fired the bullet that penetrated Lincoln’s brain, the issue is with the legitimacy of the concept of ‘sorcery’ (also known as causality, and/or the producer-product effect).
As Wittgenstein pointed out, language and grammar put ‘pictures in our mind’ that persist and block us from seeing through them to deeper, relational understanding. For example, ‘duning’ is an interferential process that a mental picture reduces to ‘a dune’, but in the physical process sand is moving like waves in the sea and these waves are the ‘duning’ (a process). The telephoto lens view and the marker-pen where we paint on the label ‘this is a dune’ with the annotation ‘this dune is moving southeastward’, presents us with a picture that eclipses from our psyche, the interference phenomena associated with gravity, atmosphere, sun-induced windflow, climate that are the ‘greater reality’ (a complex relational reality that is an inconvenient reality from the point of view of simplicity of linguistic expression)
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
The ‘double error’ is a great ‘simplifier’ because it is an abstract ‘reducer’ of relational process based complexity to simpler terms of local jumpstart ‘sorcery’. The innately relational-interferential ‘duning’ process now becomes a ‘dune’, a kind of simple ‘machine’ that pushes itself around as if powered by a ‘ghost in the machine’ or a ‘God in the machine’, a reduction to locally instantiated sorcery thanks to language and grammar.
GOODBYE ‘DUNING’ AS INTERFERENTIAL RESONANCE PHENOMENA, WELCOME ‘DUNE’ AS DOUBLE ERROR THING-IN-ITSELF-WITH-POWERS-OF-SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche
So, as Bohm pointed out, we live in a transforming relational continuum wherein ‘forms’ are, in general, like ‘dunings’ or ‘hurricanings’, … yes, even ‘mannings’ are understood as wave/resonance phenomena within the overall transforming relational continuum, however, grammar keeps reducing us by way of the ‘double error’ to ‘sorcerers’, and gives us an ‘ego’ to go with this self-deception, that serves to keep up our belief in it.
Oh, that’s right, the ‘ego’ does a lot more for those self-perceiving ‘sorcerers’ who, thanks to a general cultural belief in ‘sorcery’ see themselves as, and are popularly acclaimed as ‘high performing sorcerers’. Even though indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta adherents do not fall for this ‘double error’ (sorcery) trap, and masses of people in the ‘lower performing sorcerer class) are crying out ‘bullshit’ as to the sorcery claims of the ‘high performer sorcerers’, playing the game of belief in sorcery is the dominant operative ‘reality’ in modern Western culture.
Playing the game of believing in sorcery works out well for those seen as the top performing sorcerers, and this has lead to ‘lock in with high switching costs’; i.e.
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.” – R.D. Laing
This ‘game’ is the game of ‘sorcery’ wherein one’s perceived ‘sorcery performance’ is the inflator or deflator of ‘ego’; Western culture systems of rewards and recognition based on ‘belief in sorcery’ have led to the nonlinear phenomenon known as ‘lock-in-by-high-switching-costs’. That is, Western culture adherents, through common belief in ‘sorcery’, have been giving elevated status, recognition, respect and authority over what gets changed in Western society, to perceived ‘high performing sorcerers’. As Henri Laborit has observed, trying to shake off this misguided (crazy-making) belief in ‘sorcery’ is not easy since Western culture has made celebrities and ‘sacred cows’ out of ‘sorcerers’ (the abstract concept arising from a double error of language and grammar);
We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place. – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Laborit
The ‘scale of the falsehood’ built into Western culture is so great that it is difficult for those of us brought up into Western culture adherence to ‘deconvolve ourselves out of it’ it even after we have heard of the screw-up. This problem of getting out of the entrapment (of reducing relational inference to ‘the double error’ (things-in-themselves with notional powers of sorcery) after having fallen into it (by birth and location) has long been recognized;
Listening not to me but to the logos it is wise to agree that one is all /all is one.
For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.
Of the logos, which is as I describe it, people always prove to be uncomprehending both before they have heard it and once they have heard it. For, although all things happen according to the logos, people are like those of no experience, even when they do experience such words and deeds as I explain when I distinguish each thing according to its phusis (nature / constitution) and declare how it is; but others are as ignorant of what they do when awake as they are forgetful of what they do when asleep.
Those who hear and do not understand are like the deaf. Of them the proverb says: “Present, they are absent.”
* * *
Links to all three articles in this Trilogy are as follows;