Aboriginal Physics Newsletter

THE EAST-WEST SPLIT: REALITY IN TERMS OF TRANSFORMATION (EAST) VS GROWTH (WEST)

This comment on belief in GROWTH versus TRANSFORMATION points directly to the CRAZY-MAKER in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE.

-1- Consider the ‘double error’ when we use the abstract concept of GROWTH in our language and grammar representations of ‘reality’.

We speak of the GROWTH of the land we have ‘under cultivation’ and what comes into the mind’s eye is a small field of grain, that is, from year to year, getting much larger, perhaps starting from a few acres in size and growing to over 100 acres in size.

What we don’t speak about is the chopping down of trees and removal of stumps and rocks and chasing out of gophers and foxes that is associated with our GROWING the size of the field of grain.  It’s not that our proposition concerning the GROWTH of the field is NOT TRUE, it’s more like the surprise finding of Goedel’s theorem that all systems of logic are fundamentally INCOMPLETE.   In other words, while our talk of the GROWTH of the farm is logically TRUE, such TRUTH is evidently an INCOMPLETE TRUTH because what is also involved in the same action is a SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS, the living space of wild animals and birds.

The talk of GROWTH of cultivated land evidently FAILS TO MENTION THIS OTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME REALITY, … which is the SHRINKAGE of ‘wilderness’ (uncultivated land).

IN REALITY, what is going on is TRANSFORMATION and there is no such thing as GROWTH.  GROWTH is logical abstraction that is innately INCOMPLETE.  This issue raises questions as to how our use of language and grammar captures SPACE and CONTENT (HABITAT and INHABITANT, FIGURE AND GROUND), or if there are such things.  For example, the boil and flow distinction in the river bend may ‘appear’ to be separate things (the boil seems to enjoy persisting LOCAL PERSISTING BEING’ while the flow is purely relational transience).

There are questions here in regard to how we capture and reduce our voyeur visual observations to language and grammar.  In particular, we are prone to the ‘double error’ as Nietzsche points out, where we are faced with capturing CHANGE as in TRANSFORMATION, in language and grammar;  NOTE THAT TRANSFORMATION HAS NO LOCAL AUTHOR.

“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

The double error of language and grammar allows us to capture TRANSFORMATION (in reduced form) in language.   Why the double error reduction?  Because TRANSFORMATION is the Wave-field dynamic which is EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME, or in other words NONLOCAL and NONLOCAL DYNAMICS ARE INEFFABLE even though these ineffable-because-nonlocal dynamics are the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao (Wave-field).

OK, … HERE’S WHERE EAST AND WEST SPLIT; i.e.  on the approach to effable-izing the ineffable or in other words ‘LOCALIZING the NONLOCAL’.

(more…)

In the WEST, but NOT in the EAST, the language and grammar-based REPRESENTATION of REALITY employs the abstract reductive concept of GROWTH.  ‘GROWTH’ is planted in WESTERN MINDS like a cuckoo’s egg or ‘Trojan Horse’, that makes a clandestine entry into the natural family of things, hatching out and ejecting the natural inhabitants of the nest.

The concept of ‘growth’, as in the ‘growth’ of a ‘town’, as people stream into ‘it’ from all points of the compass is ONE-SIDED ABSTRACTION since there is no mention of the relational transformation this involves.  If the sons and daughters of many families withdraw from their long-time family and friend relations and pack up and move to join in the growth of a new town, the ‘change-reality’ includes BOTH the LOSS of their relational participation where they were AND their contribution to the ‘GROWTH’ of the ‘new town’.  The REALITY here is thus TRANSFORMATION of relational space rather than the GROWTH of a ‘new thing-in-itself’ (town).

“G R O W T H’ is the abstract INTRUDER that triggers in the WESTERN INTELLECT a reduction of the RELATIONAL understanding of REALITY in the double error based terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar instantiated powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

THERE GOES REALITY UNDERSTOOD AS ‘RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION’ AND HERE COMES REALITY UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF ‘GROWTH’.  As relational forms gather and scatter in a Heraclitean evolutionary dynamic, WESTERN CULTURE reductionism RECASTS this relational transformation in the REDUCED terms of GROWTH of notional name-instantiated LOCAL things-in-themselves, notionally with their own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

HERE IS WHERE EAST AND WEST UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY PART WAYS AND WHERE MODERN PHYSICS AFFIRMS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EAST.

THAT IS; REALITY IS ‘RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION’ WHILE THE PSEUDO-REALITY OF ‘GROWTH’ DERIVES FROM THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR’.

(more…)

Our sensory (‘feeling’) experience is of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum; i.e. inclusion in the Tao/Wave-field.

Because we are included in a continual flux (aka transformation),  our reality is ineffable, and because we want to discuss and share our experience, we develop language and grammar which must necessarily be based on a reduction of our experience of inclusion in transformation in order to share ‘something’ in effable terms.

This means that what we are able to talk about is not the ‘reality’ of our actual experience of inclusion in the Tao or Wave-field (this is ineffable) but what we able to talk about is an ‘intellectual reduction’ of the ineffable.  The implication is that the reality of our FEELINGS is reality, … a reality that is beyond reach of language and grammar based intellection.

This intellectual reduction is a reduction from our intuitive feeling based inclusion in the all including ‘transformation’ of the ‘wave-field’ (the Tao) to an abstract intellectual language and grammar based construction of a pseudo-reality wherein NONLOCAL transformation gives way to LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES notionally WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (i.e. the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar pointed out by Niezsche).

The first error is NAMING (to reduce a flow-form to a notional LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF and the second error is GRAMMAR, words that we put together that gives us the intellectual impression that the naming-instantiated THING-IN-ITSELF has the POWER OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

This ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ ‘sidesteps’ the INEFFABLE fluid ONE-NESS of the Tao (Wave-field) by RECASTING flow-forms as LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with their own POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, … in language and grammar based intellectual representations.   This language based intellectual MOCK-UP is a TOOL for enabling a half-assed effable representation of the innately ineffable Tao, … a TOOL WHICH WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS EMPLOY AS OUR OPERATIVE REALITY, … WHILE it is used merely as a throw-away tool of INFERENCE in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

As Emerson points out, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS let the TOOL run away with the WORKMAN; i.e. we redefine WHO WE ARE with the DOUBLE ERROR tool of language and grammar and this is where we make ourselves, in our psyche, into SORCERERS of actions and developments, per the DOUBLE ERRROR, and no longer understand ourselves as being included in the Tao and ONE WITH EVERYTHING.   We lose the EASTERN power of ‘one with everything’ and gain the WESTERN power of ‘independent being based ‘sorcery’.  Thus we trade out “Inspiration that fills the heart” for ‘Ego that swells the head”.

Language and grammar based intellectual stimulation lets us do this ‘make-believe’ recasting of who we are, and while the EAST understands that this is just a tool of inference or ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ to facilitate sharing a reduction-based allusion to the ineffable Tao, … the WEST accepts and employs this reduction as the ‘operative reality’.    This is a CRAZY-MAKER for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.  The intellectual ‘doer-deed’ or ‘producer-product’ pseudo-concept is just a cheap way of conjuring up the psychological notion of SORCERY along with some artificial ego-inflation.

(more…)

 * * * BEGIN PROLOGUE: * * * 

EAST AND WEST SPLIT re the EFFABLE-IZING of INEFFABLE REALITY

In the political news on television, there is much discussion on how people support OPPOSING views on ‘the correct way to behave’, as in the ‘pro-life’ – pro-choice’ polarization.  In WESTERN CULTURE, views become ‘polarized’ as in the politics of conservatives and liberals because of innate ambiguity in how one ‘understands reality’ once we break it down by way the DOUBLE ERROR (Nietzsche).  For example, the introduction of the concept of ‘forgiveness’ is like inserting a cuckoos egg into the nest of a bird of an entirely different feather.  That is, ‘relational complexity’ can cultivate harmony or dissonance, which is purely relational and entirely without LOCAL SOURCING (an intellectual abstraction).   The abstract concepts of LOCAL existence and the SOURCING of actions and developments come from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The DOUBLE ERROR arises from the need to find an effable (language-based) way of expressing the ineffable Tao.  That is, the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the transforming relational continuum cannot be captured in language and grammar since language and grammar works by capturing and holding something that is continually transforming; i.e. “the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao”

In order to ‘explicitize’ (digitize) fluid phenomena, we are forced to the device of ‘sample-and-hold’ .  That is, since FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE IN TRANSFORMATION (fluidity), in order  to talk about this, we have to NAME the FIGURE, and in so doing we impute LOCAL BEING to the FIGURE and then add the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR to impute to the NAME-INSTANTIATED LOCAL BEING its own powers of SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT.  By this DOUBLE ERROR, we liberate FIGURE from GROUND and abstractly endow the FIGURE with its own powers of SORCERY of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT (GOODBYE relational transformation aka the Tao aka the Wave-field, … HELLO BIRTH, GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, DECLINE and DEATH! ).

The abstract language and grammar based ‘sample and hold’ digitization of reality that serves as a means of effable-izing the ineffable, gives rise to the concept of ‘an act’s such as an ‘act of kindness’ or an ‘act of violence’ such as a rape or murder.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “AN ACT”.  IT PART OF THE SAMPLE-AND-HOLD DIGITIZATION OF REALITY USED TO REDUCE THE INEFFABLE TAO (transforming relational continuum) to an EFFABLE REPRESENTATION.

THERE ARE NO ‘VIRTUOUS ACTS’ AND THERE ARE NO ‘EVIL ACTS’ IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ‘ACTS’.   THE ‘ACT’ IS A DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR that breaks into the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) and abstracts out a DOUBLE ERROR based abstraction; The first error is NAMING to impute thing-in-itself existence to a relational form in the Tao and conflating this with GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the NAMING instantiated thing-in-itself.  For example, ‘DUNING is relational resonance that inductively gathers dust, sand, straw, twigs into wave-shaped piles.  Language and grammar gives us the means to invert the natural order of things and to speak in terms of ‘the DUNE’ (name-instantiated thing-in-itself) and ITS ACTIONS as when say IT FORMS and IT DEVELOPS and it GROWS longer and higher and IT SHIFTS across the desert floor.

BUT THERE IS NO ‘IT’ THAT PERFORMS SUCH “ACTS”.  THERE IS ONLY THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM AND THE.

Jean Valjean’s alleged “ACT” of the theft of a loaf of bread would be easily ‘proved’ by Crime Scene Investigation, but such proof assumes that “an ACT” is a meaningful concept!  But “an ACT” is a kind of SAMPLING of space-time that assumes that reality can be broken down into LOCAL samples of space that ‘change over time’.  This is abstraction that is not supportable by our sensory experience, nor is supportable in modern physics.

The concept of “an ACT” or a TRANSACTION such as REPRODUCTION is REDUCTIVE ABSTRACTION designed to reduce the ineffable to effable representation.  If we impute REALITY to Jean Valjean’s “ACT” of stealing a loaf of bread; i.e. if we ‘break down the transforming relational continuum’ into bite size LOCAL space and time blocks holding so as to isolate “AN ACT” then we be substitute a LOCAL perspectival glimpse into the Tao continuum and imputing ‘reality’ to it.  It is the Tao that is real in our sensory experience and we can only know it intuitively.  The ACT is not something REAL, it is the DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION of language and grammar.  It is abstraction that is otherwise known as LOCAL SORCERY or the ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ dynamic, a radical reduction of the transforming relational continuum

It was probably WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’s PRIDE as in EGO that first LEGITIMIZED the DOUBLE ERROR concept of LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, and BLAME for the sorcery of evil acts was the ‘fill in the binary logical blank’ demanded so as to legitimize the popular embrace of PRIDE which plays a major role in shaping WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS social dynamics.

Reproductive acts and genetic determinism are currently in a state of confusion because of issues with their dependency on the POTENCY of an ACT such as SPERM FERTILIZING AN EGG.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ‘ACT’ AND NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION WHICH IS INEFFABLE AND THE DOUBLE ERROR SERVES TO REDUCE THE INEFFABLE TO SOMETHING EFFABLE, BUT THAT SOMETHING EFFABLE IS “NOT” REALITY.

NOTA BENE: While TRANSFORMATION (the Tao, the Wavefield) is all-inclusive and thus ineffable (i.e. it lies innately beyond the effable REDUCTION to LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, with their associated TIME-based concepts such as BIRTH, DEVELOPMENT, DECLINE, DEATH).  This reduction of the ineffable to a broken apart effable is A VERY USEFUL TOOL so long as we do not “LET THE TOOL RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN (EFFABLE) WITH THE DIVINE (INEFFABLE), … WHICH, OF COURSE, IS PRECISELY WHAT WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE IN THE HABIT OF DOING.

Note the one-sidedness of DOUBLE ERROR in that it SPLITS OUT AND ANIMATES the FIGURE (inhabitant) on its own, apart from the GROUND (habitat).  When we are talking in terms of animated FIGURES, we don’t even mention the GROUND/HABITAT.  This ONE-SIDED SORCERY of FIGURE-based actions and developments (by way of the ‘double error’ of naming and grammar)  OPENS THE DOOR TO A LOGICAL AMBIGUITY in that GRAMMAR ‘doesn’t care’ if we likewise give ONE-SIDED SORCERY powers to the GROUND/HABITAT.

Does the man source the times [i.e. does an individual source the organize the dynamics of a social collective], OR, do the times source the man [i.e. does the organizing of the social collective source the individual’s actions?]. In other words, did the man named HITLER source the disastrous WWII times, … or did the times source the man (did the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles source a Hitler?)

This ambiguity is linguistically triggered in our minds through the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar which gives rise to the concept of LOCAL, ONE-SIDED SORCERY, which we invent to break the impasse of the ineffability of relational TRANSFORMATION which is all-inclusive.  As in the Zen koan of ‘wind and flag’, the ambiguity is innately ambiguous BECAUSE what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION, NOT the jumpstart abstraction of SORCERY in any of its WESTERN CULTURE configurations such as ‘Cause-and-Effect’, ‘Producer-product dynamics’ etc.

Ok, one-sided SORCERY sidesteps the ineffability of relational transformation in which we are included, but it introduces an innate ambiguity in the once we break apart the FIGURE-AND-GROUND UNITY that is implicit in TRANSFORMATION, by homing in on the FIGURE and using the double error to give it it’s own powers of sourcing actions and developments, it becomes apparent that having endowed language and grammar with this capability, there is nothing stopping anyone from making the GROUND the SORCERER of action and development instead of the FIGURE.  This is the source of the Conservative – Liberal BIPOLAR SPLIT in the WESTERN CULTURE social collective and it is also the source of bipolar disorder/schizophrenia in the WESTERN CULTURE individual.

THIS LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED FIGURE-and-GROUND SPLITTING IS A CRAZY MAKER! … BUT ONLY IF WE TAKE the FIGURE-and-GROUND SPLIT TO BE ‘REAL’, as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have fallen into the habit of doing.  In modern physics, as also in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, … THE FIGURE AND GROUND SPLIT IS NOT REAL; I.E. THE INHABITANT-HABITANT SPLIT IS NOT REAL, it is an expedient for effable-izing the ineffable, but only a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ to infer the ineffable that lies innately beyond it.   What is REAL is also INEFFABLE; i.e. it is the all-including relational transformation aka WAVFIELD wherein FIGURE-AND-GROUND-ARE-ONE.

In the case of the reductions we are forced to resort to, to render the ineffable in a half-assed effable form based on binarizing FIGURE and GROUND, all the hard, explicit BINARIES must, in the interpreting mind, be reduced to relations within the context of transformation as in the relational dynamics of HARMONY/DISSONANCE which in turn opens the door to the concept of ‘being in phase’ or ‘out of phase’, and to a HOLODYNAMICAL or WAVEFIELD understanding of reality.  When we are driving in a busy freeway where relational dynamics are everything, the concept of CORRECT or ERRONEOUS sorcery of behaviour gives way to understanding dynamics in terms of cultivating harmony or dissonance; i.e. there is no longer the abstract notion of ‘SORCERY’ of actions and developments.

THE POINT OF THIS NOTE IS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW ‘EAST’ AND ‘WEST’ SPLIT IN THE EFFABLE-IZING OF THE INEFFABLE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM OF OUR NATURAL EXPERIENCE, … SO THAT WE CAN REDUCE IT TO EFFABLE, SHAREABLE DISCOURSE.

THE KEY TAKE-AWAYS ARE;

-1- The relational transformation we experience inclusion in is INEFFABLE because the entire system including ourselves, IS IN FLUX.

-2a- There is NO LANGUAGE-BASED MEANS of reducing omni-perspectival (holodynamic) FLOW of TRANSFORMATION where everything is in flux, to LANGUAGE-BASED TERMS.

-2b- LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR can be used to come up with a REDUCED EXPRESSION of the holodynamic FLOW OF TRANSFORMATION by means of the abstract terms of LOCAL SORCERY OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.  THUS, instead of inside-outward asserting and outside-inward inducing being ONE, as in transformation, we can speak of them as TWO as in SOURCE and SINK.  The problem is, TRANSFORMATION IS WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE, not TWO.

-2c- If we cast reality in terms of LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (rather than in terms of form-filled fluid transformation), we have to PRETEND that the THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES are LOCALLY SOURCED and undergo GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and subsequent DETERIORATION and DEATH, as in a continual LIFE and DEATH cycle.

2d.  In understanding forms NOT as THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES but as relational features in the flow (Tao, Wavefield), we do not have to BELIEVE in the LOCAL EXISTENCE OF THINGS IN THEMSELVES WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (the ‘DOUBLE ERROR’).

CONFUSION arises because the flow-based understanding of reality is INEFFABLE and by this I mean, for example, FORMS are made of resonance and are purely relational and are not separate from the world as a whole (They are not separate from the world as a transforming relational continuum). This means FORMS are not BORN and they do not GROW and DEVELOP and SOURCE actions and developments, but are instead REALTIONAL FEATURES IN THE ONE-FLOW (the Tao);

Ok, but if we are WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS who are, as we know, brought up to believe in CREATION aka SORCERY, then our tool of ‘reason’ (which deals in LOCAL BEING SOURCED ACTIONS AND EVELOPMENTS and is not nearly as comprehensive as relational intuition) screams out for an explanation in terms of SORCERY, which is an understanding in terms of ‘some thing’ which is responsible for ‘sourcing’ an action or result (NOTE that there is no SORCERY in TRANSFORMATION). So, although we experience inclusion in TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE, we are relational flow-forms that like to share our experiences and learn from them, …we have devised an ‘end run’ to partially get around the fact that our experience is innately ineffable BECAUSE IT IS FLUID, AND THERE IS NO LOCAL AUTHORSHIP OF ANYTHING WHICH COULD HAVE HELPED US TO BREAK INTO THE NONLOCAL, UNBOUNDED WAVE-FIELD AKA ‘TAO’.   SO WHY NOT USE THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TO NOTIONALLY BREAK IT DOWN INTO DOUBLE ERROR BASED LOCAL SOURCERY.

-3- LOCAL SORCERY IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT IS INJECTED INTO THE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT MIND, AS POINTED OUT BY BENJAMIN WHORF, through NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, which is essentially the capture of abstraction such as LOCAL SORCERY in language and grammar.   For example, Newton’s third law, which is the source of binary thinking among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, comes up with the separate binary notions of “ACTION” and “REACTION” (i.e. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reality”).   This binary couple establishes the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING, the ‘stake-in-the-ground that calls out for its being invented so as to render the ineffable transforming relational continuum effable.  Once we have established the existence of both ACTION and REACTION, we can focus in on ACTION as if in its own right as the DOUBLE ERROR, the first of which is Naming (to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself being, and the second of which is GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing actions and development to the LOCAL thing-in-itself (first error).

Now we can speak of the ACTION of the LOCAL FARMER as he cultivates his 160 acre ‘plot’ as if this one-sided ACTION ‘makes sense’.  What goes missing is the equal and opposite REDUCTION of the uncultivated land, … which will ‘catch up with us later’ as the uncultivated land continues to SHRINK in reciprocal relation to the GROWTH of the cultivated land.  EVIDENTLY there is IN REALITY, neither GROWTH of cultivated land NOR SHRINKAGE of uncultivated land, THERE IS ONLY TRANSFORMATION since the sum total of cultivated and uncultivated land remains constant.

The Tao is INEFFABLE because transformation is innately NON-LOCAL.  The binary split in Newton’s third law, into ACTION and REACTION introduces an artificial duplicity that allows us to speak of ACTION in a one-sided manner, as if we could forget its siamese-twin binary.  This is what divides WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’.  In the conservative view we attribute the source of ACTION to the individual and REACTION to the social collective.  In the liberal view we attribute the source of ACTION to the social collective and REACTION to the individual.

WHICH IS CORRECT?   NEITHER!  …  … since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY.  LOCALLY INSTANTIATING SORCERY IS IMPLIED BY NEWTON’S THIRD LAW WHICH WAS REALLY INVENTED IN ORDER TO RENDER THE INEFFABLE EFFABLE.  That is, one had to break into the transforming relational continuum somehow, to establish LOCAL STARTING POINTS FOR SOURCING ACTIONS, … so as to be able to TALK ABOUT the INHERENTLY NONLOCAL transforming relational continuum aka WAVEFIELD.

The result is that WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have gotten into the habit of choosing one or other of the binary pair (ACTION/REACTION) as in INDIVIDUAL LEADER and FOLLOWING SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (conservative) or  LEADING SOCIAL COLLECTIVE and FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL HERD-MEMBERS.

This innate ambiguity arises from the unreal abstract BINARY assumption of NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION; FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

THIS IS NOTHING OTHER THAN AN INTELLECTUAL ‘DEVICE’  (TRICKERY) TO BREAK INTO THE INEFFABLE TAO (THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM) SO AS TO CONJURE US SOME REDUCTIVE EFFABLE ARTICULATIONS OF THE INEFFABLE.

YES, OF COURSE IT IS USEFUL, BUT IT IS USEFUL IN THAT IT OPENS UP OUR ABILITY TO GIVE REDUCED-BUT-EFFABLE RENDERINGS OF THE INEFFABLE TAO (THE ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM AKA WAVE-FIELD), … BUT IT IS ONLY GOOD FOR USE AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE AS USED IN THE EAST, AND BECOMES A CRAZY-MAKER WHEN USED LITERALLY AS A SUBSTITUTE REALITY.

EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS STICK TO THE INFERENTIAL USAGE WHILE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE POPULARLY OPTED FOR ITS LITERAL USE, WHICH SPLITS WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS INTO TWO POLAR OPPOSITE CAMPS; I.E.

Choosing one or other of the binary pair (ACTION/REACTION) as in INDIVIDUAL-LEADER-ACTION and FOLLOWING-SOCIAL-COLLECTIVE-REACTION (conservative) or  LEADING-SOCIAL-COLLECTIVE-ACTION and FOLLOWING-INDIVIDUAL-REACTION.

NOTE that this innately ambiguous dichotomy only arises from the synthetic act of imputing this artificial LOCAL ACTION-REACTION abstraction, which was what was needed in order to REDUCE the ineffable NONLOCAL dynamic of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum, to something LOCAL and thus EFFABLE.  Newton did not come up with his ACTION/REACTION law from studying nature, but as Benjamin Whorf noted, it came from alchemical ideas (WESTERN CULTURE BELIEF IN SORCERY) and Newton just put it into the clean terms of binary logic (ACTION-REACTION).

From the form-plus-substance dichotomy the philosophical views most traditionally characteristic of the “Western world” have derived huge support. Here belong materialism, psychophysical parallelism, physics–at least in its traditional Newtonian form–and dualistic views of the universe in general. Indeed here belongs almost everything that is “hard, practical common sense.” Monistic, holistic, and relativistic views of reality appeal to philosophers and some scientists, but they are badly handicapped in appealing to the “common sense” of the Western average man–not because nature herself refutes them (if she did, philosophers could have discovered this much), but because they must be talked about in what amounts to a new language. “Common sense,” as its name shows, and “practicality” as its name does not show, are largely matters of talking so that one is readily understood. It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” — Benjamin Whorf

Inserting the abstraction of binary logic into our language-stimulated mental modeling of the Tao (crudely) solves the ineffability problem but injects a BELIEF IN SORCERY based ambiguity as manifests in the conservative-liberal split.

IN THIS CASE, instead of being stuck with the ineffability of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum aka Tao aka Wave-field that ‘CANNOT BE TOLD’ because it is in continual flux, we can use NAMING to impute ‘thing-in-itself existence’ to a resonance feature such as a hurricane, lightning bolt, duning, humaning etc., all of which are resonance forms in the transforming relational continuum, … and then using a DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar to make them out as being LOCAL SORCERERS OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS!

This is what the DOUBLE ERROR is all about.  The guile packaged into it is the coming up with a way of doing and end-run against the ineffability of the all-including TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka the Tao, aka the Wave-field.  The trick is to use language to invent a LOCAL thing-in-itself, notionally with the power of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  This will allow us to notionally break the unbounded transforming relational continuum into LOCAL PARTS with their own SOURCING POWERs which is to say, render the ineffable effable.

“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

Ok, that is ‘the price’ we have to pay to render the ineffable as crudely effable thus shareable via language which the ineffable is clearly NOT.

BUT HERE IS WHERE EAST (AND MODERN PHYSICS) PART WAYS WITH ‘WEST’ BECAUSE WEST IS ON A CRAZY-MAKING TRIP OF EQUATING THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED REDUCTION WITH ‘REALITY’. …. NO, NO , NO, NO!  THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED REDUCTION DELIVERS UP A CRUDE INFERENCE TO THE INEFFABLE REALITY, AND IT CAN’T BE (WITHOUT CRAZY-MAKING CONSEQUENCES) CONFUSED FOR ‘REALITY’.  THIS IS WHERE ‘THE WEST’ SPLITS OF FROM ‘THE EAST’ AND PUTS INTO SELF ON TRIP TO CRAZY-MAKING LAND.

This is why modern physics departs from WESTERN CULTURE’s DOUBLE ERROR BASED CONCEPTUALIZING OF REALITY aka SORCERY-BASED CONCEPTUALIZING OF REALITY.

Here is Wittgenstein’s warming in regard to accepting effable propositions as ‘reality’;

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.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

OK, how does the above commentary tie to the initial comment;

In the political news on television, there is much discussion on how people support OPPOSING views on ‘the correct way to behave’, as in the ‘pro-life’ – pro-choice’ polarization.

As explained in the above, the use of DOUBLE ERROR based reduction of the ineffable Tao (our experience of inclusion in the Tao) puts ‘reality’ in terms of notional NAME-instantiated LOCAL THINGS IN THEMSELVES with notional powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

As is evident, that is a radical departure from our sensory experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is included in the flux, including ourselves.

What my writing seeks to bring the reader’s attention to, is where this REDUCTION, which is abstruse abstraction, goes visibly wrong.  We can capture this ‘going wrong’ as follows;

-1- By naming a FIGURE, we split the FIGURE out of the GROUND as a separate thing-in-itself.

-2- We then use GRAMMAR to ‘remobilize’ the FIGURE which didn’t need its own mobilizing sorcery prior to the FIGURE AND GROUND being split, by language and grammar, into two separate and distinct ONTOLOGIES.  In other words, we use language and grammar (the DOUBLE ERROR) to convert the relational form-flow into a notional LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THING-IN-ITSELF, NOTIONALLY WITH ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

-3-. WHERE THE OPPS! COMES INTO PLAY.  Since we equipped GRAMMAR with power to impute the POWER OF SORCERY to a named relational form and thus ‘take it out of the Tao’ and remobilize it as a notional THING-IN-ITSELF with its own GRAMMAR-GIVE powers of sourcing actions and developments, … this GRAMMATICAL SORCERY CAPABILITY we invented is applicable NOT ONLY TO THE INHABITANT BUT ALSO TO THE HABITAT… UH-OH!

Sure, we did this reduction to one-sided LOCAL SORCERY to reduce the ineffable to effable since we can use it to notionally (abstractly) ‘break into the transforming relational continuum’ and start describing the activity from wherever we want.  We can start if from where Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread, rather than from where he sees a starving child crying out for food.  SORCERY is convenient in that it opens the way to LOCALIZING the SOURCE of an ACTION and DEVELOPMENT when the reality is that this no LOCAL SOURCING.  If a young actress wants to win over a Harvey Weinstein to get her acting career going, the concept of LOCAL SOURCING is a DOUBLE ERROR based construction that imputes LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.

If we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS did NOT believe in DOUBLE ERROR BASED SORCERY, we would not have EGO (as Nietzsche pointed out, EGO comes from the DOUBLE ERROR) and we would not give credit to a PRODUCER for PRODUCER-PRODUCT ACHIEVEMENTS.  We would, in fact, be like indigenous aboriginal cultures and like modern physics, wherein the dynamics of reality are understood as relational transformation.  i.e. LOCAL SOURCING of ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS DOES NOT EXIST!  It is an abstraction arising from the DOUBLE ERROR of LANGUAGE and GRAMMAR.

-4- The OOPS here, applies to the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS’ practice of accepting DOUBLE ERROR based pseudo-reality as our OPERATIVE REALITY.  But in the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS LOCAL INDEPENDENT BEINGS WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

* * *

PROLOGUE SUMMARY:

The reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is ineffable.

Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are all of the same understanding.

In order to reduce so as to express an understanding of the Tao, we have to reduce it to something which it is not.

We can do this with the DOUBLE ERRRO as described by Nietzsche.

The EAST employs this DOUBLE ERROR reduction of the ineffable Tao (transforming relational continuum we are included in) as a tool of INFERENCE which positions the mind for making an intuitive leap to a sense of the ineffable.

The WEST employs this DOUBLE ERROR reduction as REPLACEMENT REALITY which the WEST employs as the OPERATIVE REALITY.   THIS IS A CRAZY-MAKER which constructs ‘reality’, LITERALLY, in the DOUBLE ERROR terms of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN (NOTIONAL) POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  The symptoms of this CRAZINESS include EGO, the conceptualizing of TRANSFORMATION in terms of the BIRTH and DEATH of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES,  the CONSERVATIVE-LIBERAL split and BIPOLAR DISORDER/SCHIZOPHRENIA

* * *

* * * END OF PROLOGUE * * * 

* * *

Re the division in regard to Trump’s impeachment and in general in the conservative –  liberal polarization.

the polar division in understanding of ‘reality’ between conservatives and liberals is DELUSIONAL   both of the polar opposing views are based on the illusion of ‘sorcery’ which Nietzsche has pointed out is a ‘double error’ of language and grammar.   it is the same illusion as in the Zen paradox (koan) of wind and flag, which sources the move of which?   the Zen answer, which agrees with the modern physics answer is NEITHER, since what is going on is relational transformation in which there is no such thing as ‘the sourcing of actions and developments’ aka SORCERY.

CONSERVATIVE VIEW: the individual is the SOURCE of actions and developments

LIBERAL VIEW: the social collective is the SOURCE of actions and developments.

REALITY as in the INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL view, the modern physics view, the Buddhist/Taoist and Advaita Vedanta view, is that there s only transformation, no SOURCING of actions and developments; i.e.g no GROWTH.  We speak of the growth of a city, but fail to mention the corresponding shirinkage of undeveloped land.   Therefore, it is abstraction to speak of ‘growth’ as there is only transformation in the real world of our actual experience.  ‘Growth’ is the abstract artifact of thinking in terms of absolute space.  in the curved space of the real world of our sensory experience, as the town GROWS larger, the undeveloped land correspondingly shrinks in size, and if GROWTH of developed land continues to shrink and what people living in that space will experience is TRANSFORMATION as development transforms the undeveloped lands.

IN OTHER WORDS, ‘GROWTH’ IS NON-EXISTENT ABSTRACTION BASED ON THE ABSTRACTION OF EUCLIDIAN SPACE WHICH DOES NOT TRANSFORM WHEN SOMETHING WITHIN IT ‘GROWS’ SINCE IT IS INFINITE AND THERE IS NO RECIPROCAL ‘SHRINKING OF UNDEVELOPED SPACE’.  Only in absolute space can there be GROWTH.  in the REAL WORLD SPACE OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE, the GROWTH  of a development within the space is impossible, there is only TRANSFORMATION.

as in the Zen koan BOTH CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL VIEWS ARE WRONG because there is only relational TRANSFORMATION, there is no GROWTH which implies the SOURCING of DEVELOPMENT of a THING-IN-ITSELF.

Conservatives and liberals get ‘crosswise’ over the mistaken belief that the INHABITANTS are the SOURCE of improvements in the HABITAT, and on this mistaken assumption, the issue crops up as to whether the INDIVIDUAL is the basic SOURCE of the improvements in the HABITAT or whether the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE is the SOURCe of the improvements.  The question arises as to whether ONE BAD APPLE SOURCES ROT OF THE WHOLE BARREL, or whether IT TAKES A WHOLE COMMUNITY TO SOURCE THE RAISING OF A [GOOD/BAD] CHILD.

BOTH ARE WRONG because the notion of LOCAL INDEPENDENT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (people, towns, nations) that are the SOURCE of their own GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT is UNREAL ABSTRACTION, there is only relational TRANSFORMATION and the abstract concept of things-in-themselves comes from NAMING which we conflate to impute powers of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS with GRAMMAR.   That is, NAMING and GRAMMAR based ENDOWING with POWERS of SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS are the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar that Nietzsche speaks of.

For those who care to (dare to?) follow this through, one discovers why EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST and never the twain shall meet, as well as why Bohm comes to the conclusion that ‘EAST’ has ‘got it right’ and that ‘WESTERN CULTURE is a CRAZY-MAKER;

“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’

The point is, once again (as stated above);

-1- BOTH the CONSERVATIVE view of reality as well as the LIBERAL view of reality are CRAZY in that BOTH ASSUME the DOUBLE ERROR (sorcery), the difference being that the conservatives see the individual as the source of actions and developments while the liberals see the social collective as the source of actions and developments.

AS IN THE ZEN KOAN OF WIND AND FLAG and as in SCHROEDINGERS point that SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE, … there is no such thing as SORCERY in the sense that the SUBJECT acts on the OBJECT or the INHABITANT ACTS ON THE HABITAT (as in the notional GROWTH of cultivated land), there is only RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION wherein, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE, as in the understanding of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal culture Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

The conflict between the views of the CONSERVATIVE AND THE LIBERAL do not exist because this conflict is based on different ways of understanding how actions and developments ARE SOURCED (i.e. whether by individuals [conservative] or whether by social collectives [liberal].   THE ANSWER IS “NEITHER” BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, … THAT CRAZY NOTION ARISES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, as in ‘The Tao’ aka ‘the Wavefield’ aka ‘The transforming relational continuum.

* * *

what is going on today, with the polarization between CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS,  … is the exact same thing that Jonathan Swift wrote about in GULLIVER’S TRAVELS in the guise of two different peoples we polarized against one another on the basis of which was the correct end to open a hard-boiled egg.

You may not agree, but it is evident to me that the current polarization between TRUMP supporters and TRUMP opponents is of precisely the same nature; i.e. it is based on EGO and the dispute over whether pride should be based on the AMERICAN INDIVIDUAL and his power of SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS, … or should be based on the AMERICAN SOCIAL COLLECTIVE and its power of SOURCING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.

BOTH ARE WRONG!  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, … SUCH ABSTRACT COMES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

If anyone reading this were to read Bohm and or Schroedinger and to come to understand and agree with them that the reality we experience inclusion in is the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM otherwise known as ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the Wavefield, ..

THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT both of the polar options of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ NO LONGER MAKE ANY SENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH BASED ON ‘SORCERY’ AKA ‘CAUSE AND EFFECT’ AKA ‘THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT DYNAMIC’ AND THE ASSOCIATED CONCEPT OF ‘GROWTH’ WHICH IN TURN IMPLIES ‘THING-IN-ITSELFNESS’.

* * *

The PRO-TRUMP and AGAINST-TRUMP polarized politics is exactly what Jonathan Swift was writing about in Gulliver’s Travels.  There is absolutely no substance to the argument of either faction since the argument is based on WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN A NATION, OR WHETHER THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE IS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPS.    BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT ARE WRONG!

WHY?  … BECAUSE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT SOURCED!   IN REALITY, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

WE WESTERN CULTURAL ADHERENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO BELIEVE THAT ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS ARE LOCALLY “SOURCED”.  THAT “IS” “THE DOUBLE ERRROR”.

EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS, TAOISTS/BUDDHISTS AND ADVAITA VEDANTA ADHERENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO BELIEVE THAT WE ALL SHARE INCLUSION IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.  THIS HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED BY MODERN PHYSICS.  IN THIS UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘THE LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR TRIGGERED BELIEF IN LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS IS WHAT MAKES US WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS CRAZY.  WE MANY ASK DOES THE MOVING AIR SOURCE THE MOVEMENT OF THE FLAG FLAP OR DOES THE MOVEMENT OF THE FLAG SOURCE THE MOVEMENT OF THE AIR?  THE ANSWER IS THAT WE LIVE IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM WHERE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “LOCAL SORCERY”.

* * *

The POLARIZNG  ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT is thus RIGHT OUT OF GULLIVER’S TRAVELS; i.e. it is based on EGO which is based on the belief in the DOUBLE ERROR (first error) ‘NAMING’ is used to invoke the notion of LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING, conflated with (second error) ‘GRAMMAR’ which is used to impute the power of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development to the notional name-instantiated LOCAL thing-in-itself.

In modern physics as in the relational understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoish/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, as with Heraclitus and Lao Tzu, EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and the DOUBLE ERROR of naming and grammar simply imposes LOCAL BEING on forms in the flow; e.g. KATRINA IS GROWING LARGER AND STRONGER AND IS DEVASTING NEW ORLEANS.

LETS BE REAL!  WE, LIKE KATRINA THE HURRICANE, ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM!   Katrina is NOT REALLY a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  ‘SHE’ is a relational form within the transforming relational continuum that we, for our discursive convenience, slap a label on (which psychologically imputes persisting thing-in-itself BEING) so as to facilitate SHARING our perceptions of the Tao we are each uniquely included in, and which NO-ONE is outside of with an ‘overall’ view of.

Our observations, that we capture in language and put in reports that we share with others, are VOYEUR PERSPECTIVES that fall far shot of capturing what is really going on (i.e. the transformation that we share inclusion in).  We may call what we observe and report it as ‘the truth’ but it is ‘our very limited personal truth’ which fails to capture the truth as understood as the transforming relational continuum in which we all share inclusion.  Since our personal truths are all unique and different, how do we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS resolve this?  We resolve it according the principle documented by LaFontaine; « La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure »  (The reasoning of the most powerful is always the best”).

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION re Trump’s Impeachment Proceedings and the general Conservative-Liberal Schism

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS continue to believe in ‘sorcery’ as the foundational dynamic in reality.  Yes, we have changed the name ‘sorcery’ to ‘the producer-product dynamic’ and to ‘cause and effect’ but it is still the same old SORCERY of the Western middle age belief.  modern physics supports EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS with their belief in reality as relational transformation.

The conservative-liberal split is based on a belief in sorcery (the ‘double error’) as the animator of the world dynamic; i.e. the first error of naming is to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING, conflated with the second error which uses grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the (first error) name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

The WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT social collective thus succumbs to CRAZY-MAKING beliefs, all three of which are based on ‘sorcery’; (-1-) conservatives who believe that sorcery is a power arising from individuals, (-2-) ‘liberals who believe that sorcery is a power arising from social collectives.  This abstract belief comes with a built in basic ambiguity of the wind and flag type; i.e. does the mood of the individual come first and source the actions of the social collective as in the conservative belief? … or, … does the mood of the social collective come first and source the actions of individuals in the collective as in the liberal belief?.  BOTH OF THESE ARE WRONG BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.   (-3-)  ‘bipolars/schizophrenics’ who believe that both polar options for sorcery are available within the individual so that there is no need to join in either of the dysfunctional mutually polarized groups ‘out there’.

The bipolars/schizophrenics are off to good start in not wanting to join either of the two sorcery based opposing poles and if they were not living in a sea of polarization, perhaps things would work out for them, but insofar as they are living in a sea of polarization, they may be pulled in opposite directions at the same time and without some easily accessible ability to shift their psyche out of bipolar mode, they will be stuck trying to intellectually solve the problem of whether they, as both flag and wind at once, are going to do some flapping or accept being flapped, and in this manic-depressive oscillation, both of the opposite emotions are fuelled by ego based belief in ‘sorcery’ (I am the SOURCE of this wonderful action/development/success! … er, no … I  am the SOURCE of this horrible action/development/failure!).   This is the EGO speaking (the ego is our double error sense of self as LOCAL things-in-ourselves with our own powers of SOURCING actions and developments). [In the indigenous aboriginal culture where transformation is in place of sorcery, the binary poles of sorcery based pride and sorcery-based shame give way to the relational equivalents of experiencing inclusional (‘one-with-everything’) harmony or dissonance.]

In indigenous aboriginal understanding, as in modern physics BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, FIGURE AND GROUND ARE ONE (SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE)

“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

Therefore, there is no basis for the FIGURE AND GROUND SPLIT as in the INHABITANT AND HABITAT SPLIT and no basis for REDUCING TRANSFORMATION … TO … GROWTH (e.g. in the resonant relational transforming that manifests as DUNING, our reductionist talk in DOUBLE ERROR terms of LOCAL DUNES that ‘grow larger’ and ‘shift across the desert floor impresses our intellect which is right at home with reductions to binary abstraction.

Re Trump’s Impeachment Proceedings and the general Conservative-Liberal Schism, these proceedings are within the SORCERY paradigm which is subject to basic ambiguity as in whether the flag’s flapping sourced the air’s moving or whether the moving air sourced the flag’s flapping.   There is no clear answer since ‘SORCERY’ is not really what is going on  (it is the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar).  What IS REALLY going on, as modern physics attests is relational TRANSFORMATION.

I am well aware that very few WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTs reading this essay, even if they could find no fault in its findings AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF SORCERY which people are using to condemn either TRUMP or his Democratic attackers, would back off their positions for or against TRUMP since we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are psychologically-culturally conditioned to make judgements using the ego-based concept of SORCERY.  My point in writing this is share understanding on how our WESTERN CULTURE social dynamic IS A CRAZY-MAKER, which effects some of us more heavily than others.

In my view, it is clear that some of us are sensitive ‘miner’s canaries’ that start flapping about confusedly because we sense that there’s something amiss in the space we are situationally included in. If we were the much less sensitive miners, we would accept the disturbing flapping about of our sisters the canaries, as indicative of something amiss in the common environment that less sensitive others such as ourselves, are not detecting.   Of course, if we thought it a virtue that we had the roughness and toughness to persist in our living and working in an environment even as it was getting more and more oppressive and dysfunctional, we might wear it as a survivalist ‘badge of honour’ even as the more sensitive among us began ‘dropping like flies’.

‘Crazy-for-you’ is the title coined by Jill Astbury a publication on her research into The Making of Women’s Madness’  wherein she reviewed The World Health Organization statistics on the mental ill health of females which show that women have twice the incidence of ‘affective disorders’ (depression, bipolar disorder etc.). The findings suggest that male-dominated patterns of social behaviour that are imposed on everyone in the social collective associate with maladies that show up in the more sensitive members of the social collective.  In this case, it would not make sense to study the individual manifesting the problem on her own, since it would be the influence of the relational social dynamic she resides in that is responsible.  In other words, the origin of the manifest symptoms would be NONLOCAL in the environment rather than LOCAL within her.  Therefore, like the drunk who searches under the streetlight for the watch he lost on a dark section of the street “because the search conditions are better there”, research into the maladies of sensitive ‘miner’s canaries’ that drills down looking for an internal source is never going to discover that the something that’s amiss is immanent in the ambient conditions in the environment.

The research stemming from this viewpoint had a systemic blindness. It could literally not see what it was doing, as the normative quality of its own presuppositions had made them invisible.” – Jill Astbury

Sensitivity is NOT a weakness and chemical numbing-down is not an apt response to escalation in the oppressiveness and dysfunctionality of the environment. Miners do, in fact, APPRECIATE the sensitivity of the canary as also the sensitivity of a Geiger counter on a visit to Chernobyl.

The lead-in to my comments was the division in regard to Trump’s impeachment and in general in the conservative –  liberal polarization.

For me, the conservative-liberal split over the Trump impeachment initiative brings attention to a basic psychological aberrance in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE; i.e. belief in SORCERY.  This is CRAZY-MAKER that is drawing us into deepening social dysfunction and it needs to be recognized for the double error based misconception that it is.  Such recognition would have more wide-ranging benefits than could ever come from the Trump impeachment initiative per se.

* * * * *