WHERE THIS NOTE IS GOING!   This NOTE is tying together and making new ‘sense’ out of several ESTABLISHED WESTERN CULTURE  ‘problem’ understandings related to CULTURE, THOUGHT and LANGUAGE.

 

THE PROPOSITION HERE IS that We live in a WAVE-FIELD WORLD and while INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL languages (and Modern physics) employ a WAVE-FIELD ARCHITECTURE, … our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGES employ a “SIMPLIFIED” ARCHITECTURE which is just the REAL (“MALE ASSERTING”) COMPONENT of the WAVE-FIELD, which SIMPLY DROPS OUT THE IMAGINARY “FEMALE ACCOMMODATING” CONJUGATE.   I am using ‘REAL’ and ‘IMAGINARY’ from the mathematical vocabulary describing the TWO COMPLEMENTARY aspects of the WAVE-FIELD dynamic, sometimes referred to as PEAK and TROUGH, the MALE ASSERTING ‘PEAK’ being LOCAL and EXPLICIT while the FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING ‘TROUGH’ is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

 

Please in mind that WE, OURSELVES ARE “INCLUDED” IN THE WAVE-FIELD WORLD AS IS THE FINDING OF MODERN PHYSICS AND AS HAS BEEN THE BELIEF OF INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURES, TAOISM/BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA VEDANTA, a BELIEF that has been incorporated in their respective LANGUAGES or USE OF LANGUAGE.

 

NOTA BENE:  WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES “DUMB DOWN”, in their mode of LANGUAGE-STIMULATED INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTUALIZING, the WAVE-FIELD BY EXTRACTIONG ONLY THE MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE (LOCAL, EXPLICIT “PEAK”) AND DROPPING OUT THE CONJUGATE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING (NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT “TROUGH”.

 

What to look for in this write-up, which is bringing different ways of UNDERSTANDING the same thing (our “EXPERIENCING” of being included in the all-including WAVE-FIELD) which have been ‘sitting there’ waiting to be brought into CONNECTIVE CONFLUENCE so that the COHERENCIES that deepen our understanding may be ‘harvested’.

 

While there is a choice of different terminologies to use here BECAUSE DIFFERENT INTEREST GROUPS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING THE SAME (WAVE-FIELD REALITY PHENOMENON) USING THEIR PARTICULAR DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES AND VOCABULARIES, this gives rise our having access to basically THE SAME or very SIMILAR FINDINGS expressed using DIFFERENT VOCABULARIES or DISCIPLINARY JARGONS.  In my writing I have been using for Peak and Trough, ‘MALE ASSERTING’ and ‘FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING for terminology in WAVE-FIELD PHYSICS would the “REAL” and “IMAGINARY” COMPOENTS of the “COMPLEX SIGNAL”.   In UNDERSTANDING WAVE PHENOMENA, the important thing to keep in mind is that the ‘PEAK’ and ‘TROUGH’ are NOT TWO SPEARATE THINGS but are CONJUGATE ASPECTS of ONE THING; i.e. the WAVE-DYNAMIC.

 

Ok, now I am going to tie together the PSYCHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS of LEV VYGOTSKY with MODERN PHYSICS because they point to the same WAVE-FIELD structure, and since the WAVE-FIELD is BASIC to REALITY (we share inclusion within the all-including WAVE-FIELD). ;

 

Lev Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist, pedagogue and playwright. He is often referred to as the “father of cultural-historical psychology” and his work had a profound impact on child development and education.

I also want to connect the common terminologies of ‘LOCAL and EXPLICIT’ and ‘NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT’ which correspond with ‘the MALE ASSERTING’ and ‘the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING.   Note that WHAT THE MALE IS, is extended by the MALE-FEMALE relation which is to say that the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING extends our understanding of WHAT A MALE IS, underscoring the LIMITATIONS in understanding in terms of LOCAL, EXPLICIT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, as is a WESTERN CULTURE ‘HABIT’ built into WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE.

 

OK, this note that is bringing a number of things into connective confluence to extract the coherencies and deepen understanding is actually going to MAKE THE SAME SENSE out of a few different investigative vocabularies and ‘the SAME SENSE’ is the WAVE-FIELD sense, as we shall see.

 

VYGOTSKY makes a unique contribution here in his tying together ‘scientific concepts’ and ‘spontaneous concepts’ so that we can understand them as CONJUGATE ASPECTS of ONE COMPLEX PHENOMENON (the WAVE PHENOMENON).   VYGOTSKY does not mention WAVE-THEORY because the discipline of PSYCHOLOGY that he is working in does not tie the functioning of the psyche to the WAVE-FIELD which is nevertheless ALL-INCLUDING.   WAVE-FIELD theory as in Modern physics was developing ALONG SIDE of PSYCHOLOGY but without any ‘INTEGRATION’

 

THIS NOTE is about such INTEGRATION under the BANNER OF ‘WAVE-FIELD’ dyamics.

 

OK, let’s go…

 

 

We can compare the relating of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT (scientific) with the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (spontaneous) to the findings of Vygotsky as in his following statement/conclusion;

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

 Though scientific and spontaneous concepts develop in reverse directions, the two processes are closely connected. … In working its slow way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept and its downward development. It creates a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive, elementary aspects, which gives it body and vitality. Scientific concepts, in turn, supply structures for the upward development of … spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and deliberate use. Scientific concepts grow downwards through spontaneous concepts; spontaneous concepts grow upwards through scientific concepts. Vygotsky ‘Thought and Language’, p.194 “

NOTE THAT WESTERN CULTURE CONTINUES to STICK WITH PIAGET WHO MAINTAINS THAT SPONTANEOUS CONCEPT FORMATION and the SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT FORMATION are TWO SEPARATE THINGS and that THE ONLY VALUABLE THING IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT FORMATION and we can discard the ‘arm-waving’ on our way there as constituted by SPONTANEOUS CONCEPT FORMATION.  In Vygotsky’s view, Piaget (and thus today’s WESTERN CULTURE way of thinking) MISSES THE CRUCIAL POINT OF THE CONJUGATE RELATION of the SCIENTIFIC (REAL) and SPONTANEOUS (IMAGINARY).  Vygotsky says;

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

. . .

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.”

 

If we look across all the disciplines and terminologies and begin to give WAVE-FIELD understanding a FOUNDATIONAL ROLE in how we TALK ABOUT SUCH STUFF, we can see that the SAME ISSUES AND QUESTIONS keep ‘popping up’ in many different fields of investigation.  Here we find Vygotsky using the equivalent of WAVE-FIELD to discuss child development where the child’s SPONTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT an INSTRUCTION DRIVEN SHAPING are CONJUGATE ASPECTS of an INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT.

 

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS THAT WE LIVE IN A WAVE-FIELD WORLD which has, … in one set of vocabulary ‘REAL’ and “IMAGINARY’ ‘SIGNALLING’ COMPONENTS which together constitute a COMPLEX SIGNAL, … and, hold on, has ANOTHER set of vocabulary where, in place of ‘REAL’ and ‘IMAGINARY”,…once can make use of the CONJUGATE combination of ‘MALE ASSERTING’ and ‘FEMALE ACCOMMODATING’, … once again triggering understanding whereby we could do as WESTERN CULTURE HAS DONE and say; LET’S “SIMPLIFY” THE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE WE ARE USING BY GOING WITH THE CONCISE “LOCAL AND EXPLICIT”  MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE (the ‘REAL’ WAVE COMPONENT) “ON ITS OWN” , … and just DROP OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE (aka IMAGINARY COMPONENT).

 

IN OTHER WORDS, WESTERN CULTURE HAS ARCHIECTED LANGUAGE WHEREIN ‘WE’ HAVE DROPPED OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE (IMAGINARY COMPONENT).  (NOTE: ‘enabling’ refers to the fact that the female architecture enables new capabilities for the male)

 

Have we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ‘LOST ANY UNDERSTANDING CAPABILITY” THROUGH OUR USE OF THIS ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTING ONLY LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEME, compared to the indigenous aboriginals who have RETAINED IN THEIR LANGUAGE “BOTH” FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING and MALE ASSERTING/DEVELOPING?

 

The ANSWER IS EMPHATICALLY ‘YES’!   THE DROP OUT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING WAVE-FIELD CONJUGATE IS THE ‘CRIPPLING” and DROPPING OUT OF THE ‘WAVE-FIELD’ CONCEPTUALIZING which is based on the ANDROGYNOUS STRUCTURE and this DROPPING OUT results in the REDUCTION to ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING ACTION MECHANICS which FRAGMENTS REALITY THE LANGUAGE BASED SUBSTITUTE REALITY THAT WE THEN CONSTRUCT ON A PURELY MALE-ASSERTING ACTION basis.

 

* * *

 

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, by using this LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE in which we have DUMBED DOWN WAVE-FIELD REALITY TO ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING ACTION ONLY, ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING A MECHANISTIC SUBSTITUTE REALITY … WHICH DOES NOT MATCH OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY, … AND WHICH IS PUTTING US ON THE PATH OF ‘FRAGMENTATION’ AS BOHM POINTS OUT.

 

AS FOR VYGOTSKY, HIS CRITIQUE OF PIAGET’S ‘INTERPRETATION OF ‘THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE’ (AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS) IS, IN EFFECT, POINTING THIS SAME REDUCTION OF COMPLEX (REAL + IMAGINARY) SIGNAL, TO JUST THE ‘REAL’ SIGNAL, AND THE ALTERNATIVE PHYSICAL TERMINOLOGY, THE ‘DROPPING OUT’ OF THE ‘FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE AND GOING SOLELY WITH THE MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE.

 

We can COMPARE the language based compositions associated with (A) the full WAVE-FIELD capture of REAL plus IMAGINARY COMPONENTS;

 

— THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.  NOTE that this is the LESS SIMPLE QUANTUM LOGIC based

 

with (B), the reduction to the REAL (MALE ASSERTING) component, dropping out the IMAGINARY (FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING) component.

 

—THE TOWN IS GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods and services.  NOTE that this is SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC based (due to substituting empty space for female).

 

 

* * * * * * *

 

WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN ALL OF THE ABOVE AS EXPRESSED IN DIFFERING LANGUAGE SCHEMES IS ‘WAVE-FIELD REALITY’ which in WESTERN CULTURE opted for the SIMPLER DUMBED DOWN LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE which historically shows up here where we decide to use binary logic in explaining the relation between PLANETS and SPACE, … diverging from the indigenous aboriginal understanding (and Modern physics understanding) where material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the all-including WAVE-FIELD which invokes the LESS SIMPLE QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC rather than the SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC;

 

And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language’. Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion

 

The Laws of Astronomy are laws describing MATERIAL BODIES moving through EMPTY SPACE and this differs radically from the MODERN PHYSICS understanding;

 

“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm

 

The Modern physics view of reality is that material bodies are CONDENSATION OF THE ALL-INCLUDING WAVE-FIELD which invokes QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC.

 

WHAT’S THIS GOT TO DO WITH VYGOTSKY VERSUS PIAGET AND HOW WE AS CHILDREN LEARN LANGUAGE?

 

VYGOTSKY IS SAYING THAT THE CHILD’S NATURAL LEARNING CAPABILITY HAS AN ANDROGYNOUS STRUCTURE WHERE THE SPONTANEOUS IS IN A NATURAL PRIMACY OVER THE SCIENTIFIC.  That is the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (spontaneous) provides the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING BASE for the LOCAL AND EXPLICIT (scientific) which is describing the WAVE-FIELD structure where the WAVE-FIELD is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT while the CONDENSATIONS of the WAVE-FIELD are LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

 

VYGOTSKY is saying that this is NOT TWO THINGS but ONE THING (effectively, the WAVE-FIELD) while PIAGET and this means WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS  insist that the SCIENTIFIC and the SPONTANEOUS are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS and that all we really need is the SCIENTFIC and we can toss out, as spurious, the SPONTANEOUS..

 

NO! NO! NO!.  VYGOTSKY IS RIGHT (Modern physics confirms his view), his interpretation is essentially that of the WAVE-FIELD structure wherein the SPONTANEOUS is the nonlocal and implicit ‘IMAGINARY COMPONENT’ or ‘FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJGUATE’ while the SCIENTIFIC is the local and explicit ‘REAL COMPONENT’ or ‘MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE’.  WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE HUNG UP ON THE PIAGET ERROR in his SPLITTING APART AS IF TWO SEPARATE THING the SCIENTIFIC and SPONTANEOUS and TOSSING OUT THE SPONTANEOUS, “FAILING TO SEE THAT AS VGOTSKY SEES, that the SPONTANEOUS and SCIENTIFIC are CONJUGATE ASPECTS of A SINGLE (TRANSFORMATION) DYNAMIC;

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

. . .

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.”

This Vygotsky – Piaget disagreement mirrors the SPLIT between EAST (indigenous aboriginal) and WEST (european) mentality and this is a loose labelling and we have several different ‘materializations’ of.   It is EVIDENT that we are dealing with a RECURRENT THEME and that THEME is clearly that of the WAVE-FIELD STRUCTURE OF REALITY that splits PEOPLE into TWO CAMPS, those that USE LANGUAGE BASED CONCEPUALIZING THAT DROPS OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE and those that USE LANGUAGE-BASED CONCEPTUALIZING that KEEPS TOGETHER WITH THE MALE ASSERTING CONUGATE, the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE.

 

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, because of the tradition we have picked up through our LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, which has DROPPED OUT the FAMALE ACCOMMODATING/ENABLING CONJUGATE that is IMPLICIT in ‘THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’… and are using LANGUAGE CONSTRAINED TO THE MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE, … as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods and services’ so that we come to think of ‘the TOWN AS A THING-IN-ITSELF’ with its own (GRAMMAR-GIVEN) POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

 

In other words, THROUGH LANGUAGE, we can REDUCE our CONCEPTUALIZATING, .. as discussed in the Vgotsky – Piaget disagreement, FROM VYGOTSKY’S understanding which is in terms of “QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM” wherein the SPONTANEOUS and the SCIENTIFIC work together in the sense that the NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT (spontaneous) provides a FEMALE CONTAINER for the LOCAL and EXPLICIT (scientific), as a relational combination or Coniunctio Oppositorum,… while PIAGET instead supports the BINARY LOGIC split where one sees the SPONTANEOUS and SCIENTIFIC as two separate things where the ‘scientific’ is the KEEPER and the ‘spontaneous’ can be tossed out.

 

When we understand this in WAVE-FIELD terms, we align with Vygotsky’s understanding  “Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation

 

As Vygotsky describes it, this ‘concept formation process’ is continually evolving so that our understanding is “TRANSFORMING” … AND WE ARE INCLUDED CRUCIBLES IN THIS TRANSFORMING”.

 

As Piaget describes it, the ‘scientific’ and ‘spontaneous’ are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPT FORMATION PROCESSES and all we need are the LOCAL AND EXPLICIT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTUALIZING and we can toss out the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT SPONTANEOUS CONCEPTUALIZING.

 

* * * * *

 

SUMMARY:  The WAVE-FIELD shows up everywhere in our great variety of intellectual and philosophical investigations and we can see a consistent pattern in the some cultures (e.g. the indigenous aboriginal culture), LIKE VYGOTSKY, see the TWO different ‘views’ that are always cropping up, the ‘scientific’ (local and explicit) and the ‘spontaneous’ (nonlocal and implicit, or ‘relational’) as two ways of VIEWING ONE REALITY, but are they complementary so that we get more information by combining them as Vygotsky maintains or SEPARATE so that we can just pick the better one  (the scientific) and discard the lesser one (the spontaneous) as Piaget maintains.

 

WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS predominantly go the way of Piaget and select the “BEST” information and “DISCARD” the rest.  There is no thinking along the lines of Vygotsky or of Nietzsche or the indigenous aboriginals with their ‘LEARNING CIRCLE’ where there is perceived value in bringing a diversity of views into connective confluence so as to harvest the coherencies, and ‘see beyond’ the individual perspective;

 

There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing’; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.– Nietzsche

 

While Vygotsky is speaking of individual learning, there is still this same sense of … the more “views”, various “views” we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’. 

 

“There is TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” is a  QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM is a SPONTANEOUS VIEW which differs from the SCIENTIFIC VIEW where “the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods and services”.  Vygotsky’s ‘SPONTANEOUS VIEW’ is where we have not yet homed in on the SCIENTIFIC LOCAL AND EXPLICIT but are still seeing the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE so it as if we still have the CONTEXT which the PREGNANT PSYCHE is going to condense in popping out LOCAL, EXPLICIT CONTENT.

 

This DISAGREEMENT between VYGOTSKY and PIAGET is the DISAGREEMENT between EAST and WEST on the nature of reality, as to whether to understand reality using less simple QUANTUM LOGIC which includes the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE and/or simple BINARY LOGIC which constrains reality to MALE ASSERTING.

 

LIKE MODERN PHYSICS relative to NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, Vygotsky’s less simple understanding of child development as compared to Piaget’s simpler understanding is coming from less simple QUANTUM LOGIC understanding as compared to simple BINARY LOGIC understanding.

 

The QUANTUM LOGIC understanding is the understanding of Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedana adherents

 

* * *

 

This NOTE is tying together and making new ‘sense’ out of several ESTABLISHED WESTERN CULTURE  ‘problem’ understandings.

 

The point is that the WAVE-FIELD understanding of reality is supported by indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists, Advaita Vedanta adherents and Modern physics and this gives the USERS of the WAVE-FIELD supporting LANGUAGE the capability of formulating communications with a ‘built-in’ consistency with reality’ as a WAVE-FIELD.

 

Conversely, WESTERN CULTURE MAINSTREAM continues to use a LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE hat ‘dumbs down’ linguistic conceptualizations to a wimple BINARY LOGIC based which is the continuing source of Psychological FRAGMENTATION.

 

This note provides an analysis of the two major LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE TYPES, the BINARY LOGIC LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE and the QUANTUM LOGIC ARCHITECTURE and points to how the BINARY LOGIC LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE is deficient, obscurantist and fragmentative.

 

* * *