tranquil image of a continually transforming space; fixed operating theatre for human dynamics?

All my philosophical investigations have led me back to ‘the mathematics of belief’; to the type of ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ we use to ‘make sense’ of our experiencing of the world, and in the case of Western civilization, to ‘bury reality’ beneath it.

Mathematics derives from symmetries and our sensory experience reveals to us two different types of symmetries that I will call the type 1. symmetry -‘fluid-conjugate-nonlocal’ as in the spherical-radial symmetry of the bubble that forms when we exhale under water.  The ‘form’ of the bubble arises from the conjugate relational between outside-inward force and inside-outward force as is evident from the expansion of the bubble as it rises towards the surface, a changing outside-inward force that we ‘feel’ by way of our sensory experience.  In other words, the growing or shrinking ‘form’ is not the primary phenomena, the primary phenomena is the pervasive tendency in nature to seek balance between outside-inward and inside-outward forces.  Convection cells are a kind of ‘archetypeal’ exemplar for this innate-in-nature balance-seeking.

Now, in the above description I used the word ‘force’ where I would normally use the word ‘pressure’ [force per unit area] to facilitate comparison with the type 2. symmetry -‘solid-oppositional-local’ as in the bilateral symmetry in the human body or the cylindrical symmetry of a tree [the tree has ‘radial symmetry’ in a flat planar cross-section].  While the ‘forces’ in operation in the development of plants and animals [e.g. humans] have been the topic of philosophical argument; e.g. Lamarck and Nietzsche contend that such development or ‘evolution’ arises from a ‘fluid-process’ where ‘endosmosis’ [outside-inward flow] and ‘exosmosis’ [inside-outward flow] are in conjugate relation.    This is consistent with the view that the world dynamic is ‘transformation’ of what is ‘in place’ as seems to make sense with the fact that the biosphere persists in spherical shape and volume while the forms within it, including human forms are in a continual flow of genesis and degeneration.  That is, genesis and degeneration are dual aspects of the one primary dynamic of transformation of spatial-relations.

But my intention is to first recall the basic symmetries in nature that are foundational to reason and logic, so at this point the only thing we need note is that there is a type 2. symmetry which is ‘local’, where things extend in mirror image outward from a local central axis (bilateral or mirror symmetry).  The cylindrical symmetry of the tree is kind of halfway between type 1. and type 2. but I have included it in type 2. because of the common sense that a tree develops outward from its centre, rather than being like the type 1. bubble, the forces underlying its growth/development being ‘nonlocal’ as is the case for ‘fluid dynamics’ in general.  That is to say, in the case of the development of the bubble-form,  the visual appearance is at odds with the actual development forces; it APPEARS as if ‘the bubble is doing the growing’ but the ‘bubble-form’ arises from the tendency in nature for outside-inward accommodating and inside-outward asserting forces to attain and sustain balance.

From these two types of symmetries, two different forms of logic arise that are available to support our ‘reasoning’.

Our sensory experience, which is the sole source that allows us to invent logical ways of conceptualizing ‘reality’, informs us of the outside-inward influence that resists or receptively accommodates our movements such as the expansion of our chest in breathing when we dive deep into the water.   We do not need to ‘see’ a bubble expand in order to ‘feel’ this simultaneous conjugate relation of outside-inward accommodating and inside-outward asserting influences.  We can feel it as well in climbing a mountain.

But if we start with our visual sensing experience rather than our experience of feeling inclusion in something, can start with imagery in which ‘forms’ in the plural, different forms that we can ‘enumerate’ are visible.   A ‘form’ is a ‘local entity’ and we can develop Aristotelian logic based on our sighting of it; i.e. it seems to make sense to say that the form is a material entity that ‘exists’ or ‘does not exist’, ‘is’ or ‘is not’.  This imputing of ‘logical existence’ to a visible local material ‘form’ gives it a ‘persisting identity’ that we can attach a label to, such as ‘Katrina’ [as we do in the case of hurricanes].  This logic of persisting identity [of ‘is’ versus ‘is not’ existence] is the popular choice of logic to undergird Western ‘reasoning’.  If we let ‘K’ stand for Katrina, this logic says that it is impossible for K to equal not.K; i.e. there is no ‘third thing’, ‘L’ that is, at the same time, equal to ‘K’ and at the same time to ‘not.K’, hence Aristotelian logic is ‘the logic of the excluded third’. 

So, that’s what our ‘visual perception of persisting local forms’ allows to do, to invent the logic of the excluded third, the logic that assigns persisting ‘identity’ to a visual form.

Of course, in a fluid dynamical space such as the flow of the atmosphere, ‘forms’ are purely relative; i.e. they are continually transforming spatial relations as in type 1. symmetry.  Their development and persistence is nonlocal and the sense of ‘localness’ or ‘local existence’ that we may associate with the visual imagery is something we impose on the visual image by its closed form symmetry; e.g. we can ‘impute’ a local centre to any ‘closed form’ symmetry.

Does symmetry exist before we observe it?  Is the symmetry ‘out there’ as a property of the object we are observing?  Or is symmetry ‘in here’ in the psyche of the observer who then imposes it on what is ‘out there’? 

 

using 'idealization' to 'correct' the senses in constructing reality.

Does the ‘triangle’ that intersects with the three circular black objects ‘exist’ ‘out there’ or does it exist firstly ‘in here’ in our minds and we impose it on ‘out there’?   Does the form of anything exist ‘out there’ since the lines and surfaces we use to ‘give it form’ seem to be a function of our ‘macro-viewing’ and if we use a microscope and then an electron microscope these ‘apparently’ continuous form-lines break up and become a kind of ‘connect-the-atomic-dots’ puzzle where the previously discrete distinction between the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’ of the object becomes blurry and problematic.

Maybe this question of mutual exclusion of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is a false dichotomy.

That is, in the case of the ‘symmetry of our feeling experience’ when we dive into the water, the outside-inward accommodating that is in conjugate relation with our inside-outward asserting  is impossible to convey in a visual image.  In our ‘feeling experience’, the question of ‘is it in here’ or ‘is it out there’ does not arise since such ‘feeling’ is inherently ‘relative’ or ‘relational’, arising from the conjugate spatial-relational dynamic of ‘in here’ and ‘out there’. 

This was Henri Poincaré’s point in his public argument with Bertrand Russell; i.e. Poincaré argued that one cannot use the word ‘perception’ as Russell did, as if we knew what it meant, because ‘visual perception’ and ‘feeling experience’ are different forms of perception.   As Poincaré further observed, the ‘objects’ that come to us through our visual sensing, that we construe to be ‘local material objects’ of the ‘is’ rather than ‘is not’ persisting identity type, become possibilities thanks to the notion of absolute space, space that is fixed, empty and infinite [Euclidian space], a space that does not participate in the dynamic behaviour [development, motion, interaction] of ‘local material objects’.

This ‘absolute’, non-participating space reference frame, is what makes it possible to speak of the development and activity of these ‘local objects/organisms/systems’ as if this development and activity belonged to these ‘things-in-themselves’.   But this absolute space is an arbitrary ‘reference-space-framing-concept’ we impose on the data of our sensory experiencing, and it is the simplest of such ‘geometric spaces’ in the manner that a polynomial of degree one is simpler than a polynomial of degree two [Poincaré].  In a spherical space, there is no such concept as ‘local’ and everything is framed by everything else in that space, by the web of spatial-relations it is situationally included in.  This is arguably like the space of the earth’s biosphere, and in this space we cannot realistically speak in terms of ‘things moving’ or of ‘things growing/developing’ because in a web of spatial relations there can only be ‘transformation’ of those spatial relations.

In such a space, ‘the genesis of things’, the ‘degeneration of things’ are no longer possible, genesis and degeneration are dual aspects of the one dynamic of transformation.  In such a space, there is similarly no ‘growth’ and no ‘decline’ just as there is no ‘creation’ and no ‘elimination’, nor is there ‘movement’ or ‘stasis’, since all these words depend upon the persisting existence of local objects, and in spherical space, dynamics can refer only to ‘transformation of spatial relations’.

Nietzsche’s world view was one which assumed we live in a transformational space and that we (our Western scientific culture) had confounded ourselves by letting ourselves, our understanding and our behaviour, be informed by our ‘scientific reasoning’ based on over-simplistic Aristotelian logic of the excluded third, the logic that supports the ‘local existence of material objects’, a logic that builds from the assumed ‘reality’ of visual sensing that separates ‘in here’ from’ out there’ and that we allow to over-ride our ‘feeling experience’ wherein ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ are in conjugate relation, making ‘visible form’ secondary, as in the bubbles from our exhalations following our dive into watery depths, that seem to ‘grow’ as they rise towards the surface rises.  Meanwhile it is not that ‘these local form grow’, it is that the evolution of form is the conjugate relation between endosmosis [outside-inward accommodating flow-pressure] and exosmosis [inside-outward asserting flow-pressure]. 

While the logic of the excluded third [Aristotelian logic] associates with the simplest of all geometries of space [Euclidian], the logic of transformation that associates with curved/spherical space is the ‘logic of the INCLUDED third’ where self ‘S’ and other ‘O’ are two VISUALLY different ‘inhabitants’ that are both, at the same time, equal to a ‘third’ entity, namely, ‘H’ (habitat).  This third ‘H’ entity,  ‘habitat’, is the ‘not.S’ and ‘not.O’ space that includes them both, in the manner that the flow of the atmosphere includes hurricanes ‘S’ally and ‘O’scar.

As it turns out, physicists ‘split’ on whether to conceive of space as an energy-charged plenum in which local material objects should be conceived of as ‘excitations’ of the spatial-plenum or as ‘things-in-themselves’.   The physicists who favoured the former, Mach, Poincaré, Bohm, Schroedinger ‘lost out’ to those who favoured the latter [see https://goodshare.org/wp/transformation-where-production-and-destruction-are-conjugates/ ] so that ‘science’ and ‘the scientific viewpoint’, as it shapes our world view, continues to be grounded in the absolutes of local material existence.

Nietzsche, who was greatly influenced by the works of his contemporary Ernst Mach, explained how scientific thinking based on Aristotelian logic and its idealizations of absolute non-participating space inhabited by absolute local materially existing objects/organisms, was confounding our minds and actions so as to infuse dysfunction into our shared living space.  Nietzsche made the following points;

I. The world dynamic is transformational

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

II. Our ‘subjectifying’ language facilitates the isolating of dynamic flow-forms as ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own in-their-own-right behaviours’;

“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

III. ‘Reason’ based on the local existence of material objects is ‘appearance’ not ‘truth’.

“Reason” is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The “apparent” world is the only one [available to our visual sensing]: the “true” world is merely added by a lie.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

IV.  Being unable to affirm and deny ‘existence’ is ‘our inability’, not a ‘fact of life’; i.e. our inability to say whether visible forms are ‘out there’ or ‘in here’.

“We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any “necessity” but only of an inability.

If, according to Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the most certain of all principles, if it is the ultimate and most basic, upon which every demonstrative proof rests, if the principle of every axiom lies in it; then one should consider all the more rigorously what presuppositions already lie at the bottom of it. Either it asserts something about. actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us.

In short, the question remains open: are the axioms of logic adequate to reality or are they a means and measure for us to create reality, the concept “reality,” for ourselves.?–To affirm the former one would, as already said, have to have a previous knowledge of being–which is certainly not the case. The proposition therefore contains no criterion of truth, but an imperative concerning that which should count as true.

Supposing there were no self-identical “A”, such as is presupposed by every proposition of logic (and of mathematics), and the “A” were already mere appearance, then logic would have a merely apparent world as its condition. In fact, we believe in this proposition under the influence of ceaseless experience which seems continually to confirrn it. The “thing”–that is the real substratum of “A”; our belief in things is the precondition of our belief in logic. The “A” of logic is, like the atom, a reconstruction of the thing–If we do not grasp this, but make of logic a criterion of true being, we are on the way to positing as realities all those hypostases: substance, attribute, object, subject, action, etc.; that is, to conceiving a metaphysical world, that is, a “real world” (–this, however, is the apparent world once more–).

The very first acts of thought, affirmation and denial, holding true and holding not true, are, in as much as they presuppose, not only the habit of holding things true and holding them not true, but a right to do this, already dominated by the belief that we can gain possession of knowledge, that judgments really can hit upon the truth;–in short, logic does not doubt its ability to assert something about the true-in-itself (namely, that it cannot have opposite attributes).

Here reigns the coarse sensualistic prejudice that sensations teach us truths about things–that I cannot say at the same time of one and the same thing that it is hard and that it is soft. (The instinctive proof “I cannot have two opposite sensations at the same time”–quite coarse and false.)

The conceptual ban on contradiction proceeds from the belief that we are able to form concepts, that the concept not only designates the essence of a thing but comprehends it–In fact, logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious entities that we have created. Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by means of a scheme of being posited by ourselves; more correctly, to make it formulatable and calculable for us—“ —Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 516 (Spring-Fall 1887; rev. Spring-Fall 1888)

V.   ‘Transformation’ is ‘nonlocal’ in origin as in field-effects [gravity is everywhere at the same time] and can be visualized by ‘inference’; i.e. as from a continually transforming web of spatial relations.  Evolution thus seen is Lamarckian not Darwinian;

“Anti-Darwinism.. — The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and it is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.

What, after all, is “useful”? One must ask “useful in relation to what?” E.g., that which is useful for the long life of the individual might be unfavorable to its strength and splendour; that which preserves the individual might at the same time arrest and halt its evolution. On the other hand, a ‘deficiency’, a ‘degeneration’, can be of the highest utility in so far as it acts as a stimulant to other organs. In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure that holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself. —The individual itself as a struggle between parts (for food, space etc.): its evolution tied to the victory or predominance of individual parts, to an atrophy, a ‘becoming an organ’ of other parts.

The influence of “external circumstances” is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which ‘utilizes’ and ‘exploits’ “external circumstances” — The new forms molded from within are not formed with an end in view; but in the struggle of the parts a new form is not left long without being related to a partial usefulness and then, according to its use, develops itself more and more completely.” – Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 647

~^~

The above points made by Nietzsche are, in their main import, the same understandings that have emerged from my own philosophical investigations, and they put Nietzsche/myself ‘at odds’ with the popular, globally dominating ‘Western’ world view which is grounded in the idealized ‘existence’ of local material objects and dynamics understood in terms of ‘the doer-deed [cause-effect] actions’ of these local material existences [material bodies, organisms, system].

If our experience ‘starts’ from a dive in the ocean and this sense of inclusion in a spatial-medium so that our actions are not one-sidedly sourced from within us, but arise as a conjugate relation between outside-inward accommodating influence and inside-outward asserting influence, this informs us that the shaping of ‘material forms’ derives from the dynamics of the spatial medium [habitat-dynamic] as much as it derives from the inside-outward asserting tendencies of the ‘inhabitants’ of the spatial medium.  Once we allow that dynamic forms are ‘relative’ rather than absolute, our understanding of ‘dynamics’ is in terms of the ‘transformation’ of spatial relations.

But once we go beyond understanding ‘visual forms’ as ‘appearances’ and instead assume as ‘reality’, the absolute local existence of material objects/organisms/systems, then in one fell stroke, we impute the sourcing of dynamics to these inhabitants of the habitat, reducing the ‘habitat’ to a non-participating ‘theatre of operations’, an idealized x,y,z,t reference frame that allows us to ‘measure’ the shape of the material objects as local beings and to ‘measure’ their growth and decline; i.e. ‘THEIR’ evolution and ‘THEIR’ behavioural dynamics.

Try these flip in understanding a few times, from transformational space where inhabitants are relational forms to absolute space inhabited by absolute locally existing material inhabitants.  It can be likened to flipping from a curved space reference frame to a rectangular space reference frame.   The former relates to the latter in the manner that a polynomial of degree two relates to a polynomial of degree one [Poincaré].  In other words, as tools to help us understand our self and the world we live in, if we start from the former, it includes as a special case, the latter, but if we start from the latter, it blinds us to any awareness of the former.  If we started from the latter in the case of the forms known as ‘hurricanes’, by imputing to them their own source of local development and behaviour, we would blinder ourselves to the reality of the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material [energy-charged spatial-plenum based] sourcing, not only of the development and dynamical behaviour of the material forms, but of the emergence of the material forms.

Given that our Western culture opted to equate visual appearances, as in ‘local material objects’ to ‘reality’, it followed as a ‘logical necessity’ [to sustain logical consistency or non-contradiction] to explain ‘dynamics’ not as emerging from the transformation of an energy-charged spatial plenum, but, since absolute local material ‘parts’ imply absolute non-part-icipating space, as associating with the dynamical behaviour of the local material objects/organisms/systems [corporations, sovereign states etc.].  That is, once absolute local material beings are assumed, it follows as a logical necessity to explain dynamic phenomena in terms of the ‘behaviours of things-in-themselves’, and to ‘pull this off’, it was necessary to invent the concept of ‘force’ as an answer to the question ‘what is the source of change?’, or ‘why does the world unfold the way it does?

When we invent ‘force’ as an answer to this question, in the case where we assume that space is a non-participant and all dynamical behaviour derives from the actions/interactions of local material objects/organisms/systems, ‘force’ is also an ‘absolute’ concept in the sense that it ‘originates locally out of nowhere’ as an assertive directional ‘push’.   This contradicts our sensory experience of diving into the water and feeling ‘force’ as a relative outside-inward — inside-outward conjugate relation.  This agrees with Newton’s third law wherein ‘every asserting force encounters an equal and opposite resisting force’; i.e. ‘forces’ seem to come in ‘conjugate pairs’. 

In the relational space of our experience it is impossible to split apart the assertive and accommodating aspects of force.  In logic and mathematics, it is perfectly possible to do so.  Mathematical physics does it by inventing two types of energy; ‘potential energy’ [the ‘energy of position’ within an everywhere-at-the-same-time force-field] and ‘kinetic energy’ [the ‘energy of motion of material objects’].   The principle of ‘conservation of energy’ decrees that while energy can transform into many different forms, heat, light, loading of springs [compression and expansion], the sum of potential and kinetic energy is always a constant.  This principle is recognized in modern as well as classical physics.

The force that breaks the body of the mouse that nibbles on the peanut butter on the mousetrap trigger appears to be ‘locally sourced’ in the trap machine, but in fact, it derives from the unloading of potential energy that accrued from activity in the remote past.  Mathematical physics is not concerned with influences deriving from the ‘remote past’.  Mathematical physics assumes that the present depends only on the immediate past; i.e. we look for the cause of the death of the mouse in the immediate past and that force of the blow from the metal bar striking the mouse is deemed to be ‘the cause of the mouse’s death’.   The person who ‘charged the spring’ in the trap months before is in the clear, as far as the ‘cause’ of the ‘result’ is concerned in ‘scientific reasoning’.

“Origin of Mathematical Physics.  Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics.  We recognise at the outset that the efforts of scientists have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by our experience into a large number of elementary phenomena. And to do this in three different ways : first, with respect to time. Instead of taking into account the progressive development of a phenomenon as a whole, we simply seek to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We assert that the present state of the world depends only on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the memory of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down “its differential equation” ; for the laws of Kepler, we substitute the laws of Newton.”  —  Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. ‘Hypotheses in Physics’, subsection “Origin of Mathematical Physics”

The stored energy of space is thus an invisible source of influence that is ignored in scientific thinking of the mathematical physics type that is in common use since scientific reasoning concerns itself with ‘what things do’ from moment to moment, where things are those visible forms that we impute absolute local material existence to. 

Thus ‘force’ is a concept that answers the question ‘what is the sourcing influence of the changes we see in terms of the developing of forms and THEIR behaviour dynamics? [actions of things and interactions between/amongst things].   This visualizing of change is in terms of ‘time’; i.e. the difference between the present state of the world and the state that ‘existed’ in the immediate past.   This is the definition of the mathematical operation of ‘differentiation’ [ds/dt] which is fundamental to mathematical physics and scientific thinking.  This concept depends upon the notion of ‘absolutes states of existence’ and sees the world dynamic in terms of a time-based ‘PROGRESSION’ from one ‘state of existence’ to the next ‘state of existence’.  Underlying this notion of the world dynamic is the assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’.

Consider the case of the surface temperature [temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of molecules] on the surface of the earth.   We know from experience that air temperature is moderated by melting lumps of ice since melting absorbs thermal energy from ‘the surroundings’.  Glaciers and permafrost melting due to ambient air temperature lower the temperature of the air relative to what it would otherwise be (due to thermal energy infusions from direct and indirect solar irradiance and retarded releases from thermal energy stored in ocean waters etc.). 

Glaciers and permafrost have generally been ‘deposited’ in the remote (very remote) past, but so long as they persist and melt, like the block of ice in our ice-box, they continue to moderate air temperature, less so as the surface area of ice diminishes.  Thus the air temperature and surface temperatures we measure in the present are moderated directly out of the remote past.  Therefore, a theory of ‘climate change’ based on the present proportions of different gases that make up the atmosphere, which claims that changes in these proportions will immediately translate into changes in surface temperature, assume that the present temperature depends only on the immediate past.  But as just stated, the temperature is being directly influenced from out of the remote past [the deposition of glaciers and permafrost] so that if the contents of the atmosphere remained exactly the same, the graph of surface temperature would still be rising and falling due to events coming from the remote past, which are in fact, contributing to the varying content of the atmosphere; e.g. warming ocean waters release more CO2, while cooling ocean waters precipitate more ‘carbonates’ [limestone etc].

The linear model predictions of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) are an example of this simplifying assumption that the present depends only on the immediate past, and gives rise to the usual split between those that acknowledge that physical phenomena are more complex in ‘reality’ than models based on ‘what things do’ that are founded on the assumption that the present state of the world depends only on the immediate past, an assumption that allows predictive modeling by way of differential equations.

The point is that the world dynamic seen in terms of ‘what things do’ is focused solely, one-sidedly, on the realm of ‘material kinetics’ or ‘kinetic energy’ based phenomena, and this ignores the role of potential energy [energy-stored-in-space] and conversions between the two.  Imagine if an inuit grandmother had cached supplies including food, water, snowshoes, rifles and ammunition in a number of shelters/caches across the Yukon as she and her husband migrated across it, and many years later, the grandson ‘crossed the Yukon’, his ‘assertive action’ [kinetics] being nurtured and even orchestrated by the caches, whose locations he had been informed of.  In the end, we say that ‘he crossed the Yukon’ because our description of dynamics is in one-sided terms of ‘what things do’. 

The colonizing settlers could never have crossed the North American continent without nurturance from ‘caches’ in the form of aboriginal communities, stashed in various locations since the remote past, but in the end we speak in terms of ‘what people do’ as if their behaviour were locally originating in themselves, driven and directed from out of their own internal processes.  We speak of the son’s assertive achievements but the energy expended by the mother in terms of loading the space with potentials nurtures and amplifies the assertive kinetics of the son, bringing him rewards and recognition for his ‘assertive achievements’ (kinetic cause-effect results).  It is impossible, in reality, to speak of the ‘actions of the son’ out of the context of the accommodating quality of the space his actions transpired in since the two are dual aspects of a single dynamic called ‘transformation’.  As Mach’s principle says; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.”  The mother is conditioning the dynamics of the habitat, charging it with potentials [feathering the nest] to make it more nurturing for the emergence and development of assertive potentialities of her offspring or the cuckoo egg chicks, neighbour kids or etc. 

Conclusion:

The above discussion describes how we use visual sensing [images] and language and logic, together, to synthetically split out and ‘subjectize’ dynamic forms-in-the-flow [excitations in the energy-charged spatial-plenum] such as a ‘hurricane’ and/or a ‘human form’.

Our sensory ‘feeling’ experience, which informs us of our inclusion in a transforming spatial-relational dynamic, we allow to be over-ridden [as informant to our behaviour] by a Fiktional reality based on visual ‘appearances’ wherein we mentally re-render the world dynamic in terms of the actions/interactions of apparently ‘locally-existing-in-themselves material objects/organisms/systems’.

One we have assumed a ‘foundation’ of absolute existence of material objects within an absolute-space-operating-theatre, logical consistency requires us to come up with a schema for locally sourcing dynamic behaviour (developing of form and movement of forms) of local material objects/organisms/systems.   This has been achieved by way of the concept of ‘force’ as a locally arising answer to the ‘loaded’ questions; ‘what is causing this form to undergo change’ and ‘what is making this form move and/or interacting with other forms’.   The questions are ‘loaded’ because they already assume that ‘things move’ rather than ‘space transforms’.   This idealized ‘force’ is the enabler of formulating dynamics in terms of Newton’s laws and is also the enabler of Darwinian theory [in the form of a notional internally arising ‘will-force’ or ‘purpose-force’ to notionally drive behaviour from the inside-outward and to provide the motive force for notional internal ‘genes’ to drive ‘growth’ and ‘development’ from the inside-outward].  Together with the subjectifying powers of language and the discretizing powers of Aristotelian logic, this amounts to the anointing of ‘appearances’ as ‘truth’, and casting out, in the process the ‘greater reality’ of a ‘transformational space’, the all-connecting medium of energy-charged spatial-plenum, the source of not only of the development and movement of dynamic forms but of their excitation/gathering and re-gathering within the transforming spatial flow-plenum.

The prior essay in this series shows how, in all areas of our Western civilization (Economics, History, Justice, Biology, Physics, Medicine and Reason/Logic are given as exemplars) we are experiencing ‘collapse’ or ‘breakdown’ due to the incompetence of foundational assumptions (i.e. in the foundational assumption that the world dynamic can be understood in terms of ‘what things do’, rather than in terms of ‘transformation’).

Since I believe in the ‘reality’ I am presenting in these essays, I have been asked on numerous occasions what ‘I’ am doing about this impending collapse of Western civilization, and what I ‘propose’ that we all should do about it, and I would say; ‘welcome it’, ‘celebrate it’, ‘help it arrive gracefully’, ‘be a mitigator of panic’, share a view of dynamics as transformation wherein all opposites are imposters; e.g. ‘destruction/production’, ‘degeneration/genesis’, ‘growth/decline’, ‘up/down’, ‘left/right’, ‘good/evil’ since ‘transformation’ within a relational space is the ‘real’ world dynamic that transcends the ‘apparent’ dynamics that jumpstart from language-and-logic-subjectified ‘visible forms’.

Such understanding constitutes a resurrecting into public awareness of ‘reality’ that we have buried beneath subjectified materialist ‘appearances’ [in the Western culture] for two-and-a-half millennia.  Reality has lain buried beneath a superficial understanding of the world dynamic in terms of ‘what things do’ [‘cause-and-effect’] and this ‘confusing of idealization for reality’ has spawned a Western civilization dynamic that has oriented one-sidedly to ‘making things happen’, assertively achieving as if the material results attained were ‘real’ rather than ‘appearances’.   As McLuhan pointed out, the material production of our machines [whether they produce Cadillacs or Cornflakes] matters little; what matters is the transforming of our relations with one another and with our living space.

A great self-imposed weight that some philosophers have called ‘the burden of concreteness’ [from the subjectifying powers of language and the discretizing powers of logic] is being ‘let go’ and we all stand to benefit from ‘letting it go’, both as individuals and as a collective [that includes the fourlegged, winged, finned and rooted ones, rivers and sky etc.].   I would compare it to driving in the flow of the freeway and struggling to get through the maze in order to attain our personal destination, … and then re-visualizing ourselves as being participants in the evolving of a web of spatial relations, understanding our actions as transforming the spatial-relational web so as to open up spatial-possibility corridors to accommodate our assertive movements.  This has a certain ‘feel’ to it that is naturally pleasing, this feeling of ‘co-cultivating and sustaining harmonious flow in the continuing present’.  The anxieties over time-based assertive achievement aka ‘progress’ become secondary in this collective consciousness mode.  It is a natural mode of behaving within a transforming relational space as described in Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.”   

But what will happen to our banks that keep currency flowing in the arteries that feed our organs [organizations] and what will happen to the sovereigntist government control centres through which we sustain order by central direction and control, and what will happen to our corporations that are the primary causal agents of material production?

Who knows and what does it matter anyway?  These are the artefacts of our Western ‘belief system’ that has been confusing ‘appearances’ that we have ‘idealized’ with language and logic [into notional local material systems notionally equipped with ‘their own’ assertive/productive dynamics] and are ‘mistaking for reality’.   The ‘reality’ of our natural [fullblown, not just visual] sensory experience is a ‘reality’ that is in no way a materialist ‘doer-deed reality’ but is instead a spatial-relationally transforming dynamic in which we are included participants, —‘ripples/excitations in the energy-charged spatial-plenum’ in Bohm and Schroedinger’s terms.

The materialist-illusion-born-of-confusion is in collapse.  Vive la résurrection! [de la réalité]

 * * *