There exists an INSIDER REVIEW OF OUR LIFE as well as a REVIEW of OUR ROLE-PLAY LIFE and these are very different in a manner that reminds me of what Argyris called DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING;

 

Double-loop learning is an educational concept and process that involves teaching people to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs. It was created by Chris Argyris, a leading organizational trainer, in the mid-1980’s, and developed over the next decade into an effective tool. Double-loop learning is different than single-loop learning which involves changing methods and improving efficiency to obtain established objectives (i.e., “doing things right”). Double-loop learning concerns changing the objectives themselves (i.e., “doing the right things”).

 

In the REVIEW of MY LIFE, … what comes to my mind is how this splits into two different perspectives; i.e. for example, there is the perspective of Colonel Paul Tibbets Jr., the pilot of the Enola Gay that dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima which associates with our situation with the intellectually shaped dynamics of the societal matrix that we uniquely work ourselves into, … and, …  there is the other situation as assessed by our sense-experience which simply assess our situation within the continually unfolding world dynamic based on emotions without the intellectual social structure framing.

 

I was never a draft-dodger because I was not a citizen of a country that employed the draft in my era, but like everyone, I was continually aware of the DIVERGENCE between (A) the envelope of outside societal behaviour shaping ‘pressures’ or ‘tendencies’ to ‘do the right things’ and my own internal desires or inspirations, which is not exactly the split that Argyris is talking about, the latter being further described with the following analogy;

 

Single-loop and double-loop learning are readily understood using the analogy of a household thermostat. Single-loop learning is about achieving a given temperature–like a thermostat set to 68 degrees that turns up the heat whenever the temperature drops below 68 (the objective). Double-loop learning involves changing the setting on the thermostat (i.e., changing the objective of the system). Double-loop learning calls for changing the objective itself. Indeed, double-loop learning is not only about changing the objective, but involves questioning the assumptions about that objective, the ways of discovering and inventing new alternatives, objectives, and perceptions, as well as ways of approaching problems.

 

Is this not simply the reversal of the ‘banishing of the Female WAVE-FIELD-conjugate, a banishing that left us with a one-sided MALE ASSERTING ACTION dynamic, unguided by the now missing (banished from WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE) female accommodating WAVE-FIELD conjugate?  The aggressive male-asserting conjugate is much admired within WESTERN CULTURE social collectives but as Lao Tzu advises, ‘Know the male but go with the accommodating female’.   We credit the punch with the shattering of the skull, even when it is the female accommodating of the eggshell skull that secures the collapse commonly credited to the male punch.  Perhaps this shift from ‘doing things right’ (the proud male way) to ‘doing the right things’ (the sensitive female accommodating) signals the homecoming of the DEA ABSCONDITA.

 

 

In seeing value in Argyris’ comments one does not have to be talking about ‘intellectually” changing the objective or “intellectually” questioning the assumptions about that objective, … what I am talking about is INTUITION of the type that has been transforming ‘who I am’, NOT by slowly morphing me from someone who has been ‘trying to do things right’ to someone who is trying to ‘do the right things’, but to someone who is coming to grips with the understanding that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL AUTHORING, so no need to fuss over whether I am ‘doing things right’ or ‘doing the right things’, both of which are male asserting pseudo-real abstractions, but to instead ‘let go of’ the local and explicit of ‘LOCAL AUTHORING’ and pick up on the ‘nonlocal and implicit’ of female accommodating that beckons conjugate male-asserting movements that transform the matrix of relations we are bound up in.  Male asserting movement induced to satisfy a nonlocal and implicit ‘growing female deficit’ appears to be making the latter the victim of linguistic obscurantism..

AFTER ALL, the concept of ‘LOCAL AUTHORING’ is a MYTH put together by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as Nietzsche pointed out. Life is relational and we are included in it.  As Schroedinger says, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONLY ONE, as was also pointed out by Ernst Mach.

 

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical,

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS TO PICK UP ON?

 

BECAUSE, as WITTGENSTEIN TELLS US, OUR LANGUAGE KEEPS REPEATING THE WRONG STUFF TO US, OVER and OVER AGAIN

 

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

 

So, all of these quotes highlighted in bold italic are pointing to the reality that our sense-experience of being in the world has a ‘compound’ structure to it, consisting of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT of material world, and NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT of the …. what shall I call it, … ‘spiritual world’?  … or should I use the term ‘imaginary’ as in the complex mathematical structure where the ‘whole’ is composed of the ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ components?.

 

Ernst Mach is calling it the ‘physical’ and ‘psychological’ and that makes sense to me, but there is more nuance to it than the simple labels suggest because, while the physical is LOCAL and EXPLICIT (concrete), the PSYCHOLOGICAL is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) and the questions arise as to which of these has precedence and how we are to combine them.

 

The ‘more nuance’ can be seen when we use language to capture just the MALE ASSERTING conjugate as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, … and we know from our sense-experience that this ALSO MEANS that the WILDERNESS is doing the FEMALE OPENING UP TO ACCOMMODATE THE MALE ASSERTING so why architect a LANGUAGE that DROPS OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE?

 

GUESS WHAT!   THIS DROPPING OUT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE FROM OUR LANGUAGE ….. AT THE SAME TIME, ‘OPENS UP AN EMPTY SPACE’ AS THE NON-PARTICIPATING STAGE FOR PRESENTING MALE ASSERTING AS IF IN ITS OWN LOCAL AUTHORING RIGHT.

IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE ABSTRACTION OF ‘LOCAL AUTHORING’ CAME INTO OUR WESTERN CULTURE BAG OF CONCEPTS, THE ANSWER IS HERE, IN THE DROPPING OUT OF THE FEMALE CONJUGATE FROM OUR LINGUISTIC REALITY ARCHITECTING SCHEME.

 

Have we ever seen the GROWTH of a TOWN without a CONJUGATE SHRINKING of WILDERNESS by way of OPENING UP A HOLE in the WILDERNESS to ACCOMMODATE the GROWING TOWN?

 

We know that is how it goes which means that what is going on is NEITHER GROWTH OF THE TOWN, NOR SHRINKING OF THE WILDERNESS, … such words and grammar being TOO SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC EXPEDIENTS for using language to ALLUDE TO the OVERALL GESTALT WHICH IS THE TRANSFORMING OF THE LANDSCAPE.

 

NOTA BENE:

 

THE GROWTH OF THE TOWN IS LOCAL AND EXPLICIT as is the nature of MALE ASSERTING ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT.

 

THE SHRINKING OF THE WILDERNESS IS NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as is the nature of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING RECEPTION and CONSUMPTION..

 

* * *

 

Ok, We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have chosen to ARCHITECT LANGUAGE  that employs the LOCAL and the EXPLICIT by its LONESOME as if he NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT DID NOT EXIST.

 

Have we heard ourselves mention the SHRINKING OF THE WILDERNESS ‘in the same breath’ as our talking about the GROWTH of DEVELOPMENT?

 

NO!  Just as we HAVE heard ourselves talking about the PUNCH that shattered the SKULL without mention of its FEMALE ACCOMMODATING EGGSHELL CONDITION, our language habit is to DROP OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE.

 

The INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE AND USAGE INCLUDES “BOTH” FEMALE ACCOMMODATING “AND” MALE ASSERTING as in “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” which conveys imagery of the FEMALE WILDERNESS OPENING UP TO ACCOMMODATE THE MALE ASSERTING GROWING OF THE TOWN which changes the overall GESTALT of the “LANDSCAPE” and this “CHANGING GESTALT” is what we know, experience and understand as “TRANSFORMATION”.

 

We use this term “TRANSFORMATION” where there is a MELT-DOWN of “LOCAL EXPLICIT IDENTIFIABLE THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES” as is CHARACTERISTIC OF WAVE-FIELD DYNAMICS.

 

The fact is that our sense-experience reality is of INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION wherein ‘everything is in flux’ (mitakuye oyasin’ but our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE tries to do the whole job without PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK; i.e. by employing LANGUAGE BASED CONSTRUCTIONS OF “REALITY” A ONE-SIDED, MALE-ASSERTING CONJUGATE ONLY “SUBSTITUTE REALITY”, where there is now BINARY LOGIC based EMPTINESS in place of the less simple QUANTUM LOGIC FEMALE ACCOMMODATING WAVE-FIELD CONJUGATE.

 

OK, WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?  WHY THIS ‘KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID’ LINGUISTIC DUMBING DOWN BY WAY OF INTRODUCING A ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTING ONLY ‘SUBSTITUTE REALITY’?

 

As mentioned in this REVIEW OF MY LIFE, “There exists an INSIDER REVIEW OF OUR LIFE as well as a REVIEW of OUR ROLE-PLAY LIFE and these are very different” or ‘in other words’ The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach.

 

AM I TALKING ABOUT ‘THE WORLD OUT THERE’ or ‘THE WORLD IN HERE’, … or ‘BOTH’?

 

My impression is that I could have been born an indigenous aboriginal as far as my LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE preference goes, but it seems overtly evident to me, that our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE is DROPPING OUT the ‘most important aspect of sense-experience reality’ so that we are continually, with our language, giving ourselves a DUMBED DOWN SUBSTITUTE REALITY WITH OUR LANGUAGE based CONSTRUCTIONS.  YES, OF COURSE, WE STILL HAVE OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY TO ‘FALL BACK ON’, and while it gives us the FULL-BLOWN WAVE-FIELD REALITY, our understanding of the world is HIGHLY CANTILEVERED to what we have learned about the world view LANGUAGE based DISCOURSE; i.e. through language-based reconstructions of OTHER PEOPLE’S SENSE EXPERIENCES, …. AND WHAT’S IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS THE CAPABILITY OF LANGUAGE, … and the DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES, … to achieve a competent TRANSFER of some sort of approximation of SENSE EXPERIENCE through these DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES, and the ISSUE that is popping up right now is whether LANGUAGES LIKE ENGLISH which DROP OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE and push forth using only the ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE can do a satisfactory job of conveying complex sense-experience acquired understandings.  We joke about the importance of distinguishing between giving our children in school SEX EDUCATION rather than SEX LESSONS, but know that it can happen that virgins may have far more expert knowledge of sex than people who are long on sense-experience and short on intellectual knowledge.

 

SO, EVERYWHERE WE LOOK, WE SEE THESE ‘SPLITS’ between the BINARY LOGIC  LOCAL and EXPLICIT of MALE ASSERTING  and EITHER IS OR IS NOT on the one hand and the QUANTUM LOGIC NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT of FEMALE ACCOMMODATING and BOTH IS AND IS NOT, on the other hand.

 

It is hard to believe that our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE can ‘get by’ with using only the MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE while DROPPING OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE, which defines the SPLIT alluded to in Rudyard Kipling’s ‘EAST IS EAST and WEST IS WEST AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET”.   Can you imagine a ‘WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’ arguing with an INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL, with the former arguing the GROWTH of DEVELOPED LAND is a MEANINGFUL STATEMENT while the latter is arguing that LANGUAGE based CONSTRUCTIONS of what is PURPORTED TO BE ‘REALITY’ which refer only to GROWTH of DEVELOPED LAND IS NOT REALITY, since our sense-experience is cognizant that what is going on is TRANSFORMATION since there is always a FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONSUMPTION that transpires together with MALE ASSERTING PRODUCTION.  Even in the case of the EARTH which is characterized by volcanos that are EXTRUDING FLUID SUBSTANCE and SUBDUCTION ZONES that are CONSUMING CRUSTAL MATERIAL that was formerly EXTRUDED FLUID SUBSTANCE, … pointing to inside-outward-inward continuous loop circulation that IS NOT LOCALLY AUTHORED but which is part of something greater than itself, which is THE OVERALL ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM wherein MATERIAL FORMS are CONDENSATIONS, as constitutes the QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM, where the INCLUDING MEDIUM is the WAVE-FIELD ‘habitat’ with its CONDENSATION based ‘inhabitants’ within the relationship of BOTH/AND QUANTUM LOGIC.

 

This REVIEW OF MY LIFE … SOME REFLECTIONS  …  is running into the limitations of language in capturing the situation where SUBJECT and OBJECT are ONLY ONE as in our life experience, which reminds me of Escher’s “Print Gallery’ drawing;

 

Outside-observer at the same time as inside-observed

 

Print Gallery is a lithograph printed in 1956 by the Dutch artist M. C. Escher. It depicts a man in a gallery viewing a print of a seaport, and among the buildings in the seaport is the very gallery in which he is standing, making use of the Droste effect with visual recursion.  The lithograph has attracted discussion in both mathematical and artistic contexts. Escher considered Print Gallery to be among the best of his works.

 * * * 

 

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical,

 

 * * *

 

WHAT I AM TRYING TO SHARE, by way of this LANGUAGE (English) bumps into a reluctant language medium which is not very keen about serving as the transporting medium.  The point is that the world we use language to talk about is going to come across differently depending on the architecture of the language and in particular whether it is a language that INCLUDES the narrator or EXCLUDES the narrator, keeping in mind that SUBJECT and OBJECT are ONLY ONE.

 

If this is CONFUSING, how much of the CONFUSION is coming from the LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE and how much from the ideas which are imperfectly captured by a language whose architecture is LIMITED relative to the complexity of the sense-experience message to be shared.

 

My FINDING is that while LANGUAGE will never be able to capture the complexity of SENSE-EXPERIENCE (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao), the WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE is a particularly DEFICIENT tool for conveying the complexities of SENSE-EXPERIENCE due to its DROPPING OUT of the FEMALE WAVE-FIELD CONJUGATE.

 

For example, when we take one another on a guided tour of our LAND DEVELOPMENT, we show ourselves THE LAND DEVELOPMENT which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT and AUTHORED by ourselves.  The concept of something having been LOCALLY AUTHORED such as ‘the TOWN’ or the AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT or the MINING DEVELOPMENT are things we can describe in LOCAL, EXPLICIT detail.

 

BUT THE MOMENT WE TURN OUR ATTENTION TO NON-LOCAL, IMPLICIT (relationally complex) ‘WILDERNESS’, the leave the realm of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT and venture into the realm of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT wherein EVERYTHING IS IN CONTINUING FLUX which means that the LOCAL and EXPLICIT exists ONLY IN OUR IMAGINATION and this includes the CULTIVATED AREA which, so we say, is GROWING LARGER.  This DOUBLE ERROR based proposition is not dealing with REALITY in a sense-experience affirmable way, since where there is GROWTH of CULTIVATED LAND, there is at the same time, SHRINKING of WILDERNESS or in other words, an overall GESTALT of TRANSFORMATION and this what is SENSE-EXPERIENCE REAL, … and so exposes the “REALITY” of the “GROWTH” of CULTIVATED LAND as ‘NO REALITY AT ALL” but rather LANGUAGE BASED ABSTRACTION what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are in the habit of using as our OPERATIVE REALITY.

 

The REAL REALITY affirmed by our sense-experience is the TRANSFORMATION that we share inclusion in.

 

The SUBSTITUTE REALITY that we are using for our OPERATIVE REALITY is the ABSTRACTION of GROWTH of DEVELOPED LAND.

 

The SPLITTING APART of SUBJECT and OBJECT is, as Bohm points out, FRAGMENTING OUR WESTERN CULTURE PSYCHE so that we believe (as we have been taught to believe) in the (unreal) SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring the LOCAL AUTHORING of the GROWTH of CROPLANDS in a MALE ASSERTING MANNER as if the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE (i.e. the conjugate shrinking of WILDERNESS) DID NOT EXIST.  This WESTERN CULTURE ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING ONLY “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” has become our WESTERN CULTURE “OPERATIVE REALITY” which means that our JUSTICE SYSEM, our MEDICAL SYSTEM and our EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM and our COMMERCIAL SYSTEM are all operating on the basis of simple BINARY LOGIC based view of the world, which is too simple to capture in language and acknowledge the QUANTUM LOGIC sense-experience consistent reality wherein, in the event of GROWTH of cultivated land, there is a simultaneous SHRINKAGE of wilderness lands in which case, what is REALLY REALITY is the TRANSFORMING of the LANDSCAPE which is included in the overall transformation, the transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD.

 

NOW, it seems obvious that if we are using language to speak about the GROWTH of CULTIVATED CROPLANDS that there is a CONJUGATE SHRINKING of WILDERNESS LANDS, and this is naturally taken into account in indigenous aboriginal languages where one says; ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’ which acknowledges both FEMALE ACCOMMODATING and MALE ASSERTING WAVE-FIELD CONJUGATES.  This CLASHES with the WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE usage of ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING goods and services’ which is one-sided MALE ASSERTING ONLY ‘PIE IN THE SKY’ ABSTRACTION which is NEVERTHELESS SHAPING the social dynamics of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, and using belief in the abstraction of LOCAL AUTHORING in doing so.

 

IT IS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW THIS ONE-SIDED ORIENTATION TO LOCAL AUTHORING IS THE SOURCE OF FRAGMENTATION and DYSFUNCTION in the overall dynamic of WESTERN CULTURE social collectives.   .

 

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

 

HOW ABOUT THE PICTURE OF THE ‘GROWTH OF THE TOWN’?   If we take a picture of it every year, we can clearly see and map its GROWTH.

 

OBJECTION (says Heraclitus).  One can’t step into the same river twice because it is not the same river (or town) and it is not the same person stepping into it, because as makes common sense and as affirmed by modern physics, we are included in TRANSFORMATION and those forms we are hanging names on are NOT THE SAME FORMS.  What we see as forms are CONDENSATIONS of the WAVE-FIELD; i.e. APPEARANCES in the transforming relational continuum and so there NEVER IS ANY FIXED AND PERSISTING STATE OF BEING FOR FIGURE OR GROUND OF FOR SUBJECT OR OBJECT, which is to say that there is nothing that is LOCAL and EXPLICIT and that GROWS.

 

When we say we TOOK A PICTURE OF THE TOWN, which implies a BINARY LOGIC relation between TOWN and COUNTRY, otherwise we could not play the game of isolating ‘the TOWN’ as a notional ‘THING-IN-ITSELF’ with its own GRAMMAR-given powers of AUTHORING its own actions and development. , … what our photographic imaging was showing us was the QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC relation of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (relational continuum).

 

THAT FALSE IMPRESSION is what we get by using language that imposes the abstract DOUBLE ERROR notion of LOCAL BEING and GROWTH by way of NAMING and GRAMMAR, and if we listen to the farmer’s language usage, we are going to hear talk of the GROWTH of CULTIVATED LAND since that is his first priority, and fact that he has been SHRINKING THE WILDERNESS while he speaks in the one-sided terms of GROWING THE CULTIVATED LAND, reflects that WESTERN CULTURE NOTION of “IMPROVEMENT’ to the land, which misses the point that the fertility of the land associates with DIVERSITY and not with stripping out DIVERSITY and SUBSTITUTING MONOCULTURE DEVELOPMENT.

 

THESE FALSE IMPRESSIONS of LOCAL AUTHORING and GROWTH INVOKE THE MALE ASSERTING ‘MAKING A DIFFERENCE’, are all one-sidedly MALE ASSERTING and tend towards FRAGMENTATION since where is, in such language usage, no FEMALE ACCOMMODATING to give overall BALANCE.

 

WESTERN CULTURE ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING LANGUAGE USAGE thus leads to FRAGMENTATION.   GROWTH IN THE AREA OF CULTIVATED LAND IS ‘NOT REAL’ because it can’t be done out of the conjugate of the SHRINKING OF WILDERNESS, these two together constituting TRANSFORMATION.

 

OK, CAN WE NOW GET RID OF THIS PICTURE:

 

HOW ABOUT THE PICTURE OF THE ‘GROWTH OF THE TOWN’?   If we take a picture of it every year, we can clearly see and map its GROWTH.

 

NO! NO! NO!   THERE IS NO GROWTH because there is no EMPTY SPACE.  There is only the ENERGY-FILLED PLENUM aka WAVE-FIELD in which MATERIAL FORMS are CONDENSATIONS and where there is no LOCAL, EXPLICIT CHANGE such as GROWTH but only NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMATION.

 

Furthermore SUBJECT and OBJECT are ONLY ONE which means that the WAVE-FIELD is ALL-INCLUDING (material forms are condensations of the wave-field).

 

What will become of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS if we accept the findings of Modern physics which will give us the QUANTUM LOGIC understanding of reality just like the indigenous aboriginal people (e.g. where we understand that we are all included in the one transforming relational continuum, two-leggeds, four-leggeds, winged and slithering ones etc.).  In this case, we will have to LET GO OF the BINARY LOGIC based SUBSTITUTE REALITY with its LOCAL AUTHORING abstractions and pick up on the QUANTUM LOGIC based SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY of inclusion in the NONLOCAL and IMPICIT TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

 

NO MORE CONSERVATIVE “I DID THIS AND I DID THAT” and NO MORE LIBERAL “WE DID THIS AND WE DID THAT” because NO MORE LOCAL AUTHORING, so that we will need to acquire a flow-based LANGUAGE architecture like Bohm’s modern physics compliant Rheomode or a language architecture such as Algonquin.

 

What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.

 

David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.

 

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’

 

FRAGMENTATION that is pulling apart the psychical and physical is coming to us from LANGUAGE, i.e. from WESTERN CULTURE BINARY LOGIC permeated LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE

 

1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS (from Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm)

The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc.”

 

* * *