REVISITING the ERRORS we made in Designing our Language Architecture
My current thought is that it would be useful to revisit the basic challenge of ‘inventing language’ so as to be able to share INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS that can trigger impressions of sense-experience reality.
Like Erich Jantsch in ‘Design for Evolution, I see THREE different options for approaching this challenge of designing language to deliver intellectual conceptual representations of sense-experience reality, a reality characterized by sense-experience of INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (wherein ‘everything is in flux’).
This ‘everything is in flux’ sense-experience reality is IMPOSSIBLE to capture in words (with explicit meaning) and one way around this is the Wittgenstein ladder or the Bootstrapping approach of using words-that-signify-things but arranging them (with GRAMMAR) so as to make use of the matrix of relations that can be thus prepared, so that the relations can be used to convey ‘reality’ in a manner that is not encumbered by the abstraction of ‘things-in-themselves’ as given by NAMING things. That is, the NAMING, as in Wittgenstein’s ‘ladder’ description is only used to put together these THINGS as an expedient for building a WEB OF RELATIONS IN THE MIND. For example, If my sense experience of wandering in the desert is that the landscape is transforming, that’s something naturally experience-able but impossible to capture in words since ‘everything is in flux’ and there is involvement of everything earth, sky, sun as my intuition informs me are ‘all related’ and thus the whole scheme of nature involved an UNBOUNDED relational Wholeness aka ‘the IMPLICATE ORDER in Bohm’s words, in which we, ourselves, are innately included.
I am speaking from the point of view of a LANGUAGE DESIGNER now, and while it is evident that there is no way of capturing in words, this UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS of the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, there is still open to me, some INFERENCE based schemes. I could develop a RELATIONAL ACTIONS based representation scheme and develop a word vocabulary including forms such as DUNING as for example, ‘there is DUNING’ beyond the MOUNTAINING or the LAKING, so as to have my language grounded in MOVEMENT. This is the approach taken by the indigenous aboriginals in their language architectural choice. This corresponds to Jantsch’s level 1 reality where there is only flow and no fixed entities in the language architecture; i.e. DUNING is a relational forming and flowing which does not depend on the ONTOLOGICAL concept of ‘the DUNE’.
Now comes the interesting options where we (humanings in the flow) architect a language based on the abstract notion of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES and THEIR actions and developments. This move has been described by Presocratic philosophers as coming bundled with THE BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS, meaning, that now we have invented a whole load of NAMING-instantiated notional things-in-themselves, we have burdened ourselves with having to come up with a scheme (a GRAMMAR) to manipulate these things, to make them move and grow or shrink or bloat or thin etc. These OVERHEADS were NOT encountered in the RELATIONAL ACTIONS based language architecture.
WHOOPS, MORE OVERHEADS STILL in this LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES based language architecture. That is, while in the flow-based language architecture, DUNING, for example, incorporated BOTH MALE AND FEMALE dynamics so that we didn’t have the BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS problem of separately managing the MALE-ASSERTIVE dynamics and the FEMALE-INDUCTIVE dynamic since the FLOW-dynamic embodies TRANSFORMATION that incorporates both MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-INDUCTIVE.
Ok, by choosing a language architecture based on LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, we are obliged to manage TWO GENDERS, …. OR ELSE, ….we could ‘take a shortcut’, and try to ‘get by’ with just the easiest of these two which would be the MALE-ASSERTIVE gender and do our reality construction in a ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTIVE conceptualization scheme. Thus we could speak of the MALE aspect of DUNING and say; ‘the DUNE grew larger and higher and it shifted across the desert floor, … developing a language-based conceptualization that ‘got the basic elements of our sense-experience’ of the DUNING phenomena, but at the expense of simulating a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which DROPS OUT the FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING aspect. The MISSING FEMALE or DEA ABSCONDITA kind of HAUNTS the realities we construct with this one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE language-based conceptualizing approach. That is, by making it appear as if the MALE ASSERTING is always the AUTHOR of actions and developments, we BANISH the FEMALE INDUCTIVE influence and let the MALE EGO INFLATE (in this type of thinking that comes from this language architecture).
For example, we say that the HURRICANE stirs up the ATMOSPHERE and leave the DEA ABSCONDITA to haunt our thoughts because our understanding could be that the ATMOSPHERE is a SEDUCTIVE FEMALE that INDUCTIVELY stirs up the HURRICANE.
This AMBIGUITY and the HAUNTING of the DEA ABSCONDITA is ALWAYS PRESENT when we make this choice of LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE based on LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-given powers of AUTHORING actions and developments.
Can you imagine the problem of trying to re-engineer language after it has become popularized with this architecture? This is truly a case of that nonlinear dynamic called ‘LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS’.
BUT LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS. BECAUSE THE DEA ABSCONDITA or female aspect has been abandoned and we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have been going with one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF REALTY, SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE TO GET A CLOSER FIT BETWEEN OUR LANGUAGE BASED INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTUALIZATION AND OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE, … in spite of the fact that we can never get fully to our sense experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.
HERE COMES THE SYNTHETIC FEMALE AS REPLACEMENT FOR THE DEA ABSCONDITA, and it comes in the form of what we call LIBERAL thinking.
While CONSERVATIVE thinking constructs REALITY on the basis of MALE-ASSERTIVE dynamics such that the child is seen as ‘having the right stuff’ within him (or not) so that it just needs to be BROUGHT FORTH in his development,, LIBERAL thinking engineers a kind of SUBSTITUTE FEMALE-INDUCTIVE WOMB via context such as ‘It takes whole community to raise a child’. here we visualize (conceptualize) the social collective as a kind of nurturing womb that can INDUCE proper development of the individual.
THE NATURE VERSUS NURTURE SPLIT derives from these TWO modes of ABSTRACT THINKING, NEITHER OF WHICH PLAY FOUNDATIONAL ROLES IN THE FLOW-BASED REALITY ARCHITECTURES OF INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS, TAOISTS/BUDDHISTS AND ADVAITA VEDANTA, for the simple reason that the NATURE VERSUS NURTURE SPLIT is a COMPLICATION that arises when one starts with a reality construction based on the abstraction of notional NAMING-INSTANTIATED LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES..
“THE DUNE” needs “GRAMMAR” in order modify its form and to power is movement and development. “DUNING”, on the other hand, did not have these BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS overheads, because DUNING preserves the ONE-ness of FIGURE-and-GROUND wherein the DUNING refers to something ‘happening to the GROUND’, something that is known as TRANSFORMATION. Thus, DUNING, which supports the understanding of change by way of TRANSFORMATION without invoking LOCAL INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES which, once we create them with language, give rise to the associated ‘burden of concreteness’ of having to invent a GRAMMAR to support ‘their’ ‘actions’ and ‘development’ since it is no longer incorporated in an overall fluid reality.
WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, having gotten ourselves into this bind of architecting a language based on the abstraction of notional NAME-instantiate LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-instantiated action and development capabilities, and having developed the habit of streamlining our language usage by using only the MALE-ASSERTIVE aspect (and dropping out the conjugate FEMALE-inductive), … have come up with the LIBERAL “compromise” of fashioning a synthetic-FEMALE aspect from the MALE-assertive base, as described in the aphorism; “it takes a whole community to raise a child”. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE UNDERSTANDING OF INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS ETC. WHEREIN FIGURE-AND-GROUND-ARE-ONE SUCH THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS INCLUDED IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM as expressed in the aphorism “MITAKUYE OYASIN”. There is no DEA ABSCONDITA where reality is understood as TRANSFORMATION. The DEA “ABSCONDS” by the force of constructing a notional ‘reality’ featuring only the MALE-ASSERTIVE dynamic, as in our WESTERN CULTURE operative reality which is based on a collection of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (thanks to NAMING) with THEIR OWN (notional) powers of AUTHORING actions and developments (thanks to GRAMMAR).
This one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE reality construction ‘WORKS’ in the sense of ‘THOUGHT AS A SYSTEM” as Bohm would say, and in the sense of what Nietzsche refers to as the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING-and-GRAMMAR based “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” which Nietzsche advises, sets up IDOLS that we must SMASH in order to liberate the RELATIONAL REALITY which they imply, if we can stop being mesmerized by focusing on these IDOLS and WHAT THEY ARE DOING. For example, if we focus on DUNES and heir GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT and their SHIFTING across the ‘DESERT FLOOR”, we will be unable to see THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, the APPEARANCE of which can manifest as DUNING.
We may be ‘mesmerized’ by these “DUNES” and “THEIR MOVEMENTS” and “THEIR DEVELOPMENT” to the point that we cannot see the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE for the DUNES. But for those with language architecture that is relational, “DUNING” preserves the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (QUANTUM LOGIC) representation of reality.
* * *
BOTTOM LINE OBSERVATION:
we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have created a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which is MALE-ASSERTIVE based where the natural FEMALE has become a DEA ABSCONDITA.
HOWEVER, LIBERAL POLITICIANS are not satisfied with being constrained to MALE ASSERTIVE constructions of reality as with the CONSERVATIVE political faction, and have developed a PSEUDO-FEMALE social dynamic as pointed to in the aphorism “it takes a whole community to raise a child” where the social collective acts as a nurturing womb for the individual. This leads to polarizing conflict with the conservative who believes in the INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL endowed with its own power of AUTHORING actions and developments, which is, of course, supported by the DOUBLE ERROR language based reality constructions featuring NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves with GRAMMAR-given powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.
LETS NOT FORGET THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMS OF REPRESENTATION OF “SENSE EXPERIENCE REALITY” WHICH LIES INNATELY BEYOND LANGUAGE CAPTURE, SO THAT OUR LANGUAGE BASED REPRESENTATIONS MUST USE “INFERENCE” OF SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND THE REACH OF LANGUAGE-BASED REPRESENTATIONS.
THE CENTRAL IN THIS NOTE IS THAT WHILE THE WESTERN CULTURE CONSERVATIVE FACTION IMPUTES MALE ASSERTIIVE AUTHORING POWER TO NAMING-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, THE WESTERN CULTURE LIBERAL FACTION IMPUTES FEMALE INDUCTIVE POWER TO NAMING INSTANTIATED “COORDINATED SOCIAL COLLECTIVES” SUCH AS ‘COMMUNITY’ as in the aphorism; “it takes a whole community to raise a child”.
As HERACLITUS WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT; STAY AWAKE GUYS AND GALS AND DON”T FALL ASLEEP ON ME, … and keep in mind that we are talking about two variants for understanding reality, both of which FIRST ASSUME THE REALITY OF LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT. This means that we are already in DAMAGE CONTROL MODE for having picked the BINARY LOGIC of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO for use as the FOUNDATIONS of our reality representation.
OK, so we (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) have ‘stuck ourselves’ with a system of representation of reality based on LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with notional LOCAL POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, and all of this is based on BINARY LOGIC, the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO separate and independent of one another THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.
FURTHERMORE, because the MALE-ASSERTIVE is basic to BINARY LOGIC based representations of reality, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS built in a ‘work around’ where we re-introduced as in minor support role, a substitute FEMALE INDUCTIVE composed WITHIN A MALE-ASSERTIVE reality in the manner suggested by the aphorism; ‘it takes a whole community to raise a child’; i.e. the COMMUNITY, instead of being understood as a collection of INDEPENDENT MALE-ASSERTIVE AGENTS with their own POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS. In this case, the COMMUNITY … is understood NOT as a collection of STRONG INDIVIDUALS, but as a MUTUALLY SUPPORTING COLLECTIVE wherein the POWER OF THE INDIVDUAL draws from the SOCIAL COLLECTIVE, … RATHER THAN VICE VERSA.
For the LIBERAL, the root source of the ‘magic’ of LOCAL AUTHORING POWER draws from the social-relational dynamic known as COMMUNITY (diversity can create synergy)
For the CONSERVATIVE, the root source of the ‘magic’ of LOCAL AUTHORIING POWER draws from the strong individual (strength comes in growing numbers of ‘good men’)
“The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” –Mario and the Magician, — Thomas Mann
BEFORE we get carried away in the typical debate over whether the LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE model of reality is ‘the BEST’, having NOT FALLEN ASLEEP as would suck us into such a debate, … we can recall that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL AUTHORING, so, since LOCAL AUTHORING underlies BOTH the Conservative and the Liberal model of reality, we can pass over both of them and resurrect the reality of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, as in QUANTUM LOGIC, the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED MEDIUM as where matter is a condensation of the fluid electromagnetic field.
The tricky point in the above is that the LIBERAL POLITIC, saddled with the damage left by the DEA ABSCONDITA, seeks to reinfuse some FEMALE INDUCTIVE within a GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MALE-ASSERTING CAPABILITIES, wherein, there is the complexification that the force of a circle of mutually supporting participants of diverse types, can build a synergy that EXCEEDS the arithmetic sum of a collection of the best and strongest [e.g. as illustrated in the indigenous aboriginal story of ‘My father and Lima beans’). In terms of models of reality, as in Jantsch’s three levels of reality, this liberal reality is a step up from the conservative reality in the sense that it implicitly includes it but incorporates greater complexity, BUT THE MOST NATURAL REALITY (LEVEL 1) IS WHERE THE CONCEPT OF LOCAL AUTHORING IS SUPERSEDED BY TRANSFORMATION The LEVEL 1 REALITY implicitly includes the lower level 2 and 3 realities.
HOW TO “SUMMARIZE” what has been presented above?
Instead of a summary, I would point to the most DEVILISH way of GOING WRONG in our construction of reality is where we get caught on the HORNS of he dilemma of whether to embrace CONSERVATIVE political reality or LIBERAL political reality because, as our experience (we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS EXPERIENCE) shows, we, as CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL social polar opposing FACTIONS butt heads without being able to resolve our differences, AND FOR GOOD REASON since while both factions are based on belief in LOCAL AUTHORSHIP of actions and developments, the conservatives embracing the MALE ASSERTIVE option of LOCAL AUTHORSHIP and the liberals embracing the FEMALE INDUCTIVE option of LOCAL AUTHORSHIP, … as in the Zen story of WIND-and-FLAG (which authors the movement), BOTH ARE WRONG because of the ILLEGITIMACY of the basic premise of LOCAL AUTHORING and the ILLEGITIMACY of the QUESTION of whether the AUTHORING originates in the LOCAL INDIVIDUAL (conservative view) or whether the AUTHORING originates in the LOCAL SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (liberal view).
THIS POLARIZING DIFFERENCE WILL NEVER BE RESOLVED BECAUSE IT STEMS FROM BELIEF IN LOCAL AUTHORING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT, AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, THE STUFF OF OUR SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY. THE OTHER STUFF IS INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION BASED ON THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR AS NIETZSCHE HAS POINTED OUT.
GOOD JOB LIBERALS, FOR TRYING TO RECOVER THE DEA ABSCONDITA WITHIN THE LOCAL AUTHOR BASED FRAMEWORK, BUT IT WON’T WORK TO HANG IT ON THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED LOCAL AUTHORING ABSTRACTION BECAUSE LOCAL AUTHORING IS AND EGO-DRIVEN, DOUBLE ERROR STIMULATED PSYCHOLOGICAL DELUSION THAT DOESN’T EVEN COME UP ON THE RADAR SCREEN OF INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS, TAOISTS/BUDDHISTS AND ADVAITA VEDANTA ADHERENTS.
Evidently, the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT understandings have led to the DOMINANCE of the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY and there should be no surprise here in the sense that it is quicker to amass resources and resource-based power by ignoring ‘all the relational connections’. Why not plough up the prairies with all that diversity of greases and grains and flowers and impose on the terrain the monocultures of wheat and oats. The WESTERN CULTURE which has ‘broken ranks’ with those who believe that we are relational forms within a world of relational diversity wherein that diversity IS LIFE as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’, is having a hay day, or so it appears, but as with the weed killer ROUNDUP, one way to GET RID OF A RELATIONAL FORM is to encourage it to grow faster than everything else so that is balance-sustaining relationship matrix WHICH IS WHAT “IT” IS, fall out of balance, so that its experiencing of an explosive period of growth is a killer experience since it gets out of whack with all of those things it needs to sustain dynamic relational balance with, because, as just mentioned, that sustain of dynamic relational balance IS THE THING.
ITS NOT THAT THE EARTH TURNS ROUND, as Poincaré pointed out, since this is the old Nietzschean DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR ABSTRACTION. Instead there is EARTHING in the transforming relational continuum in the same sense that matter is a condensation of the electromagnetic field.
NO LOCAL AUTHORING in our language architecture please. Only TRANSFORMATION (yes, sorry, this is ineffable-because-nonlocal-and-implicit)
In which case, the indigenous aboriginal reality is the bandwagon to get on to escape all of this psycho-pathology based on EGO-hyped belief in LOCAL AUTHORING.
* * *