making the two into the one

understanding the two as one


There are two themes in this series of essays in the Aboriginal Physics Newsletter; one addresses the flaw in the foundational philosophical/ethical premises of Western colonial society, and the other is that there are longstanding, inherent difficulties in sharing a view of the flaw that have not yet been popularly overcome.


The flaw is that while the physical reality of our actual, natural experience is non-dualist, … the semantic reality of Western culture is dualist.   The essence of the communications challenge is that while observers in a non-dualist reality can look in on the inherently less complex dualist reality and see its shortfalls relative to the non-dualist reality, observers in a dualist reality cannot ‘share in a viewing of this view’ without ‘lifting themselves up’ from the dualist reality to the non-dualist reality.  The challenge is therefore, that the message delivered from non-dualist to dualist realms must include within the message, the wherewithal to lift the dualist recipient up into the non-dualist reality so that he will be ‘enabled’ for ‘hearing’ the message.




This essay summarizes findings on what is going on in the world with respect to how divided we are in our views of what is ‘real’.


There is a challenge in sharing these findings in that ‘subject-verb’ languages such as English are major contributors to confusion as to ‘what is real’ since they build their representations of dynamics on the basis of ‘things’ (subjects) and ‘what things do’.


I will state upfront, and the evidence will follow, that ‘what is real’ in ‘physical reality’ is ‘relational’ and that ‘relations are the basis of things’ rather than ‘things are the basis of relations’.  Furthermore, the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum which gathers within it relational forms such as humans and diverse others.  The relation between the relational forms and the transforming relational continuum is as in the relation between a storm-cell in the atmosphere and the atmosphere; i.e. ‘non-duality’ prevails in ‘physical reality’.


Indigenous aboriginal traditional worldview and the relational interpretation of modern physics are together on this [e.g. see ‘Blackfoot Physics’ by F. David Peat] version of ‘what is real’ and it leads directly to ‘restorative justice’ where one understands that we are all ‘strands in the web of life’, including the rapist, the insurgent and the terrorist so that there is an understanding that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a rapist, insurgent, terrorist’.  In other words, in the relational ‘physical reality’, there are no ‘independent beings with internal process driven and directed behaviours’ as Western religions and Western science see the human self, there are individual relational forms in a transforming relational continuum.

Rather than confront and acknowledge the relational complex of  ‘cosmic fetalization’ of relational forms within the ‘transforming relational continuum’, subject-and-verb language is used to generate ‘categories’ of things on the basis of ‘their common properties’ and build up the meaning of a thing ‘locally’ from its locally measurable components and attributes, substitute fpr its continuing cosmic fetalization, a local object that can be used as a subject to be animated by inflecting verbs.



The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.



… [in modern physics] It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.



Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers.



This leads to a profoundly different way of approaching and thinking about the world. For, in the absence of categories, each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them.



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’


This non-dualist culture of understanding ‘what is real’ in terms of ‘relations are the basis of things’ with its restorative justice is far less dysfunctional than a culture of understanding ‘what is real’ in the dualist terms of ‘subject-things which are the basis of relations’.   We are capable of either understanding, however, Western society is characterized by having institutionalized and made the ‘norm’, the understanding of ‘what is real’ in terms of ‘independent things’ and ‘what these things do’, … an understanding that has us trying to control and manage the ‘independent things and what they do’, … ‘things’ like nation-states and corporations, that we name, define and animate with verbs to construct a ‘semantic reality’ or, better, ‘semantic realities’, because different people construct different ‘semantic realities’ and then try to agree on which is ‘the true semantic reality’.


As far as I can see, one of the most powerful influences that sustains Western belief in dualism [e.g. inhabitant is independent of habitat]  is the confusing the findings of ‘science’ for ‘physical reality’.   Mainstream science, as affirmed by Mach, Schroedinger and others, is not about ‘physical reality’; … physical reality is impossibly complex as chaos theory, nonlinear dynamics, self-organized criticality, relativity and quantum wave dynamics all attest.  ‘Science’ is a ‘language game’ or ‘semantic reality’ based on concretizing relational forms, and thus inverting the conceptualizing of ‘what is real’ from ‘relations are the basis of things’ to ‘things are the basis of relations’.  As Mach observes, this ‘science’ can be very useful in generating ‘economy of thought’, however, it should not be confused for ‘reality’;


“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” —Ernst Mach

 “We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach


We are not heeding Mach’s message and Mach was forced out of the socio-political consensus as to what science was.  As he put it, he was ‘quitting the Church of Physics’ (1912).  Relational theorists like Mach continue on, but like dissidents on Anthropogenic Global Warming, they have gone quiet since the socio-political concensus on ‘science’ has become so powerful [i.e. in inverting the understanding that ‘relations are the basis of things’ to ‘things are the basis of relations’ and using the ‘semantic reality’ constructed by reifying relational forms as the Western culture ‘operative reality’].


Western science is garnering its popular credibility from its logical certainty.  Einstein, who acknowledged Mach’s philosophy of science leadership, stated;


“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. — Einstein


Nevertheless, ‘logical certainty’ appeals and science is based on logical propositions that are inherently incomplete; e.g. ‘DDT kills mosquitoes’ that are nevertheless very ‘practical’ even though they have little to do with physical reality.   We can prove the logical proposition ‘DDT kills mosquitoes’ and use this ‘semantic reality’ as an ‘operative reality’ even while we have no clue as to the ‘physical reality’ of what is going on, and how could we, since the world is a transforming relational continuum, and we would have to know ‘the all’ in order to understand our intervention into it.    In what F. David Peat calls ‘indigenous science’, man builds a relationship with the transforming relational continuum which he is included in as a gathering relational feature.  The role of language architecture in this is discussed in this essay.


Rationality, reason and science are ‘language games’ that construct ‘semantic realities’ based on ‘things’ and ‘what things do’.  We can use this ‘semantic reality’ as an ‘operative reality’ within which we get what we want; e.g. the elimination of mosquitoes, without ever having to know what is ‘really going on’ in ‘physical reality’.   We allude to the fact that ‘what is really going on’ differs from our semantic reality by acknowledging what we call ‘side-effects’ and ‘externalities’; i.e. the scientific reality is that ‘this drug will cure your headache’ and we like this certainty, but then comes a long list of ‘side-effects’ that force us to acknowledge that ‘what is really going on’ is far more complex than our scientific ‘semantic reality’ is presenting to us in its neat and tidy terms of ‘this causes this’ [this pill causes termination of the headache or this spray causes termination of the mosquitoes].


Our use of science to achieve person, national and anthropocentric objectives is doing ‘we don’t know what’ to the transforming relational continuum, the ‘physical reality’ we are included in.


Taking Stock of the current condition of [globalized] Western Society


Because of our [Western culture] mesmerization by our own rational and scientific semantic reality constructions, which are disconnected from physical reality, we see, for example, rapists, insurgents and terrorists as independent beings with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours; i.e. we do not acknowledge the physical reality of the transforming relational continuum, wherein relational tensions developing earlier in the continuum continue to have influence.   For example, the relational tensions between Euro-American colonizers* [noun-subjects are always a stand-in-for a relational activity] and peoples of the Middle East are the source of eruptions of violence in the form of extremist group acts of terrorism, however, Euro-American colonizer interpretations of these eruptions of violence, as forensic science would have it, are that they are jumpstarting from evil independent beings we call ‘terrorists’.


If the local governments in Iraq or Afghanistan are too much ‘in bed with’ the Euro-American colonizing powers, local extremist groups grow more powerful [induced by relational tensions between themselves and the Euro-American colonizers].  And if the local governments become more independent [e.g. Saddam], friction develops between them and the Euro-American colonizers which leads to inter-state war.  The degenerate situation wherein both the local government and the Euro-American colonizing powers are agreed on the pursuit of ‘evil terrorists’ is a superficial cover for the denial of the Euro-American colonizers that they are putting the ‘heat’ on the region so that outbreaks of terrorism are like corns popping from heat sourced by Euro-American colonizers.  The colonizers, seeing themselves as white knights with a manifest destiny of preserving and protecting goodness in the world, are not getting the message as to how colonized peoples and indigenous aboriginals are mocking such ‘Emperor’s new clothes’.   American law, for example, justifies the appropriation of colonized lands on the ‘fair trade’ basis of having introduced ‘civilization’ to a wild and savage territory.


This situation, where the relational tensions between the Euro-American colonizers and the colonized peoples is the source of eruptions of violence as in popcorns popping off in a pan heated by the colonizers, but is being seen as the in-situ spontaneous acts of evil beings, is inducing a collective paranoid schizophrenia in the Euro-American populace, since the more they ‘turn the heat on’ to eliminate the terrorists, the more terrorist corns that start popping.  The more they succeed in gaining the nominal cooperation of local governments [e.g. Pakistan], the more suspicion there is that they are helping out terrorist groups [Al Qaida].   All the while, the Euro-American populace and its leaders are promoting themselves as having the manifest destiny of being the good guys, not hearing the message about these ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ and thus seeing the rise of terrorism as being independent of their anti-terrorism measures.  In the same manner, a dictator that oppresses his people see the rise of insurgency as independent of his anti-insurgency measures, a ‘projective identification’ arising from his own ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ and denial of his own role in sourcing insurgency.


All of these above ‘particulars’ re the collective paranoid schizophrenia are intended only to make the general case of what Western society is doing with ‘science’.   Western society’s massive implementation of scientific applications based on over-simplistic ‘semantic realities’ are perturbing the environment to the point that the environment is biting back [side-effects, externalities].  Western society’s response is to try to use scientific reasoning and techniques to try to control and reverse the ‘biting back’ that they are in fact inducing, creating a vicious circle and paranoid schizophrenia to boot, since there is the feeling they are struggling against something when they are struggling with themselves.


“the life we are reaching out to grasp is the ‘we’ who are reaching out to grasp it” – R. D. Laing    


This has become;


“the demons we are reaching out to throttle are the ‘we’ who are reaching out to throttle them”


This the topic of “Sharing a Non-Dualist message with a Dualist recipient”, and, as mentioned, this is a difficult topic to cover using a noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar such as English since English reconstructs the inherently relational dynamics of our physical experience in terms of ‘independent things’ and ‘what these independent things do’.  Thus, when we construct the semantic realities; “the rapist raped the innocent victim”, … “the insurgent attacked and injured the innocent citizen” and, … “the terrorist maimed and killed the innocent citizens”, … they are logical correct within themselves, but inherently ‘incomplete’ [Goedel’s theorem].  That is, they are missing the persisting relational tensions of ‘physical reality’, the ‘physical reality’ of the transforming relational continuum which gives a very different view of the animating source of ‘rapist’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘terrorist’ action.


The non-dualist understanding of indigenous aboriginal tradition [which is close to extinction due to ongoing ‘cultural genocide’], by acknowledging that we are all strands in the web-of-life and that “it takes a whole community to raise a rapist/insurgent/terrorist”, … leads to ‘restorative justice’ which acknowledges relational tensions as the source of eruptions of violence, so that we [the inhabitants] seek to resolve it at its source by transforming the relations amongst one another and the common living space [habitat] we share inclusion in.


* * * end of introduction * * *


Since Western society employs a dualist semantic reality as its operative reality, it is ‘twisting off’ from what is actually/naturally transpiring in non-dual physical reality.   What we claim to be doing [in dualist semantic reality] is nothing like what we are really doing [in non-dualist physical reality], and when problems arise as a result of this, rather than re-grounding ourselves in non-dualist physical reality, we are developing ‘solutions’ [which make matters worse] within our dualist semantic reality.

This is brewing up, on a global scale, a collective paranoid schizophrenia.  For example, in the case of ‘terrorism’ [and this is only one of many manifestations of the same problem]; … as ‘those in control’ [who are employing dualist semantic reality as their ‘operative reality’] feel increasingly threatened by global terrorism and are intensifying their anti-terrorism programs, such actions seem to result not in a decrease but in an increase in the extent and intensity of terrorist actions.    This is scary in the manner of a pilot who is pulling up on the flight stick to pull out of a dive only to feel the aircraft responding by steepening the dive, … a pilot’s worse nightmare, the feeling of total loss of control.

What is flipping things upside down here is that intelligence and purpose are what has gotten us into this mess and rather than getting us out of it, the harder we lean on them, the deeper they are pulling us down.  Intelligence and purpose are the ‘reverse-engineered ‘logical repairs’, invented to compensate for the synthetic removal, by language structure, of outside-inward relational-situational influence that actualizes and orchestrates creative potentials that manifest as relational forms.  By giving subject status to relational forms [e.g. as to the storm-cell] and imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame as the ‘operating theatre’, we are compelled by the imperative of logical completeness, to impute to the ‘subject’, the wherewithal to explain its behaviour as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’ which noun-and-verb grammar has made it into.  As relational form in a transforming relational continuum, its emergence, development and behaviour is the inductive actualizing of energy potentials in the relational dynamics it is situationally included in [in the same sense as the storm-cell in the flow of the atmosphere].

The ‘stand-ins’ of ‘intelligence’ and ‘purpose’ play out their roles in a ‘semantic reality’ which depicts the relational form as an ‘independent intelligence and purpose-driven system’ that resides, operates and interacts in a habitat that is notionally ‘independent’ of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.

While this may, at first reading, sound too far out to be worth even a moment’s consideration, one might recall the degree to which the valuation of these two attributes differ between Western culture and indigenous aboriginal culture, along with Nietzsche’s prediction of the imminent and necessary ‘devaluation of these highest values’ in Western society.



How the Non-Dualism of Physical Reality is Reduced to Dualist Semantic Reality:

And the challenge of communicating this within Dualist Semantic Reality.


Experience is primary and language cannot capture experience, so in using language in this note, i am really asking you to, as Heraclitus says, to ‘listen not to me’ but to the logos, the world as YOU experience it.


I am not trying to inform you of something that that is beyond what you already understand from your experience.   and there is lots there in experience, that we take for granted and have not necessarily reflected upon, so there is potential for reflecting on our life experience in general.  We may reflect on the fact that we must walk a long way to get to the river crossing but once in a while there are trees adrift that get stuck on the rocks that we can walk across on.  Understanding this, we begin to fell trees over the river wherever we need crossings.   This sort of understanding involves bringing things into meaningful relational confluence.  but someone could also be shown this, by gesture and sign language, so as to pass it to others who it hadn’t yet occurred to.


In the first case, a relational need that emerged in the unfolding relational continuum induced activity that, if we needed a word to refer to it, we could call ‘bridging’.    Later, ‘bridging’ became a ‘well-known’ activity where men knowledgeable about such activities [via their language-based sharing and/or copying of one another’s behaviour] engaged in them deliberately, as the need arose.


Some languages are relational in that their message is based in relational activities, which is in the same ‘currency’ as nature’s dynamic; i.e. the dynamics of a transforming relational continuum.  ‘bridging’ remains an activity-word or ‘verb’ and the meaning carries with it the sense of plugging a hole.  It is like the situation where you see two people trying to satisfy a need; e.g. to move a heavy object that has fallen on a friend, but without being able to satisfy that need, and you can see [this is intuition from your experience] that if you get in the middle, and push with them, together the three of you will be able to liberate the fourth person trapped by the heavy object.


For the purpose of this note we can identify two familiar aspects of nature’s dynamics here; (1) situational need, and (2) creative action.    In a relational language, it is understood not only that these two are different aspects of the one dynamic of ‘bridging’, but that what is real is the transforming relational continuum within which situational needs are continually arising which actualize creative actions.   In fact, it is all one thing; i.e. all one transforming relational continuum.


There are other languages that are NOT relational but are instead based on ‘forms’ rather than ‘transformation’.   Although humans are forms that are continually coming and going within a complex web of relational dynamics [the world of our experience], it is possible, in building a system of signals/communication, to start from forms rather than activities.  In this case, dynamics are conveyed in terms of ‘forms’ and ‘what forms do’ (move, change, interact, come, go).  The ‘bridging’ activity is then captured in form-based language in terms of what ‘men-things’ do to create a ‘bridge-thing’.   Since forms are stationary things-in-themselves; i.e. the objects of creative activity [genesis], signs are also needed to convey the actions of forms [verbs] so that the form-based language uses signs for forms together with signs for actions to convey an activity like ‘bridging’.


One of the differences in conveying things starting from forms is that the forms are static, so that an activity like ‘bridging’ which nests within the transforming relational continuum, is constructed from ‘scratch’ in the form-based language and proceeds from stasis (initial state) to stasis (completed state), thus conveying bridging activities as ‘events’.  Since the events are depicted separately as self-standing occurrences in terms of the actions of forms, the impression arises that the forms are the cause of the ‘results’ [the objects of the creative activity (genesis)]; i.e. instead of ‘bridging’, we now have human-forms whose actions create the bridge-form; i.e. humans build bridge.


In such non-relational forms-based languages, the understanding of the transforming relational continuum is replaced with a large collection of forms and events.  These events can be constructive or destructive, and have the capability of giving representation to the dynamics we can observe.


I just wrote; … ‘the dynamics we can observe’, … but what is the impact of representing them in terms of form-based rather than relational language?


In the form-based view, there are many ‘events’ which we use to explain the world dynamic and people say that these events occur in a natural succession aka the ordering of events in time.  Here, I am not going to let you forget, as is what popularly happens, that our experience is of a dynamic relational continuum and ‘events’ are something we ‘pull out the continuum’; e.g. the ‘bridge-building event’, a kind of deliberately authored thing [the situational orchestrating/actualizing influence disappears while intentional creative action remains].  The situational orchestrating/actualizing influence is owned by the transforming relational continuum; i.e. it is the relational context that gives the ‘why’ meaning to the ‘bridging’.   If we remove this ‘why’ context by starting from forms and what they do, we have to substitute something like ‘purpose’ as a animating force residing within the forms that build the bridge.


The relational ‘why’ would have to refer back indefinitely, to earlier on in the transforming relational continuum, so it is both convenient and delivers great ‘economy of thought’ [Mach], to replace all of that infinity of unknowable relational dynamics, with the notion of ‘purpose’ as resides in the man-forms we say are building the bridge-form.


‘Purpose’, ‘intention’, ‘force’ are cast as ‘causal agents’ that jumpstart the ‘event’ in the linguistic representation of what is going on, since it is not practical to have to refer back to the relational context of the transforming relational continuum and infinitely defer the complete answer to what initiated the event;


“In the book ‘Causality and Chance in Modern Physics’ Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”


Once we start using ‘forms’ and ‘events’ to give language based representations of the world dynamic, and we have this sense that the world is being causally constructed, we must take care that we don’t put the cart before the horse in the ordering of the events; i.e. there is a logical succession to ‘events’; e.g. the construction of the city west of the Mississippi follows after the construction of the Mississippi bridge.   the following is an excerpt from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy citing the popular view that ‘time’ is ‘objective’.   Note how ‘events’ jumpstarted by ‘purpose’, ‘intention’, ‘force’, ‘causal agency’ are ‘taken for granted’;

“Any organism’s sense of time is subjective, but is the time that is sensed also subjective, a mind-dependent phenomenon? Throughout history, philosophers of time have disagreed on the answer. Without minds in the world, nothing in the world would be surprising or beautiful or interesting. Can we add that nothing would be in time? Philosophers disagree on this.



The majority answer is “no.” The ability of the concept of time to help us make sense of our phenomenological evidence involving change, persistence, and succession of events is a sign that time may be objectively real. Consider succession, that is, order of events in time. We all agree that our memories of events occur after the events occur. If judgments of time were subjective in the way judgments of being interesting vs. not-interesting are subjective, then it would be too miraculous that everyone can so easily agree on the ordering of events in time. For example, first Einstein was born, then he went to school, then he died. Everybody agrees that it happened in this order: birth, school, death. No other order. The agreement on time order for so many events, both psychological events and physical events, is part of the reason that most philosophers and scientists believe physical time is objective and not dependent on being consciously experienced” – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy


In the relational language there is no sense of ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’.   A transforming relational continuum has no need of ‘time’ since everything unfolds in the continuing ‘now’.


But in the form-based language, activities are no longer ‘relative to the [timeless] transforming relational continuum’ where unfolding is in the continuing ‘now’, … they are conceived of as jumpstarting from ‘purpose’.  imagine a collection of users of form-based language getting together and deciding to create events from collective purpose.   They could create a ‘purposeful entity’ simply by assembling a collective equipped with ‘common purpose’ as an event-creating force [causal agency], giving it a name and declaring its existence.   A ‘historical account’ of the events attributable to it could be documented ‘over time’ so that it could be ‘born’, develop and grow and accomplish results, without dependence on relational context, that having been made unnecessary by the imputing of ‘purpose’ as the jumpstart causal agency giving rise to ‘events’.


But wait a minute, … ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ was the IMPLICIT reciprocal complement of ‘situational need’ that orchestrated the activity (e.g. ‘bridging’) and relational situation was the physical reality of our actual experience.   ‘Purpose’ was just a convenient way of simplifying the representation of dynamics.   We can say that the child-soldier intentionally killed the civilians, and back that up with our standard model of ‘forms’ as ‘independently-existing material entities’, thereby sweeping under the rug, the physical reality of influence deriving from the ongoing relational social dynamic ‘venting’ through the ‘form’ (child-soldier).


One can thus build an entire ‘semantic reality’ based on purpose-driven action events.   The nations-with-histories that are born by declaring their existence and equipping them with ‘common purpose’ are presented as if they were ‘real’ by way of narrative that attributes responsibility for events to them.  The people of turtle island which is an included feature in the transforming relational continuum experienced multiple groups using form-based languages declaring the existence of new semantic realities using the ‘common purpose’ technique, and calling them ‘The United States’, ‘Canada’ and ‘Mexico’, and although all three of these stand or fall on the basis of people believing in them, there is an agreement among form-based language users, that the world dynamic that is as given by form-based language wherein dynamics jumpstart from ‘forms’ and ‘their’ ‘force’ or ‘purpose’ driven actions, no relational context necessary. [‘Purpose’ or ‘force’ having replaced the orchestrating/actualizing influence of relational situational unfolding].


The experience of the indigenous peoples whose individual and collective dynamics were arising from relational-situational inductive influence that were orchestrating, actualizing and shaping their creative potentials, … was that the colonizers brought in a new form-based language which saw dynamics as being common purpose-driven.   This meant that it was no longer necessary to tune in to the relational-situational inductive orchestrating and shaping influence of the transforming relational continuum, but that it was instead possible to jumpstart actions and events from out of centres of common purpose, this entire new show being managed within a form-based ‘semantic reality’.


If there were no ‘form-based communicating’, the belief in common purpose would vanish and people would revert to ‘what comes naturally’; i.e. relational-situational orchestrating influence that orchestrates and actualizes individual and collective creative potentials.  That is, these inductive influences are primary and merely ‘imply’ action coordinated by common purpose.  This belief in common purpose can be generally imposed by those who believe it to be the animating source of dynamics, and when it is imposed on language-based representations, it ‘eclipses’ ‘relational context’.  That is, relational context is primary in the physical reality of our natural experience, but form-based language representations ‘over-ride’ it with the notion of purpose-jumpstarted actions and events.


As form-based language-using observers, we impose this simplified form-jumpstarting of actions and events on all manner of forms from humans to ecosystem plants to amoebate forms in slime-moulds, to genes even.   I.e. referring back to earlier in the discussion, verbs are invented in developing the grammatical architecture of form-based language to remobilize forms.


“Since forms are stationary things-in-themselves; i.e. the objects of creative activity [genesis], signs are also needed to convey the actions of forms [verbs] so that the form-based language uses signs for forms together with signs for actions to convey an activity like bridging.


The point here is that ‘forms’ do not animate themselves, that is what verbs do in form-based languages, whereas in relational languages, epigenetic influences; i.e. unfolding relational context actualizes, orchestrates and shapes the creative potentials that manifest as ‘forms’.  This has recently been recognized in biology [stem-cell research has triggered this recognition] that genes are not purpose-driven forms, but are the RESULT of epigenetic influence [relational-situational inductive influence].


“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’


Even in the case of a concave collection basin, runoff waters are induced to converge as where droplets are coalescing into rivulets and rivulets into streams and streams into rivers, and in a form-based language it is common to speak in terms that make ‘water’ the ‘subject’ of action and speak of the water gathering or collecting as if the water were responsible for ‘its’ gathering actions, such grammatical structure making the relational situational sourcing ‘disappear’ from view in the linguistic representation.  It then appears as if the ‘water is responsible for transporting sediments from the highlands to the ocean’.  This effectively invents the notion of an ‘erosional agency’ that is sculpting the landscape, … eclipsing the understanding in terms of a transforming relational continuum.


This ‘semantic reality’ RE-form-ulates and RE-presents ‘relational transformation’ in terms of ‘causal agencies’ that are the jumpstart authors of change to ‘forms’.  “Forms’ are seen [via linguistic depiction] as stationary things-in-themselves, thus the mountains are seen, NOT as ‘observations’  of what appears within the ongoing relational transformation, but as ‘stationary things-in-themselves which are ‘caused’ to change over ‘time’ through the application of some ‘causal agency’.


Our experience-based intuition says that mountains and valleys are like wave-crests and wave-troughs experiencing relational transformation in slow-motion, but our form-based language and grammar objectifies them both and depicts changes to these forms in terms of ‘causal agencies’ such as ‘water sourced erosional agency’ acting on the mountains to break them down and transport the pieces down to the valley, filling in the valley.   In this view, the authoring source is fully assertively driven and the mother-source of inductive influence that is actualizing the assertive force is [notionally] excluded, as it was in the ‘bridging’ example.


Western people using form-based language thus tend to ‘take literally’ i.e. ‘believe as real’ in a semantic reality which is ‘all-hitting, no-fielding’ or ‘all-purpose-or-force-driven genesis, and no epigenesis] so that our inclusion in a transforming relational continuum disappears from our awareness, and what we aware of instead, … i.e. what we are made aware of by form-based language, is a world dynamic seen in terms of forms and what forms do, as if these forms have the power of causal agency that explains the continuing ‘changing’ in the world ‘over time’.   The river now has a bridge across it because human forms with causal agency coordinated by ‘common purpose’ have created the bridge.   In fact, it may have started with orders coming from a grand central fountainhead of common purpose called ‘the Nation’s Capital’.   The leader who sits in the capital has the power to build a bridge that goes from nowhere to nowhere, such as the ‘Sunshine Bridge’ in Louisiana, … just to demonstrate that humans are independent beings with free will whose purpose-driven causal agency determines changes in the landscape.


Of course, without the form-based language [without all the talking and proposition making], the relational understanding prevails in that human forms and other ‘genetic agents’ cannot turn themselves on or off or control their own expression; i.e. they do not have jumpstart powers as they are included features in the transforming relational continuum, so that we must acknowledge the primacy of epigenetic influence in actualizing the genetic agency.  That is, we can generally make conclusions such as the following; that genetic agency is secondary to epigenetic influence [which is actualizing genetic agency];


“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’


* * *


If we users of form-based language stop our talking, the notion of purpose-driven construction dissolves and the understanding of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum can be once again ‘seen’ having merely been ‘covered over’ by form-based ‘semantic reality’;


This notion of ‘purpose’ aka ‘intention’ aka ‘force’ is an imagined reciprocal complement to the relational situations that source inductive influence that actualizes creative potentials.  I.e. ‘purpose’ is an artefact of form-based language which interprets relational activities like ‘bridging’ as events caused by intentions;


“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?”  … “Cause and effect–a dangerous concept so long as one thinks of something that causes and something upon which an effect is produced” —Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’


An entire moral and ethical system oriented to the notion of jumpstart cause-and-effect, jumpstart doing-of-deeds in that ‘credit’ and ‘blame’ are dispensed on this basis which eclipses the physically real relational situational origins of dynamics.   The need to cross a river arises from a relational situation which inductively actualizes creative potentials, orchestrating the common purpose and coordinated actions of people in a bridge-building operation.   We are logically correct [don’t forget that the elements of logic consist of signs with persisting identities] to claim that purposeful people are responsible for the construction of the bridge, … but intuition transcends logic (logic is inherently incomplete) and intuition says that relational situations inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape creative potentials and that ‘PURPOSE’ or ‘INTENTION’ as a ‘causal agency’ is an after-the-fact simplification (convenient economy of thought) regarding nature’s dynamics.   HOWEVER, … since form-based language is capable of constructing semantic realities in which common purpose IS SEEN AS the jumpstart cause of actions that achieve results, … it is possible to use such language to build, for consumption by the logical intellect, systems of coordinated actions based on common purpose.  Such ‘semantic realities’ bewitch our understanding [Wittgenstein] so that our behaviour becomes loyal to the ‘talk’ that is the stand-or-fall belief basis of the semantic reality, even as our intuition is screaming out that the physical reality of our actual, natural experience [of situational inclusion in a transforming relational continuum] is the ‘reality’ that is naturally deserving of primacy.  Indigenous aboriginals with their relational languages could see this decoupling  from physical reality manifest within the form-based language users who colonized them, however, while many colonizers are suspicious of their culture, the continuing use of, and literal trust in form-based language and its foundational use in social organizing through the institutions of governance, commerce and justice, continue to sustain it.


As the dysfunction continues to intensify together with the intensifying of purpose-driven planning and actions, the literalist use of the language in formulating purposeful plans to remediate the dysfunction serves simply to compound it.  For a society that has become accustomed to organization based on purpose and control, this is scary indeed.  The vicious circle that develops takes on the form of a collective paranoid schizophrenia.


The difficulty in sharing relational understanding such as this with oneself and with those with ‘form-based language-bewitched understanding’ is an evident problem/challenge wherein a non-dualist message must be shared within a dualist semantic reality.

* * *

APPENDIX I: How to Navigate as a Non-Dualist in a Western Dualist Semantic Reality


Did the river scour the valley floor and transport the sediment to the sea?  Or, did the valley, by opening up a collection basin and inducing runoff waters to come together in connective confluence, coalescing into a powerful flow, ‘scour itself’?  Similarly, did the child-soldier shoot his brothers in the community, or did the community by falling ‘out of balance’, cultivate relational tensions, inductively actualizing murderous potentials in the child?  The ‘dualist’ sees the inhabitant as independent of the habitat and as having his own authorship powers to change things in a cause-and-effect manner, while the non-dualist sees inhabitant and habitat bound together relationally, as with storm-cell and flow or in general as a relational form within transforming relational continuum.   One must deal with subject authored actions while at the same time recognizing them as the manifest ‘appearance’ of a deeper, relational source.   As Lao Tzu advises in this context;

“Know the male but keep the role of the female” — Lao Tzu, Tau Te Ching


For those that intuit that the physical reality of our natural experience is non-dual, the question arises as to how to ‘navigate’ within a social collective in which people are very often ‘operating in dualist mode’ so that one finds oneself being carried within strong fields of ‘political correctness’ to ‘follow suit’.  The point here is that even if one has a commitment to non-dualism, it becomes important to better understand how one is being continually ‘co-opted’ into the dualist mindset and operational ethics as a result of being immersed in dualist ‘semantic reality’.

It is not by one’s involved, participating experience that one becomes immersed in, and subject to the influential currents of ‘semantic reality’, it is only by knowing the language and listening to the discourse. For example, if you were working with others without understanding their language, there is much that you would not know about their political views and expectations and your engaging would have to be on the basis of physical experience. Once you learned the language, you would enter into the prevailing semantic reality where you would feel the pull of a complex package of political correctness currents.

Non-duality and duality associate with different language architectural requirements; i.e. in the former, relations are the basis of things, and in the latter, things are the basis of relations.

Since non-duality and duality pivot around the meaning of a ‘form’, whether, (a) when we look into it with non-dualist lenses, its meaning defers indefinitely into the transforming relational continuum that is now bringing forth a relational feature; i.e. its meaning is in terms of its ‘cosmic fetalization’, … or whether (b) when we look into it with dualist lenses, we can know it as a ‘thing-in-itself’ by way of generalization, as a member of a category describable in terms of common properties that we can physically measure.  The particularity of the form can then be expressed in terms of the minor departures from the list of common properties that define it as a member of the category.

For example, when we encounter another human form, non-dualist engaging acknowledges that we are both included in a transforming relational continuum; i.e. we are being continually reborn into a new relationship in which both ourself and other have no static being, as in the aphorism of Heraclitus; “we cannot step into the same river twice for it is not the same river and we are not the same person”.  To acknowledge this continual rebirth requires, in us, a condition of total innocence, where we are willing to rediscover who this new person is in every unfolding instant.  We cannot engage in a gradual data collection project aimed at building a representation of the other person since that would assume their, and our, static, persisting identities.   Because we share inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, we understand that the perceptual lenses we are looking out through are themselves continually transforming, reshaping the reciprocally complementary otherness that we are perceiving through our changing lenses.  How do we retain our innocence in such a situation?  Do we expect to discover who the other ‘truly is’ by our continuing studies of them?  If we continue to probe, will we eventually discover a naked truth that has been lying in waiting, that beneath the coverings and camouflage, there is a terrorist there?   Or will the innocence and openness of our engaging actualize and shape the emerging persona, in contradiction to our notional ‘discovery of that which is already there’?  Does a loving engaging bring forth a loving persona, and vice versa for a cynical engaging?  Do we reap what we sow?

Are we orchestrating one another’s cosmic fetalization through our mutual influence in our engaging?

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” — Mach’s principle


When suspicion and doubt as to who another ‘really is’ is the motivation for engaging, our findings will be very different from an engaging in which we are in touch with our innocence and openness.  The so-called ‘observer effect’ is inevitable in the relational, non-dual world. Sensing is not only the sole basis for developing an awareness of the world, it is the relating that sits at the juncture of self-and-other that is shaping both.  Thus, ‘sensa’ are more fundamental than ‘self’ and ‘other’; i.e. they are the most basic elements of the world [Mach].

In the dualist world, the human is an ‘independent being’ whose identity, which is entirely locally knowable, can be revealed by the skill of the spy agency combined with the skills of medical investigative technology and psychological analysis,  … measuring instruments that will expose, what there is to be known about local objects of investigation.

Whereas in non-dualism, the ambient habitat that opens up to receive the individual as she moves out into the world inductively actualizes the creative potentials that bring out her form and orchestrate her behaviour in the same fell stroke that illuminates and transforms the ambiance, … the dualist view would have her see herself as an independent being with internal process driven and directed behaviour whose intelligence and purpose equip her to make of herself a productive member of society who, if she ‘puts her mind to it’, and works with due diligence, can pile up a long list of worthy accomplishments in her lifetime, all of which will be indisputably hers.

The degree to which Western society has embodied the dualist values of independent beings that are defined by way of categories, and which would have us understand one another, on individual and national scales, as a thing knowable by its local common properties, … is sufficiently great that the non-dualist is exposed to being swept along in the powerful dualist tide.   The popular dualist quest to quickly identify and ‘call a spade a spade’ trumps all possibility of a non-dualist engaging that constitutes a continuing cosmic fetalization.

Western dualist medical science makes use of the ‘category’ to set up the notion of a ‘pathogen’ similar to the manner in which Western dualist politicians make use of ‘category’ to set up the notion of a ‘terrorist’.  In a collective dynamic that is experiencing a condition of imbalance and relational tensions that manifest in eruptions of violence, the strand in the relational web that ‘breaks’ and ‘loses it’ becomes, in the dualist culture,  the scapegoat for the entire collective; i.e. rather than acknowledge that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a terrorist’, … dualism reaffirms the ‘independent being’ status of all individuals, and their full and sole responsibility for their actions.  Rather than acknowledging the community’s responsibility for the cultivating of relational tensions that ‘vent’ through particular individuals, the individual is convicted of being the ‘guilty party’ while the principle of “innocent until proven guilty’ is there to protect the community collective and allow them to cultivate and sustain IMBALANCE, with impunity, as those ‘vents’ are identified as local fountainheads of the disturbance.

In spite of appeals by medical researchers such as Antoine Béchamp, acknowledged and supported by Louis Pasteur on his deathbed, that ‘le terrain est tout, le microbe n’est rien’, … Western medical experts are ‘hanging judges’ in their beady-eyed investigations into the human microbiome where they encounter imbalances aka ‘illness’ in humans.  Imbalance that ‘vents’ through a proliferation of one or a few of the participants in the microbiome, is interpreted by the same line of dualist thinking used in Western politics;  i.e. the individual/s through whom the relational tensions of imbalance vent and become manifest, is/are held fully and SOLELY accountable, so that the real underlying source (relational imbalance) is never addressed.  The transparency or thin veiling of the situation; i.e. where those making judgements of who is guilty ostensibly on behalf of a collective that is anything but ‘innocent’, …  tends to increase the very relational tensions and imbalances that are the deeper source of the ‘ventings’, giving rise to a vicious circle that can lead to total collapse of the relational dynamic.

E.g. the illness that manifests through c. difficile as a result of imbalance in digestive tract flora [imbalance due to the administering of an anti-biotic] is exacerbated by the further administering of anti-biotics aimed at eliminating c.difficile since the proliferation of c. difficile arises from a deficiency of needed bacteria, resolution of which is hindered rather than helped by the successive administering of anti-biotics.  This vicious circle continues to be cultivated by Western medical practice, resulting in many thousands of unnecessary and easily avoided deaths annually, as is underscored by the near 100% success rate where FMT digestive tract flora balance restoring techniques are employed [this happens only in a small but growing minority of cases].

The prospects for developing relational re-balancing techniques in the Western dualist socio-political scene are more remote since ‘productivity imbalances’ are perceived through ‘categories’ where, for example, colonized peoples experience ambient conditions set up by the colonizers precisely so they will not actualize the former’s creative potentials, while the depressed productivity becomes seen and recorded as a ‘common defining property’ of the category,  ‘indigenous aboriginal’.   In the Western dualist view of the colonizing people’s culture, their continuing dominating presence in the common living space is seen as having nothing to do with the inferior productivity of the colonized peoples.  This disassociation arises from the belief that the sole determinant of individual productivity is the individual’s internal processes.  This is consistent with the view of a human as an independently existing material system with internal process driven and directed behaviour that resides, operates and interacts in a habitat that is notionally independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.   There is no sign here of the non-dualist outside-inward relational-situational inductive influence that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the individual’s creative potentials.

This dualist view that we are each, as individual humans and as individual nations, fully and solely responsible for the productive or destructive results of our own actions, obscures the physical reality of our actual experience wherein our actions are conditioning the relational dynamics of the common living space we are situationally included in, which orchestrates and actualizes our creative potentials.  As we know from personal experience, the relational dynamics we find ourselves situationally included in can be very nurturing in their actualizing of our creative potentials, or it can be sterile and non-nurturing.   While our ego may prefer to lay claim to our superior productive performance as being fully and solely attributable to ourselves, the physical reality is that situational accommodating actualizes creative potentials and not the other way around.

That is, the intention-driven actions of ‘subject-things-in-themselves’ notionally equipped with jumpstart behaviour-authoring powers do NOT determine results.  That occurs only in ‘semantic reality’ and never in the ‘physical reality’ of our actual, natural experience which transpires in a transforming relational continuum.  Pathogens regarded as jumpstart authors of injury are a semantic invention laid upon those participants in an interdependent relational web who become the venting points of relational tensions.  The hurricane and the volcano are participants in an interdependent relational web that vent the release of buildups of tension in the relational dynamics they are included in.   They are not the local author-producers of winds and magma flows as subject-verb-predicate grammar presents them; i.e. ‘le pathogène n’est rien, le terrain est tout’.

* * *

 APPENDIX II: Languages, Categories and Dual/Non-Dual Understanding


Western dualism uses noun-and-verb structures to notionally split the subject out of the relational continuum and reconstructs actions as if they were force-driven and directed in the case of material objects and intention-driven and directed in the case of humans and biological forms [FIDDD -Force/Intention Driven and Directed Development].  This gives the subject the appearance of ‘independence’ by providing a notional backdrop of absolute space [emptiness] and absolute time that serves as a measurement reference frame against which the subject’s changing form and movements can be pictured and measured.

Non-dualism acknowledges the orchestrating role of the transforming relational continuum, not only in shaping individual and collective behaviours, but in inductively creating relational forms from latent potentials [SIFCP – Situationally-Induced Fetalization of Creative Potentials]

Our natural, physical [real-world] experience is that we are inextricably, situationally included in ‘fields of influence’ (gravity, electromagnetic/thermal) which inductively (outside-inwardly) influence our development and behaviour.  The term ‘fetalization’ is used to convey how experiences can continue to modify and shape what has already been modified and shaped, like the form of a Monterray Cyprus on the windswept California coast.  On the other hand, the Cypress in the greenhouse does not undergo such wild fetalization and could be shaped and even braided by the gardner’s hand.   This accumulating of experiences that gives particularity to relational forms; i.e. an ‘SIFCP work in progress’, is Schroedinger’s view of our human ‘self’.

We can bring witness, from our own life experience, that as we move from one city to another, and from one culture to another, we are situationally included in new and different social protocols and physical circumstances that contribute to our ‘situationally-induced-fetalizing’.  Even if we were to try to reject all ‘alien’ influence, by being included in it, and thus having to reject it, it would nevertheless give particularity to our fetalizing that is situationally induced.  If we were to ‘change genders’, we would sensitively adapt to the social protocols and behavioural nuances of the new gender, allowing the new shape to reshape our ongoing fetalization, since our experience informs us that total plasticity is impossible, and the accruing and depositing of experiences-on-experiences, as with the Monterrey Cyprus [and the depositional layering of the earth], is the natural way that the physical reality unfolds, in a continual becoming.

Languages, categories and science come into play here in regard to their interplay with situationally induced and intention-driven change.  In order to bring out the nuances of this interplay, a topic of current controversy, ‘rape’ or ‘rape culture’ provides an uncomfortable perhaps, but informative example of how language shapes our worldview.  The general point is that the creation of ‘categories’ of things and ‘categories of actions of things’ is problematic [it comes from noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar].

In the relational language of non-dual people/cultures, there is no grammatical ‘subject’ therefore there is only ‘raping’ as a verb and neither ‘rape’ nor ‘rapist’ as nouns that signify a category of activity or ‘deed’.  The aphorism “It takes a whole community to raise a child [terrorist, rapist etc.]” alludes to the relational situational origins of all ‘dynamic forms’, or, one might say, ‘cosmic fetalizations’ or Monterrey Cypress fetalizations (on the windswept coast or in the greenhouse).  The imagery here is of the dynamic form in its continual becoming as a complex of relations within a transforming relational continuum, rather than a thing-in-itself that is a subject directing its own development and behaviour.

Raping, in this non-dualist view of dynamic phenomena, would be an eruption of violence associated with a breakdown in relations, similar to ‘terrorism’; i.e. the violent energy would derive from relational tensions which were normally ‘dealt with’; i.e. the individuals were up to that point holding on to the tensions and keeping things in balance, and then reaching a point where ‘they lost it’ and like a spring which had been under tension, vented their tensions in a violent episode.

The point here is that in a relational language architecture, there is no ‘subject’ and no ‘category’, thus there is no ‘rapist’ and there is no ‘rape’, … there is only ‘raping’ which is the eruption of violence associated with the breakdown of relations as in natural phenomena such as earthquakes, avalanches, tsunamis etc. where relations under tension undergo reconfiguration in the direction of unloading the tensions which associates with the violent release of energy.   Rather than being a jumpstart action of a thing-on-itself-own, it is a violent ‘venting’ of energy in a tensioned relational complex.

In the case of insurgency and/or terrorism rather than raping, those for whom the relational tensions are most intense, are likely to be the ones to ‘snap’ and while, in culture with relational language, this ‘snapping’ would be in terms of “it takes a whole community to raise an insurgent/terrorist”, … in a Western noun-and-verb grammar depiction, the insurgent/terrorist will be held fully and solely responsible for ‘his own actions and their results’.

Rape, Insurgency/rebellion and Terrorism will be regarded differently depending on language architecture and culture.

FIDDD – Force/Intention Driven and Directed Development [dynamics in dualist terms]

SIFCP – Situationally-Induced Fetalization of Creative Potentials [dynamics in non-dualist terms]

In the SIFCP view of the relational language and culture’s non-dualist viewpoint [we are all capable of this viewpoint even though our Western culture has institutionalized the FIDDD dualist view], the threshold limit pertaining to the ‘holding on to sexual tensions’ relates to (a) intensity of relational tensions: to what extent the female body is covered/revealed and the extent that the female is open to erotic and suggestive talk movements and touch, and (b) strength of holding on to the tensions: the imbibing of alcohol is know to lower the threshold at which violence erupts.  Alcohol removes the normal sensitivity to the welfare of others and gives a devil-may-care attitude [e.g. driving dangerously at high speeds, unlike with cannabis] that lowers the threshold of ‘holding relational tensions in balance’.

Experience informs us that the incidence of ‘raping’ varies with (a) and (b) and it is no accident that some cultures prefer that women’s clothing be ‘less revealing’, their discussion and movements less open to erotic suggestion, and their person less open to physical touch that may bring on male arousal.  The preference for avoiding alcohol in mixed gender gatherings is also  a cultural option that recognizes how thresholds of ‘holding on to relational social tensions’ can be lowered by drug usage.

Patterns of social relations wherein familiarity slowly builds along with intimacy and loosening of restraint so that there is a progressive rise in relational [sexual] tensions to the point where the ‘holding on to the tensions’ may collapse, unleashing an eruption of violence.

In noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language and grammar, action is conveyed by subject-verb constructs and Western science makes use of the simplifying assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’, so as to be able to use the FIDDD – Force/Intention Driven and Directed Development, portrait of dynamics [which implies absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference framing to separate figures from ground or inhabitant from habitat as in the ‘dualist’ cultural convention].

Regardless of the physical reality of our actual experience, as suggested by SIFCP – Situationally-Induced Fetalization of Creative Potentials, noun-and-verb language allows us to ‘subjectize’ the relational dynamic, ‘raping’, as ‘rape’; i.e. to convert it into a notional standalone ‘deed’ as explained within a ‘doer-deed’ event, imputing ‘intention’ to the doer and thus transforming the same dynamic into an FIDDD – Force/Intention Driven and Directed Development event.  As Nietzsche points out, this reductive transposing of situationally induced dynamics to, notionally, intention-driven dynamics, is a ‘great stupidity’ and ‘a dangerous concept’;

“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?”  … “Cause and effect–a dangerous concept so long as one thinks of something that causes and something upon which an effect is produced” —Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’

Not only does the subject and predicate architecture of language misrepresent the physical nature of dynamics, it implies God-like jumpstart authorship powers to the subject, as relate to ‘ego’, ‘being’ and ‘will’.  As Nietzsche further says, language allows us to repackage dynamics so as to make it appear as if they originate from the subject;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

In the foundations of science itself, we have incorporated the assumption, as mentioned a moment ago, that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’, in which case THERE CAN BE, IN SCIENCE, no acknowledgement of the situationally induced fetalization as in SIFCP;

“… Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection 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 law of Newton.” — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”

If we reflect on the points made in the above page or so of text in this Appendix II, we see two very different visions of the same phenomenon.

1.  In the relational view, we see ‘raping’ [or ‘terrorism’ or ‘insurrection’] as a break-down of relational bindings within a community [relational social matrix].   This breakdown involves a ‘venting’ of energy; i.e. an eruption of violence that is like the snapping of a stretched spring that has been stretched beyond its limit; i.e. a situationally induced phenomenon.

2. In the Western scientific subject-and-predicate [cause and effect] view, we see the same dynamic in doer-and-deed, cause-and-effect terms.  This is achieved by language, by imputing independent being to the participant in the relational matrix who has ‘lost it’, and he is portrayed as the source of the violence in the eruption.  Here, we have the ‘rapist’ and ‘rape’ construction.  This is like the pathogen construction in Western medicine which fails to acknowledge the deeper source of illness, the falling out of balance of the relational system.  The problem is thus presented in terms of pathological cause and the solution is seen in terms of eliminating the pathogens.

In Nietzschean philosophy, the ‘rapist’ would be seen as a ‘spook’ or ‘phantom’ that appears in the centre of the storm.  Even though storm-cell is stirred up by the relational flow-dynamic it is included in, subject and predicate language has us attributing the authorship of the action to the noun ‘storm’.  It is not that ‘the storm blows with great ferocity’, … but instead, ‘the fierce blowing IS the storm’.

Because our language encourages us to invent authors where there are none; i.e. where phenomena have a relational source, we invent ‘spooks’ to serve as authors so as to satisfy our psychological requirement concerning ‘ego’ and ‘being’ as in Nietzsche’s above comment; [“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, …]

‘The storm blows’ is what our language leaves us with, in our mental model [not the relational language using peoples, but Western people].  The storm we are looking at is the venting of relational tensions which have reached an unsustainable level.  To make it into the local author of its own actions is to deny its real situation-induced fetalization, yet we do so by use of a double error where we create a spook subject and endow it with verb-powered action;

“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

Once we have turned ‘raping’ into a noun ‘rape’ and we have created a spook, ‘the rapist’ as the jumpstart author of ‘rape’, the ‘doer-of-the-deed, as with insurgents and terrorists, the solution to the problem of the eruptions of violence becomes one of smoking out and neutralizing these ‘pathogens’ [rapists, insurgents, terrorists].

Since the relational language based culture responds directly to imbalances in the relational social dynamic and its associated relational tensions and eruptions of violence, there is no breakdown into a long list of doer-deed behaviours with associated policies and punishments.  These ‘do not exist’, they are ‘spooks’ that are abstract substitutes for situation-induced fetalizations.  Therefore, there is no ‘rape policy’ and there is no need to ascertain whether a series of events constitutes ‘rape’ or does not constitute ‘rape’. [i.e. in that rape is the special case wherein the very same set of actions could in one case be socially acceptable and in another case, ‘criminal’, … the difference pivoting from whether both parties are willing participants].

Relational social Imbalances of all types are addressed through restorative justice processes which orient to the restoring, cultivating and sustaining of balance and harmony in the relational/social dynamic.

Because there are no ‘spooks’ [witches] or ‘pathogens’ such as ‘rapists’, ‘insurgents’ and ‘terrorists’, there are no ‘witchhunts’ aimed at smoking out ‘rapists’, ‘insurgents’ and ‘terrorists’.  These are the artefacts of subject and predicate grammar. They do not exist.  The community includes all participants within its interdependent relational matrix, including those that ‘can’t hold it together’ and who ‘lose it’ and the community and all of its members bears responsibility for resolving the eruptions of dissonance sourced by and within the relational social matrix.

In other words the dualist FIDDDs are subject-and-predicate ‘semantic realities that do not exist.  They are simply “schaumkommen”, “appearances” (apparitions) that serve as placeholders for non-dualist SIFCPs

FIDDD – Force/Intention Driven and Directed Developments  [dualist]

SIFCP – Situationally-Induced Fetalization of Creative Potentials [non-dualist]


Situationally-induced fetalization of creative potentials implies that the subject’s presence is only definable in terms of its relations with the world in which it is situationally included, which makes it a timeless relational form.

In Nishitani’s analysis, an entity such as the self s presence is only definable in negative terms. What straightforwardly appears as the object X is only the difference between itself and the total field. Similarly, the `field’ is itself only its difference from the object X. Nishitani’s thinking thus resonates with Saussure’s (1974) account of how the meaning of an individual word is attained and with Derrida’s (1976) insistence that identity and `presence’ are outcomes of djfférance . Hence, just as meaning in the Derridean sense never `arrives’, Nishitani’s being never arrives either. Bryson (1988) illustrates this through the example of the seed-flower constellation.

     `The form of the seed is already turning into the form of the flower, and the flower is already becoming dust. The present state of the object appearing as the flower is inhabited by its past as seed and its future as dust, in a continuous motion of postponement, whose effect is that the flower is never presently there, any more than seed or dust’ —  Bryson, N. (1988), `The Gaze in the Expanded Field’

It is convenient and it delivers great ‘economy of thought’ [Mach] to connote, with a single word, an ‘ceaseless process of deferral’, however, it fills our ‘semantic reality’ with ‘spooks’ that are evidently having a heyday at haunting us; i.e. we are haunting ourselves with our mistaken confusing of subject-and-predicate ‘semantic reality’ for the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.

Finally, what we observe in the evolution of an Oasis community is the continuous gathering and deposition of layers of experience, each new layer shaping the earlier layers in the situationally induced unfolding/infolding fetalization.  The Oasis community is like the Monterrey Cypress on the windswept coast, it is NOT the result of Force/Intention driven and Directed Development.   With the advent of strong-willed, control-minded leaders and government backed by military forces, the people and the community may begin to approximate a greenhouse-grown version of the Cypress, but it will never happen that FIDDD will be able to usurp the natural precedence of SIFCP.   Subject will never get the upper hand on object because “subject and object are one”

Meanwhile, the degree to which the ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ split has psychologically intensified in Western society, in cases of ‘rape’, ‘insurgency’ and ‘terrorism’, .. is testimony to the power of the word in promoting the ego-based abstract notion of ‘independent being’ and convincing us [falsely] of the reality, power and righteousness of our own self-centre-driven ‘will’.  Our dualist grammar has been making us Westerners into God, the subject that commands all objects.  We are becoming the ghost of our departed mother, Nature, raising ourselves, in our own minds, to super-natural heights.