SORCERY versus TRANSFORMATION  (LOCALITY versus NONLOCALITY)

WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is characterized by giving the abstract concept of LOCAL SORCERY a foundational role in the intellectual (language and grammar based) construction of reality.  ‘SORCERY’, the notional ‘double-error’ concept of ‘local’ ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments as in the common WESTERN CULTURE ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT concept, is the intellectual concept that is used, in WESTERN CULTURE, to articulate and understand the social dynamic.   The ‘double error’ used to create the notion of ‘sorcery’ is; (first error) NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself existence to VISION-ACCESSIBLE relational forms ‘out there in front of us’, conflating this with (second error) GRAMMAR to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the LOCAL NAMING-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF.  Thus, for example, the visual appearance of LOCAL plant sprouts ‘pushing up and out of the ground’ in spring is THUS captured in language and grammar within such double error based representation that substitutes the effable psychological-intellectual impression of LOCAL SOURCING, in place of the actual ineffable NONLOCAL Wave-field based transformation.

THE VISUAL SENSING of FORMS (as in TRANSFORMATION) REDUCED TO EFFABLE EXPRESSION with LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR allows us to employ intellectual DOUBLE ERROR based constructions of REALITY in terms of LOCAL SORCERY.  While our sensory experience is of inclusion in relational fluid-turbulence that, for example, features a water-spout or ‘twister’ out there in front of us (the VOYEUR-VISIBLE ASPECT OF THE RELATIONAL PHENOMENA WE ARE IMMERSED IN), we are able to intellectually SPLIT OUT the visible aspect ‘on its own’ and by name-labelling forms; e.g. Katrina, and animating them (intellectually-conceptually) with grammar, we construct a FUNDAMENTALLY REDUCED pseudo-reality based on binary FIGURE AND GROUND dynamics; i.e. ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger and is devastating New Orleans’.

In our intellectual engineering of this language and grammar VOYEUR VISUALIZATION based DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION, we DROP OUT the understanding coming with our fullblown SENSORY EXPERIENCE of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  REALITY, on this basis of VOYEUR VISUALIZING and double error reduction to terms of things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments is REDUCED to ‘something going on out there’ that is sensed ‘in here’, SPLITTING ‘self’ and ‘other’ into two mutually exclusive realms, AS FAR THE INTELLECT GOES, BUT AS FAR AS OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE GOES, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE STILL “ONE”.

The subject-object split, meanwhile REDUCES the ineffable Tao to something ‘effable’ such as our voyeur visualizing of flow, the flow-forms in which we can intellectually ‘trap’ and intellectually ‘label’ (NAME) and intellectually ‘animate’ with GRAMMAR, creating in the intellectualizing mind, an synthetic double-error based pseudo-reality BASED ON LOCAL SORCERY, REDUCED FROM NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

This reduction from NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION to LOCAL SORCERY renders that which is ineffable in REDUCED but ‘effable’ terms.  The double error tool of reduction, meanwhile (as pointed out by Emerson and Nietzsche), has in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.

IN SIMPLE TERMS, ‘SORCERY’ HAS USURPED ‘TRANSFORMATION’ in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT conceptualizing of REALITY.

This REDUCTION from TRANSFORMATION to SORCERY employed not just as a tool of inference but as THE OPERATIVE REALITY has become the WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKING ‘NORMAL’ as R.D. Laing and others have pointed out.

* * *

EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE is characterized by acknowledging RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, NOT SORCERY, as the nature of the reality dynamic.  Since this relational transformation is the overall (all-inclusive) ‘reality’, aka the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’, that we can’t voyeur-visualize since we are included in this continuing transformation, it is ineffable; i.e. we can’t do our WESTERN CULTURE voyeur visualization based capturing and naming and pointing to forms as ‘things-out there’ since the Tao is continual transformation that we and everything are included in.

It is not that EASTERN CULTURE does NOT use language and grammar based on voyeur visual imagery that can be reduced to intellectual ‘double error’ based constructs of (first error) NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves, conflated with (second error) grammar-given powers of sourcing actions and developments, ‘THE STUFF THAT SORCERY IS MADE FROM’, since EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are intellectually equipped just as WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are, to use visualization to reduce our fullblown sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao, to abstract double error based terms.

So, BOTH EAST AND WEST have the intellectual capacity for REDUCING relational TRANSFORMATION (which is ineffable) to DOUBLE ERROR BASED SORCERY (which is effable).  IN THE CASE OF THE EAST, HOWEVER, … ‘THE TOOL HAS NOT RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, …. I.E. THE HUMAN HAS NOT RUN AWAY WITH THE DIVINE’.

In plain terms, it is possible, with the intellectual tool of language and grammar, and bypass our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao and focus on our voyeur visualizing of forms that are ‘out there in front of us.  If we were whales or creatures with visual sensors on both sides of our head instead of on one side, perhaps we could visualize inclusionally, rather than in a flatspace voyeur sense, but flatspace voyeur visualizing is what we humans are physically constrained to AS FAR AS VISUAL SENSING GOES, however, we are capable of sensory experience of inclusion, but in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, that has gotten ‘pushed into backroom storage’ perhaps due to Gutenberg’s printing press, filmography, television etc.

In any case, VISUAL INFORMING has hijacked PRIORITY OF INFORMING that we WESTERN  CULTURE ADHERENTS are using to fuel our understanding or reality.  THUS, instead of understanding reality in terms of relational transformation, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are left understanding it in terms of SORCERY (the double error  of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (first error) with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error that conflates the first error).

IN WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE, ‘SORCERY’ ECLIPSES TRANSFORMATION

IN EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE AS IN MODERN PHYSICS, ‘TRANSFORMATION’ IS PRIMARY AND ‘SORCERY’ IS A THROW-AWAY TOOL OF INFERENCE.

Wittgenstein’s final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus articulate the use of the effable in INFERRING the ineffable, pointing out that the effable can be no more than senseless inferential prompts that assist the listener in making a leap beyond the effable intellectual constructs to the intuitive understanding of relational transformation that lies innately beyond the reach of effable language and grammar constructs;

 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein

 * * *

SUMMARIZING CONCLUSIONS RE SORCERY VERSUS TRANSFORMATION

FIRST, a useful analogy;

The reader is perhaps familiar with the anecdote within Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ wherein Shylock lends money with a non-repayment penalty that gives Shylock the right to take a pound of flesh from the borrower if he defaults on the repayment. When the loan repayment is not made, Portia, finding the penalty far too onerous, insists that the default payment must be taken exactly as specified OR ELSE;

PORTIA

Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.
Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more
But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut’st more
Or less than a just pound, be it but so much
As makes it light or heavy in the substance,
Or the division of the twentieth part
Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn
But in the estimation of a hair,
Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.

There is an analogy here to Nietzsche’s complaint as to WESTERN CULTURE’s choice of the abstract-absolute over the relational (the absolute of SORCERY over the relational of transformation, as is the basis of ‘reason’).

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have REASON!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “REASON” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

The above Nietzsche quote addresses the deceptiveness of ‘reason’ in philosophy — (Proposition 5 in Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols.  (Götzen-Dämmerung).  In German the sense of Götzen is ‘false Gods’ or ‘Idols’.  The false God of ‘reason’ remains operative in WESTERN culture, occluding ‘intuition’ that is the unredacted path to understanding reality in terms of the transforming relational continuum.

With respect to Portia’s ‘pound of flesh’ related comment, we can compare it to our own addiction to the FALSE EXACTITUDE OF ‘REASON’, … what if we ‘make a deal’ to construct a farm or factory or some other operation in the valley?  Such PRODUCER-PRODUCT ventures are commonly spoken of in WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT SOCIAL DYNAMICS, but THEY ARE “NOT” REAL.

What if the people of the valley and of the surrounding territory were to take the producer at his word, and hold him to the exact terms of his LOCAL producer-product actions and developments?  He didn’t mention his consumption of electricity that adds to the building of dams and generators and the interfering of salmon spawning runs, he didn’t mention his use of sand and gravel for concrete for construction that puts ‘gravel pits’ around the countryside; he didn’t mention his use of trees for lumber whose stumps let wind and fog invade previously protected growth, nor was there mention of steel that puts mine-shafts into the ground in remote areas and requires coal mining for smelters which put smoke and pollution in the atmosphere.  He didn’t mention how his offer of well-paid employment pulled able bodied sons off of family farms, forcing them to sell to land-hungry consortia.

Our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT habit is to describe what is going on (i.e. ‘reality’) in the intellectual terms of SORCERY (producer-product dynamics) but what is going on IN SENSORY-EXPERIENCE REALITY, is TRANSFORMATION.

Why would we, in our understanding of reality, put SORCERY as in ‘producer-product abstraction’, in precedence over TRANSFORMATION?   And if our feet were held to the fire as in the pound-of-flesh contract so that we were held to our net claim of ‘SORCERY’, … to what degree would actual practice depart from ‘SORCERY’ ( i.e. ‘relational transformation’ is one hell of a ‘departure’ from ‘SORCERY’).

As in the case of holding Shylock to his ‘pound of flesh’ contract, should we hold WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT SOCIETY to its ‘producer-product (sorcery) contract?

Does it make sense to talk in producer-product terms of ‘the production of heavy oil?

Reflection informs us that there is no such thing as ‘the production of product’ or the SORCERY of actions and developments.  SORCERY is an intellectual scam born of flatspace abstraction.  To speak of ‘constructing a town’ invokes the abstraction of LOCAL SORCERY which is NOT REALITY. In REALITY, what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION.

THE REALITY of our actual sensory experience is relational transformation.  The concept of ‘production’ is a double error-based JOKE that ‘we’ are playing on ourselves: (by ‘we’, I mean ‘WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS’).  In REALITY, there is only TRANSFORMATION, the ineffable Tao.  Since the Tao is ineffable, we reduce it to effable with the ‘double error’ and in this reduction, NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION is reduced to LOCAL SORCERY, which, so long as we recall that it is an abstract reduction for reducing ineffable to effable , ‘makes sense’.   Not to be forgotten is that this REDUCTION from the sensory-experiential ineffable to an abstract voyeur visualization based effable, is a practical means of rendering a REDUCED intellectual depiction of the ineffable that can, in that form, deliver many benefits coming from sharing, discussing, refining and informing.

WHAT WE ARE SHARING is NOT our sensory experiencing of the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) in which we all share inclusion.  While our sensory experience intuitively taps into such inclusion, this experience is ineffable as in the experiencing of brainwaves such as sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) which are in the 12.5-15.5 Hz. frequency range and distinguishable from the Beta frequency band ( 12-31 Hz.) associated with analytical thinking.

There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that we are capable of ineffable (topological) understanding that can’t be reduced to analytical (geometrical) understanding.  This reality is exploited in neurofeedback applications to give people a ‘handle’ so they can REMOVE THEMSELVES from analytical paralysis as in panic attacks, bouts of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and similar psychological dysfunctions.

THE INEFFABLE (as associates with the intuitive) IS THUS ACCESSIBLE BUT NOT THROUGH OUR INTELLECTUAL Beta waves (12-38 Hz.).

This ‘technical’ detail is included just to point to the historical distinction from Lao Tzu through Kepler and on through Bohm, between EFFABLE analytical (logical) and INEFFABLE intuitive (relational) understanding.  The fact that we have means of understanding that transcend analytical reason is well established, just as the ‘limitation of analytical reason’ is well established; e.g. via Goedel’s theorem of the incompleteness of all finite systems of logic.

“In Reason’ in language.– oh what a deceptive old witch it (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Nietzsche’s reference to God is a reference to the concept of SORCERY (‘jumpstart CREATION’) that is built into language and grammar via the double error based construction of SORCERY wherein we (first error) use NAMING to impute thing-in-itself existence and conflate this with grammar (second error) to impute to the name-instantiated thing in itself, the power of SOURCING actions and developments.

WHERE IS THE ANALOGY WITH SHYLOCK AND HIS POUND OF FLESH AGREEMENT?

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use producer-product talk as if we were talking about ‘reality’, however, it is impossibly exact pseudo-reality just as the ‘pound of flesh’ is impossibly exact pseudo-reality.

Does the farmer produce wheat?  Such talk is abstraction of the same sort as the ‘pound of flesh’ in that it uses simplifying concepts whose EXPLICIT meaning has no correspondence in the ‘reality’ of our actual sensory experience.  That is, there is no such thing as ‘production of wheat’, there is only the transforming relational continuum and it is our visual interpretations wherein we focus here or there and then reduce to language and grammar-based descriptions that deliver such abstract concepts as ‘the production of wheat’.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING!   Both the farmer and the wheat are names for relational developments within the transforming relational continuum.

Statements such as; ‘The city is growing larger and more active’ and/or ‘The watermelons are growing larger and juicier’ are ‘double errors’ of language and grammar that impute LOCAL SORCERY.

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use this double error based LOCAL SORCERY to construct an abstract pseudo-reality that serves as our ‘operative reality’.  That is why Greta Thunberg is worried, because, for those whose understanding of ‘reality’ forms from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, relational forms in the flow such as ourselves are re-cast as name-instantiated things-in-themselves with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  THIS IS DOUBLE ERROR BASED BULLSHIT THAT IS POPULARLY ADOPTED AS THE ‘OPERATIVE REALITY’.

WHO ARE WE, REALLY?  In modern physics, we are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, as also in indigenous aboriginal understanding, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

WHY, THEN, DOES IT SEEM SO CONVINCING THAT WE HUMANS ARE SCREWING UP THE ENVIRONMENT?

Such a statement ‘embodies’ the INHABITANT – HABITAT binary SPLIT; i.e. if subject and object (inhabitant and habitat) ARE ONE, it is impossible to impute BLAME as in SORCERY of destructive actions and developments to a non-existing SUBJECT (SORCERER).

BUT YES, SOMETHING IS AMISS, SO WHAT IS IT IF IT IS NOT INHABITANTS DOING DAMAGE TO THE HABITAT?

We have the option to understand reality in terms of an all-inclusive transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the Wavefield’ which is an innately NONLOCAL dynamic wherein there is no LOCAL SOURCING of anything.  In this case, the FIGURE AND GROUND distinction is understood in terms of the ‘quantum’ BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED MEDIUM, … and NOT, as in the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT intellectual convention, in the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM.

In this case, as Schroedinger, Bohm, Nietzsche and others point out, there is no SPLIT between SUBJECT and OBJECT, FIGURE AND GROUND, INHABITANT AND HABITAT.  The psychological impression of FIGURE AND GROUND splitting derives from putting voyeur visualization in precedence over sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

There is one strong reason for making this mistake, and it that our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is not something which is directly expressible in words (in ‘other words’, it is an ineffable experience).

It is possible to use FIGURE AND GROUND in a manner that implies BOTH TWONESS and ONENESS; for example;

TWONESS: “new continents emerge as sea-floor extrusions from rifts as in the mid-Atlantic, even as older material descends into the earth’s interior in subduction zones.  This can be understood in Cartesian space where the surface of the earth is flat, in terms of additions and subtractions of continents as material objects within ‘something else’.

ONENESS: ”new continents emerge as sea-floor extrusions from rifts as in the mid-Atlantic, even as older material descends into the earth’s interior in subduction zones.   This can be understood in spherical space as purely relational ‘transformation’.

The words describing what is going on are identical in both cases, and the listener is free to understand this phenomenon (A) in terms of ‘continents’ (things-in-themselves) that ‘outwell’ and ‘subduct into ‘something else’, and/or (B) in terms of purely relational transformation.

NOTE THAT: standard language and grammar supports TWONESS and if one PSYCHOLOGICALLY chooses the ONENESS understanding of this phenomenon, this must be done outside of the literal rendering of the language and grammar.  As Wittgenstein points out, language cannot go the distance and the understanding-seeker must make the intuitive leap himself.  In other words, ‘words’ cannot ‘go the distance’ to deliver an understanding of FIGURE and GROUND as ONE.  This is the enigma explored in Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne by Mircea Eliade.

 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” — Wittgenstein

In the above, ONENESS is the interpretation of EASTERN  CULTURE ADHERENTS while TWONESS interpretation is the interpretation of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.

There are actually THREE choices in the FIGURE and GROUND dynamic, two implying SORCERY and one implying TRANSFORMATION; i.e. the conservative view that FIGURE sources change in GROUND, the liberal view that GROUND sources change in FIGURE, and, the choice where the FIGURE AND GROUND distinction is how TRANSFORMATION APPEARS, where there is no invoking of SOURCING aka SORCERY.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are so busy taking sides in the conservative-liberal polarization, both factions assuming the legitimacy of SORCERY from the get-go, that we are too committed to the polarizing engagement to back off and see that BOTH ARE WRONG, as in the Zen koan of wind and flag; which one is moving the other?.  The answer is that there is only ONENESS-IN-TRANSFORMATION which APPEARS as TWONESS.  The DUNE and the DESERT FLOOR are ONE.

So, we can return to OUR QUESTION;

BUT YES, SOMETHING IS AMISS, SO WHAT IS IT IF IT IS NOT INHABITANTS DOING DAMAGE TO THE HABITAT?

ANSWER: The impression that INHABITANTS have the power of SORCERY is exemplary of the double error.  The first error is to use NAMING (INHABITANTS) to impute independent thing-in-itself existence to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself and the second error which conflates the first is the error of grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

This double error combination is used in the above proposition of INHABITANTS DOING DAMAGE TO THE HABITAT.

As explained above, the producer product notion wherein WE SAY that humans produce wheat or housing developments or cities etc. is flatspace abstraction.  There is only transformation in the reality of our actual sensory experience, there is no ‘producer product dynamic’.  It is a DOUBLE ERROR, a psychological device for imputing LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT where there is, in reality, only relational transformation.  But since relational transformation is ineffable, a ploy like the DOUBLE ERROR is needed to break the NONLOCALITY down into LOCAL PART as with DUNING (resonance/wave phenomena) to DUNE and mobilizing the LOCAL PART with GRAMMAR so as to conjure up a sorcery based action or development, … an expedient to do an end-run past the ineffability of the transforming relational continuum, … an ‘end-run’ that reduces ineffable-because-NONLOCAL phenomena to notional effable-because LOCAL phenomena.

AS EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS we accept this reduction-to-LOCAL ploy for what it is, an expedient ploy or ‘tool’ to reduce the INEFFABLE-BECAUSE-NONLOCAL phenomenon to EFFABLE-BECAUSE-LOCAL as this reduction is extremely valuable in that it enables INTELLECTUAL SHARING, albeit of a REDUCED representation that merely INFERS the INEFFABLE natural phenomenon. In this EASTERN CULTURE understanding, the REALITY is that FIGURE AND GROUND are really only ONE even though we speak as if FIGURE-AND-GROUND are TWO based on APPEARANCE (e.g. ‘duning’ is resonance [Wave-field] phenomena belonging to the transforming relational continuum that we split into TWO [‘dune’ and ‘desert floor’] based on ‘VOYEUR VISUAL APPEARANCE’.

While this splitting into TWO breaks up the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL into effable-because-LOCAL, …  EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS do not let ‘this effable-izing tool’ of language and grammar hijack the natural primacy of ineffable reality, but employ language-based effable-izing merely as a tool that allows us to make inference to an ineffable reality (the Tao, the Wave-field) that lies innately beyond capture in the LOCAL, effable language-and-grammar based reductive re-presentations.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, accept this ploy of reducing the ineffable-to-effable (the reduction of NONLOCAL to LOCAL) as OUR OPERATIVE REALITY.  In other words, WE accept AS REALITY that FIGURE and GROUND ARE TWO.  When we speak about the visual appearance of LOCAL plant sprouts ‘pushing up and out of the ground’  as in the ‘double error’ representation, we are at the same time intellectually ‘buying in’ to belief in the ‘reality’ of the abstract concept of LOCAL SORCERY.  It is in this sense that Emerson speaks of ‘the (double error) tool running away with the workman, the human with the divine’.  This lies at the origin of Kipling’s observation that ‘EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST and never the twain shall meet”.

WHY IS THIS DIFFERENCE IN UNDERSTANDING NOT MORE OVERTLY VISIBLE?   My experience in shifting my outlook from WESTERN to EASTERN  is that language and grammar based reductive capture and expressing of the NONLOCAL reality of our actual sensory experience remains largely the same.  While I no longer believe, as in the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT psychological ‘normal’, in ‘local sorcery’ with its associated swollen (or deflated) ego and nationalistic pride and producer-product ownership claims, … I am nevertheless continuing to use the same language and grammar delivery as I was ‘before my shift from WESTERN to EASTERN consciousness.  As with the EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENT, the difference in understanding ‘comes into play’ in WHETHER OR NOT ONE MAKES THE JUMP FROM THE EFFABLE TO THE INEFFABLE; I.E. WHETHER ONE INTERPRETS LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR CONSTRUCTS “LITERALLY” (WEST)  AS GIVING US AN EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION OF AN ‘EFFABLE REALITY’ OR WHETHER ONE INTERPRETS LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR CONSTRUCTS “FIGURATIVELY” AS INFERENCE OF AN ‘INEFFABLE REALITY’.

Thus, I continue to use words like ‘dune’ and ‘human’ and ‘hurricane’ within double error based grammar constructs that impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to these name-instantiated notional things-in-themselves.   BUT I NO LONGER CONFUSE THESE DOUBLE ERROR CONSTRUCTS FOR ‘REALITY’.

IN OTHER WORDS, I NOW SEE THEM AS A LOCAL/EFFABLE ‘SHORTHAND’ FOR ALLUDING TO THE NONLOCAL/INEFFABLE.  The double error constructs that create split-apart FIGURE and GROUND (inhabitant and habitat) representations in the intellectualizing mind such as ‘dunes’ or ‘humans’ that ‘move across the desert floor’ DO NOT NEED TO “ECLIPSE” OR “OVER-RIDE” OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (THE TAO) as in the Wave-field phenomena of ‘duning’ and ‘humaning’.  BUT THIS IS WHERE WEST PARTS COMPANY WITH EAST SINCE WEST ‘JUMPS SHIP’ AND ADOPTS THE LOCAL/EFFABLE AS THE PRIMARY AND ONLY ‘REALITY’, an understanding that I can ‘no longer live with’ even though it remains the socially endorsed basis for rewards and recognition and punishment and defamation in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT society.

Living one’s life with an EASTERN CULTURE understanding (NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION BASED REALITY) within a society where the social dynamic is orchestrated by WESTERN CULTURE understanding (LOCAL SORCERY BASED REALITY) gives rise to the ‘Mahavit/Atmavit’ complication of Advaita Vedanta experience discussed by Schroedinger.  Without delving into all of the associated life-experience complications in this essay, it seems worthy of note that ‘the pressures are on’ to continue to conform to the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT social practices based on belief in a LOCAL SORCERY BASED (pseudo-) REALITY.

A ‘taste’ of this ‘lock-in by high switching costs’ can be seen in Henri Laborit’s observations on finding himself in this plight;

We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.  – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Laborit

 

.  * * *