When does an ILLUSION become a DELUSION? … ANSWER: When we employ it as our operative reality.

Nietzsche’s example the “DOUBLE ERROR” of ‘LIGHTNING FLASHES’ and Nishitani’s example of ‘FIRE BURNS’ illustrate how we can use language and grammar to construct representations that ‘BREAK INTO’ the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL dynamics of Wave-field reality (aka ‘the Tao’, aka ‘the transforming relational continuum’).

As David Bohm points out, our sensory experience is of inclusion in THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM (the Wave-field) which is an experience that language can only imply but CANNOT EXPLICITLY CAPTURE since the Wave-field is in flux everywhere-at-the-same-time.

That is, the Wave-field  “IS” TRANSFORMATION which is purely RELATIONAL so  in order to use the reductive tool of language to even approximately capture TRANSFORMATION, we employ language in a REDUCTIVE, DOUBLE ERROR mode,  using notional NAMING-instantiated things-in-themselves with GRAMMAR-instantiated powers of SOURCING actions and developments.  This DOUBLE ERROR mode of language captures EFFABLE-because-LOCAL representations of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL dynamic of TRANSFORMATION.

For example, ’DUNING’ is a resonance phenomenon which is NONLOCAL which our INTELLECT can reduce to LOCAL geometric forms that we call DUNES, opening the way to our INVERTING of the dynamics of REALITY with language and grammar, imputing LOCAL BEING with the word “DUNE” and notionally endowing this intellectually-fabricated abstraction with “ITS” OWN POWERS of movement and development as in the language and grammar construct; ‘The DUNE is growing higher and longer and is shifting towards the ocean’.  This is the DOUBLE ERROR in action; i.e. in its intellectual-representation-conditioning action.

In physical reality there is no ‘DUNE’ as a separate thing-in-itself that can ‘grow’ and ‘move’; i.e. where are the defining limits of ‘the DUNE’?  Where does one DUNE stop and the next DUNE begin?  The lobes of sand in the continuum are NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT rather than LOCAL and EXPLICIT but the DOUBLE ERROR re-renders them in language and grammar stimulated intellectual conceptualization, as LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

The DUNING as NONLOCAL resonance (aka the Wave-field phenomenon) is left behind in the wake of our language and grammar DOUBLE ERROR based reduction to a LOCAL ‘being’ with notional powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.  Once we condition our intellect so that we can intellectually conceive of a lobular form within the DUNING as a LOCAL THING-in-ITSELF with its own GRAMMAR animated powers of SOURCING actions and developments, we can LET GO OF our sensory experience of walking within the shifting relational DUNING continuum wherein DUNES as LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES are no more than abstractions triggered by the word “DUNE”.

If we ‘go back to the language and culture ‘basics’ of REPRESENTATION’, as modern physics has had to do, we see that we need to correct for how our language and grammar breaks everything down into LOCAL EXPLICIT ENTITIES.  As Carlo Rovelli observes in ‘Quantum Reality’;

 In Newtonian and special relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities – particles and fields – what remains is space and time. In general relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of one of the fields, the gravitational field. This implies that physical entities – particles and fields – are not all immersed in space, and moving in time. They do not live on spacetime. They live, so to say, on one another. It is as if we had observed in the ocean many animals living on an island: animals ‘on’ the island. Then we discover that the island itself is in fact a great whale. Not anymore animals on the island, just animals on animals. Similarly, the universe is not made by fields on spacetime; it is made by fields on fields.”   — Carlo Rovelli, in ‘Quantum Gravity’

In other words, language that speaks of DUNES on the DESERT is a language and grammar based intellectual-conceptual REDUCTION that ‘covers up something else; i.e. not anymore DUNES on the DESERT, just relational forms on relational forms (“relativity”).


BUT, … ONCE WE FLIP OVER INTO THE INTELLECTUALLY REDUCED REALITY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR CONSTRUCTIONS, the SENSORY reality of our experience of inclusion in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka the Wave-field aka the Tao, is left behind.  At what point do we pass from DUNE X-37 to DUNE X-38? i.e. from one NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself to another NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself?  Should we even rely on NAMING in a world that is relationally transforming?  As Shroedinger pointed out in ‘What is Life?’, “Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys.”

At what point do we ‘let go of’ the EXPLICIT-izing and LOCA-izing POWER of NAMING?.  What is POLAND? Should it be a POLANDING, a relational resonance developing as with DUNING?  How much transformation must occur before a ‘forming’ within the general TRANSFORMING merits a change in NAMING?  eg. ‘The Changing Borders of Poland’

How legitimate is it to speak of POLAND as the LOCAL authoring SOURCE of actions and developments (how legitimate is to employ the DOUBLE ERROR representation of POLAND) when the LEAST INCONSISTENT attribute we can associate with POLAND is a continual, NONLOCALLY evolving language?   How can we use the word ‘POLAND’ so confidently, and, likewise, how can we use the word ‘DUNE’ so confidently as things continually blow into and out of it?

Ok, we know that everything is in flux (we are included within a transforming relational continuum) and that this reality is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE so that it is EXPEDIENT to employ the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to deliver something by way of abstraction that is LOCAL and EFFABLE…. AS AN EXPEDIENT TOOL TO ENABLE SHARING OF EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE INEFFABLE.  But to let the tool run away with the workman, the human (EFFBLE) with the divine (INEFFABLE) is what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS  are doing which is a TRAP that EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS and modern physics HAS NOT FALLEN INTO.

Opening the door to the language and grammar stimulated intellection reduction of TRANSFORMATION that is NONLOCAL-and-thus-INEFFABLE, to the abstract intellectual conceptualizations we know as PRODUCTION-and-CONSUMPTION (‘creation-and-destruction’), while it delivers a means of CONTRIVING a crude-but-EFFABLE reduction of the INEFFABLE, has lead to its usage in the EAST as an tool of EFFABLE inference of the INEFFABLE, but to usage in the WEST as a fullblown replacement of the INEFFABLE.

What results is that we have delivered to ourselves, THREE different understandings of REALITY.


Navigating Across the THREE REALITIES


The EXPLICIT reality is the one we describe with DOUBLE ERROR based language and grammar; e.g. FIRE BURNS type constructs that impute LOCAL SOURCING

the IMPLICIT reality is TRANSFORMATION aka ‘the Tao’, the all-including transforming relational continuum. It is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE and it is the PHYSICAL reality.

The EXPLICIT reality comes in two variants both of which portray FIGURE and GROUND are TWO;

EXPLICIT-conservative wherein representations are constructed wherein the dynamics of the FIGURE SOURCES the dynamics of the GROUND. … and,

EXPLICIT-liberal wherein representations are constructed wherein the dynamics of the GROUND source the dynamics of the FIGURE.

IMPLICIT reality: – FIGURE and GROUND are ONE as in a persisting whirlpool or hologram where FIGURE is a kind of mottling of the fluid-dynamical GROUND.

An individual thus has THREE ways of understanding reality based on which of these interpretive approaches he employs; e.g.

– REALITY 3 – the conservative can see the ATMOSPHERIC FLOW (social collective) as a suffocating wet blanket that the HURRICANE must rise up through to source its standout actions and development, as in; “it is the man that sources the making of the times’ (and NOT ‘it is the times that source the making of the man’).

– REALITY 2 – the liberal can see the HURRICANE as a selfish dissident that is disruptive to the harmonies of the ATMOSPHERIC FLOW.  The liberal feels as if it takes a whole community to source the raising of a child”; i.e. that “it is the times that source the making of the man”.

NOTE: Both – REALITY 3 – and – REALITY 2 –  are different ways of perceiving the ‘structure of reality’ and they lead to conflicting understandings of the same phenomena.  In addition, both of these ‘views of reality’ assume that LOCAL SOURCING is a REAL phenomenon.  IT IS NOT!  As Nietzsche points out, LOCAL SOURCING derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  The FIRST ERROR is NAMING to impute notional ‘thing-in-itself’ BEING, and this is conflated with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR that imputes to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself, its own LOCAL powers of SOURCING actions and developments. LOCAL SOURCING is an UNREAL, ABSTRACT CONCEPT that derives from the DOUBLE ERROR, yet this BOGUS CONCEPT is in common use in our language and grammar, and for good reason, since the REALITY we experience is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL and the DOUBLE ERROR is what we use to render the our articulation of REALITY EFFABLE-because-LOCAL.

-REALITY 1- Modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta understand reality as the Wave-field; i.e. the transforming relational continuum; i.e. TRANSFORMATION.  There is no “LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments” associated with TRANSFORMATION since TRANSFORMATION is entirely relational.  Meanwhile, Wavefield TRANSFORMATION is INEFFABLE since EVERYTHING-IS-IN-FLUX.

Language can serve as no more than a platform for launching an INTUITIVE LEAP to the INEFFABLE – REALITY 1 -.  This is where Bootstrapping and the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ enter into modern physics.  Since everything is relational in the Wave-field understanding of reality, ‘NAMING’ can’t be used in its normal manner where it invokes the abstract concept of the existence of a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF.  TRANSFORMATION is a resonance phenomenon that is purely relational and NONLOCAL as in DUNING.  It is nevertheless possible to REDUCE this NONLOCAL phenomenon of resonance-based TRANSFORMATION to a pseudo-LOCAL and thus EFFABLE language-based surrogate by way of the DOUBLE ERROR which substitutes FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (DUNE and DESERT) for FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (the resonance phenomenon of DUNING).


The reason for the conservative – liberal polarized opposition is that there is a basic ambiguity that arises in both – REALITY 3 – and – REALITY 2 – that associates with ‘insufficient dimensionality’ in the concept of the FIGURE and GROUND as TWO split. For example; does the hurricane source the flow or does the flow source the hurricane.  Should we speak in terms of ‘continental drift’ or ‘seafloor spreading’?  Which is the source? … or is the problem that we started off by NAMING these two things ‘continent’ and ‘seafloor’ and imputed grammar -given self-SOURCING actions to them both?  (by way of the DOUBLE ERROR).  If we understand this as TRANSFORMATION where FIGURE and GROUND are ONE, then we don’t have the ambiguity problem, but then the INEFFABLE reappears when the LOCAL SOURCING drops out.  … since everything is in a NONLOCAL flux.

Relational resonance as in DUNING has no clear LOCAL start or finish, … NOT in space NOR in TIME.  In fact, the concept of LOCAL in SPACE and LOCAL in TIME is abstraction that is not supported in the reality of our sensual experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION (aka ‘the Wave-field’ aka ‘the transforming spacetime continuum’).  Only when we use language and grammar to break apart resonance as in DUNING wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE, … into the mechanics of DUNE and DESERT where FIGURE and GROUND are TWO do we generate the abstract concepts of ABSOLUTE SPACE and ABSOLUTE TIME.

The FIGUE-and-GROUND-as-TWO split-up brings with it the BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS noted in Presocratic philosophy wherein, once we break the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE of TRANSFORMATION apart into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as TWO (i.e. as with the DOUBLE ERROR abstractions of INHABITANT and HABITAT), we create for ourselves a language and grammar management overhead that is termed ‘the BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS.  This can be quite demanding and confusing as well; e.g. trying to ‘articulate’ and ‘document’ the development of DUNE-X-37 and/or the development of POLAND when it is only language and grammar that is EXPLICIT-izing that which is inherently IMPLICIT-because-RELATIONAL.  Sure we can plant a flag with DUNE X-37 on it  on a resonance feature even in a sandstorm and we can fly the flag of POLAND on all the GATES ‘giving access’ to an imaginary-line-bounded FIGURE that is purportedly EXPLICIT and is the FIGURE part of a purported FIGURE and GROUND as TWO geometric, although if the natural animals of the forest could have a say, … they would argue that those WESTERN humans are in error because FIGURE and GROUND, SUBJECT (observer) and OBJECT (observed), are only ONE.

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger

 It is useful for sharing (an effable reduction of) our experience, to have language that can reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL, and as it turns out, this comes by way of an abstract splitting of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE (TRANSFORMATION) into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO (PRODUCTION-and-CONSUMPTION, aka, BIRTH and DEATH).  We might ask ourselves whether ‘the GROWTH’ of cultivated lands and ‘the SHRINKAGE’ of Wilderness area, REALLY ARE TWO as in FIGURE and GROUND-as-TWO, … or whether the reality is instead TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

For us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS who blindly push forward investing in GROWTH of cities and towns and production facilities, as if ‘GROWTH’ were something ‘REAL’ as it would appear to be in a FLAT SPACE of infinite extent, these DOUBLE ERROR language and grammar constructions put us on a CRAZY-MAKING journey.  The reality of our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’, as is acknowledged by modern physics and by EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS.

GROWTH and SHRINKAGE are FLATSPACE concepts limited by their ambiguous binary construction as in the land-and-sea dichotomy; … when the land area GROWS, the ocean area reciprocally SHRINKS and vice versa.  We need to bring in the sky as the third partner with land and sea.  But if we do, because of the limitations of language, we run into a snag in that we have to back off of the EXPLICIT which can’t handle the ‘three body problem’ and re-ground in the IMPLICIT;

 “An exact solution for three bodies, exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind” – Isaac Newton

Our WESTERN CULTURE penchant for the EXPLICIT has held us back to talking in terms of continents drifting and its ambiguity with seafloor spreading.  This comes from the same language and grammar based ambiguity that splits WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into those of a conservative versus liberal bent.  Which polarity of the FIGURE and GROUND as TWO bipolar thinking do WE PREFER? … the masculine-assertive figure pushing into ground or the female-receptive ground opening up to accommodate figure?  DO CONTINENTS DRIFT OR DO SEAFLOORS SPREAD?  Evidently, this FLATSPACE conundrum needs one more dimension, not just ‘land and sea’ but ‘land and sea and sky’.

BUT GUESS WHAT!  This ‘three body problem’ is something that we can only deal with by DROPPING THE EFFABLE-EXPLICIT because LOCAL (the ‘rational’) and embracing the INEFFABLE-IMPLICIT-because-NONLOCAL (the ‘intuitive’).  Modern physics has accepted the primacy of the IMPLICIT over the EXPLICIT, as have the EASTERN cultures of indigenous aboriginals, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, while our WESTERN CULTURE continues to cling to the unnatural promoting of the EXPLICIT over the IMPLICIT.

A ‘STUCK’ situation has developed among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS that is explained by the nonlinear dynamic of “LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS”, … as associate with belief in LOCAL SOURCING which has not only resulted in synthetically inflated EGOs and the according of ADMIRATION and HERO status, as well as, on the binary logical opposite of the CREATION/DESTRUCTION bipolarity, SHAME and CRIMINALIZATION,

This ‘LOCK-IN by HIGH SWITCHING COSTS’ has been a steadily strengthening LOCK-IN in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERING social dynamic as Henri Laborit pointed out in his philosophical treatise ‘La Nouvelle Grille’ (the New Framework);

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

Evidently, then, Surmounting the Delusion of Local Sourcing of Action/Development is running ‘head-on’ into the problem of EGO as is inflated by the belief in the EXPLICIT dynamic of LOCAL SOURCING that is holding our INTUITION of relational TRANSFORMATION at bey.  By the same token, the DOUBLE ERROR reduction of TRANSFORMATION to the EXPLICIT terms of FIGURE and GROUND as TWO is supported by this need to simplify the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL.  This substitution, which features the unnatural elevating of the EXPLICIT into precedence over the IMPLICIT is locked into place by our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT, sorcery-based emotion of EGO which is in turn supported by language and grammar stimulated RATIONAL thinking.

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.

 * * *