A team with an abundance of creative and operational talents were responsible for an agricultural development and production which was largely funded by income from the first development phase which was the clearing of the forested property (logging and milling of lumber and the production of an assortment of ‘wood products’.).  The cleared lands were subsequently used for producing wheat.

This agricultural development was a huge success, financially and socially, employing and developing a new skills and income base for more than 200 people.

As often happens, people are divided over whether the success of an enterprise came more from the will and commitment of the overall workforce, of more from the ‘design’ intelligence and insight of the management directing the operation.

A strong split in how employees perceived the source of the successful operation arose in the design phase of an employee profit sharing plan.  Roughly half of the employees believed that the insight and intelligence of the founder and senior management should be accorded most credit for sourcing such a successful venture, while the other half believed that the source of their success derived from the overall synergy of the full body of staff and management contributors.

As discussions on how to design the profit-sharing plan continued, a division on how to allocate credit for the sourcing of their success, became increasingly evident, exposing the familiar schism between those with a more ‘conservative’ outlook — wherein ‘One good man at the top makes all the difference between success and failure’ (or conversely, ‘One bad apple can source rotting of the whole barrel), — versus —- the polar opposite coming from those with a ‘liberal’ outlook whose understanding was that “it takes a whole community to raise a child”, who favoured attributing the source of the successful operations to the workforce ‘community’ as ‘a whole’, supporting a profit sharing plan on that basis.

Adjacent to, and fenced off from this agricultural operation and limiting its expansion, was an indigenous aboriginal ‘reserve’ where discussions on ‘overlapping’ issues were underway.  The outlook expressed in the ‘learning circle’ of the indigenous aboriginal council was that monoculture agriculture (ploughing up the full natural multi-culture vegetation and replacing it with a single ‘genus’) was an unnatural approach which required the introduction of unnatural chemical fertilizers and interfered with natural relational and ecological synergies.

The indigenous aboriginal community spoke a language that had a very different ‘architecture’ and that was ‘relational’ in its basic design and which had no concepts such as LOCAL GROWTH, as was the ambition of the adjacent ‘Western Culture’ agricultural operation.  For the indigenous aboriginals, there was no such thing as ‘LOCAL’ and there was thus no such thing as GROWTH as in the notion of the GROWTH of the neighbouring ‘agricultural operation’; abstraction that BLINDED one to the conjugate REDUCTION of Wilderness land and its natural and essential cultivation of diversity.

For the indigenous aboriginal, the GROWTH of the colonizers’ agricultural fields of mono-culture was merely ‘abstract talk’ and what was being overlooked was the SHRINKAGE of Wilderness lands with their sustaining of diversity.  In reality, GROWTH of mono-culture cultivated lands and SHRINKAGE of diversity-rich Wilderness constitute TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and it is only the DOUBLE ERROR of WESTERN CULTURE language and grammar that reduces, for the intellect, NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION to “LOCAL” “GROWTH”.


NOTE:  In philosophical terms, as Nietzsche has pointed out, such reduction of the real world of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION to the intellectual abstract world of LOCAL ‘ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT’ is the artefact of a DOUBLE ERROR; … the FIRST ERROR is ‘NAMING’ to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself existence to a relational form, and the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR conflates the first error by imputing to the NAMING-instantiated (notional) LOCAL thing-in-itself, the power of SOURCING actions and development.   

Both in modern physics and in the indigenous aboriginal understanding (as well as in Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta understanding), relational TRANSFORMATION is the primary reality and since it is NONLOCAL, it is INEFFABLE.   While our sensory experience does not require us to be able to articulate such experience in order for the experience to be ‘real’, there is clearly utility of great value in being able to share our experience-grounded understanding (without an experience grounded transfer of understanding, we may only have a virginal ‘intellectual’ understanding of sensory relation experience).  Of course, language and grammar equip the virgin Ph.D. in sexual relations to share what she or he has never experienced, with more intellectual clarity than her most sensually experienced but less ‘literate’ fellows.   In this manner, intellectual knowledge can ‘cantilever’ that limited form of understanding (intellectual) well beyond support from sensual experience, to the point that one’s intellectual knowledge based linguistic exchanges come with a major exposure to misconception and outright deception.

GROWTH is NOT REAL; TRANSFORMATION IS REAL.   GROWTH belongs to the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.   For example; ‘Hurricane Katrina is GROWING larger and stronger and is devastating New Orleans’.

This linguistic DEPICTION of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES-that-GROW, …  is NOT REAL, but one thing we can say about it, and this is very important in that it makes language a very valuable tool, … is that this sort of DOUBLE ERROR language structure lets us render in EFFABLE-because-LOCAL terms, that which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL (as is the nature of the dynamics of fluid forms in the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao)..   


… to pick up from where we left off in the ‘indigenous aboriginal commentary’ to insert the CLARIFYING NOTE, we were saying that;

For the indigenous aboriginal, the GROWTH of the settler’s agricultural fields of mono-culture was merely ‘abstract talk’ and what was being overlooked was the SHRINKAGE of Wilderness lands with their sustaining of diversity.  In reality, GROWTH of mono-culture cultivated lands and SHRINKAGE of diversity-rich Wilderness constitute TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and it is only the DOUBLE ERROR of WESTERN CULTURE language and grammar that reduces, for the intellect, NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION to “LOCAL” “GROWTH”

… end of repeated text to return to the continuing ‘flow’;

Whether we are of ‘colonizer stock’ or ‘indigenous aboriginal stock’, the abstract concept of LOCAL GROWTH or the GROWTH of an abstract NAMING-instantiated LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF is ‘psychological trickery’ wherein we equip ourselves, psycho-linguistically, for ‘breaking in’ to the transforming relational continuum which is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL, and come out with something that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL, employing GRAMMAR for engineering it and equipping it with ‘its own LOCAL means of SOURCING actions and developments.  That is, a transforming space that one is included in is a NONLOCAL phenomenon that is INEFFABLE.

The sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum as INEFFABLE SENSORY EXPERIENCE remains the basic reality in spite of the impossibility of ‘EFFABLE-izing’ it.  What we are able to EFFABLE-ize is NOT IT!  As Lao Tzu observes; ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.

The purpose of the indigenous aboriginal ‘learning circle’ is co-create a ‘crucible’ for melting down a collection of incomplete-because-explicit expressions of ‘reality’ so as to extract the fluid implicit essence.

* * * RETURNING to the earlier train of thought in The conservative – liberal dilemma in regard to the basis for calculating staff bonuses that will be fair and appropriate, commensurate to individual contributions to production coming from the agricultural lands cultivating initiative, a question arises as to the legitimacy of the concept of ‘agricultural production’.  The legitimacy is called into question by the reality that there is really no such thing as “PRODUCTION” since implies “LOCAL SOURCING” and the ‘reality’ affirmed by our sensory experience is that there is no such thing as “LOCAL SOURCING”, this being DOUBLE ERROR ABSTRACTION deriving from NAMING and GRAMMAR; i.e. the NAMING of the Agricultural enterprise to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself being, and GRAMMAR to conflate the FIRST ERROR by imputing to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself, its own (notional) powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

To repeat, for emphasis, … there is no such thing as PRODUCTION nor is there anything real associated with the notion of GROWTH.  How can there be GROWTH of cultivated croplands without SHRINKAGE of Wilderness lands?  ANSWER: There is no such thing as GROWTH, there is only TRANSFORMATION.  GROWTH is a one-sided abstraction that comes from language-based psychological suggestion wherein we are free to use abstract concepts like the separation of FIGURE and GROUND (FIGURE and GROUND psychologically portrayed as TWO separate, split apart things-in-themselves).  This schizophrenia inducing concept is embraced in WESTERN CULTURE as a foundational precept of ‘reality’.  It is introduced into language as ‘logic’, a particular flavour of logic; i.e. the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND are TWO .

While such EITHER/OR logic is given a foundational role in WESTERN CULTURE intellectual reality constructions, by contrast, modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta employ a very different type of logic, the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.   To compare these tow ‘logics’, consider a fluid flow wherein a boil or whirlpool is manifest.  We have the option of understanding this motion in terms of the ‘boil-and-flow’ TWO-NESS as being purely ‘appearance’ or ‘implicit’ or in terms of the ‘boil-and-flow’ TWO-NESS as being ‘material’ and ‘explicit’.

The latter ‘explicit’ understanding of FIGURE and GROUND as TWO is the ‘normal’ understanding among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, and this abstract choice has some confusing fallouts including the introducing into the psyche of a basic AMBIGUITY as to whether the FIGURE’s actions and developments sources the actions and development of the GROUND, or whether the GROUND’s actions and developments sources the actions and developments of the FIGURE.   This the flapping of the flag source movement of the air, or does movement of the air source flapping of the flag? (Zen koan).

The ‘way out’ of this conundrum is to acknowledge that reality that there is no such thing as SOURCING of actions and developments which would require that FIGURE and GROUND are TWO not just IMPLICITLY as in appearance but EXPLICITLY as REALITY that recognizes LOCAL INDEPENDENTLY -EXISTING MATERIAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.    But, in our sense-experience reality,  there is only TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

Here we see that language and grammar can convince the psyche to buy into abstraction that our sensory experience will never validate, such as FIGURE and GROUND as TWO in an EXPLICIT sense where EITHER FIGURE OR GROUND could be understood as the SOURCE of actions and developments.  Do continents drift, or does the seafloor spread?  Note the male-female implication in the two ambiguous alternatives that pop up conceptually wherever we reduce TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE to MATERIAL DYNAMICS wherein FIGURE and GROUND are TWO (i.e. where INHABITANT and HABITAT are TWO).

Since TRANSFORMATION gives us no LOCAL SOURCING LEVERAGE, we are left with everything influencing everything in a NONLOCAL fluid sense which is an INEFFABLE phenomenon.  Using the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar, we can split apart FIGURE and GROUND, allowing us an ‘entrée’ for LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments.  But should we use GRAMMAR to animate the ‘FIGURE’ or to animate ‘the GROUND’, … the so-called ‘INHABITANT’ or the ‘HABITAT’?

Recall that this breaking in and splitting the NONLCOAL into opposing LOCAL parts is only an expedient for giving us an entrée to render EFFABLE-because-LOCAL the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL. EFFABLE-izing the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL transforming relational continuum by SPLITTING the NONLOCAL into a BIPOLAR LOCAL DUO introduces a basic ambiguity of the wind-and-flag (Zen koan) type, and/or the continental-drift — seafloor spreading type.  This ambiguity does not arise in the pre-split natural reality of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE, which is to say that the introducing of ambiguity (as induces a BIPOLAR DISORDER) is the price we pay to render EFFABLE-because-LOCAL the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL.

The political split into conservative and liberal political views is an artifact of rendering the INEFFABLE EFFABLE where roughly half of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS  will opt for the conservative view wherein the FIGURE (individual) sources movement of the GROUND (social collective) while the other half opts for the liberal view wherein the GROUND (social collective) sources movement of the individual.    WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are unable to resolve ‘which of these two polar opposite options’ is the ‘correct’ one because  both are based on the abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING and there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING in the transforming relational continuum.

LOCAL SOURCING is an artifact of synthetically (psycho-logically) splitting the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL into TWO EFFABLE-because-LOCAL (opposing) PIECES.  So we got our wish of an EFFABLE means of sharing our INEFFABLE experience of inclusion in the Tao, … but as the systems sciences and anthropologists remind us (e.g. Mircea Eliade in ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’), .. there is no ‘free ride’ here for our polar splitting skullduggery here and we have to ‘pay the devil his dues’.  The price is the innate AMBIGUITY the comes bundled in with our splitting of FIGURE and GROUND into TWO.

Let’s ‘go back to’ our earlier discussion where we were ‘looking in’ on the successful ‘production company’ where the executives were trying to come up with a fair scheme for rewarding staff and management for the their respective contribution in SOURCING a successful production operation.

Where’ we’ve been ‘In the middle’ of this discussion, is to a place (an indigenous aboriginal understanding which is supported by modern physics), where reality is understood as NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION  which is not even on the ‘radar screen’ of the executives and staff of the ‘PRODUCTION COMPANY’ as it argues over the algorithm to be used for fair and proportionate rewarding of staff and management for their respective contributions to the production of agricultural products.

MEANWHILE REFLECTION shows that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “PRODUCTION”, a term which implies “LOCAL SOURCING”, since what is ‘really going on’, before we dumb it down so that we can fit it into ‘language’ that is innately incapable of conveying NONLOCAL reality, is “TRANSFORMATION”.

Though we speak of the “GROWTH OF PRODUCTION”, which is brought about by the “GROWTH” of “LAND UNDER CULTIVATION”, what is REALLY going on, according to our sensory experience and that of the plants and animals in the region, is TRANSFORMATION which includes, as well, the reciprocal SHRINKING of the Wilderness lands, these antithetical developments comprising together, in their conjugate relation, TRANSORMATION.  In other words, TRANSFORMATION is the primary reality which LANGUAGE cannot deal with because TRANSFORMATION is ‘everywhere at the same time’ aka NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE.

This ‘splitting’ becomes a form of BIPOLAR madness’ infecting us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS whereby we invoke the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, using NAMING to abstractly split out the FIGURE from the GROUND and present the FIGURE as a LOCAL thing-in-itself and then using GRAMMAR to notionally equip his ‘LOCAL FIGURE’ with the power of SOURCING actions and developments.  This makes the abstract concept of PRODUCTION aka LOCAL SOURCING appear possible although TRANSFORMATION is what is really going on, but since TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE, it ‘does not make it’ into our linguistic discourse.  The reality of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION thus lies at some infinite distance beyond the LOCAL and EFFABLE, requiring of us an intuitive leap to ‘bridge’ to.

So, while rewards and recognition are accorded to production and producers, there is no such thing in the reality of our sensory experience as ‘production’ and ‘producers’, there is only TRANSFORMATION, thus a system of rewards and recognitions tied to PRODUCTION, as fuels the GROWTH of LOCAL cultivated agricultural land, is in reality NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION involving the SHRINKAGE of Wilderness lands (Both GROWTH and SHRINKAGE’ are abstractions based on the notional ‘existence’ of a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF’, a means of INFERRING  that which is ‘really real’ which is relational, NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION.)

The conservative – liberal Bipolar Disorder is a WESTERN CULTURE social-collective-dividing reality-conceptualizing difference wherein both of the opposing poles accept the DOUBLE ERROR based concept of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, the BIPOLAR contention deriving from whether the SOURCING is from FIGURE to GROUND (conservative), or from GROUND to FIGURE (liberal). This contention is unresolvable since there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING in a transforming relational continuum.

The ‘glue’ that secures the unrelenting WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’S belief in LOCAL SOURCING is EGO, since EGO is the launching pad for LOCAL SOURCING.

The MOST PRODUCTIVE NATION in the world is the UNITED STATES (note that the concept of an independent ‘nation’ is double error abstraction as with FIRE BURNS and LIGHTNING FLASHES, and the imputing of PRODUCTION as in NATIONS PRODUCE falls into the same DOUBLE ERROR category.

The reality is TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE, but nevertheless, the ‘real reality’ that we can’t directly talk about it.

In order to talk about TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE, we have to conjure up EFFABLE inference which we have done by constructing the notion of LOCAL SOURCING by means of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  This EFFABLE INIFERENCE is only good for a disposable ‘Wittgenstein Ladder’ to do its job of INFERENCE and fuel the intuiting mind for a leap from the LOCAL and EFFABLE imaginary world of material production to the NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE reality of Wave-field TRANSFORMATION.

While modern physics and ‘the EAST’ (indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents) employ the EFFABLE only as a springboard for an intuitive leap to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS continue to employ the EFFABLE as our ‘operative reality’ in which case we are smitten en masse with the Bipolar Disorder as derives from belief in LOCAL SOURCING.  There’s the rub; i.e. if there is LOCAL SOURCING, we might imagine it launches from out of the individual or from out of the social collective. In fact, the ambiguity is worse, still because LOCAL SOURCING is implied by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, such that in addition to human individuals, human social collectives and corporations being candidate STUBS’ for LOCAL SOURCING, when have vague candidates wherever we can come up with a NAME such as ‘’the climate’ (sourcing global warming), ‘the blacks’, ‘those males’, ‘the Muslims’, the Catholics etc. etc.

In other words, once we have accepted the concept of DOUBLE ERROR based SOURCING of actions and developments, we have opened a Pandora’s box that all manner of Bipolar-Disorder based psycho-abstraction comes popping out of, that keeps us busy debating and in the process prevents us from getting beyond the DOUBLE ERROR based abstraction of LOCAL SOURCING to the understanding of reality in terms of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION, the respectable-because-real candidate for embracing as ‘reality’ which loses out among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, because it is INEFFABLE and because, while LOCAL SOURCING supports EGO, NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION not only deflates but entirely dissolves the LOCAL SOURCING that is the basis of EGO.

INSPIRATION remains as the natural animator of the transforming relational continuum.

* * *