The Double Error and the Buddha’s Smile

There is an intriguing topology in a ‘smile’ or ‘puckering up’ and it is called NONLOCALITY.  Like the ‘whorl’ in river flow, it seems to demand our obedient attention as it says; ‘READ MY LIPS: I AM COMING FROM MY OWN CENTRE!”.    But that is just a lie.   The LOCAL voice has hijacked the NONLOCAL reality.  If we INVERT our gaze and turn it upwards, we see the brilliant sun, and what’s more, we FEEL the radiating warmth that we intuitively know is the REAL SOURCE of the river-whorl.

In spite of the APPEARANCES, the whorl’s egotistical claims of LOCALITY is just self-centered make-believe.   The whorl, like all forms in the flow, is inherently NONLOCAL, like the Buddha’s smile.

How did we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS reduce the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL?  We did by way of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, as Nietzsche pointed out.  The first error is NAMING.  We invent a ‘name’ for whorl, and because the name persists without changing, even though the whorl is ‘made of continual change’ (We cannot step into the same river twice for it is not the same river, and we are not the same person stepping into it).

Naming decrees the persisting thing-in-itself being.  This ‘decree’ is an intellectual decree since our sensory experience is clearly informing us that the whorl is relational form in the flow that we cognitively freeze by our intellectual act of naming it.   Which should we believe?  Should we believe our intellect that, having named the flow-form, insists on its persisting thing-in-itself LOCAL BEING, or should we believe in our sensory experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is in flux?

Well, it is clear that if we want to use language to share our experience of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum, we need a scheme to refer to forms that shares what we are referring to as we are continuing to discuss it; i.e. hurricane Katrina may, in its basic nature be as NONLOCAL and thus as elusive as Mona Lisa’s smile, a special smile that binds us together as if we are both inclusions in ONE transforming relational continuum, which we are.  This is impossible to capture ‘on its own’, without actually experiencing it, but that is the artists talent to work away at trying the capture that which is impossible to capture; i.e. fixed imagery of our lived experience of inclusion in the Tao.

“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tzu

(sound of trumpets announcing the ENTRY OF THE DOUBLE ERROR).

Yes, it is true, … it is impossible to capture in words (language and grammar) the fluid reality of the Tao aka the ‘wave-field’ wherein all forms are flow-forms.

However, even though all flow-forms are NONLOCAL phenomena within the transforming relational continuum and are thus without persisting ‘being’, … many formings have a persisting APPEARANCE like the whorl in the river-bend.

Into the same rivers we step and do not step, we are and are not. (Heraclitus Homericus)

It is not possible to step twice into the same river according to Heraclitus, or to come into contact twice with a mortal being in the same state. (Plutarch)

Such innate fluidity is the understanding that ‘fits’ with the understanding of the world as a Wave-field in which all forms are ‘appearances in the flow (the Tao, the Wavefield).  The whorl we call ‘hurricane Katrina’ has no persisting ‘being’ other than ‘by appearance’ but is frozen into LOCAL thing-in-itselfness, in our intellectualizing mind, by our intellectual act of naming the form.  That is, the notional PERSISTING EXISTENCE of THE FORM AS IF IT WERE AN INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THING-IN-ITSELF is intellectual abstraction that is definitely NOT supported by sensory experience.  What are we to believe?

Clearly, the naming gambit is very useful.  How is it useful?  ‘Naming’, even though it artificially freezes a fluid flow-form in an unchanging name-word, makes it possible for us to capture in language and thus share and discuss abstract ‘replicas’ of purely transient relational forms in the flow.  ‘Naming’ together with ‘Grammar’ constitute a ‘double error’ wherein, for example, the NONLOCAL (and thus ineffable) phenomenon of ‘duning’ can be reduced in a first error to an abstract local independent thing-in-itself ‘a Dune’ (by naming), and conflated with the use of grammar wherein we impute to it (the Dune) its own powers of growing larger and longer and shifting to the south etc.

The double error thus allows us to reduce (in our abstracting, intellectualizing minds), the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL and thus render the ineffable effable, although in a radically reduced form.  Instead of NONLOCAL RESONANCE of ‘duning’, we come out with LOCAL double error based reality in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves (Dunes) with grammar endowed powers of sourcing actions and developments (growing longer and higher and shifting across the ‘desert floor’.

The invention of the ‘desert floor’ is the manifesting of our obligation coming from the INHABITANT-HABITAT split; i.e. once reduce ‘duning’ (NONLOCAL resonance phenomena) to a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF by NAMING it a ‘DUNE’, we are obliged by logical consistency to invent a HABITAT to contain this INHABITANT we have created by ‘naming’ a flow-form.

So, we are creating a whole ne BINARY world by using language and grammar in ‘double error’ mode to (a) use naming to create a notional (intellectual abstraction) thing-in-itself, and (b) conflate the first error with the second error (Grammar) of endowing the newly created thing-in-itself with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.

NONLOCALITY has thus been replaced (wallpapered over) with LOCALITY in the guise of name-instantiated LOCAL BEINGS (independently-existing things-in-themselves) notionally with THEIR OWN LOCAL POWERS of SOURCING actions and developments.

OK, we reduced the NONLOCAL Tao to abstract double error LOCAL terms of independently-existing things-in-themselves with their (our) own powers of sourcing actions and developments, … a double error that we use to ‘do an end run’ around the ineffable because NONLOCAL Tao, so that we can effable-ize the Tao, … A VERY USEFUL TOOL THAT DISTINGUISHES HUMANINGS FROM OTHER ANIMALINGS IN THE TAO, BUT IT IS ONLY A TOOL OF EXPEDIENCE TO REDUCE THE INEFFABLE TO A CRUDE EFFABLE RE-PRESENTATION.

THIS IS WHERE EAST AND WEST SPLIT, BECAUSE WHILE THE EAST DOES NOT LET THE TOOL RUN AWAY WITH (REDEFINE) THE WORKMAN, THE WEST DOES INDEED LET THE TOOL RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN.

Sure, I can speak in terms of the Dune growing larger and longer and shifting to the south, … and if I am ‘of the EAST’, I will regard this language and grammar based reduction of NONLOCAL resonance to LOCAL name-instantiated things-in-themselves (INHABITANTs) residing in a binarily separate HABITAT as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’, an intellectual abstracting device that allows me to talk about (effable-ize) the ineffable, not to confuse if for reality but for the purpose of sharing this half-assed reduction of my ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao (whe Wavefield) which, although it is only a half-assed reduction, is a SHAREABLE half-assed reduction that does an end-run around the ineffability of the Tao).

But if am ‘of the WEST’, I will MISTAKENLY regard this language and grammar based reduction of NONLOCAL resonance, as a legitimate and explicit representation of reality and use to wallpaper over and obsolete the ineffable reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao, and this is a CRAZY-MAKER on the scale of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY.

If I say to you; ‘the dune is growing larger and shifting to the south’ and is about to bury your land-rover and tent, … you won’t know whether I am (a) of the EAST or (b) of the WEST because I am capable of BOTH understandings and you can’t ‘read my mind’.

But there are ways to distinguish the deeper interpretation which distinguishes EAST from WEST.  For example, if I say ‘Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread’ and is thus guilty of perpetrating a criminal act, … this implies a literal interpretation of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar; i.e. wherein Jean Valjean is a name-instantiated thing-in-itself with his own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

In this case, the language is being used literally rather than as a reductionist tool to provide a reduced and approximate pictorial of reality, which is all that the EAST expect of language and grammar.

How could simple ‘double error’ based language and grammar constructs capture the complexity of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum, the roots of the relational development including the relational imbalance if access to food which is the source of the starving children that induced Jean Valjean’s ‘relational rebalancing cation of moving some bread from regions of excess to regions of deficiency, which is what is ‘really going on’ here.

The ‘double error’ of language and grammar is our common way of reducing an interminably complex transforming relational continuum (an ineffable unending web of relational influences) to  effable terms of explicit LOCAL BEINGS with THEIR OWN LOCALLY SOURCED  POWERS of actions and developments.

Jean Valjean is seen, in double error terms, as the SOURCE of an act of thievery.

IN THE EAST, the ‘source’ of the ‘crime’ or ‘rebalancing action’ is NONLOCAL as in imbalances arising in the transforming relational continuum, so that while the simplistic double error construction of ‘Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread’ is useful for sharing a reduced DEPICTION of what is going on, reality is NONLOCAL and that which is LOCAL and VISIBLE is NOT REALITY but a superficial visual account captured in double error based language and grammar terms.  In the case of Jean Valjean and the loaf of bread, inductive influence arising within the relational dynamic (people with plenty and a child starving from deficiency within the relational dynamic) gave rise to a relational rebalancing.  Jean Valjean was an instrument within the rebalancing, however, he was not the ‘source’ of the action.  A social relational dynamic that allows relational imbalances to develop or which even encourages the growth of such imbalances is where remediation is needed.

The ‘double error’ of language and grammar would have us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS believe in SORCERY, and this double error based ‘sorcery’ abstraction is applied, by WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS in the understanding NOT ONLY in the cases of the SORCERY of actions and developments perceived as GOOD (which ‘merit rewards’), but also in the cases of the SORCERY of actions and developments perceived as BAD (which merit ‘punishments’).

As you can see, the ‘double error’ of language and grammar is where the abstraction of LOCAL BEING and LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments comes from, and among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, the reduction of reality by way of the double error is not just a tool for developing a crude reduced ‘picture’ or ‘effable reduction’ of reality, but is being used as an operative ‘surrogate reality’ that wallpapers over and eclipses the ineffable NONLOCAL reality of our actual relational experience.

In the EAST, however, the double error based reality  of name-instantiated LOCAL BEINGS with notional powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments is not a tool that has run away with the workman, the human with the divine, as it has in the WEST.  In the EAST, the ‘divine’ remains embodied in the ineffable Tao while the effable double error reduction is used only as a ‘ladder’ to trigger one’s sensory awareness of something that lies innately beyond the ladder of double-error based language and grammar construct.  As Wittgenstein points out, in order to reduce the ineffable relational flow to effable terms, we can capture the continually transforming relational flow in terms of multiple images where our mention of the images is just an expedient for getting to the relations that constitute flow, the flow being the real reality.

 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, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

CONCLUSION:

BOTH EAST AND WEST use language and grammar to enable sharing of allusions to one’s respective ineffable experience. The double error reduction is an abstraction based overcoming of NONLOCALITY wherein resonance such as Duning, which is innately NONLOCAL is made to appear LOCAL in the guise of a name-instantiated LOCAL thing-in-itself, the DUNE, which is grammar-endowed with the notional power of sourcing its own actions and developments; ‘The DUNE is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the south’.

For the EAST, this double error reduction does not ‘qualify’ as a substitute for the ineffable NONLOCAL reality of the Tao, but only qualities as ‘inference’ of a reality that lies innately beyond the LOCAL and EFFABLE.  Thus ‘Jean Valjean’ stole a loaf a bread is acceptable as a crude reductive inference that implies a deeper REAL reality that is NONLOCAL wherein relational imbalance between regions of surplus and regions of deficiency is the animator in the dynamic of relational transformation.

For the WEST, this double error reduction is employed as a direct and explicit substitute for the ineffable NONLOCAL reality of the Tao.  Thus ‘reality’ in the WEST is formed from taking the double error LITERALLY and constructing a reality that is LOCAL and EFFABLE, in which case Jean Valjean REALLY IS THE SOURCE OF THE ACTION OF THIEVERY OF A LOAF OF BREAD.  In other words, in the WEST where the double error is interpreted directly and explicitly as REALITY, Jean Valjean is understanding as a LOCAL thing-in-itself with LOCALLY INCIPIENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS which is ‘fully and solely responsible for his own actions and developments.

In the WEST, Western religions such as Christianity have helped to entrench this belief in the ‘double error’; e.g;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism

This ‘rationality’ as an ‘operative mindset’ is a CRAZY-MAKER that is putting WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS in the psyche wards and/or on drugs.  These ‘treatments’ are administered to soften the effects of the schizophrenia that WESTERN CULTURE infuses into the psyche which manifests in the WESTERN social collective as, for example, the Conservative – Liberal split and within the WESTERN CULTURE MINDTHINK pressured resident member as a split within their own psyche (termed schizophrenia or bipolar disorder).  Opting for either the Conservative or Liberal mind-spit can make the split into an exosplit or ‘projection’ instead of endosplit or introjection.

Both of these WESTERN crazinesses derive from the same source, the LITERAL acceptance of the ‘double error’ as the ‘operative reality’.

This is where EAST departs from WEST since the EAST (as well as modern physics) employs the double error merely as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ of IMPLICIT inference that sets us up for a mental  leap that can give us an intuitive sense of the ineffable, while the WEST uses the double error EXPLICITLY to construct a surrogate ‘operative reality’ that is taken to be the ‘real reality’, with crazy-making consequences.

* * *

The Double Error and the Buddha’s Smile have this in common; that which is EXPLICIT and LOCAL is merely a signal suggesting the possibility of something sublime and ineffable that is IMPLICIT and NONLOCAL.  The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.

We know that the ‘double error’ is an intellect-tricking device that we use to generate the intellectual abstractions of LOCAL BEING and LOCAL SOURCING (e.g. the LOCAL dune-thing-in-itself that signifies to which grammar imparts the LOCAL powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This double error combination renders the ineffable and NONLOCAL effable and LOCAL so that we can talk ‘rationally’ about the effable things and share and discuss them.  The ineffable remains ineffable, like the smiling Buddha.

We pay a price to effable-ize the ineffable and some might say we ‘make a deal with the devil’ as in ‘Mephistopheles et l’Androgyne’ (Mircea Eliade).   In order to localize the material aspect, we create a nonlocal immaterial aspect.   Duning is a wave-field dynamic but if in order to localize the material aspect as ‘the dune’, we create a nonlocal immaterial aspect we call the ‘desert’.  In other words, if we employ the psycho-trickery of ‘naming’ to create in our mind the notion of a local ‘thing-in-itself’, we generate in the same creative fell swoop, an imaginary containing space for the ‘thing-in-itself’ to reside in.  We call this the ‘habitat’, but no matter in how much detail we describe the ‘inhabitant’ and ‘his/her/its actions and developments within the usual double error context, … we do not, at the same time, flesh out our description of the containing ‘habitat’.

That is, we describe the inhabitant as if it were ‘independent’ of the ‘habitat’ and equipped with its own internally sourced powers of development and action.  The ‘habitat’ is treated as a ‘thing-in-itself’ that gets ‘fleshed out’ indirectly by our intellectual process of continually adding ‘inhabitants’ so that the habitat is the reciprocal ‘negative space’.

In the Art world, what is not explicitly fleshed out as a figure or figures is termed the ‘negative space’, like the spaces between the explicitly portrayed leaves and branches of a tree in a photograph or a painting.  We could insert some birds and butterflies to flesh out the ‘negative space’ a bit better, but nevertheless, our approach to visually representing the world we live in is positivist (figure-oriented) just as our approach to speaking of dynamics is ‘positivist’ in that it is ‘producer-product’ oriented.

Such positive approaches to intellectual representation are problematic since we are living within a transforming relational continuum aka a wave-field.  For example, reducing duning that is NONLOCAL resonance, to positivist producer product dynamics wherein ‘Dunes’ are things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the Dune is growing larger and longer and shifting to the south), is a double error based reduction that SPLITS the relational field into FIGURE and GROUND.

Thanks to grammar, this sort of split is no longer just ‘appearance’ as in the relational transformation of the fluid Tao or wave-field, because grammar has made it LOCAL BEING based; i.e. the ‘Dune’ is psychologically conceived of through the double error of language and grammar is a LOCAL thing-in-itself with its own powers of sourcing actions and development.  The same double error applies to the humaning as to the duning such that we conceive of the ‘human’ as a thing-in-itself with its own notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is just abstraction that can be used as a tool of inference, as it is in the EAST and as in modern physics (e.g. the Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions), indigenous aboriginal cultures (mitakuye oyasin – ‘we are all related’), Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

BUT WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DO NOT EMPLOY THE DOUBLE ERROR AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE, THE WEST EMPLOYS THE DOUBLE ERROR AS THE OPERATIVE REALITY!  THUS ‘DUNING’ AND ‘HUMANING’ AS WAVE-FIELD DYNAMICS GIVE WAY, IN THE MINDS OF WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, TO LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (DUNES AND HUMANS) WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  This is where WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT ‘reality’ is coming from; i.e. it is coming from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar used NOT simply as a tool of implicit inference, but as the EXPLICIT REALITY.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are confounding ourselves with our literal treatment of our ‘double error’ but what has emerged as a clue that has become more and more bothersome is the conservative – liberal split.  This split comes from the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’s practice of EMPLOYING THE DOUBLE ERROR not as a tool of inference as in the EAST, but AS THE OPERATIVE REALITY. This double error employs grammar that splits apart ‘INHABITANT’ and ‘HABITAT’ leading to the same ambiguity as in the Zen koan of wind-and-flag; i.e. does the dynamic of the inhabitant source changes in the dynamics of the habitat or do the dynamics of the habitat source changes in the dynamics of the inhabitants?

Are changes in the inhabitants’ dynamics the source of changes in the habitat dynamics (e.g. climate change) or are changes in the habitat’s dynamics (e.g. climate change) the source of changes in the inhabitant’s dynamics’?

THE ANSWER IS:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SOURCING’ IN THE REALITY OF OUR INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

This understanding holds, also for the Zen koan of wind and flag (does the moving air source the movement of the flag or does the moving flag source the movement of the air?)  THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS SORCERY, THERE IS ONLY TRANSFORMATION.

THE WESTERN CULTURE SPLIT BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS COMES FROM THE FACT THAT THE CONSERVATIVE EGO SEES THE INDIVIDUAL AS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS WHILE THE LIBERAL EGO SEES THE COLLECTIVE AS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

BOTH ARE WRONG!  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’.  SORCERY IS AN ARTIFACT OF EGO.  EGO COMES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR, AND IT PIVOTS FROM ‘NAMING’  IF WE NAME THE INDIVIDUAL AS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS WE GET THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW, AND IF WE NAME THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE AS THE SOURCE OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, WE GET THE LIBERAL VIEW.  BOTH ARE WRONG!  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY.  IT IS A DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION IS INEFFABLE, SO WE HAVE EMPLOYED THE DOUBLE ERROR TO EFFABLE-IZE THE INEFFABLE.

THE EAST EMPLOYS THE DOUBLE ERROR AS ‘INFERENCE’ (A WITTGENSTEIN LADDER) WHICH CANNOT GO ALL THE WAY TO EXPLICITIZING AN INNATELY INEFFABLE REALITY (THE TAO) BUT WHICH CAN BE USED AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE.

THE WEST EMPLOYS THE DOUBLE ERROR DIRECTLY, AS THE EXPLICIT REALITY.  THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF THE ‘FREE WILL’ OF THE ‘LOCAL, RATIONAL, INDEPENDENT BEING’;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism

THIS IS A CRAZY MAKER WHICH HAS BEEN SOWN INTO THE WESTERN PSYCHE VIA WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL INFUSIONS OF BOTH SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF; I.E. THE DOUBLE ERROR INCORPORATES THE CONCEPT OF A LOCAL INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING ‘BEING’ WITH ‘FREE WILL’ (THE NAME-INSTANTIATED, INDEPENDENT THING-IN-ITSELF’S OWN INCIPIENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.   THIS BELIEF IS FIRSTLY ‘WESTERN’ LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED AND CAN BE FOUND IN BOTH WESTERN SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS INTELLECTUAL PERSPECTIVES.

THE CONSERVATIVE – LIBERAL SPLIT IS A MANIFESTATION OF THE CRAZY-MAKING DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR WHEN TAKEN LITERALLY AS IN THE WEST RATHER THAN INFERENTIALLY AS IN THE EAST.

* * *

ADDENDUM TO CONSOLIDATE THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS;

There is no such thing as the ‘mind’ – ‘body’ split.  As Ernst Mach pointed out, the division between physics (matter) and psychology (mind) does not really exist.

The double error of language and grammar creates the impression of the mind-matter split

What he doesn’t say is that this splitting apart of matter and mind is to render the ineffable all-including wave-field (the Tao) effable.  We can’t talk about the reality of an all-including flow continuum since word-names for things impute persisting existence and there are none in a flowing continuum (the Tao, the wave-field).

The mind-matter split is necessitated in order to render the ineffable Tao ineffable since this effable-izing comes by breaking things down into notional (name-instantiated) material things-in-themselves, notionally endowed (by means of grammar) with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

Note that this mind-body split opens the way for the picture wherein the mind is directing the actions of the body.  This is why invent the psychological splitting of mind and body in the first place; i.e. so that we can break the transforming relational continuum down into manageable (effable) pieces.  Instead of “duning” which is an innately NONLOCAL (purely relational resonancs based) dynamic, we reduce this to Dunes that we then invent GRAMMAR to mobilize in our language game which informs our psychological creation of ‘reality’.  Thus the wave-field phenomenon (transforming relational continuum) of NONLOCAL resonance (i.e the Tao that cannot be told) is reduced to a local form so that it is LOCAL (dune) and ‘effable’ (the dune is growing larger and longer and shifting to the south).

This is all language and grammar based MIND and MATTER games, and we apply it to the forms of resonance such as ‘humaning’ as well as to ‘duning’..  It is all purely relational shape-forming within the continuing transformation of the Tao, aka the ‘wave-field’, … in the same manner as the storming in the atmosphere where we assign ‘names’ to mere ‘appearances’ such as ‘Katrina’ and then we apply the double error of language and grammar and make them out to be things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

While we do have omni-perspectival sensing capabilities as manifests when we are swimming in a lake on a warm day and our feet which are deepest are in icy cold water while our torso is in the upper layer of sun heated water, our visual sensing is limited by the geometry of our having two eyes on one side of our head, so that while our overall sensing is omniperspectival, our visual sensing is only bi-lateral and we get a ‘flatspace’ view of what we are included in (the transforming relational continuum).

There is necessity for us to put our limited binary vision into precedence over our omni-sensory capability, but that is what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have the habit of doing BECAUSE we have construct language based on visual imagery.   If we are talking about the development of the town we live in, we may speak in terms of our town growing larger in area over the years.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GROWTH OF A TOWN!   As the town ‘grows’, the undeveloped land shrinks, and the reality is instead relational TRANSFORMATION.

We make the same mistake in referring to the ‘growth of population’ of humans or etc.  ONLY IN THE FLATSPACE ABSTRACTION OF AN ABSOLUTE HABITAT INDEPENDENT OF THE INHABITANTS, CAN THERE BE ‘GROWTH OF INHABITANT POPULATION’.

How often do we use the word growth?  It is never ‘reality’ when we speak of ‘growth’, it is always abstraction.  We put pencil marks on a door frame so that our children can monitor ‘their growth’.   We have a measuring scale for hurricanes with classifies them according to THEIR size and strength.  There is always this assumption, coming from the double error of language and grammar, that relational forms into the transforming relational continuum can be IMAGINED as local things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and development.

Whether we are saying ‘my child is growing larger and getting stronger’ or ‘the hurricane is growing larger and getting stronger’, we are, in the process, exclipsing or wallpapering over the understanding of the FIGURE-AND-GROUND as ONE.  As Schroedinger pointed out, FIGURE AND GROUND (SUBJECT AND OBJECT, INHABITANT AND HABITAT) can only be ONE, and it is simply language based on visual observing coming from two eyes on side of our head that gives us the impression of a subject-object split.

In Western culture, everything is about GROWTH.  There is no fucking ‘growth’, there is only transformation.  The growth of a city is transformation of the countryside; i.e. the undeveloped space shrinks by the same amount that the developed space grows, so there is no such thing as ‘growth’ other than as a language-based abstraction.

HOW COMMON IS THIS MISTAKING OF THIS FLATSPACE ABSTRACTION OF ‘GROWTH’ FOR SOMETHING ‘REAL’?

AMONG US WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, IT IS SO COMMON THAT WE SLIP IT IN AS THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT WE CALL OUR ‘ECONOMY’.

OUR (MIS)CONCEPTION OF REALITY BASED ON ‘GROWTH’ is commonly promoted through language and grammar in the ‘producer-product concept’.  We speak of the ‘growth of production’ as if that is something real, but the growth of wheat production in Canada is associated at the same time, with chopping down trees and ‘clearing’ land.  THE REALITY IS TRANSFORMATION, … THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GROWTH IN THE SPACE ON A SPHERE BECAUSE AS THE GROWTH OF THE DEVELOPED LAND INCREASES IT IS MATCHED BY THE SHRINKAGE OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND.  in other words, relational transformation is what is really going on.

ONLY IF WE LIVED ON A FLAT PLANE OF INFINITE EXTENT COULD WE HAVE GROWTH WITHOUT RECIPROCAL SHRINKAGE.  Our sensory experience informs us of inclusion in a finite space as if on the surface of a sphere where growth and shrinkage go hand-in-hand, as complementary aspects of the one dynamic of relational transformation.  If there is a rotten spot on the apple, we are implying that the rot is ‘on the apple’, BUT IF THE ROT IS ‘ON THE APPLE’ THEN WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, THE ROTTEN AREA WHICH IS GROWING AND THE UN-ROTTEN AREA THAT IS SHRINKING.

This is like the Zen koan of flag and wind; i.e. does the moving of the air source the flapping of the flag or does the flapping of the flag source the moving of the air?  There is no answer to this question since there is no such thing as ‘sourcing’ which is the notion used in both of those two conflicting propositions.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SOURCING’ AKA ‘SORCERY’, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION, AS MODERN PHYSICS HAS CONFIRMED.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE CAUGHT IN THE TRAP OF THE ABSTRACTIONS OF THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR WE ARE USING (THE EAST HAS ESCAPED THIS CONFUSION BY REGARDING LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR AS ONLY A ‘WITTGENSTEIN LADDER’ OR ‘TOOL OF INFERENCE’ THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO INTERPRET/UNDERSTANDING “LITERALLY”.   That is, the ‘dune is growing larger and longer and is shifting across the desert floor’ is A USEFUL ABSTRACT REDUCTION OF OUR INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TAO, … but it is not to be taken seriously and thought of EXPLICITLY as if the ‘DUNE’ really were a LOCAL thing-in-itself with the power of sourcing its own action, growth and development.

Ok, you can probably accept that, but your ego may BALK at accepting that the same thing applies to duning and the dune as applies to ‘humaning’ and the ‘human’,     HOWEVER, THAT IS WHAT MODERN PHYSICS HAS DISCOVERED, but which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS to not want to admit because the whole double error fiasco is what we use to REWARD AND ELEVATE AND PUNISH AND PISS ON PEOPLE.

This all goes back to the mind-matter split which is entirely artificial and language and grammar insinuated.  Ernst Mach made this point in his massively popular work; ‘The Analysis of Sensations’; i.e. he said that the split between spsyche and body was synthetic and a product of our language and grammar.  In other words, there is no mind and matter split, but that’s where we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are screwed up and the screw up leads to a division among us as to whether we should put matter in precedence over mind (conservative) or ‘mind in precedence over matter’ (liberal).  In the former, ‘one bad apple spoils the whole barrel’, and in the latter, ‘it takes a whole community to raise a child’.

The hard-nosed conservative notion is that the child’s genetic make-up determines the final product and the final outcome should be recognizable by the time the person reaches the age of 16.

The soft-hearted liberal believes that the child’s development  is influenced by its surroundings (it takes a whole community to raise a child) and so if the child’s behaviour is warped, it is warped by outside-inward influence from the social dynamics that is situationally immersed in.

Similarly, if a person gets rich and successful, the conservative view is that it is from their own internal make-up (having ‘the right stuff’) while the liberal believes that finding oneself in a nurturing environment is where the manifesting of strong action and development capability come from.

BOTH OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY BOTH ASSUME THE REALITY OF ‘LOCAL SORCERY’, … FOR CONSERVATIVES, THE SORCERY ORIGINATES IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND FOR THE LIBERAL, THE SORCERY ORIGINATES IN THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE.

THERE IS NO FUCKING ‘SORCERY’, AS MODERN PHYSICS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURES, TAOIST/BUDDHIST AND ADVAITA VEDANTA CULTURES ATTEST, THERE ARE ONLY RELATIONS AND RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

‘SORCERY’ IS ABSTRACTION COMING FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR; i.e. ‘naming’ that imputes LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING conflated with grammar that imputes to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself, the power of SOURCING actions and developments.

CONSERVATIVES ATTRIBUTE SORCERY TO THE INDIVIDUAL (WHICH IS JUST A NAME-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF AND COULD BE A PERSON, NATION OR CORPORATION).

LIBERALS ATTRIBUTE SORCERY TO THE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (WHICH IS JUST A NAME-INSTANTIATED COLLECTIVE-IN-ITSELF AND COULD BE A NATION, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION).   CONSERVATIVES CAN ‘GO ALONG WITH THIS’ BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GOODNESS OR BADNESS OF THE NATION OR CORPORATION ‘BOTTOMS OUT’ IN THE GOODNESS OR BADNESS OF THE INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE NATION OR CORPORATION.

REALITY SAYS THAT BOTH OF THESE ABSTRACT OPTIONS FOR ‘SORCERY’ ARE WRONG AND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’, THERE ARE ONLY RELATIONS AS IN THE INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL ‘MITAKUYE OYASIN’ (ALL MY RELATIONS) AND AS IN MODERN PHYSICS WHEREIN EVERYTHING IS RELATED WITHIN THE WAVE-FIELD (THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM).

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS CONTINUE TO DIVIDE AND POLARIZE INTO OPPOSITE FACTIONS BASED ON WHOSE CONCEPT OF ‘SORCERY’ IS THE CORRECT CONCEPT.  THIS CONTINUING POLARIZING DEBATE DISTRACTS US FROM REALIZING THAT, AS IN THE ZEN KOAN OF WIND AND FLAG, BOTH ARE WRONG; i.e. it is neither the case that the wind motion sources the movement of the flag nor that the motion of the flag sources the wind.  In a transforming relational continuum there is no such FIGURE and GROUND (flag and wind) BINARY SPLITTING.

The hurricane as a whorl in the flow comes from the psychological influence of NAMING the whorl (Katrina) and imputing to it ‘thing-in-itself BEING’ (first error) and conflating this with grammar (second error) to impute to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself the powers of sourcing actions and development.  NOW WE HAVE CREATED THE NOTION OF ‘SORCERY’ THAT JUMPSTARTS FROM THE HURRICANE WHICH IS, IN REALITY, A PURELY RELATIONAL FEATURE WITHIN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS thus use language and grammar to create a matter and mind split which is precisely what Mach is telling us in his Analysis of Sensations’ which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have simply cast aside and ignored because of LOCK-IN-BY-HIGH-SWITCHING-COSTS’; i.e. because WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have built our system of reality, including rewards and recognition and punishment and contempt on the basis of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar with its abstract concept of SORCERY as the basis of dynamic (rather than relational transformation), we have this whole system of sucking up to the GOOD and pissing on the BAD

THE BIG DISTRACTION AMONG US WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, is the CONSERVATIVE -LIBERAL SPLIT, where the argument is over whether SORCERY derives from the individual (conservative view) or whether SORCERY derives from the social collective (liberal view).

THIS “IS” HOW THE MATTER-MIND SPLIT MANIFESTS; i.e. once one accepts the matter-mind split, there is right away an ambiguity that arises as to whether our behaviour (based on seeing ourselves as an independent self-sourcing thing-in-ourselves) IS FIRSTLY DETERMINED BY OUR MATTER OR FIRSTLY DETERMINED BY OUR MIND.

THIS IS A FUCKING WILDGOOSE CHASE.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY, THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON TO SQUABBLE OVER WHETHER THE SORCERY DERIVES “FIRSTLY” FROM OUR MATERIAL BODY AND ITS ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DYNAMICS OR “FIRSTLY” FROM OUR MIND (PSYCHE) AND ITS IMAGINATIVE CREATIVITY.

THAT IS, THERE IS NO MIND-MATTER SPLIT IN A RELATIONAL FORM WITHIN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

OBSERVE that humaning as he cultivates the growth of wheat plantation or coconut plantation of whatever, then ask yourself; CAN WE REALLY TALK ABOUT GROWTH OF THE PLANTATION, OR IS THE REALITY IN TERMS OF TRANSFORMATION RATHER THAN ‘GROWTH’ SINCE IN DIRECT RECIPROCAL RELATION TO THE GROWTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND, THERE IS THE SHIRINKAGE OF UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHICH WOULD SAY THAT THE ‘ACTUAL REALITY’ IS RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION AND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GROWTH’., … unless you can show me an absolute containing box or ‘habitat’ which is unaffected by things GROWING larger within it.  If, on the other hand, the containing space is changed by the growth of things within it, AS IN FUCKING REALITY,  then we can only talk of this in terms of relational transformation and NOT GROWTH.

AS WE ALL KNOW,  we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are fucking always talking about GROWTH as if it were a real thing, starting with our own children.  This is NOT TRUE of indigenous aboriginals wherein ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related) applies, so that there are no name-instantiated independently-existing things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and development, … NOT REAL ONES, ALTHOUGH NAMES LIKE ‘DANCES WITH WOLVES’ ARE AN EXPEDIENT to share our impressions of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum wherein mitakuye oyasin applies.

THE CONCEPT OF GROWTH IS BULLSHIT.  THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

THE CONCEPT OF PRODUCER-PRODUCT DYNAMICS IS BULLSHIT, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

We don’t have to think of ourselves as a LOCAL BEING as in the double error of language and grammar; i.e. modern physics doesn’t see us this way nor are we seen this way in the understanding of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta; i.e. we can understand ourselves as inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, and thus NOT as ‘LOCAL BEINGS’ with notional ‘POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS’;

Schroedinger: — Understanding the NONLOCAL Self

“ … Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as ‘I’ and What is this ‘I’? If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just the facts little more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by ‘I’ is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. “The youth that was I’, you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be.” – Erwin Schroedinger, ‘What is Life?’

Ok, I guess I have hammered on this enough, and brought in the supportive understandings of Mach, Nietzsche, Schroedinger and Wittgenstein, all of whom are saying the same thing, that the concept of LOCAL BEINGS with notional INCIPIENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS,  is just ABSTRACTION, … a DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS like to use the double error to claim that we are SOURCING the GROWTH of cultivated land or that we are SOURCING the expansion of our town, BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE AS ‘GROWTH’.

IN ORDER TO HAVE ‘GROWTH’, THERE HAS TO BE A FIXED REFERENCE FRAME AND THERE ARE NONE IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE.  THE FIXED REFERENCE FRAME IS NON-EXISTING ABSTRACTION AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES ‘GROWTH’ SEEM LIKE A VIABLE CONCEPT; E.G. THE GROWTH OF OUR TOWN.  HOW CAN WE GROW A TOWN WITHOUT TRANSFORMING THE RELATIONAL SPACE THE TOWN IS INCLUDED IN?  ANSWER: WE CAN’T.

The concept of growth is, first of all, ‘ILLUSION’ that can be useful in rendering the ineffable effable (i.e. in reducing the ineffable to a crude facsimile so as to render it effable, hence ‘duning’ which is inherently NONLOCAL and thus ineffable (we can infer something going on implicitly but we can’t explicitize it), … so we reduce it to DUNE which is explicit and made effable through this reduction.

GUESS WHAT!  after we reduce ‘duning’ to ‘dune’ we fucking forget about the fact that we have lost a whole lot of understanding in this reduction, and we merely carry on using this reduced reality as the new ‘surrogate’ reality to that point that WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS forget about having made this reduction and simply use the reduction as our new replacement operative reality.

THIS REDUCTION IS NOT FORGOTTEN IN THE EAST NOR IN MODERN PHYSICS.   THAT IS, IN THE EAST (AND WE ALL HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE RELATIONAL MANNER OF THE EAST), DUNING’ IS STILL THE PRIMARY REALITY AND IT IS A NONLOCAL PHENOMENON AND THUS INEFFABLE.  Our ability to use language and grammar (the double error) to come up with an EFFABLE REDUCTION does not mean that we are justified in REPLACING the ineffable reality with our double error REDUCTION to LOCAL BEING BASED DYNAMICS as in the double error.  The double error reduction is only good for INFERENCE as in the Wittgestein ladder usage, … it is not good for EXPLICIT USE as a replacement for the ineffable Tao of our actual sensory experience.

The double error reduction splits apart mind and matter.  That is where that split comes from; i.e. from language and grammar.  As pointed out, this IMAGINARY split into FIGURE AND GROUND (INHABITANT AND HABITAT) divides the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERING collective into two opposing camps, CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL based on an INHERENT AMBIGUITY that arises with this artificial mind and matter split.

I have already described this in the above text, but to repeat it; the whorl in the flow are how relational transformation APPEARS and there is only ONE flow and the FIGURE AND GROUND split into WHORL and FLOW is just appearance based and NOT REAL, as in the wind-and-flag enigma where we trap ourselves with language and grammar by imputing SORCERY to EITHER wind OR flag.  This ambiguity is unresolvable BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS ‘SORCERY’.  the concept of SORCERY comes from the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar; the first error is to use ‘naming’ to impute ‘thing-itself existence’ to ‘the whorl in the flow’ (it is really only how purely relational form APPEARS), and we conflate this with the second error of grammar to impute the power of SOURCING actions and development to the (first error) name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

The GOOD NEWS  is that this double error reduction allows us to effable-ize (a crude representation of) the ineffable, which is great so as we don’t confuse this crude representation for REALITY.  But that is just what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE DOING and that’s why EMERSON pointed out that ‘the tool (of crude reduction of the ineffable to effable) has RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN, THE HUMAN WITH THE DIVINE’.   That is, the humaning is a NONLOCAL phenomena like the hurricaning and that is what Emerson intends by ‘DIVINE’; i.e. the flow-form is not extricable from the flow aka the transforming relational continuum, so that we can never drill down and in to extract an EXPLICIT understanding of the flow-form such as the ‘humaning’ or the ‘duning’ because there are intrinsically NONLOCAL phenomena.

OK, THE GOOD NEWS WAS THAT THIS DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION ALLOWED US TO EFFABLE-IZE A CRUDE REPRESENTATION OF THE INEFFABLE TAO  (WAVE-FIELD DYNAMIC) BUT THAT DOESN’T QUALIFY IT FOR USE AS A SURROGATE REALITY, WHICH IS THE MISTAKE THAT WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE MAKING, WHICH IS NOW ‘LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS’ since the double error imputes to the individual the notional powers of LOCAL instantiation of actions and developments which WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS APPRAISE AS EITHER GOOD OR BAD and respond with EITHER rewards OR punishments so that we have established social classes and rankings on this basis

In EASTERN CULTURES and this can be clearly seen in indigenous aboriginal cultures, the double error of language and grammar is used only as a TOOL OF INFERENCE and not as a notional EXPLICIT capture of reality.  In other words, in EASTERN CULTURES, it does not hold that ‘the tool has run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.   In indigenous cultural understanding as in modern physics, the humaning is a relational form within the transforming relational continuum AND NOT A SEPARATE, LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF, as in our WESTERN CULTURE double error based conceptualizing of ‘reality’.

The mind-matter split is a WESTERN CULTURE problem and it is what splits apart ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Liberals’ based on their different notions of SORCERY, whether is coming from the individual dynamic and manifesting through the social collective or from the social collective dynamic and manifesting through the individual.

JUST AS IN THE ZEN KOAN OF WIND AND FLAG, BOTH ARE WRONG!

FOR THE SAME REASON; I.E. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SORCERY AND THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS THE DIVISION BETWEEN ‘MIND’ AND ‘MATTER’ AND NO DIVISION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT; I.E. THAT COMES FROM THINKING IN VISUAL TERMS WHERE WE USE TWO EYES ON ONE SIDE OF OUR HEAD TO DELIVER A BINARY SELF-AND-OTHER SPLITTING VIEW, UNLIKE THE INCLUSIONAL  SENSING COMING FROM FULL BODY SENSATIONS OF INCLUSION IN A RELATIONALLY TRANSFORMING SPACE (cold toes in icy deep water and warm chest in sun-warmed waters etc. etc..

SORCERY COMES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR WHEREIN WE INTELLECTUAL RECONSTRUCT REALITY IN TERMS OF LOCAL BEINGS WITH POWERS OF SOUCRCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.   WE EXPLAIN THE ACTIONS OF THESE LOCAL BEINGS BY WAY OF THE INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION OF SPLITTING THE LOCAL BEINGS INTO MATTER AND MIND (BODY AND PSYCHE) SO THAT WE IMAGINE THE BEING AS A BODY (MATTER) BEING DRIVEN BY PSYCHE (MIND), … ALL OF WHICH SPLITTING IS A FICTION DERIVING FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

WE DON’T NEED THE MIND-MATTER SPLIT SO LONG AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING REALITY IN TERMS OF INCLUSION WITHIN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.

THE MIND-MATTER SPLIT COMES BUNDLED IN WITH THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

* * *

SPECIAL NOTE TO MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN REGARD TO THE WESTERN SCHISM

If one reads the above …  The Double Error and the Buddha’s Smile … one may recognize therein, the following understanding as to what is going on with the SPLIT in WESTERN PERCEPTION OF REALITY, that manifests in the division between Conservatives and Liberals, and within individuals as BIPOLAR DISORDER or SCHIZOPHRENIA.

These two ‘disorders’; one within the social collective and one within the individual are WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE induced disorders.  They are the SAME DISORDER that may manifest within a WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL COLLECTIVE (the split between conservatives and liberals) and/or within WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT INDIVIDUAL.

The disorder derives from confusing the ‘double error’ of language and grammar for ‘reality’.  There is no REAL split between FIGURE AND GROUND in reality understood as the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wavefield) but in our deployment of language and grammar, we impute the existence of such a SPLIT.  In fact, it is this SPLITTING that renders the ineffable Tao (a reduced allusion to it) ‘effable’.  Thus the NONLOCAL wavefield resonance of DUNING is reduced to ‘the DUNE’ within the ‘double error’ construction; ‘the DUNE’ is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the South’.

Note that we have, thanks to the intellectual abstracting power of language and grammar, REDUCED THE ineffable NONLOCAL by substituting an effable LOCAL.   However, in making this reduction wherein what we started with was FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE; i.e. as where boil and flow are distinguished by APPEARANCE and the reality is that there is only FLOW and flow can APPEAR as FIGURE and GROUND.   The whorl or eddy in the tidal current or the river-bend can persist for hours, days, weeks or even years, just like a ‘name’ persists in our intellectual games of language and grammar.  BUT THERE IS NO ‘LOCAL’ THING-IN-ITSELF TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ‘NAME’, BECAUSE “EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX”.

By way of the ‘double error’ of grammar, we can and do formulate intellectual abstractions using ‘naming’ that IMPUTES LOCAL BEING to EITHER the FIGURE OR THE GROUND, and we conflate this with grammar to IMPUTE THE POWER OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPS …. TO EITHER THE FIGURE OR THE GROUND.  This gives rise to the (intellectual) ambiguity where it EITHER the the case that FIGURE’s movement sources the movement of the GROUND or whether the GROUND’s movement sources the movement of the FIGURE.

Note that we CREATED this AMBIGUITY psychologically since in NATURE, flow is NONLOCAL but it is this very reality that is behind the ‘ineffability of Nature since it is impossible to talk about ‘the NONLOCAL’ beyond saying, as Heraclitus did, ‘everything is in flux’.

SO, LET’S BE CLEAR, … WHATEVER WE ARE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT, …. IS “NOT” REALITY since the all-inclusive wave-field is reality aka ‘the Tao’ and “the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.

In using language and grammar based intellection to seemingly BREAK INTO THE FLOW-CONTINUUM so as to inject some abstract LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT … so that we can talk about what is going on which is impossible in the case of the ACTUAL NONLOCAL REALITY (the transforming relational continuum), … we can’t escape IMPOSING AMBIGUITY.  That is the price of breaking into the continuum and notionally imputing locally incipient action and development; i.e. “THE FIGURE” COULD BE SOURCING THE ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE “GROUND” OR “THE GROUND” COULD BE SOURCING THE ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGURE.

NOTA BENE!!! THIS AMBIGUITY DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY, THIS AMBIGUITY ARISES  IN THE INTELLECT AS THE PRICE OF REDUCING THE INEFFABLE TAO TO SOMETHING EFFABLE, I.E. THE AMBIGUITY ARISES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR BASED INVENTING OF A NAME-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF, NOTIONALLY WITH ITS OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  BOTH THE FIGURE AND GROUND  INHERENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

Imagine yourself looking at a ‘boil’ in the flow.  You know that a whirlpool can associate with flow that is outside-inward inducing (sucking) as is termed a ‘sink’ as well as with flow that is inside-outward asserting (fountaining) as is termed a ‘source’.  If you are looking at ‘boils’ in fluid flow,

We refer to such ‘source’ and ‘sink’ BIPOLARITY in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT intellection where we speak of PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION.  There is no problem here if we think of space in infinite terms as language and grammar allow us to, as when we speak about GROWTH of a town WHICH SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE SHRINKING OF THE NATURAL, UNDEVELOPED LAND.  In other words, ‘GROWTH’ is an abstract term that belongs to a notional infinite space because, in a finite space, there can only be RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION; i.e. GROWTH is PURE ABSTRACTION THAT IMPLIES ABSOLUTE SPACE.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS HAVE A BIG PROBLEM HERE SINCE WE TALK ABOUT ‘GROWTH’ AS IF IT ‘REAL’ BUT ‘GROWTH’ IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR; i.e. first we using naming to impute the existence of an independently-existing thing-in-itself, and we conflate this with grammar so as to notionally endow the name-instantiated thing-in-itself with the power of sourcing actions and development (including GROWTH).

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GROWTH’ IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ WITH THEIR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  THAT IS A DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

Ok, these are problems arising from how language and grammar generate intellectual abstractions that are beyond anything possible in the reality of our actual relational sensory experience.  Nietzsche points this out in the following;

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.

REASON is what underpins the abstract concept of GROWTH.  The Growth of land ‘under cultivation’ seems to make sense; i.e. the farmer can double it every year, from one acre to two acres and from two acres to four acres ALL OF WHICH SAYS EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT THE RECIPROCAL SHRINKAGE OF UNCULTIVATED WILDERNESS.   Growth is an abstract intellectual concept that does not exist in the real world of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field).

Countries measure their ‘progress’ by their ‘growth’ in population and/or by their ‘growth’ in production and ‘consumption’.

NONE OF THIS IS “GROWTH” is “REAL” in an experientially confirmable sense because reality is grounded in relational transformation.  The GROWTH in cultivated land on the surface of a sphere is reciprocally matched to the DECLINE of uncultivated land which implies RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.  ‘GROWTH’ can only take on meaning in ABSOLUTE SPACE OVER ABSOLUTE TIME and there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE SPACE AND ABSOLUTE TIME, there is only the all-including Tao, the transforming relational continuum. Likewise there is no such thing as GROWTH.  GROWTH is the byproduct of REASON and REASON is what comes from language and grammar based abstraction and NOT from the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Tao, the Wave-field.   Language is screwing with our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERING MINDS.  Not only do we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS believe in TIME and name-instantiated LOCALLY EXISTING THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, we are using these beliefs to construct ABSOLUTIST IMPRESSIONS OF OURSELVES are SORCERERS (i.e. name-instantiated things-in-ourselves with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments;

“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’

WESTERN CULTURE IS THUS BREEDING TWO POLAR OPPOSITE “SORCERY” BASED UNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY LEADING TO A POLAR DIVISION IN ADVOCATES OF THE ONE OR THE OTHER POLAR ABSTRACTION.

The predominating WESTERN CULTURE UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY IS THE CONSERVATIVE UNDERSTANDING WHEREIN SORCERY COMES IN TWO FLAVOURS; ‘GOOD’ AND ‘EVIL’ SORCERY.   This is a total sham based on the double error and there is only relational transformation), however, many people are fed up with it, who are nevertheless advocates of the bogus concept of SORCERY, and a political opposition has emerged based on the concept of ‘FORGIVENESS’ .  This is like a double negative since there is no SORCERY and therefor no SORCERY of EVIL ACTS to FORGIVE.  “RELATIONAL DYNAMICS” is all there is as in relational transformation wherein there are the conjugate relational dynamics of HARMONY and DISSONANCE (in Heraclitus terms LOVE and STRIFE).

AGAIN, THERE IS NO LOCAL SOURCING OF ANYTHING.

MEANWHILE, THERE IS A POPULAR REACTION AGAINST THE POPULAR ACTION THAT SEEKS TO AMPLIFY GOOD SORCERY AND ATTENUATE BAD SORCERY AND THIS IS BASED ON “FORGIVENESS” (Eg. Marianne Williamson’s writings, A Politics of Love etc.)

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” — Marianne Williamson

Such ‘forgiveness’ becomes a power in itself, although it is based on the initial misconceived belief in SORCERY (the sorcery of evil that is being ‘forgiven’).

* * *

FOOTNOTE RE MARIANNE WILLIAMSON VIEW:

“If a person behaves unlovingly, then that means that, regardless of their negativity—anger or whatever—their behavior was derived from fear and doesn’t actually exist. They’re hallucinating. You forgive them, then, because there’s nothing to forgive.” – Mary Anne Williamson

If a schizophrenic is hallucinating and they see your son as a devil that must be destroyed for the good of all and they decapitate him, … then you forgive them ‘because, as Williamson says, there’s nothing to forgive’, … the imaginary scenario that served as their reality did not exist.

In such cases involving, the family and friends of the person decapitated find it difficult to ‘forgive’ even if the perpetrator was hallucinating.

But something is missing here!  Such discussion assumes we are correct in our unstated assumption of the ‘producer-product’ nature of dynamics.   That is, we pass over without any overt acknowledgement, our habitual (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT) avoidance of NONLOCALITY, which we avoid by CONJURING UP AN INTELLECTUAL, ABSTRACT ‘LOCALITY’ by way of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar wherein (first error) we use naming to impute independent thing-in-itself being to a relational form in the flow (wave-field, Tao), and conflate this first error with the second error of grammar, where we impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.

So, the reality we are instead looking at (that is concealed beneath the double error) is the reality of the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the wave-field).  Since this ‘real reality’ is ineffable (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao), we resort to reducing the ineffable to the effable by way of the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

As in the story of Jean Valjean in Les Misérables, the real dynamic is the relational dynamic WHICH, SINCE IT IS INNATELY RELATIONAL, IS HARMONY/DISSONANCE BASED, …  and we are drawn into action to serve the cultivating of relational harmony, as Jean Valjean was; i.e. his behaviour was not jumpstart sourced’ from within, as the double error would have us believe, he and his behaviour were ‘relational’ in the same sense as the ‘boil’ in the ‘flow’ wherein FIGURE and GROUND are ONE.

In this case, WE NEED NOT FORGIVE Jean Valjean for “HIS ACTION” since it is NOT “HIS ACTION”, …  i.e. as relational form within the Tao, his participation is relational and NOT LOCAL not SORCERY-BASED as our language and grammar double error would have it.   That is, it is only the double error of language and grammar that set up the abstract notion that the action is LOCAL and as being SOURCED by Jean Valjean.  IN THE REALITY OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “LOCAL” (reality is nonlocal) AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’ (the abstract concept of sorcery comes from the double error).

In the reality of our actual sensory experience, Jean Valjean, and all of us, are relational forms within the transforming relational continuum, … WE ARE NOT LOCAL THINGS-IN-OURSELVES WITH OUR OWN INCIPIENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, .. such abstract representation is an INTELLECTUAL delusion arising from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar that OBSCURES our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  In other words, our INTELLECTUAL conceptualizing of reality in reductionist double error based terms of sorcery HIJACKS our understanding and BLOCKS our access to our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao.

Our intellectual abstract reasoning, which is double error based, does not naturally merit being elevated into precedence over our relational sensory experience, but such unnatural inversion in reality-defining primacy is characteristic of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE.  THIS IS WHERE WESTERN REALITY DEPARTS FROM MODERN PHYSICS AND FROM EASTERN REALITY, BOTH OF WHICH EMBRACE THE NATURAL PRIMACY OF THE RELATIONAL AND NONLOCAL (Tao that can only be implicitly told aka ‘inferrred’ as in ‘duning’) OVER THE EXPLICIT AND LOCAL (Tao that can be explicitly told as in ‘the dune’ that grows larger and longer and shifts across the ‘desert floor’).

TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSION RE THE MARIANNE WILLIAMSON VIEW:

‘Forgiveness’ is a concept that establishes, indirectly, by inference, the actuality of an injurious action.  It is a back-door affirmation of the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.  It is a BINARY approach to dealing with BINARY ABSTRACTION; i.e. the binary of ‘bad’ that is the flip side of ‘good’, thus ‘Forgiveness’ imputes the ‘reality’ of the binary pair of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.  That is, the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as LOCALLY AUTHORED ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS are DOUBLE ERROR ABSTRACTIONS.

If we ‘forgive’ Jean Valjean for ‘stealing a loaf of bread’ then we eclipse any and all hope of coming to an understanding that all such events are RELATIONAL rather than DOUBLE ERROR aka SORCERY based.  Jean Valjean’ action was RELATIONAL in that it was in the service of restoring balance among regions of abundance and regions of scarcity.  BUT RELATIONAL DIFFERENCE IS THE IMPLICIT AND ESSENTIAL ANIMATING INFLUENCE GIVING RISE TO THE INHERENTLY NONLOCAL dynamics of Nature.

FORGIVENESS IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT INDIRECTLY CONCRETIZES THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF “SORCERY”.  Meanwhile “SORCERY” is the abstract concept that arises from the DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

I am in full empathy with Marianne Williamson’s desire to break us out of our habit of judgement of evil and the associated habit of admonishment and punishment of the ‘guilty’.  HOWEVER, ‘FORGIVENESS’ SIMPLY CONCRETIZES THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF LOCAL SORCERY AND BURIES IT SO THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ‘WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE’.

IN WHICH CASE, WE ARE NOT GIVING OURSELVES THE CHANCE TO DISCOVER THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘LOCAL SORCERY’, THAT IT IS ONLY ABSTRACTION IN OUR INTELLECTUALIZING/REASONING MIND; I.E. LOCAL SORCERY IS THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR SO THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY NO NEED FOR ‘FORGIVENESS’, TO INVOKE THE CONCEPT OF ‘FORGIVENESS’ IS TO UNDERWRITE/LEGITIMIZE/CONCRETIZE  THE NOTIONAL REALITY OF LOCALLY INSTANTIATED SORCERY, thus eclipsing the reality of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum with its NONLOCAL dynamic.

‘FORGIVENESS’, in ‘concretizing’ the abstract view of LOCAL incipience of actions and developments (the ‘double error’), nips in the bud our natural inclination to move ourselves so as to restore relational harmony, … our response to understanding ‘offensive behaviour’ in the NONLOCAL terms of relational dissonance and thus casting off the abstract concept of LOCAL sorcery whereas FORGIVENESS, simply occludes or eclipses the relational tensions that underly emergence of relational dissonance, such relational tensions being NONLOCAL.  In other words, FORGIVENESS BURIES ALL INQUIRY INTO THE NONLOCAL, RELATIONAL SOURCING OF DISSONANCE SINCE IT ASSUMES THAT ‘WE KNOW WHO THE SOURCE OF THE ‘INJURIOUS ACTION’ IS’, …. BUT IN THE RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING, IT IS NEVER THE CASE OF ASCERTAINING ‘WHO’ THE SOURCE OF THE INJURIOUS ACTION IS, AND THUS ‘FORGIVENESS’ NEVER COMES INTO PLAY.

‘FORGIVENESS’ is an abstraction that is based on the DOUBLE ERROR constituted by the abstract notions of LOCAL things-in-themselves, notionally with the LOCALLY INCIPIENT POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

IN THE RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF MODERN PHYSICS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURES, TAOISM/BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA VEDANTA, THE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED CONCEPTUALIZING IN TERMS OF ‘LOCAL’ BEING WITH POWERS OF LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS IS MERELY A ‘THROW-AWAY WITTGENSTEIN LADDER’ FOR ALLUDING TO THE INEFFABLE BY MEANS OF A CRUDE REDUCTION OF THE NONLOCAL TO THE PSEUDO-LOCAL AND THUS ‘EFFABLE’.

THROUGH ‘FORGIVENESS’, ALL HOPE IS LOST OF COMING TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF DISSONANCE AS A PURELY RELATIONAL DYNAMIC, SINCE THE ORIGINS OF DISSONANCE ARE CAST OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS, AS HAVING ARISEN ‘LOCALLY’ RATHER THAN RELATIONALLY.

IN REALITY, DISSONANCE ARISES RELATIONALLY (NONLOCALLY) RATHER THAN LOCALLY, AS IS ALSO THE UNDERSTANDING OF MODERN PHYSICS, INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURES , TAOISM/BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA VEDANTA, and it is important for us to retain and understand this in order to let our relational movements adjust in the service of transforming relational dissonance into relational resonance.

FORGIVENESS THUS AMOUNTS TO REPLACING RELATIONAL DISSONANCE WITH LOCAL SORCERY; e.g.  OF INJURIOUS ACTIONS SO THAT WE THEN ABANDON ALL EFFORT TO ADDRESS THEM.  BUT SINCE THEY ARE, IN REALITY, NONLOCAL RELATIONAL DISSONANCE, THEY ARE OUR CRUCIAL GUIDE FOR RECULTIVATING RELATIONAL HARMONY.   The source of relational dissonance is never LOCAL as in COMING FROM THE BAD PERSON’ (as the ‘double error’ abstract ‘reduction to LOCAL SOURCING’ has us thinking), the source of relational dissonance is inherently RELATIONAL as in MITAKUYE OYASIN, … ‘we are all related’.  We must therefore understand the events of rape and murder NOT AS LOCALLY SOURCED BY A NAME-INSTANTIATED THING-IN-ITSELF but as relational dissonance that is inherently NONLOCAL.

* * *