SYNOPSIS

This note is a short summary of philosophical investigation findings in regard to FRAGMENTATION in WESTERN CULTURE psycho-physical intercourse.

These investigations reveal that while our sense-experience reality is WAVE-FIELD aware, our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE formulates representations by BREAKING THE WAVE-FIELD experience DOWN into FEMALE (nonlocal and implicit) and MALE (local and explicit) CONJUGATES and then DISCARDING THE FEMALE CONJUGATE so that our WESTERN CULTURE “COMMON AVERAGE EUROPEAN LANGUAGE” (Whorf’s classification) employs the one-sided MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE of the WAVE-FIELD ‘on its own’ (i.e. the local and explicit conjugate only, ignoring the nonlocal and implicit female conjugate). This produces language-based REPRESENTATIONS of the one-sided MALE-ASSERTING type such as “the TOWN is GROWING”

Again (for emphasis), this one-sided MALE-ASSERTING representation DROPS OUT the FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING WAVE-FIELD CONJUGATE (the nonlocal implicit female conjugate).  The SHORTFALL in our Common Average European language representations inspired David Bohm’s effort to develop a ‘Rheomode’ language’ which kept the full FEMALE-MALE WAVE-FIELD STRUCTURE INTACT; … a language development that Bohm later discovered had already been achieved by indigenous aboriginal cultures in their language development, yielding a language capable of the full FEMALE-MALE WAVE-FIELD composite as in the example; “THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE”.

NOTE THAT the ANDROGYNOUS topology of the WAVE-FIELD is found in basic dynamical structures in nature such as INHALING (female accommodating) and EXHALING (male-asserting).  This most basic natural dynamic seems to give way in the WESTERN CULTURE to the KNOW-IT-ALL ‘BLOWHARD’ who reaches a point where further learning ceases and the one-sided flow of ‘hot air’ dominates.

A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.  – Emerson.

The key point in this note is that the ANDROGYNOUS relation in nature IS THE WAVE-FIELD REALITY, which WESTERN CULTURE reduces to the MALE-ASSERTING ONLY, CASTING OUT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING and SUBSTITUTING ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE.

Our Common Average European language architecture, while DROPPING OUT THE FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE, incorporates the ABSTRACTIONS of BEING (from NAMING) and LOCAL AUTHORING (from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR), which support FRAGMENTATION in the architectural foundation as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING, PRODUCING’.  Such representations contrast with the flow-based Rheomode, the indigenous aboriginal languages and the language architecture variants used by Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, all of which employ the full FEMALE-MALE CONJUGATE WAVE-FIELD representations as in ‘There is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.

As Vygotsky (‘Thought and Language’) has shown, in contradicting the view of Piaget, the spontaneous/implicit and the deliberate/explicit are conjugate aspects of ONE (WAVE-FIELD) system.  Piaget’s view follows the general WESTERN CULTURE VIEW which considers the LOCAL and EXPLICIT representation to be sufficient.  This has become the ‘operative attitude’ in WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT DYNAMICS and it is the SOURCE OF FRAGMENTATION and mistaken belief in the concepts of BEING and LOCAL AUTHORING.

In other words, the UNITY of BOTH the SPONTANEOUS/IMPLICIT (FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE) AND the SCIENTIFIC/EXPLICIT (MALE-ASSERTING CONJUGATE) in a seamless ANDROGYNOUS UNION is the basic WAVE-FIELD nature of reality and it is only our LANGUAGE based attempt at REPRESENTATION wherein we “RESORT TO” the SPLITTING into the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING and the MALE ASSERTING.  Bohm’s ‘Rheomode’ and the indigenous aboriginal languages ACKNOWLEDGE the ANDROGYNOUS UNION of FEMALE AND MALE in WAVE-FIELD reality and Bohm’s WARNING on FRAGMENTATION points IMPLICITLY to PIAGET’S MISTAKE, the mistake incorporated in WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE IN GENERAL, of the DROP-OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE in our WESTERN CULTURE Common Average European language architecture.

Our WESTERN CULTURE PENCHANT for the SIMPLE and EXPLICIT has contributed to our persisting use of LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE which REDUCES WAVE-FIELD reality to a ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTING FRAGMENTATION based “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are problematically employing as our OPERATIVE REALITY.  THIS IS THE SOURCE OF FRAGMENTATION

FRAGMENTATION IS NOW VERY WIDESPREAD, NOT ONLY THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, BUT ALSO IN EACH INDIVIDUAL  – David Bohm

* * *

 

 

Understanding the WAVE-FIELD in terms of the FEMALE (nonlocal, implicit) and MALE (local, explicit) explains how the psychological and physical can ‘work together’ to inform us on our inclusion in WAVE-FIELD ‘reality’.

 

This commentary is coming from philosophical investigations into LANGUAGE and THOUGHT based DYSFUNCTION in WESTERN CULTURE which is manifesting as PSYCHOLOGICAL and PHYSICAL (social-relational) FRAGMENTATION.

 

The ANSWER to origin of this DYSFUNCTIONAL FRAGMENTATION is that it derives from employing the MALE (local and explicit) WAVE-FIELD component in an unnatural primacy over the FEMALE (nonlocal and implicit) WAVE-FIELD component.  For example, using the local and explicit MALE construct ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ WITHOUT GROUNDING IT IN THE nonlocal and implicit FEMALE conjugate; ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.

 

The NATURAL order of things in THOUGHT and LANGUAGE comprehends the ordered relation between the FEMALE (nonlocal and implicit) and the MALE (local and explicit).  Vygotsky describes natural order as follows;

 

In ‘Thought and Language’, Lev Vygotsky points out that ‘spontaneous concept formation’ induced by the situation we find ourselves in, and ‘scientific concept formation’ which we can think of as our corresponding intention driven response that is inductively actualized by the unfolding situation, are a single system; i.e. a situational-intentional nonduality.   We might compare this with a Dionysian-Apollonian nonduality

 

THE BASIC FINDING IN MY PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATION, WHICH CONNECTS THE FINDINGS OF Nietzsche, Bohm and Vygotsky, which are to some degree found in parallel in the work of Wittgenstein, Schroedinger, Mach, and psychiatrists (R. D. Laing) and Anthropologists (Jules Henry, Mircea Eliade) is that the structure of language informs thought and in indigenous aboriginal cultures, the language is such as to inform thought in a fully integrated NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE conjugate PLUS LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE conjugate combined manner as in ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’, whereas in WESTERN CULTURE, the language is such as to inform  thought in a partial non-integrated LOCAL and EXPLICIT, MALE ASSERTIVE ONLY manner as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING’.  This ONE-SIDED, MALE-ASSERTING, LOCAL AND EXPLICIT representation employed in WESTERN CULTURE is FRAGMENTATIVE, as it is one-sidedly MALE-ASSERTING ( Vygotaky’s scientific concept formation) lacking the INTEGRATIVE CAPACITY of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate (Vygotsky’s ‘spontaneous concept formation’)

 

The WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMIC, because of the evolving of WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE PRACTICE which has reduced the FULL WAVE-FIELD basis of language to one-sided (LOCAL-EXPLICIT) MALE-ASSERTING formulations, is the source of FRAGMENTATION in both THOUGHT and LANGUAGE within the WESTERN CULTURE user group.   There is a LOCK-IN to this SIMPLER one-sided, FRAGMENTATIVE form of communication because of its SIMPLICITY which is like the Cuckoo’s implanting of a simpler egg that hatches out in the nest of a more complex or sensitive bird and HIJACKS the continuing succession.  That is, once the habit of communicating in the SIMPLIFIED ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTING (LOCAL and EXPLICIT) approach is established so that everyone is saying ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, … a return to the LESS SIMPLE FULL WAVE-FIELD FEMALE-AND-MALE (NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and LOCAL and EXPLICIT) conjugate combination, is difficult because of the slippery slope leading back to the simpler MALE-ASSERTING (LOCAL and EXPLICIT) representation.

 

Our current WESTERN CULTURE plight is that we are stuck in the FRAGMENTATIVE mode of language based representation, and as David Bohm notes,

fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual;  — David Bohm

* * *

 

APPENDIX:  KEY ‘POINTERS’ SUPPORTING THE OVERALL FINDINGS

 

OBSCURANTISM (the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.) captures what is going on here in this unnatural ELEVATING of the CONDENSATIONS of the WAVE-FIELD within a SUBSTITUTE REALITY wherein the PROMOTING of the status of the CONDENSATIONS is matched by the DEMOTING of the WAVE-FIELD to a notional ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE status.  THIS IS OBSCURANTISM AND IT HAS BEEN GIVEN A FOUNDATIONAL ROLE IN WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE-BASED REPRESENTATIONS OF A “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” which we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are employing as our OPERATIVE REALITY.

 

 

1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS (from Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm)

The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others. Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc

 

—Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer”

“Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.”

 

– Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.”

 

– Lev Vygotsky, ‘Thought and Language’

The connection between ‘spontaneous thought’ and ‘structured thought’ points to the general WAVE-FIELD basis of reality wherein the nonlocal and implicit (FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE) and the local and explicit (MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE) are CONJUGATE ASPECTS of the ANDROGYNOUS WAVE-FIELD dynamic.  Vygotsky’s model can be interpreted as supporting the WAVE-FIELD nature of reality where ‘spontaneous thought’ is the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING ‘CONTAINER’ while ‘scientific thought’ is the MALE-ASSERTING ‘CONTENT’.

the following discussion:outlines the two ‘conjugate’ concept types which in Vygotsky’s interpretation, are “A SINGLE SYSTEM”.

* * *

 

https://languageavenue.com/linguistics/psycholinguistics/language-and-thought/item/scientific-vs-spontaneous-concepts-vygotskian-perspective

 

 

Interrelatedness of the Two Types of Concepts

… Besides the above stated differences between scientific and spontaneous concepts, Vygotsky also perceived their interrelatedness, their ‘reciprocal dependence’, and their constant influence on each other. Both kinds of concepts belong to the semantic aspect of speech development and the development of both is crucial for a child’s intellectual growth.

John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) also point out that Vygotsky recognized not only dissimilarities between the two types of concepts but also their interdependence. They mention Vygotsky’s (1986, p. 157) claim that the development of both spontaneous and scientific concepts “are parts of a single process: the development of concept formation which is affected by varying external and internal conditions but is essentially a unitary process, not a conflict of antagonistic, mutually exclusive forms of thinking”. According to John-Steiner et al (1998), Luria contributed to this issue with his concept of ‘interfunctional organization’, which he drew from Vygotsky’s idea of interrelation between scientific and everyday concepts, and “in which scientific concepts rise on the foundation of everyday concepts and, in the process, fundamentally change the everyday concepts by drawing them into systemic relations” (p. 128).

In following the paths of their development, the two kinds of concepts meet each other half way and provide the necessary support for their mutual development. Vygotsky (1986) noted that “from the very beginning, the child’s scientific and his spontaneous concepts … develop in reverse directions: Starting far apart, they move to meet each other” (p. 192). He continued:

“In working its slow way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept and its downward development. It creates a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive, elementary aspects, which give it body and vitality. Scientific concepts, in turn, supply structures for the up­ward development of the child’s spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and deliberate use. (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 194)

 * * *