Our sense-experience perception serves us up the abstract concept of a LOCAL AUTHOR when supported by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING (which implies LOCAL things-in-itself being) and GRAMMAR (which conflates the error of NAMING by imputing the power of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development to the NAMING-instantiated [notional] THING-IN-ITSELF).  Thanks to this DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, relational forms in the transforming relational continuum of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION can be precipitated out of the INEFFABLE and EFFABLE-ized, … but where do they now ‘exist’?  The EFFABLE-because-now, thanks to the DOURLE ERROR, LOCAL and EXPLICIT entities are ‘living’ in an absolute, infinite emptiness, until we conjure up for them a tangible landscape for them to “INHABIT”.

This DOUBLE ERROR reduction in our reduction of visual forms to EFFABLE language-based objects-of RE-presentation furnishes these notional NAMING-instantiated THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR-given (notional) powers of AUTHORING actions and developments.

What is actually ‘going on here’ in this reduction to LOCAL of the reality of NONLOCAL TRANSFORMATION, the stuff of our actual sensory experience of inclusion therein?

George Berkeley spoke to the issues involved;

(-1-) esse est percipi (aut percipere) – to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).”

Since we are included within a transforming relational continuum wherein ‘everything is in transformational flux’, including ourselves, the abstraction of BEING builds from sense-perception.

As Nietzsche later remined us, we CONJURE UP the abstract concept of LOCAL AUTHORSHIP of actions and development by employing a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to ‘effable-ize’ by imputing the notional existence of the LOCAL AUTHOR, the INEFFABLE dynamic of TRANSFORMATION aka the Wave-field aka the Tao, … the transforming relational continuum.

We can recognize in this, a general intellectualizing or rationalizing tool or ‘calculus’ which BREAKS INTO THE CONTINUUM OF TRANSFORMATION which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, and RE-RENDERS it in terms of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT by way of a LOGIC-based DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

In exploring LOCAL AUTHORSHIP, we must recall Goedel’s theorem of the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite systems of logic.  For example, it is a logical TRUTH to place on record that ‘the HURRICANE is AUTHORING the stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE (the MALE-ASSERTIVE option), but it is also a logical TRUTH to place on record that ‘the ATMOSPHERE is AUTHORING the stirring up of the HURRICANE’ (the FEMALE-inductive option).   This ambiguity INEVITABLY crops us in language-based reductions of NONLOCAL (wave-field) TRANSFORMATION to LOCALLY AUTHORED (material) actions and developments.

Some form of REDUCTION is necessary to reduce the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL and our WESTERN CULTURE REDUCTION approach is to interject the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, which, as just shown, brings with it an INNATE AMBIGUITY in that we can use EITHER a MALE-ASSERTIVE REDUCTION wherein the HURRICANE is stirring up the ATMOSPHERE  or a FEMALE-INDUCTIVE REDUCTION wherein the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE (in the former there is assertive force while in the latter there is seductive inducement).

WESTERN CULTURE manifests a dominant use of the MALE-ASSERTIVE option for use in language-based reality construction.

NOTA BENE: It is important NOT to forget that our WESTERN CULTURE language-based reduction to EFFABLE-IZE the INEFFABLE reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION, is TROUBLED by the ambiguity of the MALE-assertive and FEMALE-inductive options, and ambiguity which splits people into CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL modes of understanding reality.  The Conservative reduces TRANSFORMATION to the MALE-assertive option (e.g. the HURRICANE is stirring up the ATMOSPHERE) while the Liberal reduces TRANSFORMATION to the FEMALE-inductive option (e.g. the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE).  NEITHER OF THESE TWO BINARY LOGIC BASED OPTIONS IS ‘REALITY’ but BOTH are LOGICALLY TRUE (‘logic’ is abstraction that lives in a world where things EITHER ‘are’ OR ‘are not’).  This is an abstract intellectual SUBSTITUTE REALITY and NOT the real world of the transforming relational continuum of our sensory experience.

WESTERN CULTURE “SCIENCE” (pre-modern physics) is BUILT UPON binary logic based TRUTHS which are indeed LOGICAL TRUTHS and thus exposed to the Goede’s Theorem limitation in that “ALL FINITE SYSTEMS OF LOGIC ARE INNATELY INCOMPLETE”.

Thus we must be careful in constructing understandings based on LOGICAL TRUTHS , as by way of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR since such TRUTHS are INCOMPLETE.   This problem of ‘incompleteness’ of ‘truth’ that we build into a complex suite of logical propositions can “COME BACK TO HAUNT US” where we are not ‘careful’ as in the case of CALCULUS;

“Berkeley contended that the practitioners of calculus introduced several errors which cancelled, leaving the correct answer. In his own words, “by virtue of a two fold mistake you arrive, though not at science, yet truth”

While the proposition that ‘the TOWN is GROWING LARGER and MORE PRODUCTIVE’ can be verified and confirmed as TRUE, this is an INCOMPLETE TRUTH in that it fails to acknowledge the greater reality of TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE wherein the GROWTH of the TOWN also entails, AT THE SAME TIME, the REDUCTION of WILDERNESS.

EVIDENTLY, while it is TRUE to speak of the GROWTH of the TOWN, it is NOT REALITY, since the REALITY is the continually TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.

TRUTH IS ALWAYS INCOMPLETE because it is expressed in the form of BINARY LOGIC BASED MALE-ASSERTIVE PROPOSITIONS as is clear in the example; ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ which says nothing about the conjugate SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS.

BINARY LOGIC WAS THUS INADEQUATE FOR MODERN PHYSICS capture of real-world phenomena, because of its ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTIVE propositions which always leaves behind in the dark and unspoken DEA INCOGNITA (the female aspect which BINARY LOGIC based language ignores and allows to ‘HAUNT’ our all-male assertive logical propositions.

“I have a niggling feeling that we are leaving something out when we keep talking about progress in terms of the GROWTH of cultivated, residential and industrialized land’.  I know that this GROWTH is TRUE because we have MEASURED IT, but I keep having dreams in which the animals in the conjugately SHRINKING Wilderness are crying out more and more in the face of unrelenting GROWTH of cultivated, residential and industrialized lands.  Could it be that this concept of GROWTH is suffering from the Goedel’s Theorem exposure to the INCOMPLETENESS of LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS?.

“GROWTH” is a RATIO-based or REASON-based concept. How reliable is REASON?

“In Reason’ in language!  ……..(Note how Nietzsche points to ‘being’ as the underpinning of ‘reason‘; i.e).  … “Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as ‘cause’; from the concept ‘ego,’ alone, can the concept ‘Being’ proceed.”……….– oh what a deceptive old witch it (reason) has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

“GROWTH” is a word that serves up a RATIO-nal, one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE proposition that is not compatible with TRANSFORMATION.  ‘GROWTH’ of cultivated land on the surface of a flat EUCLIDIAN space plane is a RATIO-nal concept but ‘GROWTH’ of cultivated land on a spherical surface implies the conjugate SHRINKAGE of uncultivated land in which case there is, in REALITY, NEITHER MALE-ASSERTIVE GROWTH nor CONJUGATE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING but instead, TRANSFORMATION as the “coniunctio oppositorum” pictured in medieval representations as the ouroborus, the representation of transformation as a snake regenerating itself by swallowing itself in a tail-into-mouth circular dynamic.

The point is that ‘GROWTH” is too limited a concept to capture the reality of TRANSFORMATION.  The GROWTH of a TOWN does not capture the conjugate shrinkage of the Wilderness.

THE CRAZINESS that comes from the TRANSFORMATION-OBSCURING belief in GROWTH is upon us in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT social dynamic because we are leaving TRANSFORMATION to transpire like a loose sheet flapping in the gale as focus fully on GROWTH as if GROWTH were the REALITY instead of TRANSFORMATION.

What we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are doing with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR is create the abstract impression of a LOCAL AUTHOR of actions and developments, so as to NOTIONALLY (psychologically) BREAK-IN to the ineffable transforming relational continuum (the Wave-field aka the Tao) and establish (within a SUBSTITUTE REALITY IN THE MIND) a LOCAL AUTHORING BEACH-HEAD.

(-A-)  With NAMING and GRAMMAR we can construct ‘the HURRICANE that AUTHORS the stirring up of the ATMOSPHERE. (MALE-ASSERTIVE LOCAL AUTHOR)

(-B-) With NAMING and GRAMMAR we can construct the ATMOSPHERE that AUTHORS the stirring up of the HURRICANE (FEMALE-INDUCTIVE LOCAL AUTHOR).

Establishing the LOCAL AUTHOR BEACH-HEAD in the transforming relational continuum INVENTS THIS CONIUNCTIO OPPOSITORUM of MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-INDUCTIVE OPPOSING POLAR CONJUGATES, like the TRANSMITTER-and-RECEIVER dichotomy in WAVE-FIELD physics which are COMPLEX CONJUGATES meaning that the FEMALE is IMAGINARY.

When NEWTON invented calculus as a mathematical tool for reconstructing reality (representations of reality) in an EFFABLE form, he had to GET RID OF, or RUN AN END-RUN AROUND, the endlessness implicit in TRANSFORMATION. The way he chose to do this LOCALIZING of the NONLOCAL was to MEASURE DIFFERENCES within the CONTINUUM using the abstract MEASURING FRAMEWORKS for “SPACE” (extension) and “TIME” (duration), using language based abstract ‘measurement templates’ that could be overlain on the TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM extract local forms such as ‘the HURRICANE’ that could be RE-ANIMATED with GRAMMAR.

In mathematical terms, these are “DERIVATIVES” which Newton termed “FLUXIONS”, notional little LOCAL BITS with their own (NOTIONAL) AUTHORING powers to NOTIONALLY LOCALLY jumpstart the flow, and thus FABRICATE and EFFABLE version of REALITY which is no longer THE REALITY THAT IS INEFFABLE but is now a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that “IS” EFFABLE.

These little miniscule “fluxions” could then be the notional LOCAL SOURCES of actions and developments, so that our goal of reducing the reality of TRANSFORMATION to language-based representation in LOCAL and thus EFFABLE terms could be achieved.  While dividing the transforming continuum up into parts would let us do an ‘end-run’ (manufacture a SUBSTITUTE REAITY) that WOULD allows us to capture transformation in language-based representations, it would have to come at the expense of inventing a new absolute reference-frame as an empty container as a field of play for NAMING-instantiated representations of notional LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with their own notional (GRAMMAR-given) powers of AUTHORING actions and developments.

Creating local miniscule versions of these “FLUXIONS” would afford generality in the construction of complex shapes needed to simulate flow-forms and their fluid dynamics as in TRANSFORMATION.

While such abstraction would facilitate representation in LOCAL terms and thus ‘get by’ the problematic (re representation) NONLOCALITY of TRANSFORMATION, the tiny ‘elements of flow’ or ‘fluxions’ could not be given a REAL meaning since they are simply an abstraction based expedient.  This was Berkeley’s complaint, that these ‘fluxions’ were little phantoms created as expedients for fabricating a LOCAL AUTHOR based version of the NONLOCAL.

 And what are these Fluxions? The Velocities of evanescent Increments? And what are these same evanescent Increments? They are neither finite Quantities nor Quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?

SHOULD WE BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF THESE FLUXIONS IF WE ARE USING THEM IN OUR REPRESENTATIONS OF, and ANALYSES OF REALITY?

Berkeley did not dispute the results of calculus; he acknowledged the results were true. The thrust of his criticism was that Calculus was not more logically rigorous than religion. He instead questioned whether mathematicians “submit to Authority, take things upon Trust”[3] just as followers of religious tenets did. According to Burton, Berkeley introduced an ingenious theory of compensating errors that were meant to explain the correctness of the results of calculus. Berkeley contended that the practitioners of calculus introduced several errors which cancelled, leaving the correct answer. In his own words, “by virtue of a two fold mistake you arrive, though not at science, yet truth.”

 * * *

SUMMARY TO THIS POINT:  Since we are by now JUGGLING a number of intersecting observations and ‘understandings’ that include ‘logical propositions.

What the above attests to is that we, as intellectual authors of shareable representations, have come up with a (WESTERN) language architecture that SIDESTEPS the INEFFABLE nature of the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’, … by inventing a procedure to CONSTRUCT REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY (i.e. REPRESENTATIONS of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum).   Since it is impossible to REPRESENT a transforming relational continuum in a finite number of descriptive terms (since everything is in continual flux), one approach to a ‘work around’ is to construct a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that is EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.

FEATURES in the transforming relational continuum such as HURRICANING which has a FIGURE in GROUND-as-ONE reality which is INEFFABLE can be DROPPED OUT and SUBSTITED by introducing a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO topology (i.e. the HUURICANE “IN” the ATMOSPHERE where these are abstracted as TWO separate THINGS), thanks to imputing the existence of an empty containing space of infinite extent (i.e. EUCLIDIAN SPACE).  The HURRICANE is something we would imagine ‘moves through’ the ATMOSPHERE, and the AMOSPHERE is something we would imagine as a kind of layer of air AROUND THE EARTH.

This is like INSTEAD OF SAYING “THERE IS DUNING IN THE DESERTING”, saying “THERE ARE DUNES in the DESERT” and “The DUNES are GROWING LARGER and HIGHER and ARE SHIFTING ACROSS THE DESERT”.  In reality, there is RESONANCE and RESONANCE gathers dust and sand so that DUNING is a Wave-field (RESONANCE) phenomenon and THERE ARE NO “THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES” called DUNES with their own notional powers of “AUTHORING” actions and developments.  That is just the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, as Nietzsche points out.

The FIGURES that we PROCLAIM to enjoy “INDEPENDENT BEING” thanks to our NAMING them, oblige us, to be logically consistent, to provide them with THEIR OWN POWERS of AUTHORING actions and development.  GRAMMAR is an abstract invention that provides this RE-PRESENTATIONAL feature of LOCAL AUTHORING. .

As with the example of ‘the GROWTH of the TOWN’ which fails to capture the more complete phenomenon of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE since it makes no mention of the CONJUGATE REDUCTION of the WILDERNESS, we are alerted to the Goedel’s Theorem warning of the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite systems of (Male assertive) LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS such as ‘the TOWN IS GROWING’.

The one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE logical proposition that imputes “AUTHORING POWER” to the TOWN is abstraction that is NOT REAL but which gives us a kind of FLAT SPACE mentally imagined PICTURE of a TOWN that is ‘filling up’ more and more OPEN ENDLESS FLAT SPACE area.  Within this IMAGINED ratio-based expansion of filler, there is no INCLUSION of any conjugate REDUCTION of Wilderness almost as if the expansion was transpiring one-sidedly (in a MALE-asserting manner) in a surficial (FEMALE ACCOMMODATING) OPEN SPACE of infinite areal extent, …. so big an accommodating space that there is ZERO resistance to MALE ASSERTNG.

Overall, what we can see going on here is logical ‘complications’ that arise from our attempt to construct a language-based SUBSTITUTE REALITY that delivers RE-PRESENTATIONS of sensory experience reality in LOCAL TERMS, in place of the NONLOCAL TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE which is INEFFABLE-because-in-continual flux.

That is, the three abstractions “LOCAL”, “AUTHOR” and “GROWTH” are all MALE ATTRIBUTES but TRANSFORMATION is ANROGYNOUS and our half-baked ASSERTIVE MALE pushing into a vacuum of infinite extent (Euclidian space) is NOT a realistic representation of reality.  FURTHERMORE, because we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS employ the one-side MALE-ASSERTIVE pseudo-reality anyhow, its shortfall is something we intuit in the sense of the DEA INCOGNITA, the mysterious female, the WILDERNESS that is being CUT DOWN and is SHRINKING conjugate to our AUTHORING of GROWTH of the CULTIVATED lands.  This DEA INCOGNITA is tickling our intuitive awareness re the conjugate SHRINKING of the Wilderness even though we do not mention in it as we describe “REALITY” in the ONE-SIDED terms of MALE ASSERTING GROWTH of the CULTIVATED LAND.  There is NO SUCH THING as our AUTHORING of GROWTH of AGRICULTURAL and INDUSTRIAL LANDS, THERE IS ONLY TRANSFORMATION!.

As Nietzsche has pointed out, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have ‘conditioned ourselves psychologically’, with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, so that we believe the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” is the “REAL REALITY” and we are BEHAVING (i.e. we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS ARE BEHAVING) …. AS IF WE HAVE OUR OWN POWERS of “AUTHORING” AS THE FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO ‘SUBSTITUTE REALITY IMPLIES.  Since the ‘AUTHORING’ can be conceived of in EITHER the MALE-assertive OR the FEMALE-inductive configurations, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS divide and polarize into Conservative (Male-assertive) and Liberal (Female-inductive POLAR OPPOSITE views of reality.  BOTH of these views and thus the pervasive polarizing division in WESTERN CULTURE derive from the belief in LOCAL AUTHORING.  THERE IS NO LOCAL AUTHORING IN TRANSFORMATION!

* * *

In this essay, The NONLOCALITY of TRANSFORMATION and the OCCULT DOUBLE-ERROR reduction to the LOCAL AUTHORSHIP in ‘space’ and ‘time’ is mentioned in terms of the feeling that Donald TRUMP has inspired the recent INSURRECTION in the U.S. Capitol.

The notion of the OCCULT in WESTERN CULTURE derives from our language based DROP OUT of the Dea INCOGNITA as a result of our using language to REDUCE TRANSFORMATION, ONE-SIDEDLY, IN LANGUAGE, to the MALE-ASSERTIVE.

The DEA INCOGNITA, the FEMALE-INDUCTIVE IS PART OF WHAT ‘REALITY IS’ AND IT IS ONLY LANGUAGE THAT REDUCES THE FULLY ANDROGYNOUS TRANSFORMATION TO THE ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTIVE AS GIVEN BY THE DOUBLE ERROR OF NAMING AND GRAMMAR.

When we speak of ‘the GROWTH of cultivated land’, that is the MALE ASSERTIVE ASPECT of what is going on ONLY and it leaves in the dark and unspoken, the LOSS of the WILDERNESS and that unmentioned LOSS , the DEA INCOGNITA is there in our heads, in our unspoken awareness, to ‘haunt’ us, even as our EGO is bursting as we tell tales of heroic achievements in GROWTH and PRODUCTION of cultivate and residential lands and industrial developments.

While EGO swells the head, INSPIRATION fills the heart and INSPIRATION is faltering with the LOSS of WILDERNESS, inducing in us a psychological BIPOLAR DISORDER.

Bothe Conservatives and Liberals back a ‘GROWTH ECONOMY’ and GROWTH is blind the reality of TRANSFORMATION.  The fact that our language gives us a BLINDNESS to TRANSFORMATION doesn’t prevent our SENSORY EXPERIENCE form bringing us an AWARENESS of TRANSFORMATION, and this amounts to an OCCULT awareness of ‘what is going missing’ in the realm of TRANSFORMATION, the undefinable-because-nonlocal-and-implicit.

This OCCULT in the case of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS is NOT SUPERSTITION in any unreal sense, it is an OCCULT deriving from our real sensory awareness of SOMETHING IMPORTANT GONE MISSING in our REASON-based intellectual talk of GROWTH and PRODUCTION, these two concepts being based on SUPERSTITION wherein we cast ourselves as the AUTHORS of such works.

The OCCULT that is bothering our WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMIC is the OCCULT belief in the AUTHOR concept.

* * *

 

PART II: SOCIAL RAMIFICATIONS of BELIEF in the “AUTHOR” Concept.

Did TRUMP “AUTHOR” the “INSURGENCY” in Washington or Did he NOT?

There is a CURIOUS AMBIGUITY in this question of whether TRUMP AUTHORED THE violence in the Washington Capital, that anyone can “feel” in contemplating what occurred.  To what degree is an expression of battling for one’s right a MATAPHOR and to what degree is it a rallying call to PHYSICAL VIOLENCE?

Or is this ‘homing in’ on the right QUESTION?

That is, if life is, as Modern physics would have it, inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, then there is REALLY NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHOR of actions and developments.  Such a concept is, as Nietzsche points out, arises from a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The dynamics of social collectives seem to have a lot in common with a BUMPER CAR DYNAMIC where we can say that BUMPER CAR 17 crashed into BUMPER CAR 51 even while the person behind the wheel of BUMPER CAR 17 may experience ‘being pushed around’ by the relational dynamics she is included in.  Language and grammar allow us to reduce this complexity with BINARY LOGIC whereby we say “EITHER” CAR 17 crashed into CAR 17 “OR” it did not.

This is simple binary logic which is subject to Goedel’s Theorem “INCOMPLETENESS OF ALL FINITE SYSTEMS OF LOGIC”.  If we are the driver of CAR 17 in the BUMPER CAR dynamic, we may find ourselves in a situation wherein we are NOT THE AUTHOR OF OUR ACTIONS.  In spite of this, the way our language works is to simplify what is really going on by speaking in terms of a LOCAL AUTHOR of action, thus if we are a male in the press of a crowd, perhaps in a Turkish transit mini-bus which has loaded way too many people, as we feel our male body and its private parts press against the neighbouring female and her private parts, we may get an angry look from her that signals that she is understanding us as the LOCAL AUTHOR of this invasive pressing.

WE ARE “NOT” THE AUTHOR and there are no LOCAL AUTHORS in a BUMPER CAR GAME because such dynamics are inherently NONLOCAL.

HOW WE UNDERSTAND SUCH SITUATIONS DIVIDES WEST and EAST and MODERN PHYSICS comes out on the side of the EAST wherein THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHOR of dynamics because EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX as in the BUMPER-CAR-DYNAMIC.

While it is TRUE that CAR 17 smashed into CAR 51, that DOES NOT MEAN THAT CAR 17 is the AUTHOR of the CRASH, since we can clearly see the NONLOCAL nature of dynamics in the BUMPER CAR GAME.

Modern physics would understand the NONLOCAL nature of dynamics in general.

As Nietzsche has pointed out, the concept of a LOCAL AUTHOR is abstract and derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.  And it is not only ABSTRACT, it is AMBIGUOUS.  For example, does the HURRICANE stir up the ATMOSPHERE or does the ATMOSPHERE stir up the HURRICANE?   This CONJUGATE MALE-ASSERTIVE  and FEMALE-INDUCTIVE AMBIGUITY  as to WHICH is the AUTHOR of WHICH is NOT RESOLVABLE.   IT is NOT RESOLVABLE because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHOR, there is only TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (there is “HURRICANING” in the “ATMOSPHERING”).

Right away we can see that the ambiguity is coming from language architecture. The HURRICANING is a dynamic within the ATMOSPHERING and everything is in flux as is the nature of the Wave-field aka the Tao aka the REALITY of our sensory experience of inclusion therein.

THE AMBIGUITY AS TO WHETHER TRUMP IS THE AUTHOR OF THE RIOT OR IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE RIOT derives from the belief that the social-relational turbulence aka the RIOT has an AUTHOR that ‘causes it to happen’.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “AUTHOR” IN A REALITY WHICH IS A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM AS IS THE NATURE OF THE REALITY WE ARE INCLUDED IN.

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS say that “man is the AUTHOR of agricultural and industrial and residential developments on earth” but what is really going on is TRANSFORMATION and man is INCLUDED IN TRANSFORMATION (aka the Wave-field aka the Tao).

The concept of the AUTHOR is abstraction that becomes DELUSION if we seriously believe in it.  The AUTHOR is abstraction that does NOT arise in Modern physics, nor in indigenous aboriginal cultures.  For example the Potlatch reflects the fact that indigenous aboriginal peoples DO NOT ASSUME THAT THEY ARE THE AUTHORS of AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

Sure, we are HUMANINGS within the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, but it is ONLY NAMING AND GRAMMAR (the “DOUBLE ERROR”) that abstractly CARICATURES US as “LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH OUR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS”.

* * *

FOR MANY OF US, THERE IS SOMETHING “CREEPY” ABOUT ACCUSING TRUMP OF “AUTHORING” THE RIOTS, … JUST AS THERE IS SOMETHING “CREEPY” ABOUT CREDITING HUMANS WITH “AUTHORING” AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, … WHAT IS IT?

When we say that our AUTHORING of agricultural production and residential construction is increasing, the indigenous aboriginal is understanding how the WHITE MAN SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE because such AUTHORING is NOT REALITY.  What is being LEFT OUT is the CONJUGATE SHRINKING OF THE WILDERNESS.  In other words, the REAL REALITY is TRANSFORMATION and we and everything are included within it.

TRANSFORMATION manifests in REVOLUTIONS such as the AMERICAN REVOLUTION and there is no AUTHORING in TRANSFORMATION, although we may want to impute a FIGURE-HEAD AUTHOR of some sort as in anointing SAMUEL ADAMS as the FATHER of the AMERICAN REVOLUTION which satisfies our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT NEED to understand dynamics in ‘cause-and-effect’ terms.

How did the plains get covered with agricultural, industrial and residential developments?

ANSWER: HUMANS AUTHORED THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

However, it is clear that humaning is an aspect of the TRANSFORMING relational continuum.

TRANSFORMATION IS THE PRIMARY DYNAMIC and while there is no such thing as LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments, we construct this concept linguistically with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The concept of AUTHOR is held in place by EGO.

Is it NOT therefore IRONIC that TRUMP is accused of being the AUTHOR of an insurgency by those who most critique TRUMP for being a self-deluding EGOTIST and are, in the process, themselves using the EGO-concept of AUTHOR to accuse TRUMP of being the AUTHOR of the insurgency.

You can perhaps intuit the ‘house of cards’ exposure here for us WESTERN CULTURE ADDHERENTS.   We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have been claiming to be the AUTHOR of agricultural, residential and industrial GROWTH and PRODUCTION which has given us a big EGO

Who else is responsible for AUTHORING the growth of agriculture and industry if it is not us?

The indigenous aboriginal people will point out that we live in a transforming relational continuum where we ARE ‘all our relations’ (“mitakuye oyasin”), and being included in a relational dynamic innately greater than ourselves, we are NOT equipped to AUTHOR anything, although, like the BUMPER CAR drivers, our actions contribute to the cultivating of the relational dynamic in which we are included and we can move so as to cultivate relational resonance (subsume relational dissonance) or to cultivate relational dissonance.

When we join the flow of the freeway we are included in a relational web that influences but does not prescribe or AUTHOR our movements and likewise our movements influence but do not AUTHOR freeway traffic movement.  It is impossible to isolate our individual influence where there are three or more entities in relative movement;

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

WESTERN JUSTICE is underlain by belief in LOCAL AUTHORSHIP of actions and development as ALSO supports the notion of LOCALLY AUTHORED GROWTH of agricultural, residential and industrial development.  This is OVER-SIMPLIFICATION achieved through the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR; e.g. the proposition that the lands under agricultural cultivation are GROWING is not REALITY since it fails to mention the CONJUGATE SHRINKAGE of WILDERNESS, these two developments being dual aspects of the one dynamic of TRANSFORMATION of the land which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

If we BELIEVE that we humans are AUTHORING the GROWTH of cultivated land and the PRODUCTION of goods and services (which substitutes for the understanding that we are included in the transforming relational continuum) we allow this BELIEF to serve as a SUBSTITUTE REALITY in place of our sensory experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION, then within this EGO-based SUBSTITUTE REALITY, it is indeed possible to accuse DONALD TRUMP of AUTHORING an insurgency.

On the other hand, if we WITHHOLD the abstract belief in AUTHORING and go with Modern physics and indigenous aboriginal culture understanding that we are included in an all-encompassing Wave-field aka the Tao, aka the transforming relational continuum, then concepts such as ‘the man makes the times’ and its conjugate, ‘the times make the man’ do not come into being.

As in the case of WWII, the question can arise as to whether the influential agent that goes by the name Hitler AUTHORED the social-relational turbulence, or whether the social-relational turbulence AUTHORED the influential agent that goes by the name Hitler.

As systems theorist Erich Jantsch has pointed out in ‘DESIGN FOR EVOLUTION, NEITHER OF THESE BIPOLAR OPTIONS HOLDS WATER, the actual reality being, instead, TRANSFORMATION.

The abstract concept of LOCAL AUTHORING, derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR and it is abstraction that comes with a basic ambiguity since it is splitting apart of TRANSFORMATION into MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-ACCOMMODATIVE CONJUGATES as in the example, the HURRICANE stirs up the ATMOSPHERE or the ATMOSPHERE stirs up the HURRICANE.  Did the social relational dynamic AUTHOR the stitring up of a Hitler or Trump, or did a Hitler or Trump AUTHOR the stirring up of the social relational dynamics.

The answer is that there is no such thing as AUTHORING, there is only TRANSFORMATION.

* * *