The folly of Western culture belief in the double error of sorcery and in using it as a basis of reward and punishment.

 

“IN A NUTSHELL”, …  the nuttiness bred into Western culture adherents lies in (1) the inability of the intellectual tools of language and grammar to capture the ‘ineffable’ sensory experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (i.e., inclusion in the ‘wave-field’ aka the Tao); (2) the development and use of language in human cultures to reduce the ineffable to effable, so as to enable ‘sharing’  and ‘comparing’ (of language-based reductions of our ineffable experience); and (3) the ‘double error’ whereby our language based reduction usurps the natural primacy of our unreduced ineffable sensory experience based reality (i.e. the tool [of language based reduction] runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’ (Emerson)  Note: The ‘double error’ is (first error) the use of ‘naming’ to impute ‘independent-thing-in-itself being’ to relational flow-forms, conflated by (second error) the grammar based imputing of powers of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself.

The above-described language-and-grammar based ‘hatchet job’ on the Tao,  to render our ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao ‘intellectually effable’, sets the stage for deploying intellectual double-error based reduction as our ‘standard Western culture operative reality’.  This reductive ‘double error’ substitution is an overly simplistic ‘tool’ that, however useful as a supportive tool, is, in Wittgenstein’s terms, an expedient ‘ladder ‘to facilitate a leap to an understanding that lies innately beyond explicit reach.  Meanwhile this ‘double error’ based language has been employed in Western culture, NOT AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE  (which is all that explicit language can be), but as our Western culture ‘normal’ means of  constructing an EXPLICIT INVENTED REALITY that  is used as our ‘operative reality’ and therefore shapes our ‘normal’ individual and collective Western culture adherent behaviour; … a ‘normal’ that is far from ‘natural’.

While the intellectual reduction of the ineffable Tao (1) to effable (shareable) language (2) by way of the ‘double error’ (3) is something we can get used to using NOT AS A LANGUAGE-AND-GRAMMAR SPRINGBOARD TO THE INEFFABLE  TAO that lies INTRINSICALLY BEYOND LITERAL EXPLICIT MEANING, but rather as THE ARTICULATION OF AN EXPLICIT REALITY-IN-ITSELF.

THIS IS THE “DOUBLE ERROR” ; i.e. first to use ‘naming’ to reduce pattern in the flow to notional ‘things-in-themselves’  and conflating this with the second error of imputing powers of sourcing actions and developments to the naming-instantiated (abstract) thing-in-itself.  To use this double error as a ‘springboard’ to infer thing-less (relational) transformation (the Tao) that lies beyond language based ‘explicit’  representation is one thing, but to use the double error based ‘explicit reality’  NOT as a springboard but as as a direct substitute reality is Western culture craziness.  It is a case where; The tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine”  as Ralph Waldo Emerson captures it in ‘The Method of Nature’

The use of language merely for relational inference is ‘poetic’ usage, and it is only such ‘implicit’  forms of language that can get by the fact that ‘the Tao that can be (explicitly) told is not the true Tao.  To employ language as if it were, in its EXPLICIT RATIONAL-INTELLECTUAL MODE, CAPABLE OF CAPTURING AND SHARING REALITY, MAY BE ‘NORMAL’ WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT PRACTICE, BUT SUCH ‘NORMALITY’ IS ‘CRAZINESS’

What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”  — R.D. Laing

 It is impossible for the explicit voyeur views of ‘reality’ (i.e. views that deliver double error based constructions) , … to ‘synch up’ with  the reality of our sensory  experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao).  Western culture adherents popularly opt to employ the  ‘reduced-to’ double error (things-in-themselves-with-powers of sourcing actions and developments) INVENTED REALITY  as the ‘operative reality’ while modern physics, Indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta instead opt for giving sensory experiencing of relational transformation first dibs on our understanding of ‘reality’.  This involves the use of language only in a ‘supportive role’; i.e. in a NON-EXPLICIT (implicit/inferential) manner, avoiding the reduction to EXPLICIT double error based terms and instead using  IMPLICIT INFERENCE as in ‘poetic’ usage and as in ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.   

WATCH OUT! because in this inferential  (relational) reality, there is no such thing as ‘sourcing’ of actions and developments and no such thing as ‘producer-product’ dynamics;  there are only relations as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

THE SHOCKER IS THIS!  … Western culture ‘operative reality’ employs the double error based ‘producer-product’ pseudo-reality AS IF IT WERE “REALITY”.  In other words, our Western culture adhering practice is to use the double error based (‘producer-product’ based) INVENTED REALITY as our PRIMARY REALITY, effectively ‘demoting’ our sensory experience based reality of inclusion in the Tao (the transforming relational continuum) to secondary status, which is like ‘wallpapering over’ our naturally primary reality, with a superficial pseudo-reality.  This intellectual double-error based superficial pseudo-reality is what we Western culture adherents are employing as ‘reality’, and this is a crazy-maker.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

 

Ƭhe source of Western culture’s endemic craziness lies in the reduction of the relational wave-dynamical nature of reality (resonance and dissonance), to the ‘double error’, binary basis of the creation and destruction of name-instantiated things-in-themselves.   ‘Duning’ is intrinsically relational phenomena while ‘the dune’ is understood as an ‘accumulation’ of ‘constituent’ sand ‘granular parts’ or ‘particles’.  By speaking of the duning as a ‘dune’ or name-instantiated things-in-itself with ‘its own power of sourcing actions and development (growth and shifting’), we obscure the natural, purely relational (wave dynamic) process of ‘resonance’.   The ‘Tao’ is ‘resonance’ and the resonance (Tao) that can be told is not the true Tao.  The Tao, resonance, the relational wave-field dynamic, is the source all things.

The point is that we can’t ‘localize’ resonance, and in order to be able to speak about something we have to localize it, otherwise whatever we say about it is never complete as it is continually dependent on something other that we are articulation.  This is a fundamental issue with the quest of capturing in words ‘the transforming relational continuum’.

In the wave field understanding (resonance) there is no clear ‘end’ to the extent of the influence that associates with the ‘shapes’ we observe, which, while they are nonlocal in origin (resonance based) have a visual aspect that gives a local impression (e.g. the boil in the flow we call the ‘tornado’) that we can use the ‘double error’ of language and grammar to reduced to a local ‘name-instantiated thing-in-itself’ (first error), notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error).

So, starting from our visual observation of the innately non-local fuzzy appearance of the boil-in-flow (the boil is how flow appears; i.e. it is an ‘apparition’), we can, like the proverbial ‘cave-man’, point to it, and ‘name it’, to put others around us on the same page, .. ‘cholo see tornado’ (pointing) to the ‘locally most manifest’ aspect of an innately nonlocal phenomena.   Like the TV weatherman who puts a magnetic symbol of a hurricane on a magnetic white board and moves it around, … there is an abstraction based ‘break’ wherein we leave our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, and go with intellectual abstraction that associates with name-instantiated visual pictures. These pictures capture only the local visual aspect and NOT the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  The virgin girl or boy who see, in sex education, may gain an understanding from a focus on ‘local parts’, just as the cave-man understood the atmospheric boiling by way of the visible ‘tornado-thing-in-itself’.   Even though the visible aspect is ‘the tip of the iceberg’, language and grammar can give it the ‘starring role’ in a very superficial ‘double error’ based story-telling.

In other words, it is possible to use the ‘double error’ of language and grammar to construct a SUPERFICIAL INVENTED REALITY that, because we tend to confuse the INVENTED REALITY for ‘reality’, becomes our ‘operative reality’.

production, consumption are based on ‘being’, versus resonance and dissonance which are purely relational.   duning is resonance while dunes accumulate and disperse, as if they are ‘things-in-themselves.  We say that the dune is growing larger, shifting esc.; i.e. we have succeeding it ‘localizing’ the dynamic so that we are no longer stymied by the inherently non-local nature of ‘duning’ (resonance phenomena)., at least we are able to express things in finite local visual picture based terms, thanks to the ‘double error’ of language and grammar of naming visual forms to impute thing-in-itself existence to them (a grammar based abstraction) and conflating this with grammar to impute to them locally incipient powers of sourcing actions and developments.  If we were looking for a way to articulate the inarticulable nonlocal-relational Tao, the ‘double error’ approach is one way to do it; i.e. to use ‘naming’ to impute abstract thing-in-itself being to relational flow-forms, and conflate this with grammar to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated flow-forms.

The language and grammar based ‘double error’ abstraction equips the intellect for the constructing of an INVENTED REALITY based on notional things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.  While the ‘human’ ‘self’ is the archetype for this (‘ego’ is the double error based impression of being endowed with powers of sorcery aka powers of the binary abstract concepts of ‘production’ and ‘destruction’).

Western culture adherents popularly use language and grammar based ‘double error’ to simulate (in the abstraction-capable intellectualizing mind) the ‘localizing’ of the inherently nonlocal sensory experiencing of the Tao.  The double error opens the way for the constructing of an intellectual INVENTED REALITY based on notional name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This INVENTED REALITY could be conceived of as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’, a throw away expedient for ‘inferring’ a reality that lies innately beyond it, or this INVENTED REALITY could be used, LITERALLY as ‘THE OPERATIVE REALITY’ that we employ to shape our actions and developments.

For Western culture adherents, the tool of double error based INVENTED REALITY is NOT JUST USED FOR INFERENCE (which is all it is ‘good for’, the tool has ‘run away with the workman, the human with the divine’.  In other words, the human is NOT the producer of products; i.e. the human does NOT have power of sourcing actions and developments, the human is a relational form in the transforming relational continuum.   The double error ‘mock-up’ of the human is the abstract product of language and grammar and it is likewise for the ‘nation’ and the ‘corporation’.

In the wave field view, there are only relational resonance features.  There is ‘duning’ but there are no ‘dunes’.  Language and grammar ‘double error’ constructions such as ‘the dune is growing larger and is moving/shifting to the East’ ECLIPSES/OCCLUDES the understanding of duning as a nonlocal resonance (wave-field) phenomena.

However, everything is nonlocal resonance and nothing is local.  Western culture has it ‘upside down’ in its construction of an INVENTED REALITY wherein everything is local and nothing is nonlocal, including the ‘duning’ and the ‘manning’.

Meanwhile, we Western culture adherents are ‘locked in by high switching costs’.  We have elevated people who we perceive as having greater than average powers of ‘sorcery’ by giving more credence to their views and greater material rewards.  This is in spite of the reality that there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ (there is only relational transformation).

* * *

 

ADDENDUM: AN EXPERIENCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF WESTERN CULTURE CRAZINESS INDUCING CULTURE

Like so many other Western culture adherents, I have ‘been there’, ‘done that’, and have not fully extracted myself from the folly of it.  It is difficult NOT to participate in the Western culture double-error based craziness while one’s family and friends remain committed to it.

They are playing a game.  They are playing at not playing a game.  If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.  I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.”  – R.D. Laing

In other words, as with modern physics, indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, I don’t believe in the double error based (producer-product) ‘reality’ that is publicly supported through language-based discourse, as the ‘real reality’,  In other words, I don’t believe in the notion of name-instantiated independent entities with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments, whether we are talking about ‘humans’, ‘nations’ or ‘corporations’.  None of these double-error based intellectual abstraction things are ‘real’ in the reality of the Tao, or our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

There is no such thing in the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao as the double-error based ‘producer-product’ dynamic.  The very construction of the ‘thing-in-itself’ exposes it as an attempt to get inside the Tao and reduce it to terms of local jumpstarting of actions and developments.  Western double error based language and grammar constructions are designed to overcome the ineffable nature of the Tao of our sensory experience and render the ineffable ‘effable’.

In other words, ‘duning’ is resonance and resonance is purely relational and thus nonlocal and nonlocal phenomena are ineffable.  We can have sensory experience of resonance but we cannot share what is going on in terms of voyeur visual representations of the double error type (i.e. in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves, notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Only when we use the double error to reduce ‘duning’ (resonance) to things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments (e.g. “the dunes are growing larger and are shifting to the East”) are we able to reduce the nonlocal and ineffable to the local and effable.  As Nietzsche observes, we ‘break into’ the continuum (intellectually) and infuse a local jumpstart asserting agency.

Incandescence in the atmospheric flow, as with resonance that manifests as ‘duning’ are ‘appearances’ or relational phenomena in the transforming relational continuum which we can and do reduce with the double error of language and grammar, to a notional locally jumpstarting producer-product dynamic;  thus the resonance that appears as ‘duning’ becomes, with the application of the double error, ‘the dune’ , notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and development.

“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.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

This reduction of resonances in the transforming relational continuum to notional double error based producer-product abstraction provides the artificial foundation for Western culture construction of INVENTED REALITY.  While Western culture language and grammar render the ineffable effable (the reduction of the ineffable to a crude effable, as in reducing duning resonance to ‘dunes’ that we impute to have their own powers of sourcing actions and developments, as in the double error).

This language and grammar based double error ‘reduction’ is a useful tool for rendering the ineffable to something effable (a crude reduction of the ineffable; i.e. a Wittgenstein ladder that does not capture the ‘ineffable’ but serves as an inference-springboard, to infer understanding of the ineffable that lies beyond language and language’s limitations arising from foundations that are explicit and thus limited by the abstraction of explicitness.

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.” (“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”), — Wittgenstein

One must use the ploys of inference to render, in the intellectual realm of language and grammar (as contrasted with the sensory realm of relational experience) the ineffable ‘somewhat’ effable), as in the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ of modern physics (Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler).    The ‘language of inference’ is not to be confused for that which is being alluded to which lies beyond the inference-giving language).

Western culture adherents could be described as those for whom “the tool [of language-based inference] has run away with the workman, the human with the divine”, … the pitfall that Emerson has suggested is plaguing Western culture adherents.

The result is that we Western culture adherents are caught (our intellectual understanding is caught up in) a game of INVENTING REALITY based on double error abstraction that is running away with us; i.e. our double error infused language and grammar has us believing that we are sorcerers of actions and developments, obscuring the greater reality of our inclusion as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.  There is only ‘duning’, there are no ‘dunes’.  There is only ‘humaning’, there are no ‘humans’.  There is only nationing, there are no ‘nations’, and there is only corporationing, there are no corporations.  ‘Humans’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’ are all exemplary of the double error of language and grammar.

We still have our capacities for understanding coming from our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, which are in a natural precedence over the double error constructions of our language-and-grammar fed intellectual constructing of an INVENTED REALITY.   As individuals, we can let our movements be shaped by the cultivating of resonances in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao) in which we share inclusion.  Insofar as this puts us ‘out of step’ with the Western culture adhering social collective, we have some challenges therein, as are shared by Schroedinger and others in the context of our Mahavit and/or Atmavit options.

* * *

 

 

AN ALTERNATIVE ARTICULATION OF THE SAME PREMISE, TO POSSIBLY IMPROVE ELUCIDATION

 

“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” captures the modern physics understanding of the world (reality) as an all-including wave-field aka a transforming relational continuum which is ineffable since it is not ‘out there’ and available to our voyeur viewing and capture in visual images that we can reduce to language and grammar based constructs, to construct pictures that give visual representation to the ‘world as it exists OUT THERE’.

BUT WE CAN TAKE PICTURES OF WHAT WE CLAIM IS ‘THE WORLD OUT THERE’, so what are we capturing with our visual sensing?  Such pictures split apart ‘what is in here’ from ‘what is out there’.  In other words, our voyeur viewing based world does not (cannot) include ourselves; … the act of visualizing is picking up on ‘what is out there’, as if there is a basic ‘split’ between our ‘self’ and the ‘other’ that we are able to visualize.  In other words, while our full sensory capacity brings us awareness of inclusion, like immersion in a fluid flow (hot or cold or turbulent of smooth-flowing), our visual sensing seems to SPLIT US OUT OF THE WORLD and allow us to take snapshot pictures of it, as if such visual pictures are informing us of something innately separate from ourselves.   If we observe the witch that we are burning at the stake for her sourcing of evil actions and developments (the double error understanding), that witch is understood as being separate from our self, being an ‘independent thing-in-herself with her own powers of sourcing actions and developments, … as language and grammar supported visualization tells us.

In other words, visual observation complements language and grammar in allowing us to construct a voyeur-viewing based pseudo-reality.  For us Western culture adherents, ‘seeing is believing’ and we are able to use visual observations to construct an INVENTED REALITY that lies ‘out there’ in front of us, … in our voyeur viewing field, … although things might be different if we had eyes on all sides of our head and could put such visualizing together to inform us ‘holographically’; i.e. in a manner in which we ourselves, and all things, are included as relational forms in a transforming relational continuum.

Clearly, our voyeur visual view that, in our psyche, splits apart ‘what lies out there’ from ‘what lies in here’ (the latter remaining invisible) is not bringing us ‘the full story’.  That is, it is not capturing the Tao that cannot be told because that Tao is all inclusive and we can’t get outside it to grasp it through voyeur visualization.  What would we have to do to get to the ‘holographic’ view?  In fact ‘view’ is the wrong term since that implies something we can ‘picture’ as lying ‘out there’ while our holographic sensing would have to be beyond language and grammar ‘double error’ portrayals in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This overall (all-inclusive) connectedness is characteristic of the ‘field’, the world-reality of modern physics which corresponds with the Tao of Lao Tzu et al, and it is characteristic of the understanding of reality of indigenous aboriginal traditions (mitakuye oyasin).  Why limit ourselves to the split-apart voyeur view of visual perception?

ANSWER:

While ‘the Tao cannot be told’ in a direct and explicit fashion, it can be ‘alluded to’.  The Tao is the wave-field which is purely relational.  It is ‘resonance’, and resonance is, for example the source of ‘duning’ (and hurricaning etc.).  Since ‘resonance’ is nonlocal, and since words and language are based on explicit (intellectual) concepts that are ‘local’ as is the case with name-instantiated ‘local things-in-themselves’ (the first error in the ‘double error’), which can be thought of as having the power of sourcing actions and developments.  What I have just described is how a double error can be used to impute ‘local sourcing’ to purely relational (resonance) phenomena.  Instead of trying to use language to capture ‘duning’ (resonance phenomena), we can use language to capture ‘appearance’ as associates with resonance; e.g. ‘the dune’ is a ‘name’ we give to a very incomplete aspect of ‘duning’ (resonance), however the ‘name’ ‘dune’ orients us to a particular, local, appearance (one of the relational nodes in the resonance made visible by dust that has gathered in it).   The resonance is made visible by the gathering of dust and this is more apparent (it is a more notable ‘appearance’ or ‘apparition’) that captures our attention moreso than the trough or regions of absence of dust that complements the local gathering of dust (the ‘dune’).  The wave nature of the resonance is thus obscured by our focus on the positive ‘what is there’ presence aspect of the resonance which is accompanied by our forgetting about the ‘what is no longer there’ absence aspect of the resonance.

‘Duning’ is something we reduce to ‘dune’ at the expense of the understanding of the phenomenon as a nonlocal relational phenomenon.   In its place (I am speaking of our intellectualizing psyche and our associated use of language and grammar to capture intellectualized reductions of our experience of resonance)… we have only ‘the dune’, our language and grammar reduction which now needs our help to ‘put back in’ the motion that we have ‘dropped out’ by reducing the duning resonance to ‘the dune’.  In other words, we need ‘grammar’ to re-mobilize the now passive ‘object’ that we have imagined, thanks to our voyeur visualizing which recasts things as objects out there in the foreground.  Grammar is the second error in the ‘double error’.  The first error was ‘naming’ to reduce the relational dynamic (duning), based on ‘appearance’, to a notional (in our abstraction-based intellectualizing) ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’.  So, the second error conflates the first error (naming that imputes being) by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself; i.e. ‘the dune is shifting to the south, … the dune is growing larger and higher’.

It is clear what we are doing here; i.e. we are re-casting resonance based relational features (which are secondary to the resonance) as ‘things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments’.  What we are doing here is re-casting the inherently non-local, relational agency (the agency that is innate in resonance based (wavefield based) transformation) as a local ‘sourcing agency’.  This is where ‘ego’ comes from; i.e. ‘ego’ is the archetype for the ‘source’ of local sourcing.  Note that with ‘ego’, we can get rid of the understanding of reality based on the ‘blurriness’ of nonlocal origination as in ‘resonance’.  This is where we get rid of ‘love’ and ‘inspiration’ (relational sensation) and replace it, thanks to the ‘double error’ with rationality or in other words, a ‘sorcery’ based construction of an INVENTED REALITY featuring notional ‘name-instantiated things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  No more ‘Tao’, only a material thing-in-itself based local actualization based ‘reality’; i.e. an intellectual pseudo-reality.

This ‘tool’ of the ‘double error’ sidesteps the ineffability of the Tao, but at the cost of reducing the representation of ‘reality’ to abstract terms of notional local thing-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.   What we are faced with today, as Western culture adherents, is that very exposure having come to pass; i.e. the tool of the double error expedient is running away with the workman, and the result is ‘Western culture’.  We have lost (cast aside) our ‘sensory in-touch-ness’ or ‘resonance based coupling’ in the Tao and installed in its place, the radically inferior double error based schema.

WHY DID WE DO THIS?

My impression is that the potential utility of being able to share our ineffable experience was so great that we had to find a way to articulate at least some semblance of our ineffable experience.  I can imagine being one those pre-lingual adults, frustrated by not being able to CLEARLY share our experience; e.g. as pre-linguals (aka ‘cave-men) we may have pointed to a cave where we were bitten by a poisonous snake and make hand gestures to persuade others not to go there and warn them of dangers.  In the larger relational sense, we are cultivating harmony (which is at the same time attenuating dissonance).  Signalling comes naturally and spontaneously to us in this case, and the evolving of signalling is natural in that the objective is shared understanding and the developing of sharing tools inductively evolves from the IMPLIED NEED.

WHAT IS THIS NEED?   If our understanding is based on sensual relations, we might say that the need is to cultivate and sustain harmonious inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, but if we developed a signalling technique (language) based on the ‘double error’ which ‘splits us out’ as a name-instantiated thing-in-ourselves with powers of sourcing actions and developments, … then our signalling would be in terms of the appropriate actions for us, as things-in-ourselves’, to source.

CLEARLY, THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS HERE THAT PIVOT FROM WHERE OUR UNDERSTANDING IS COMING FROM; I.E. FROM OUR RELATIONAL SENSING, OR FROM OUR INTELLECTUAL ‘TOOL’ OF DOUBLE ERROR BASED INTELLECTUAL ANALYSIS.

The tool of abstraction based intellectualizing has, in Western culture, ‘run away with the workman’.  Some might argue that intellectual analysis is innately superior to relational sensing, although others would argue (like Erich Jantsch) that relational sensing brings the highest level of understanding of reality (level 1) and is followed by lower levels (2 and 3), both of which are ‘sorcery’ based.

That is; level 1, the highest level, is where we understanding reality in terms of continuing relational transformation (the Tao), Levels 2 and 3 are both based on ‘sorcery’.  Level 2 is where we conceive of sorcery as deriving from the collective (‘It takes a whole community to raise a child’) which is the ‘liberal’ view while level 3, the lowest level of sorcery, is where we conceive of sorcery as coming from the individual (‘One bad apple spoils the barrel).  These latter two (level 2 and 3) aphorisms remind us how easily the belief in ‘sorcery’ comes to us; i.e. there is no place for sorcery and ourselves as sorcerers (these are grammar based abstractions) in the highest level (level 1) of reality as relational transformation wherein the world is understood as an all-including transforming relational continuum.

WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE GROUNDS UNDERSTANDING IN BELIEF IN SORCERY (DOUBLE ERROR).

As an individual who lives among others who are largely adherents if not believes in the double-error based pseudo-reality, I have the options of ‘going along with the double error based fictional reality where we see named entities as ‘sorcerers’), ‘hedging my bets’ and sometimes choosing to go with the relational reality as in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, …. or going full measure and behaving according to a fullblown acceptance of the world as a transforming relational continuum in which I am a relational inclusion.  The later two options are described in Advaita Vedanta as the Mahavit and Atmavit options.

MY VIEW IS THAT WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCE IS A CRAZY-MAKER.

HERE’S HOW THAT IS PLAYING OUT (THERE’S A REASON FOR THE RISE OF MASS MURDERS).

♦ Western culture adherence is based on building our understanding of reality on the ‘double error’ which makes out our ‘self’ and any name-instantiated entity, as a thing-in-itself, notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This IS the ‘double error’  This is where ‘ego’ comes from.  This is fundamentally ‘at odds’ with ‘mitakuye oyasin’, we are all related, … the world understood as a transforming relational continuum wherein the abstract double error concepts of notional ‘things-in-themselves’ with sourcing powers’ never comes into it.

But Western culture’s belief in ‘sorcery’ leads to the notion of authorship in the form of ‘destructive acts that must be punished’ and ‘productive acts that merit rewards’.  In understanding reality in terms of relational transformation, there is no basis for rewarding and punishing individuals because there is no acceptance of the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’.

♦ Western culture adherents, because we believe in our own powers of sorcery, are either tortured by our ‘guilt’ as associates with our ‘sourcing of bad actions and developments’, or ego-inflated by our ‘pride’ as associates with our ‘sourcing of good actions and developments’.  Neither of these intellectually spawned delusions come to us if we are understanding reality in terms of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in this reality, the reality of modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

♦ Mass killings are arising from the combination of (a) belief in sorcery, and (b) the sense of inclusion in a grossly unfair social system that is not only NOT giving one one’s duly deserved rewards for sorcery based achievements, but is ignoring one and reducing one, in spite of one’s worthy sorcerer status, to a nothing and nobody while others who are useless twits are receiving amazing recognition and rewards. Society must be ‘taught a lesson’ for this gross injustice.  There is no denying the imbalance in rewards and recognition in Western society; i.e. that is, ‘in Western-culture-speak’, the innate outcome of the crazy belief in the double error (independent beings with powers of sorcery).  Modern managers assess their ‘sorcery’ to be 1000 times more potent than the average ‘worker’s power of sorcery’, and Western culture rewards and recognizes the ‘sorcerers’ on that basis. However, there is only relational harmony/dissonance, no ‘sorcery’.

 

FOOTNOTE:   N.B. The following statement is in ‘Western-culture-speak’ which assumes the legitimacy of the double-error concept of sorcery;

” … the sense of inclusion in a grossly unfair social system that is not only NOT giving one one’s duly deserved rewards for sorcery based achievements, but is ignoring one and reducing one, in spite of one’s worthy sorcerer status, to a nothing and nobody while others who are useless twits are receiving amazing recognition and rewards. Society must be ‘taught a lesson’ for this gross injustice.  There is no denying the imbalance in rewards and recognition in Western society;”

Note that this ‘reasoning’ which points to blatant ‘injustice’, is language and grammar based logical inference (based on belief in sorcery) which is commonly employed in Western culture ‘reasoning’, and which ‘makes sense’ in Western culture double-error based thinking, makes ‘no sense’ if one removes from ‘intellectual play’, the concept of ‘sorcery’.   That is, to claim that one is being treated unfairly by not having one’s ‘sorcery’ contributions acknowledged/recognized/rewarded, is reasoning that rests dependently on belief in the reality of ‘sorcery’.   Western culture adherence is based on belief in ‘sorcery’, however, there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ and it is used as a kluge to serve personal biases such as egotistical claims of managers having powers of sorcery that are 1000 times the powers of sorcery as workers.  The farmer who harvests the crop of wheat will be given full credit for ‘sorcery’ while those who came before and tilled the soil and rotated crops, and the river that flooded and deposited rich organic silt to prepare the soil are ‘not in the picture’.  ‘Sorcery’ is language and grammar based abstraction.  There is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ in the transforming relational continuum.  Sorcery is a double error of language and grammar.  It also goes by the name ‘producer-product’.  We say that Texas ‘produces’ a lot of oil or that Texas is the source of a lot of oil.  In view of all of the land collapses and earth quakes associated with ‘production’s’ phantom twin ‘depletion’, it seems more appropriate to speak in terms of ‘transformation’ rather than in the one-sided terms of producer-product.

In human affairs, arguing over relative contributions to sorcery is like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. There are no sorcerers, there is only transformation.  But watch out, because sorcery is a basic assumption in the constructing of Western culture INVENTED REALITY.  ‘Sorcery’ is ‘the double error’ in our standard Western culture language and grammar usage.  While it allows us to articulate what we call ‘reality’ in explicit rational terms, it makes everything we ‘talk about’ suspect and it reminds us why ‘poetic language’ has been praised as affording a more realistic means of expressing and sharing the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

“A man’s reach must exceed his grasp or what’s a meta phor?” (-McLuhan et al)

 

[The above ‘Western-culture-speak’ analysis applies generally and points to the source of Western culture craziness (his putting the explicit and rational into an unnatural precedence over the implicit and relational).  ]

 

. . .