FORWARD:

WEST SPLITS FROM EAST WHERE FORGIVENESS SUPERSEDES COMPASSION

(‘FORGIVENESS’ is a backhanded means of affirming BINARY (perpetrator-victim) TORT while ‘COMPASSION’ embraces NONDUALITY as in ‘mitakuye oyasin’.

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger

The reality of sensory experience of inclusion in relations naturally precedes the  binary self-other splitting of rational intellection.

* * * * * * * * * *

EASTERN sanity comes from understanding that we are included in the GREAT HARMONY (the Tao, the Wave-field) while WESTERN craziness comes from belief that we have powers of SORCERY.  This belief is called EGO.

COMPASSION for self and others within relations wherein we experience pain is natural since there is no such thing as LOCALLY INSTANTIATED SORCERY (such developments are relative). (e.g. for the unloved child there is no JOY and this can manifest as the NONLOCAL origin of abusive conflict as acknowledged in ‘mitakuye oyasin’, as develops WITHIN the web of relations).

FORGIVENESS mistakenly confirms the CRAZY-MAKING belief in LOCAL SORCERY and BLINDS us to the reality of NONLOCALITY.

Beware the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar!  It gives us SORCERY as a tool of inference that, if taken literally, can run away with the workman, making him believe the power of SORCERY is incipient in him and in relational forms in general that we objectify with our act of assigning names to relational forms.

Thus, in our psyche (in our intellectual pseudo-reality constructions), we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS use NAMING AND GRAMMAR to brew up double error based SORCERY and eclipse the relational reality of mitakuye oyasin, the reality of our common inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

COMPASSION is the Bodhisattva ethic that dissolves the self-other split, UNLIKE FORGIVENESS, which is born of ‘noblesse oblige’, concretizing the BINARY guilty-innocent self-other split as it imputes magnanimity to the FORGIVER and a debt of gratitude to the FORGIVEN.

* * *

 

The sensory-experience reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the Wave-field) is INEFFABLE and we are thus challenged to; (a) Come up with a REDUCTION of the ineffable to employ it (a necessarily deficient reduction) as an effable substitute/surrogate-reality to help us INFER the ineffable reality that lies innately beyond explicit/objective capture, and (b) NOT FALL INTO THE TRAP of employing the effable surrogate-reality as if it were the ‘actual reality’.

While EASTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS (and modern physics) achieve these two aims, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS typically achieve ONLY the first and FAIL to achieve the second.

* * * END OF FORWARD * * *

 

It is possible  to start with a fluid space and to use naming to populate the fluid space  with notional things-in-themselves.  These names can be embellished with grammar to make their imputed objects appear to AGE and SUBMERGE, and new names can be added to simulate emergence of new naming-instantiated objects that ‘have their own grammar-instantiated powers of’ GROWTH and DECLINE within an abstract binary interval bounded on one end by BIRTH and on the opposite end, by DEATH.   Thus any ‘naming-instantiated objects’ such as a ‘person’, ‘nation’, ‘organization’ or ‘organism’ can be created and associated with a relational form-in-the-NONLOCAL flow (‘the Tao’, aka the Wavefield) making it out to be a LOCAL, independently-existing THING-IN-ITSELF; … then using such abstraction to REDUCE RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION … (the reality of our actual sensory experience of inclusion therein)…  to terms of LOCAL things-in-themselves manifesting binary (ON/OFF) BIRTH to DEATH LIFE-CYCLES that INHABIT an otherwise empty HABITAT.  The combination of BIRTH and DEATH and HABITAT and INHABITANT is a ‘double error’ twice over that is the ‘price’ of coming up with an effable rendering of the ineffable Tao.  If we were to understand the whorl in the flow in terms of FIGURE AND GROUND AS ONE as in modern physics, we would need NEITHER the binary INHABITANT-HABITAT SPLIT NOR the binary BIRTH AND DEATH of the INHABITANT.  The phenomena of emergence and subsuming of flow-forms becomes EXPLICIT in the psyche with the intellectual double error of language and grammar.

Instead of the NONLOCAL, UNDIVIDED transforming relational continuum, which is INEFFABLE, we can use flatspace visualization to REDUCE this to a LOCAL, DIVIDED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES-BASED surrogate pseudo-reality which is EFFABLE.

“CHANGE” is a synthetic (UNREAL/ABSTRACT) pseudo-phenomenon that shows up as an artifact in our intellectual reduction of the transforming relational continuum (the Tao aka the Wavefield, the Heraclitean flow) to the abstract LOCAL, DIVIDED ‘double error’ pseudo-reality of NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES (first error) with notional grammar-endowed POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

With these reductions built into our language and grammar, we are well on our way to accommodating the construction of a pseudo-reality that we can visualize ‘out there in front of us’, and thus MAKE AN END RUN around the obstacle of INEFFABLE-NESS of the all including transforming relational continuum.  Since we are included in the ‘flow’ aka the transforming relational continuum, visual portrayals of things as if they are out there in front of us are a radical reduction of our sensory experience of inclusion.  The DUNE that we can see ‘over there’ (out in front of us) as ‘it grows longer and higher and shifts across the desert floor’, as if on a movie screen is imagery that is taking our awareness out of a sense of inclusion within the transforming relational continuum.  We are instead building ‘knowledge’ of a world that we can understanding by ‘gazing into it’ as if it is ‘a world OUT THERE’, rather than a transforming relational continuum in which we are included which, admittedly, is an effable experience EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE PRIMARY REALITY.

Once we apply the ‘double error’ of language and grammar to reduce OUR NOTION OF OUR SELF to terms of a VISIBLE LOCAL thing-in-itself with POWERS of sourcing actions and developments, we have lost touch with our sense of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  Sure we can think of the TORNADO as a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, but it is much more than that!  In order to understand it we must not limit our understanding to the visual aspect.  The TORNADO may be ‘coming towards us’ as far as visualizing it is concerned but it is behind us at the same time as it is in front us, in fact, and as far as wavefield energy goes, we and the whorl we are watching ‘out there in front of us’ are all included in the wavefield.

That is, in our intellectual construction (or ‘mind’s eye’) we can see ‘images’ which we have ‘objectified’ as being ‘out there’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ that we are intellectually ‘re-presenting’ and re-animating with the double error of language and grammar; i.e. naming and using grammar to animate, … that is what is ‘going on in our head’ as we use the VISUALIZING OPTION.  Typically, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS let this VISUALIZING OPTION take precedence in informing us of ‘reality’ from our SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM!

WHY DO WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?

BECAUSE OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM IS INEFFABLE.  Can you imagine being in a group of people co-experiencing the constructing of a town in the forest?  Intuitively, we will understand that we are all included in a transforming relational continuum, Our chopping down trees may open our clearing up to the ocean winds, a transformation that is not captured in purely rational assertion terms such as; ‘we chopped down some trees.   but as Wittgenstein says in his final proposition in Tractatus, our assertive propositions are only good for inferring a reality that lies innately beyond their descriptive reach;

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

WOULD WE NOT THEREFORE BE CRAZY TO ACCEPT OUR PROPOSITIONS AS LITERAL, OBJETIVE TRUTH?

However, given that the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is INEFFABLE and given that language offers us the potential for SHARING EFFABLE INFERENCE (reduction) OF OUR EXPERIENCE, should we not take advantage of being able to share EFFABLE REDUCTIONS; i.e. we could use a double error ploy to reduce relational formings that are continually outwelling and subducting to ‘words’ or ‘names’ and then construct an effable system of reduction that would work with the double error ploy of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar-given powers of sourcing actions and developments.

Our ‘shopping list’ for such a ‘grammar’ would include;

-1- INHABITANT and HABITAT to binarize the fluid ‘figure’ – ‘ground’ fluid relation.

-2- NAMING and RENAMING to binarize emergent forms-in-flow as things-in-themselves in absolute space.

-3- BIRTH AND DEATH to ‘binarize’ the reality of relational emergence and submergence.

-4- GROWTH AND DECLINE to binarize relational expansion and contraction.

-5- PRAISE AND BLAME as a backhand way of imputing SORCERY in the guise of creation and destruction

-6- REWARDS and PUNISHMENT are the material cognates of PRAISE and BLAME

 

Examples of binarization via the ‘double error’ of language and grammar as used to reduce relational transformation to name instantiated things-in-themselves (‘naming’ is first error) notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (grammar is second error).  This double error is the basis of the producer-product concept.

Example 1.  Oil production

This well produced over 1 million barrels of oil.

Discussion: When the ground subsides and building foundations crack and leaking oil pipelines pollute the ground water system etc. etc. etc.  the ‘incompleteness’ of the ‘producer-product’ depiction becomes evident and exposes the reality that there is no such thing as a producer-product dynamic, there is only ‘relational transformation’.

Example 2.  Wheat production

Farmer Jones produced 20,00 bushels of wheat this year on his ½ section of land.

Discussion: When farmer Jones clearing of the fir tree forest to use the land for farming leads to soil erosion and flooding, and destroys the local nesting ground of several bird specie, and when the chemical fertilizers used have polluted local stream flow, including a salmon spawning ground and have entered into the local drinking water supply. it becomes evident that there is no such thing as a producer-product dynamic, there is only ‘relational transformation’.

* * * * *

OBSERVATION: We use language and grammar to share with one another an understanding of our respective observations and experiences.  The producer-product formulation is the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT’s popular technique for language-based capture and expression of reality.

The producer-product formulation, also known as the ‘double error’ of language and grammar captures (REDUCES) our visual observations of reality in way of two ‘errors’; The first error is the use of naming to impute LOCAL ‘thing-in-itself being’ to a relational flow-form, and the second error (grammar) conflates the first by imputing to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself the power of sourcing actions and developments.  This is the ‘producer-product’ formulation.

QUESTION: How well does the producer-product formulation do in the capture and expression of reality?

ANSWER: The producer-product formulation fails miserably in the capture and expression of the reality of our actual experience, as the above two examples illustrate.  What is going on ‘in reality’ is NOT ‘producer-product dynamics’ but ‘relational transformation’.  We may say that ‘the farmer produces farm products such as wheat’ but as is evident, transformation of the land is what is actually going on, wherein the emergence of plants and humans in the land is included in the overall relational transformation aka the Tao aka the Wave-field.

COROLLARY QUESTION: What sort of misunderstandings of reality arise from employing of the producer-product pseudo-reality as the ‘operative reality’?

ANSWER: The most obvious misunderstandings arise in the implementation of the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT system of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS which follows directly from assuming the reality of the double error based concept of LOCAL SORCERY in conjunction with the binary opposite JUDGEMENTS of GOOD and EVIL

As making binary judgements of EITHER GOOD OR EVIL becomes a matter of habit, its dependence on the abstract concepts of LOCAL and SORCERY are no longer scrutinized.  For example, prior to habitual reliance on language-based logic, as is still not chronic in indigenous aboriginal cultures, statements incorporating producer-product logic such as; “I produced many bushels of wheat” would make no sense.  Finding oneself in possession of an abundance of food does not have to be understood in a producer-product context; e.g;

As Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas observed, orienting to relational balance and harmony is Nature’s way and can serve as the primary animator of actions and developments.  This is very much an ethic of the EAST whereas there is the antithetical ethic of the WEST which supports the unabalanced (unbalancing) accumulation of wealth where one ‘banks’ one’s surpluses;

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter and associated context (jailing of first nations people for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see ‘First People First Voices’, edited by Penny Petrone, University of Toronto Press, 1991]

In the WEST, the producer-product belief (ego), based on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, leads the WESTERN culture adherent to the belief that people are ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments, thus we personally ‘own’ what we see as ‘the producer-product results of our actions’.  https://goodshare.org/wp/why-the-reality-of-east-is-more-real-than-reality-of-west/

THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT DYNAMIC IS BULLSHIT ABSTRACTION THAT WE ARE TREATING AS REAL! HOW COME?

We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have built in a no-longer questioned acceptance of the ‘PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ abstraction, which is simply a euphemized formulation of SORCERY which is introduced into the psyche by a backhanded way of using language.  For example, the word FORGIVENESS, if filled with warm and sweet generosity that secures cognitive acceptance of ‘SORCERY’ (of some tort) by stealth, in a manner similar to the gift of the Trojan horse.  Understanding can thus derive from backward rather than a forward direction.

Similarly, PRAISE OR BLAME are associated with the PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstraction and serve up a footing for REWARDS and PUNISHMENT.  As in the Chief Maquinna anecdote above, there is no assumption of SORCERY because there is no double error of grammar and language which is where the concept of SORCERY comes from.

SORCERY is implicit in Newtonian physics with its concept of LOCAL FORCE instantiation, although SORCERY is NOT found in modern physics (relativity), so where did Newtonian physics get is LOCAL SORCERY from?  Benjamin Whorf tracked this one down; the answer is ‘language’.  In other words, there is no philosophical support for producer-product logic aka SORCERY, it comes from the language habits of WESTERN tribes where the language design criteria was ‘easy understanding’.

From the form-plus-substance dichotomy the philosophical views most traditionally characteristic of the “Western world” have derived huge support. Here belong materialism, psychophysical parallelism, physics–at least in its traditional Newtonian form–and dualistic views of the universe in general. Indeed here belongs almost everything that is “hard, practical common sense.” Monistic, holistic, and relativistic views of reality appeal to philosophers and some scientists, but they are badly handicapped in appealing to the “common sense” of the Western average man–not because nature herself refutes them (if she did, philosophers could have discovered this much), but because they must be talked about in what amounts to a new language. “Common sense,” as its name shows, and “practicality” as its name does not show, are largely matters of talking so that one is readily understood. It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” — Benjamin Whorf

 

WHY SORCERY?  (WHY THE SIMPLISTIC PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTION INSTEAD OF TRANSFORMATION?)

Kepler answered this question in ‘Harmonies of the World’

“As regards the academies, they are established in order to regulate the studies of the pupils and are concerned not to have the program of teaching change very often: in such places, because it is a question of the progress of the students, it frequently happens that the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy. And by that division in things which makes different people form different judgements, it so happens that certain people are in error contrary to their own opinion.” – Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’

The choice of the ‘producer-product abstraction’ instead of relational transformation has been made on this basis, of going NOT with that which is most true but with that which is most easy” because it is far simpler to capture (poorly and inferentially) ineffable relational transformation in the effable, double error reduced terms of ‘producer-product’ aka local, jumpstart SORCERY, than to go for the full Monty of relational transformation which even modern physics has to use crab-crawling allusion even to infer (i.e. the ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’).

SORCERY and/or its euphemistic ‘producer-product’ formulation has come into mainstream usage because “the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy.

In the above cited examples, the reason why the farmer is saying; “I produced 20,000 bushels of wheat, or this well has produced over 1 million barrels of oil is not because these statements are ‘most true’ but because they are ‘most easy’ and they are certainly more easy than spelling out the transformation of the land in all its detail with gas burning equipment, hydro-electric power plants and transmission lines, transportation systems and much more, that is part of what is simply stated in one-sided positivist terms of ‘oil production’ and/or ‘wheat production’.

WHAT IS “REALLY” GOING ON IS RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION! but it is easier to express it in producer-product terms.  We even say that ’the well’ produces oil, exemplary of our ‘double error’ penchant.

WESTERN CONCEPTUALIZING OF ‘REALITY’ IS DISTORTED BY THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT DOUBLE ERROR!

SURE, it is easier to speak of ‘reality’ once it is reduced to PRODUCER-PRODUCT terms, but the psychological aberrance that comes with it includes EGO and NATIONALISM, as well as CRIME and PUNISHMENT since the PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstraction is a modern cover for medieval SORCERY.

While the reality of our actual experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, the PSEUDO-reality that is the OPERATIVE REALITY of WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS is ‘double error’ based SORCERY aka PRODUCER-PRODUCT dynamics.  The first error is ‘naming’ that imputes independent thing-in-itself being (e.g. EXXON) and this is conflated by the second error of grammar which imputes the power of SOURCING actions and developments (PRODUCTION) to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (EXXON).

This double error-based producer-product abstraction ECLIPSES and WALLPAPERS OVER the actual reality of the transforming relational continuum so that ‘all that we can see in our mind’s eye’ is an EXXON gas pump that is pumping out gasoline. As we watch the number of gallons register on the pump during our ‘fill-up’, the stinky smoke rising from the tall refinery smokestacks or the bulldozer stripped fields of heavy oil production operations are less likely to come to mind than the elegant restaurant or recreational destination we are fuelling-up to get to.  In our EGO based thinking, OUR action starts LOCALLY from wherever we are right now in what we consider to be SPACE and TIME.   That is what the ‘double error’ of language and grammar (whether in thought, speech or print) does for us; i.e. it ‘breaks us out of the transforming relational continuum (psychologically although ‘not in the reality of our actual sensory experience’).  Whether we want to admit it or go with the double error illusion of our self, we are relational formings in the transforming relational continuum wherein “everything is in flux” as Heraclitus recognized.

As Heraclitus observed in this context, ‘The knowledge of many things does not teach (sensory-experiential) understanding’.  That is, our sensory experience is of inclusion in the ineffable transforming relational continuum.

‘Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind is bearing me across the sky.’ — Ojibwa saying

As Kepler was saying, “the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy.  The articulating of crude abstraction-based reductions (e.g. as in the ‘double error’), while they fail to capture the ineffable truth, make expression easy; e.g. the producer product means of expression (“we produce oil”) shortcuts the far-reaching transformation that is implicated in a REALITY that is NOT captured in the simplistic producer-product (double error) reduction.

Meanwhile, being included in the transforming relational continuum is ‘ineffable’ and can only be approached by relational inference as, for example, in ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ or other ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ inferential approaches.

Our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS’ folly (craziness) is NOT in using such reduction to do an ‘end run’ around the innate ineffability of the reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, but in employing it not simply as INFERENCE as in EASTERN usage, but in using it as OUR OPERATIVE (SURROGATE) REALITY.

THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT CONCEPT, CONFUSED FOR REALITY, LEADS TO EGO AND EGO INFLATION (AND EGO-DEFLATION).  It leads to CREDIT and BLAME and to a whole list of binary abstractions, which is what comes of notionally (psycho-linguistically) breaking into the transforming relational continuum and injecting a notional LOCAL jumpstarting SORCERY operation.

The associated list of ‘binaries’ (binaries are what gives us LOCAL JUMPSTARTING psycho-linguistic impressions) includes (repeated here for convenience of reference);

-1- INHABITANT and HABITAT to binarize the fluid ‘figure’ – ‘ground’ fluid relation.

-2- NAMING and RENAMING to binarize emergent flow-forms as things-in-themselves in absolute space.

-3- BIRTH AND DEATH to ‘binarize’ the reality of relational emergence and submergence.

-4- GROWTH AND DECLINE to binarize relational expansion and contraction.

-5- PRAISE AND BLAME as a backhand way of imputing SORCERY in the guise of creation and destruction

-6- REWARDS and PUNISHMENT are the material cognates of PRAISE and BLAME

THE FOLLOWING IS WHERE WEST DEPARTS FROM EAST

In the first place, some form of the ‘double error’ is needed in order to ‘effable-ize’ the ineffable transforming relational continuum aka Wave-field which is all-including; i.e. since we are fluid inclusions within the field, it is not possible to get a voyeur’s vision of the Tao and to identify visual objects within it.  There are no persisting things-in-themselves in a flow-field aka the transforming relational continuum.  But just as in flowing waters where there are ‘forms-made-of-flow’ such as ‘whorls’ with persisting LOCAL visual APPEARANCE, language can be used to ‘pin a name’ on the form and since ‘names’ persist, they lend a synthetic persistence to the standing wave ‘appearances’ in the flow.  If a new small whorl appears in the flow, even though whorl and flow are ONE as in the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium, by naming BOTH and thus imputing persisting being to BOTH, we split them into TWO even though they are ONE and language that gives them each a name; i.e. WHORL and FLOW perpetuates the split in our psyche thanks to the double error effect of language and grammar were we impute to each their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

This leads to the same sort of ambiguity with ‘whorl-and-flow’ as in the Zen koan of ‘flag-and-wind’ that makes us scratch our heads over whether the ‘whorl sources the flow’ or whether the ‘flow sources the whorl’.  Neither is the case since whorl and flow are ONE and only APPEAR as TWO, an appearance that is CONCRETIZED by the double error of language and grammar wherein NAMING impute persisting thing-in-itself existence while GRAMMAR equips the ‘naming-imputed thing-in-itself’ with the GRAMMAR-given power of sourcing actions and developments.

That is, it is NEITHER the case that ‘the whorl sources the flow’ OR ‘the flow sources the whorl’ BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’, … THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION as was also the case with the producer-product portrayal of the production of wheat and/or oil which WALLPAPERS OVER in our psyche, the sensory experiential reality of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  When the ground starts to collapse beneath our feet and beneath our homes in association with ‘oil production’ and dust storms develop in association with our clearing forests to make way for wheat fields, these are reminders that what is really going on is NOT producer-product dynamics, but transformation of the relational space we all share inclusion in; the two-leggeds, four-leggeds, the crawlers and the winged ones. TO REPEAT, FOR EMPHASIS, … ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘SORCERY’, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.  SORCERY IS AN ILLUSION THAT DERIVES FROM THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  IT IS USEFUL FOR REDUCING THE INEFFABLE TO SOMETHING EFFABLE, BUT ONLY AS A TOOL OF INFERENCE OF THE INEFFABLE, AS EMPLOYED IN THE EAST (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal culture, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta) AND NOT AS A SIMPLE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE INEFFABLE AS IT IS BEING USED IN THE WEST.

‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ – Lao Tzu