Tonto’s Conversion of the Lone Ranger
LONE RANGER: Tonto, I would like to return to our discussion on language and while I appreciate that the Comanche language has some subtle capabilities beyond the capability of English, I am still not clear why you do not acknowledge the superior clarity and precision of English.
TONTO: Kemo sabe, sometimes, clarity is achieved in language at the expense of reality, as in the common practice among English speakers of applying the simple EITHER is OR is NOT logic which we Comanche’s do not use since our logic comprehends BOTH is AND is NOT.
LONE RANGER: That’s part of the lack of clarity that I am referring to, a clarity that is readily achieved in the English language.
TONTO: We Indians are all for clarity, providing that it does not involve a sacrifice of understanding, as is the case in English language clarity which is based on DIFFERENTIATION which DROPS OUT perception of INTEGRATION. Where you say, ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, which differentiates the TOWN from the transforming landscape, we say the equivalent of ‘there is TOWNING in the transforming landscape’.
LONE RANGER: But this is exactly my point since that is more information than we need. We don’t need to draw a map of the world in order to address what is going on in a local town.
TONTO: When we Comanches use words to describe reality, we are describing THE WORLD WE ARE INCLUDED IN and NOT some limited portion or FRAGMENT that we pick up with a Crow’s eye voyeur stare. In other words, our language is designed to let us speak in terms of the INTEGRAL WHOLE within which we all share inclusion in, as is intended in ‘mitakuye oyasin’. Our language is NOT designed to FRAGMENT reality as the White man’s languages do.
LONE RANGER: But you must be able to see the benefits of ‘homing in’ on the specifics of our immediate local and explicit concerns, like the need to construct shelters for our families. For this we need language that helps us coordinate actions needed to construct the local and explicit house or town we are working on, and this language must have the capability of breaking things down into parts as used in construction.
TONTO: What you are describing is the fragmentation that we indigenous aboriginals avoid which is YOUR use of DIFFERENTIATION based language where WE use INTEGRATION based language. While you speak of the GROWTH of the TOWN, we speak of TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING continuum which is what is actually occurring in the world we all share inclusion in. In other words, our language speaks from the point of view of INTEGRATION rather than DIFFERENTIATION, acknowledging that we and all things are included in this ONE world so that if any of us mess it up, we all experience the consequences.
LONE RANGER: But language capable of DIFFERENTIATION allows us to focus in the LOCAL and EXPLICIT so that we can optimize our overall environment by improving each part, such as a TOWN with a well-focused improvement initiative such as the CONSTRUCTION of new homes, schools and businesses.
TONTO: While your language of DIFFERENTIATION may develop the ILLUSION that what you call SUBOPTIMIZATION is possible, our language of INTEGRATION reminds us that SUBOPTIMZATION IS AN ILLUSION due to the reality that ‘everything is related’ or as we say, ‘mitakuye oyasin’. While DIFFERENTIATION in your language may have you thinking in terms that your TOWN is a little isolated FRAGMENT of reality that you can ‘improve’ ‘on its own’, the reality is that we all share inclusion in the ONE “GREAT HARMONY” wherein everything is related.
LONE RANGER: Surely you can’t deny that we, as local communities or local social collectives can do better or worse than other local communities so that such SUBOPTIMIZATION as you call it is a REALITY. How could you deny that some villages are poor and squalid and in disrepair while others are rich and lively and in in good repair. We can see this DIFFERENTIATION also among your Indian villages.
TONTO: As in this comment of yours, your language is constantly at work in its manner of representation, in breaking things into separate fragments. In our language we speak NOT OF ‘TOWNS’ as if linguistic DIFFERENTIATION has the power of DECLARING INDEPENDENCE of that which, in our language, is NOT DIFFERENTIATED but INTEGRATED. In other words there are no ‘TOWNS’, there is instead TOWNING-in-the-TRANSFORMING landscape wherein FIGURE and GROUND or in other words, TOWNING and TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, are ONLY ONE. In our language, ‘mitakuye oyasin’ speaks to the reality where everything is related, so that the SUBOPTIMIZATION of selected forms such as TOWNS, that your language casts as separate, independent entities, is unreal ABSTRACTION and, where believed in so as to influence behaviour, is DELUSION. Even your own “systems sciences” agree with us in acknowledging that, in their words, “we live in a world characterized by global interconnectedness and mutual interdependence”.
LONE RANGER: Your words sound convincing but in spite of your talk of ‘interconnectedness’ we have seen how common it is for indigenous aboriginal peoples to ‘band together’ in ‘tribes’ which seems exemplary of DIFFERENTIATION and to make war on one another, taking sides on the basis of which tribe one is a member of. How does this tally with your understanding that INTEGRATION prevails over DIFFERENTIATION, a notion that seems to go against the grain of our DECLARATIONS of INDEPENDENCE.
TONTO: It seems that you answer your own question as to the apparent contradiction wherein indigenous aboriginal people believe that ‘we are all related’ yet nevertheless engage in inter-tribal strife. The DIFFERENTIATION that in European culture employs LANGUAGE to FRAGMENT that which is intrinsically INTEGRATED in nature, such as the all-including participating in the ‘web-of-life’, is not the same DIFFERENTIATION as foments STRIFE in indigenous aboriginal social collectives. The two ‘flavours’ of DIFFERENCE associate with what is known as QUANTUM LOGIC and BINARY LOGIC. QUANTUM LOGIC DIFFERENTIATION refers to the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING medium which is the logic of BALANCE that is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as in the overall GESTALT where, for example, there is BOTH the GROWTH of CULTIVATION of land within the spherical surface area of the planet AND the conjugate SHRINKAGE of WILDERNESS. BINARY LOGIC DIFFERENTIATION on the other hand IS the ‘EITHER/OR’ LOGIC of SEPARATION which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT as for example, where we DIFFERENTIATE and focus on the GROWTH of CULTIVATED LAND and speak only to the MALE ASSERTING ACTION of GROWTH without mention of the OTHER “QUANTUM LOGIC” DIFFERENTIATION where there is the FEMALE ACCOMODATING ‘opening up’ or SHRINKING of the WILDERNESS LANDS that IS ACCOMMODATING the MALE-ASSERTING GROWTH of CULTIVATION giving rise to the understanding of “BOTH” balance “AND” imbalance.
LONE RANGER: So we have DIFFERENTIATION that INTEGRATES and gives a sense of BALANCE or IMBALANCE and DIFFERENTIATION THAT SIMPLY FRAGMENTS. Is that it?
TONTO: Yes, In your European languages, you speak of DIFFERENTIATION that involves explicit DIVISION or FRAGMENTATION as with BINARY LOGIC, the EITHER/OR LOGIC of the excluded medium, while in our Indigenous aboriginal languages, we speak of DIFFERENTIATION within an INCLUDING medium that involves BALANCE as with QUANTUM LOGIC, the BOTH/AND logic of the including medium, the all-including PLENUM. This QUANTUM LOGIC DIFFERENTIATION that informs with a sense of BALANCE is a less simple form of DIFFERENTIATION than simple SPLITTING or BREAKING into two separate things, it is a more subtle DIFFERENTIATION that lets us distinguish between the WHORLING in a tidal FLOW and the FLOW where the WHORLING does not ‘SEPARATE’ and MOVE THROUGH THE FLOW but is the manifest APPEARANCE of FLOW and thus the WHORLING-in-the-FLOWING is a QUANTUM LOGIC form of DIFFERENTIATION where the logic is the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDING (flowing) medium.
LONE RANGER: I see; … like the clouds of CONDENSATION that ‘seem to move through’ an atmosphere that is SEPARATE from the clouds and would, if that were the case, be in a BINARY LOGIC relation, but as with the atmospheric CONDENSATIONS that appear to be ‘moving through’ atmosphere, are instead dynamic fluid WHORLINGS in the FLOW, manifesting a BOTH/AND relation where the FIGURE and GROUND (whorl and flow) ARE ONLY ONE and NOT TWO, suggesting that DIFFERENTIATION in NATURE is a QUANTUM LOGIC relation based on BALANCE, without any BINARY LOGIC SPLITTING. This would mean that EVERYTHING IS RELATED and that the FRAGMENTATION into the LOCAL and EXPLICIT is only ‘APPEARANCE’ that, by our use of NAMING and GRAMMAR based LANGUAGE, we ‘concretize’, blocking our cognitive access to the REALITY of NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT BALANCE-SEEKING TRANSFORMATION.
TONTO: EXACTLY! And it is this quest for BALANCE in a continually changing relational complex that is a NATURAL source of DIFFERENTIATION. In other words, DIFFERENTIATION is NOT “THE ASSERTING ACTION OF DIVISION and FRAGMENTATION” as in the DARWINIAN notion of “REPRODUCTION WITH VARIATION” that purportedly advances by further developing those things which are already established, but as with the QUANTUM BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING medium, a PLENUM or energy field that is continually opening up to change in support of BALANCE, an “opening up” form of change that transforms the overall GESTALT. As turbulence builds, WHORLING emerges within the FLOWING, not in the MALE sense of ASSERTIVELY AUTHORING a ‘stirring up’ but in the FEMALE sense of ACCOMMODATING in the service of sustaining BALANCE in the presence of DISPERSIVE INFLUENCE.
LONE RANGER: Now I can see how we are so easily fooled by language that we accepted the notion of DIFFERENTIATION in terms of WHAT THINGS DO as in mothers making babies and the whole DARWINIAN notion of a succession of REPRODUCTIONS with VARIATIONS where, so it is said, things emerge from out of an empty space and are said to progressively populate the empty space. When we instead understand that SPACE is NOT EMPTY but an energy-filled PLENUM within which CONDENSATIONS are continuing GATHERING and SCATTERING in the service of SUSTAINING BALANCE in the presence of exposure to IMBALANCE, our understanding of REALITY shifts radically. This explains the difference between European language’s BINARY LOGIC constructions in terms of MATTER and EMPTY SPACE that we White men are infusing into the consciousness of our social collective through our language architecture, which I can now see is IN ERROR and giving us a FRAGMENTED VIEW of REALITY in terms of a BINARY LOGIC based SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
TONTO: The White man’s error, built into language architecture, of reducing and relocating the AUTHORING AGENCY of the all-pervading TRANSFORMING energy-charged PLENUM that precedes and includes the visible ‘tip-of-the-iceberg’ APPEARANCE of LOCAL, EXPLICIT CONDENSATIONS, because it has been built into the White man’s language architecture, is continuing source of confusion in the social dynamic. While White man and Red man alike have the grounding of sense-experience of inclusion in the GREAT MYSTERY of the transforming relational continuum, language has a powerful influence by way of constructing simplified substitute realties which, through common usage, support common schemes of intellectual abstraction, a simple MATTER and EMPTY SPACE variant of which the White man is using as his operative reality. This variant makes use of the SIMPLE version of DIFFERENTIATION that is based on BINARY EITHER IS OR IS NOT LOGIC which perpetuates the conception of a FRAGMENTED world, and it is no trivial task to PULL OUT the problematic TOO-SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC based language and PUT IN ITS PLACE the less simple QUANTUM LOGIC language wherein DIFFERENTIATION is BALANCE based.
LONE RANGER: For my own part, now that I understand what you have been saying, I can see how we White men are using a language architecture that has us thinking that we are included in an over-simplified, BINARY LOGIC based SUBSTITUTE REALITY, all of which pivots from the reduction of DIFFERENTIATION from QUANTUM LOGIC ‘BALANCE’ to BINARY LOGIC BEING based ‘FRAGMENTATION’. Where your language will speak of HUMANING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein the QUANTUM BOTH/AND Logic of the including medium prevails; i.e. where there is a BALANCE based relationship between the HUMANING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE as with the physical relationship of CONDENSATIONS of the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM and the UNCONDENSED ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM, also known as WAVE-FORMS in the WAVE-FIELD.
TONTO: I appreciate your command of the simple European language which seems to have been given an architecture tailored for the constructing of representations of reality based on the BINARY LOGIC relation of ABSOLUTE MATERIAL BEINGS in an ABSOLUTE EMPTY AND INFINITE SPACE, … which you are now using to go beyond the BINARY LOGIC CONCEPT based REPRESENTATIONS which it appears to have been designed for, to the QUANTUM LOGIC CONCEPTS of the BALANCE-based reality of our sense-experience, which our indigenous aboriginal languages have been designed for. Thus, when you put together words as you have just done…
When we instead understand that SPACE is NOT EMPTY but an energy-filled PLENUM within which CONDENSATIONS are continuing GATHERING and SCATTERING in the service of SUSTAINING BALANCE in the presence of exposure to IMBALANCE, our understanding of REALITY shifts radically
I can see that you have been able to find language constructions that BREAK FREE of the use of DIFFERENTIATION in the limited sense of DIFFERENTIATING “ONE THING FROM ANOTHER” as if both reside within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT, and you are instead capturing thinking in terms of BALANCE as in the changing balance between the White man’s CULTIVATED LAND that he refers to as IMPROVED LAND and the WILDERNESS LAND that is so rich in diversity that has included “man” as part of that rich diversity that is BORN OF THE PURSUIT OF SUSTAINING RELATIONAL BALANCE.
LONE RANGER: I have always been aware of this sense of BALANCE and IMBALANCE and have seen that when things get OUT OF BALANCE as has happened with RICH and POOR IMBALANCE, there are natural forces that come into play to RESTORE BALANCE. In fact, NATURE seems to be characterized by actions induced in the service of continually RESTORING and SUSTAINING BALANCE. HOWEVER, in being raised in our ‘White man’ tradition, DIFFERENTIATION is taught in the BINARY LOGIC based sense of testing where a material form EITHER “IS” OR “IS NOT” a NAME-ASSIGNED THING-IN-ITSELF in a growing language catalog of LOCAL, EXPLICIT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, such as TOWNS. Because we have designed our language to give a foundational role to NAME-ASSIGNED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES, DYNAMICS such as associate with BALANCING have only a secondary role in language so that a RICH AND POOR IMBALANCE, which we know to be a PRIMARY INFLUENCE is something we do not acknowledge directly due to our ‘White man’s’ choice of giving the foundational role in language to the BINARY LOGIC of EITHER ‘IS’ or ‘IS NOT’ while BALANCE, being a relational influence that is ‘between things’, is of a QUANTUM LOGIC BOTH/AND nature that, being less simple, is beyond the expressive capability of BINARY LOGIC based language.
TONTO: One thing about you Paleface’s, you have an well-developed skill in using language that breaks things down into notionally separate parts and constructs simple representations of our sense-experience reality using LEGO like plug and play constructions. But as you point out, DIFFERENTIATION is CONSTRAINED, in a BINARY LOGIC based language architecture to simple EITHER IS or IS NOT DIFFERENTIATION which is NOT the situation with our Indigenous aboriginal languages which are flow-based so that we can deal with our sense-experience reality wherein “everything is related’ and included with the one GREAT MYSTERY or the ENERGY-CHARGED-PLENUM wherein the material condensations which are visible, tangible and NAME-ABLE are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. This is the reality that we protect in our language architecture by employing a fluid base as in ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’, wherein DIFFERENTIATION of relational forms in the transforming relational continuum is understood in terms of the relational dynamic of BALANCE.
LONE RANGER: Now I can understand how indigenous aboriginals seem to be, but are not, the POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK in speaking of STRIFE within the Indian community in spite of advocacy of observance of ‘mitakuye oyasin’, or ‘we are all related’. STRIFE in the QUANTUM LOGIC sense of BALANCE RESTORING is not the same as STRIFE in the BINARY LOGIC sense of PURIFICATION by REWARDING and SUPPORTING the GOOD while PUNISHMENT and ELIMINATING the BAD. DIFFERENTIATION evidently can lead to either PURIFICATION or RESTORING BALANCE depending on whether the DIFFERENTIATING is acted upon with a BINARY LOGIC FRAGMENTING or a QUANTUM LOGIC BALANCING approach. That is, STRIFE can manifest among people pursuing BINARY LOGIC based PURIFICATION or among people pursuing QUANTUM LOGIC based cultivating of BALANCE.
TONTO: Your words are words for which you will be welcomed in our Indian communities but they are words which may make you a stranger amongst your own kind, for those who believe in the absolutes of EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG and who formally commit to the support of such belief within the dynamics of their social collective, are not likely to look kindly on the elevating of BALANCE to primacy over PURIFICATION. In your White man’s social collective, IMBALANCE in the social relational dynamic is not interpreted as IMBALANCE which derives from QUANTUM LOGIC conceptualizing, but as CONFLICT in a BINARY LOGIC PERPRETRATOR-VICTIM sense which the culture has prepared for by establishing a BINARY LOGIC based JUSTICE SYSTEM which orients to PURIFICATION by PUNISHING and REMOVING the notional LOCAL AUTHORS of HARMFUL ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS and REWARDING and CELEBRATING the LOCAL AUTHORS of BENEFICIAL ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.
LONE RANGER: Yes, and once the MORE SIMPLE PURIFICATION approach is installed in place of the LESS SIMPLE BALANCING approach, this simple system becomes LOCKED IN BY HIGH SWITCHING COSTS. For example, the rewards and recognitions given disproportionately to those imputed to be AUTHORS OF GOOD ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS establishes an elite class that has more than average powers and uses such powers to keep in place those societal administration practices that support the continuance of simple BINARY LOGIC based understanding that holds BALANCE based understanding at bay.
TONTO: It seems to me Kemo Sabe, with your acknowledging of the natural order where BALANCE prevails over BINARY LOGIC in the dynamic world of our sensory experience, that we are now FULLY on the same page. We both realize that BALANCE is basic to our sense-experience reality but such understanding has not been able to overcome the White man’s BINARY LOGICAL way of thinking which, having been chosen first and put into popular use, is difficult to remove from ‘its now dependent sockets’, to make way for the NATURAL occupant of BALANCE.
LONE RANGER: Yes, the GREAT FALL from BINARY LOGIC understanding to the BALANCE based understanding which some call QUANTUM LOGIC, has embedded in our ‘White man’s’ way of talking about the all-including flow or GREAT HARMONY, a form of language which DIFFERENTIATES by substituting for our less simple FLUID REALITY; that is, our nonlocal and implicit flowing reality, a reduction to the LOCAL and EXPLICIT. It seems, for example, that language that casts ‘the TOWN or the HUMAN as a LOCAL and EXPLICIT entity that is “GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING products” has been able to lodge in our ‘White man’s thinking so as to BLOCK or OBSCURE our mind’s access to the natural primacy of understanding reality as BALANCE based when we are no longer dumbed down in our language-based conceptualizing of reality by the use of BINARY LOGIC. There is no “LOCAL AUTHORING” in a “BALANCE-BASED” social dynamic.
TONTO: You have put your finger on the problem with the White man’s language and thinking which reduces DIFFERENTIATION in the sense of FIGURE and GROUND as ONE, as in BALANCE or QUANTUM LOGIC to DIFFERENTIATION in the sense of FIGURE and GROUND as TWO, as with MATTER and EMPTY SPACE as in FRAGMENTATION or BINARY LOGIC. The world of our sense-experience of inclusion therein is NOT a FRAGMENTED world but an energy-charged UNUM which is flowing and within which we can distinguish CONDENSATIONS such as the TOWNINGS and the HUMANINGS in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE where FIGURE and GROUND are ONE and where the relation between the CONDENSATION and the energy-charged UNUM is BALANCE which is RESONANCE based.
LONE RANGER: At first, I could not see what you meant when you spoke of material forms being BALANCE based, and could only see material forms as SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT FRAGMENTS, but now I see where DIFFERENTIATION does not have to imply FRAGMENTATION in the usual sense, but may refer to BALANCE based phenomena such as CLUSTERING of ants where the CLUSTER is NOT a FRAGMENT of something in a FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPE but is instead where there is a GATHERING-SCATTERING as with the CLUSTERING that in a persisting BALANCE so that, with the magic of language, we bestow on the BATHERING-SCARTTERING RESONANCE FEATURE, a NAME, reducing the NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT CLUSTERING to a LOCAL, EXPLICIT ‘CLUSTER’ which such language has induced us to SPEAK OF as if it were something LOCAL and EXPLICIT, an imaginary stake-in-the-ground that we can use GRAMMAR to endow with ‘its own’ notional powers of AUTHORING ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT and even PRODUCTION of products such as ‘droppings’. The key point is that this resonance feature, once we apply our language and grammar MAKE-OVER to it, is no longer understood as being an innate aspect of the transforming relational continuum, but thanks to our White man’s language architecture, is understood as an INDEPENDENT FRAGMENT with its own GRAMMAR – given AUTHORING powers.
TONTO: It is good, Kemo Sabe, that you have worked your way through all of the complexities of your White man language, your sharing of which deepens my understanding of how our White brothers can often be so insensitive to the world we share inclusion in. We owe much of this to the DIFFERENTIATION used in the White man’s language which is an ABSTRACT BEING based DIFFERENTIATION involving BINARY LOGIC rather than, as in our indigenous aboriginal language, a DIFFERENTIATION based on the logic of BALANCE where the material FIGURE, while APPEARING SEPARATE, is an inclusion that persists by way of sustaining balancing, in the TRANSFORMING GROUND which is the all-including energy-charged PLENUM.
LONE RANGER: Our ‘White man’s way has taken on board a great FORGETTING which has been built into our language by the building in of BINARY LOGIC based DIFFERENTIATION, the FRAGMENTATIVE impact of which makes this language TOO SIMPLE to convey the essential dynamic of BALANCE. Somehow, we must share more broadly within the White man’s culture, the understanding that linguistic DIFFERENTIATION based on BALANCE where we make statements such as; ‘There is TOWNING and HUMANING in the TRANSFORMING relational continuum” supports the understanding that everything is in flux and thus ‘everything is related’, or ‘mitakuye oyasin’ so that the CONDENSATIONS of the energy charged PLENUM or WAVE-FIELD are understood as aspects of the all-including PLENUM and not something separate.
TONTO: The many White man’s words we must use to explain the need for a language architecture employing the BALANCE based form of DIFFERENTIATION rather than the FRAGMENT based form of DIFFERENTIATION suggests that our, and similar messages that we need such a language may be a long time in ‘getting through’ since we are transmitting on a frequency other than the frequencies available in the receivers to whom our communications are being directed.
LONE RANGER: Yes, our message transmitting mode is by the less simple QUANTUM LOGIC language messaging, the common receiving mode is by the simple BINARY LOGIC language message decipherment. What is getting lost is the QUANTUM LOGIC based DIFFERENTIATION wherein the DIFFERENCE between FIGURE and GROUND is only BALANCE as with resonance based DUNINGS in the SAND SEA. As with ants CLUSTERING so also with sand grains DUNING; i.e. the RESONANCE ‘ENVELOPES’ (clustering and duning) are concretized with NAMING and animated with GRAMMAR, creating a MORE SIMPLE language based representation based on LOCAL, EXPLICIT FORMS which FRAGMENT reality.
TONTO: Yes, this is where the White man’s language DROPS OUT the resonance-based FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate of the CLUSTERING and DUNING which conveys the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, using language to make a reduction from the androgynous CLUSTERING and DUNING to the one-sided MALE ASSERTING CLUSTER and DUNE which are LOCAL and EXPLICIT.
LONE RANGER: Yes, and here we can see, or at least imagine the problem within our White man culture which has not only DROPPED OUT THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate from WESTERN CULTURE language architecture; i.e. the CLUSTERING and DUNING incorporate NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING-CONTAINING SHAPING which we DROP OUT in our language and grammar capture, carrying on with the one-sided MALE ASSERTING ONLY CLUSTERS AND DUNES with their GRAMMAR-given notional powers of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development as if within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE.
TONTO: DUNING and CLUSTERING and in general, the resonance features WITHIN THE ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM PLENUM are ANDROGYNOUS but while the MALE ASSERTING FORM is LOCAL and EXPLICIT (i.e. the DUNE and the CLUSTER), the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE aspect of both DUNING and CLUSTERING is IMPLICIT and NONLOCAL and brings vital meaning that the White man is sacrificing to the cause of LINGUISTIC PRECISION that comes with FRAGMENTATION.
* * *
FOOTNOTE: —The agreement between the LONE RANGER and TONTO has gone further still, suggesting the need for a compilation of the many serious DROP-OUTS of ‘reality’ from the “White man’s” language based reality presentations by using DIFFERENTIATION based FRAGMENTS such as ‘the TOWN’ and ‘the HUMAN’, both of which are IMAGINED ENVELOPES to gather-scatter resonance features, and while the IMAGINED ENVELOPES are LOCAL and EXPLICIT, the gather-scatter resonance features are based on NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT BALANCE as in the relation between implicit BALANCE-based CLUSTERING and explicit CLUSTERS, … or implicit BALANCE-based WAVES and explicit PARTICLES. As TONTO points out, the talk of CLUSTERING and CLUSTERS (WAVE-PARTICLE) ‘EQUIVALENCE’ is a CRUDE form of ‘EQUIVALENCE’ that fails to mention the DROPPING OUT and SACRIFICING of cognitive capture of the LESS SIMPLE natural phenomenon of RESONANCE (WAVE-FIELD) in the process of achieving a dumbed-down SIMPLE LOCAL, EXPLICIT language-based CLARITY. The latter is the White man’s preferred mode of intellectual discourse wherein the dumbing down delivers greater clarity and precision, by way of FRAGMENTATION; i.e. by reducing the ANDROGYNOUS NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT to the one-sided MALE ASSERTING LOCAL AND EXPLICIT of LOGICAL POSITIVISM.
* * *
This entry was posted by ted lumley on February 21, 2023 at 1:23 am, and is filed under APN. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.