Modern physics informs us that reality is inclusion in the transforming relational continuum which is like living within a hologram; i.e. living within TRANSFORMATION (the Wave-field).

Note that what is intended here is NOT ‘living within a ‘continually transforming world’, because THERE IS NO “WORLD”, there is only TRANSFORMATION.  In other words, TRANSFORMATION IS THE WORLD.

If we FIRST presume there is a WORLD that contains many things, including ourselves, then we are screwing up all possibility of getting to an understanding of reality as in modern physics and indigenous aboriginal cultures.

FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, … is the basic reality of the Wave-field (and hologram), while FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO is the abstract REPRESENTATION we construct with language and grammar based DOUBLE ERROR.   The FIRST ERROR is NAMING which imputes (within the intellect) the LOCAL existence of a thing-in-itself (e.g. DUNE) and the SECOND ERROR, which conflates the first, is GRAMMAR that imputes to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself, the power of SOURCING actions and developments. (e.g. the DUNE is growing higher and longer and is shifting across the ‘desert floor’).

Note that in imputing ontological independence and the power of independent movement to ‘the DUNE’ (or ‘HUMAN’ or ‘TOWN’ or etc.) we invoke BINARY LOGIC as in FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO independently existing ontologies wherein the FIGURE can roam about in the GROUND or in other words the INHABITANT can roam about in the HABITAT.

That, as Nietzsche points out, is a DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.   It is also the birth of SORCERY in the sense that this DOUBLE ERROR imputes the independent action and development (growth) of the FIGURE that is perceived as independent of the GROUND.

In modern physics, as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, FIGURE -and-GROUND-are-ONE, as is also the case with the hologram, hence Bohm’s Holographic Universe.

This is the CULTURE-DIVIDER wherein us WESTERN CULTURE adherents hold that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO as in PRODUCER-PRODUCT dynamics while the EASTERN CULTURE, along with modern physics, holds that FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in TRANSFOMATION.

Note that Zeno’s paradox of the impossibility of motion comes into play here in that Zeno argued convincingly that MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE;

In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. … If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

Of course, physicists like Julian Barbour would say that the abstraction of splitting apart space and time is not justified so there is only Wave-field TRANSFORMATION and since that’s the whole ball of wax, there is no splitting apart into two separate pseudo-realities of SPACE and TIME.

So, Zeno did NOT open the door to understanding reality in terms of TRANSFORMATION which has no need of the split into SPACE and MATTER and TIME.  The holodynamic is made of ‘field’ wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND (e.g. matter and space) ARE ONE as in TRANSFORMATION.  Meanwhile, modern physics HAS opened that door to understanding reality as an all-included TRANSFORMATION, that has not dependency on ‘things’ (FIGURES) within some other thing (GROUND).  As Carlo Rovelli puts it in Quanum Gravity;

In Newtonian and special relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities – particles and fields – what remains is space and time. In general relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of one of the fields, the gravitational field. This implies that physical entities – particles and fields – are not all immersed in space, and moving in time. They do not live on spacetime. They live, so to say, on one another. It is as if we had observed in the ocean many animals living on an island: animals ‘on’ the island. Then we discover that the island itself is in fact a great whale. Not anymore animals on the island, just animals on animals. Similarly, the universe is not made by fields on spacetime; it is made by fields on fields.”   — Carlo Rovelli, in ‘Quantum Gravity’

In other words, FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

So, Zeno was correct in his proof of the impossibility of motion (i.e. the impossibility of THINGS-that-MOVE) but he didn’t supply any viable alternative to the apparent ‘movement’ picked up by our sensory experience.  Modern physics solves this problem, as it has also been solved by indigenous aboriginal cultures, in understanding reality as the Wave-field dynamic aka TRANSFORMATION.

Standard language is not capable of conveying TRANSFORMATION (NOT ‘things-transforming’ but transformation as all there is, as in the Wave-field dynamic aka the Tao, as with the hologram).  That is, ‘reality’ is the IMPLICIT while the EXPLICIT/LOCAL IS AN EXPEDIENT REDUUCTION OF THE IMPLICIT/NONLOCAL, useful for concocting an EFFABLE-because-EXPLICIT-and-LOCAL articulation of the INEFFABLE-because-IMPLICIT-and-NONLOCAL.  Conveying the IMPLICIT and avoiding the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO dependence requires a different type of language.

What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.

 David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.

 A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

Now, if this TRANSFORMING RELATONAL CONTINUUM is the ‘reality’ of our actual sensory experience, then it is bound to be INEFFABLE-because-IMPLICIT-and-NONLOCAL, so HOW DO WE EFFABLE-IZE OUR EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION wherein “everything is in flux”?

What about all the wonderful achievements in our lives that we are so proud of.  What happens to these when we are forced to abandon our belief in our own powers of SOURCING actions and developments, now exposed as DOUBLE ERRORS of language and grammar?  Sounds like a collapse of the EGO.

Let’s think about our achievements that we are most proud of.  How do these ‘come out’ if we have to shift our understanding to a world of TRANSFORMATION in which we are inclusions in the sense of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE which makes us into kind of ‘holographic’ Wave-field forms.

Can we make sense of this?   We know we have done some great stuff in our lives (maybe some bad stuff too).  What happens to OUR ACHIEVEMENTS if we shift to this understanding of reality as inclusion in TRANSFORMATION?

My sense is that is as if we are driving in the flow of traffic and are directing our movements in a destination/goal oriented manner according to a map or directive schematic in our heads where everyone else keeps getting in our way because they have their own very different goal-oriented trajectories they are trying to follow.  Then something happens so that we relax and discover how, by slowing down or speeding up or shifting over to the left or the right, harmonies or resonances emerge in the relational dynamics that and it is a kind of ‘game’ that we can play together where we orient to the ‘opening of holes’ in the traffic flow, noticing that if we keep the holes opening up, the traffic keeps flowing smoothly.  Of course, this means demoting to secondary, the first priority we were giving to our own destination-oriented movements. But when we do this demoting and back off our explicit destination-oriented movement, new opportunities open up for us that we previously did not see because there was no place for them in our strictly pursued explicit goal orientation.

In this mode of operation, we can’t really credit ‘our progress’ to ourselves as individuals and even if we do arrive at the destination we were aiming to get to, there is the feeling that we helped open up pathways for others on their way to theirs even as they helped open up pathways for us to get to ours.

Whereas our initial orientation was to our own personal trajectory and competing with others whose personal trajectories interfered with ours, we shifted from an assertive trajectory orientation to the relational opening oriented movement reminiscent of indigenous aboriginal social dynamics;

Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas did not see things in the producer-product ‘sourcing’ context, but saw humans as humanings within the Great Harmony. Meanwhile, immersion in the Great Harmony is ineffable.  It runs into the not-explicitly solvable ‘three body problem’ that Newton ran into, which forced him to limit his theory formulations to ‘two-body problems’.

“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]

The above described approach to driving ‘friendly’ in the flow of the freeway overlays, in its topology, this description of coordinating activity of Chief Maquinna.

By way of the ‘DOUBLE ERROR’, we invert the natural order of things and inject the notion of LOCAL SOURCING.  With language and grammar we say that the social collective SOURCES the construction of a village in the hills, but out intuition lets us understand this same unfolding as TRANSFORMATION and not TRANSFORMATION OF SOMETHING but just TRANSFORMATION as ‘all there is’ as in the Wave-field understanding aka ‘the Tao’.

But I want to say; ‘look at this!  look at what the villagers have done,… they have constructed this beautiful little village ‘in the hills’!

But IT IS NOT “IN THE HILLS”, IN THE FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO sense, … it is “the TRANSFORMING” without having to append a NAME signifying a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF to the end of that statements.  “THE TRANSFORMING” captures everything.

My sense is that we can be more or less in RESONANCE within the TRANSFORMING as in the case of the VILLAGERS who we, with our language and grammar rhetoric, impute to be the those who SOURCE the actions and developments we are referring to as ‘the VILLAGE’.

THERE IS NO “VILLAGE”, there is only “VILLAGING” in the “TRANSFORMING”.

THERE ARE NO “HUMANS” in the “VILLAGE”.  Just as here is only “VILLAGING”, just as there is only “HUMANING”, …  in the “TRANSFORMING”.

This is consistent with ‘everything is in flux’ and ‘everything is related’ (mitakuye oyasin) and ‘the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, and ‘Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent’ (

“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”) –Wittgenstein’s final statement (7.0) in Tractatus Logico Philosphicus).

In other words, reality is INEFFABLE because IT IS FLOW.  That is, it’s NOT that ‘everything is in flux’, it is that FLUX IS EVERYTHING.

DECIPHERING THE ENIGMA of our EFFABLE impression of the INEFFABLE when we admit that there is no such thing as the SOURCING of actions and developments.  How, then, are we to understand the “superb achievements of the amazing athlete, or the high achiever in romance, construction, art etc.”?

First, it is important to register in our understanding and retain, that when we speak of ANY notionally LOCAL SOURCING, it is merely APPEARANCE that we concretize with the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.  We say ‘the town is GROWING’, but the ‘town’ has no thing-in-itself BEING, it is a ‘bubbling’ or ‘turbulence’ within the ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka ‘the TRANSFORMATION’.

This is why Zen guru Alan Watts argues that we should be suffixing every noun (imputed local thing-in-itself) with ‘ING’ in which case ‘TOWN’ would be ‘a TOWNING’ and ‘HUMAN’ would be ‘HUMANING’, which is a kind of bubbling within the holodynamic.  The HUMANING, like the HURRICANING, such as Katrina, is a FIGURE within the FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE dynamic; i.e. within the TRANSFORMING.

If Katrina can give the appearance of ‘stirring things up in a remarkable and even aesthetic way…

[[INTERJECT COMMENT HERE: “In the act of speaking in terms of Katrina ‘sourcing’ something, I am imposing the DOUBLE ERROR construction.  I should instead be speaking of a HurricanING which belongs to the TRANSFORMING, …  but once we use NAMING (noun-ing aka ‘the nominative’) together with GRAMMAR, we invoke the DOUBLE ERROR which, in effect, imputes LOCAL SOURCING OF ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENT.]]

How do we use language BUT REFRAIN from imputing the power of LOCAL SOURCING via NAMING and GRAMMAR so as to convey TRANSFORMING?

IMPOSSIBLE!

“The Tao (TRANSFORMATION) that can be told is not the true Tao” – Lao Tsu.

TRANSFORMATION IS SOMETHING WE EXPERIENCE INCLUSION IN AND IS THUS NONLOCAL AND PURELY RELATIONAL, LIKE RESONANCE.  WE ARE ‘MADE OF IT’ SO WE CAN’T SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM IT AND POINT TO IT AS IN THE COMMON SUBJECT AND OBJECT SPLIT that opens the way to the “objective view” seen by the subject who is not himself included in that view.  Such a view fails to capture the reality of TRANSFORMATION that is all-inclusive.  As Schroedinger observes, Subject and object are ONE within the all-including Tao aka TRANSFORMATION.

“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

How do respected ‘high achievers’ (who we say “SOURCE” or “AUTHOR” impressive performances, acts, works or etc.) fit into this non-SOURCING based understanding of reality; i.e. of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION?

The problem is with the imputing of LOCAL authorship to the SOURCING.  Where there is circular eruption and subduction as in the Wave-field, the impression of LOCAL is virtual or imagined.  The hologram is like an out-welling and in-welling fluid dynamic that belongs to the fluid field.  It is a phenomenon where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE and SUBJECT-and-OBJECT are ONE.

Since ‘everything is in flux’ (TRANSFORMATION) the perceived ‘high achievers’ are instead ‘skilled channelers’ within the flow (‘channelings’ in the TRANSFORMATION may be a more apt terminology).

Farmers do not “PRODUCE” wheat, they clear forest and plough fields to open up CHANNELS for earth-based nutrients to rise up through in the form of grain-shaped capsules which are “CONSUMED”, transformed and redeposited.  Such sky-to-earth-to-sky cycles are how TRANSFORMATION manifests.  The PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstraction is like ‘FIRE BURNS’, a language and grammar based means of EFFABLE-izing the INEFFABLE.

As with the hurricane and atmosphere, FIGURE and GROUND are ONE and that ONE is TRANSFORMATION.

* * * * * * *

“TRANSFORMATION”: A SUMMARY.

The imputing of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments is a DOUBLE ERROR based (EFFABLE-izing) reduction of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL dynamic of TRANSFORMATION, the Wave-field, the Tao.

That there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING, is the manifest finding of modern physics and the Wave-field understanding of reality.  LOCAL SOURCING is implied by DOUBLE ERROR based conceptualizations such as “The Dune is growing higher and longer and is shifting across the ‘desert floor’.  This DOUBLE ERROR reduction SUBSTITUTES for, and cancels the reality of Wave-field resonance.

LOCAL SOURCING is used in a foundational way in WESTERN CULTURE intellectual reality reconstructions as in Courts of Law.  Robin Hood and Jean Valjean are seen as SOURCERS of criminal actions (thefts).  In the modern physics and EASTERN CULTURE’s NONLOCAL understanding of reality, manifest, unfolding events are NONLOCAL phenomena.  The startled deer darting across the busy freeway may induce braking and swerving that continues for a long way, only then triggering a collision wherein a LOCAL perpetrator and LOCAL victim are identified.

Such NONLOCALITY is the general case. That is the point made by David Bohm in his formulations of modern physics.  The abstract DOUBLE ERROR reduction of NONLOCAL phenomena to pseudo-LOCAL phenomena is a simplification that reduces the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to EFFABLE-because-LOCAL; e.g. “LIGHTNING FLASHES” (Nietzsche), … “FIRE BURNS” (Nishitani).  These two DOUBLE ERROR exemplars show how the combination of NAMING and GRAMMAR can be used within language discourse to intellectually craft the impression of LOCAL actions and developments.

This DOUBLE ERROR talk is NOT REALITY.   ‘HUMANS GROW’ and ‘DUNES SHIFT’ exemplify double error-based abstraction that substitutes LOCAL SOURCING which is EFFABLE for NONLOCAL (resonance based) TRANSFORMATION which is INEFFABLE.

One could use measuring instruments to prove that those two DOUBLE ERROR propositions (HUMANS GROW and DUNES SHIFT) are TRUE just as a prosecution attorney can prove to a court of law, that without a shadow of a doubt, Robin Hood stole grain from the King’s granary and Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread from the Bakery.  But Kurt Goedel can also prove to you that all finite systems of binary logic are incomplete.  The agricultural consortium may point to the 200 percent GROWTH of acreage planted with food crops and submit a survey confirming their claims.  But how valid is this concept of GROWTH when it fails to mention the reciprocal SHRINKAGE of Wilderness acreage, which taken into account, establishes that what is going on here is NOT GROWTH but TRANSFORMATION.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GROWTH IN THE REAL WORLD OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE.   “GROWTH” IS A CONCEPT THAT DEPENDS UPON THE ABSTRACT NOTION OF FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO.  In the TRANSFORMING relational continuum, FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.

GROWTH implies LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development.  To believe in GROWTH is to blind oneself to TRANSFORMATION.  However, GROWTH is LOCAL and EFFABLE while TRANSFORMATION is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE.

Could we trust and follow a friend who was unable to clearly articulate or ‘effable-ize’ where we were going and what we were up to?  ‘How about ‘man’s best friend’?

“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.”

 * * *

 

FOOTNOTE: The belief in the DOUBLE ERROR is belief in the LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, a belief that is exposed as unfounded in modern physics, as in Bohm’s example of the error of assuming that John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln.   If a rabbit were to run across an oval race-track, leading to breaking and swerving that worked its way backwards around the oval until finally one car rear-ends another, the explicitness of the LOCAL event involving an explicit perpetrator and an explicit victim reduces the ineffable-because-NONLOCAL to the effable-because-LOCAL.  But is the explicit-and-thus-EFFABLE, backed up by the double error, more deserving of ‘reality’ status than the IMPLICIT-and-thus-INEFFABLE, as is the WESTERN CULTURE custom?

Derek Chauvin’s knee in the neck of George Floyd is as clear-cut as John Wilkes Bullet in the head of Abraham Lincoln.  We know what Nietzsche and Bohm would say about this; i.e. that the PRODUCER-PRODUCT abstraction aka CAUSE-EFFECT abstraction is DOUBLE ERROR based over-simplification.  The FIRST ERROR is NAMING to impute LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING (John Wilkes Booth, George Floyd) and this is conflated with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR that imputes the power of SOURCING actions and developments to the NAMING-instantiated LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING. This DOUBLE ERROR concocts for the intellect a grossly over-simplified pseudo-reality

“Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.” – Michael Talbot, ‘The Holographic Universe’.

The same double error over-simplification problem is found in “gunshots kill” and “a knee-on-the-neck kills”, as pointed out in Nietzche’s ‘LIGHTNING FLASHES’ and Nishitani’s FIRE BURNS’.

The same DOUBLE ERROR based implication of LOCAL SOURCING gives rise to EGO which is so strong in our WESTERN CULTURE that it spills over from EGO, due to the felt need for logical consistency (of assuming LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments wherever/whenever encountered) from the CREDIT/ACCLAIM to the BLAME) side of the balance sheet.

* * *