Are YOU Suffering from Bewitchment by Western Culture?

Two Minute Self-Test for Western Culture Bewitchment.

 

After reading the following, answer the simple questions, and check your result.

 

You are observing a body of water being heated by the sun and you notice the convection currents forming and the associated circular ‘circulation’.   You are about to ‘open your mouth’ and ‘remark on what is going on’ and in the process, you will make what Nietzsche terms the double error.  That is, if you want to share your observations with someone else, you are likely to say something like; ‘a whorl’ or ‘boil’ is forming in the water and it is growing larger and stronger.  As you can see, this sort of ‘talk’ invokes the ‘double error’ of (a) using ‘naming’ to impute thing-in-itself being to relational movement; i.e. ‘with the word ‘whorl’, and (b) compounding this first error by imputing to this invented thing-in-itself (the whorl), the power of sourcing its own actions and developments.  There is no mention of the transforming relational continuum in which all of this is unfolding.  In other words, our language-based article-ulation of how this transformation ‘appears’ REDUCES this relational transformation by way of of ‘the double error’, giving us the psychological impression of a name-instantiated ‘thing-in-itself’ grammatically equipped with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

 

That’s the background, now for a few simple questions, followed by some answers given by others.

 

-1- Is the whorl the source of the circulatory flow in the water?

-2- Is a ‘man’ who logs trees and arranges them as a shelter (i.e.’builds a house’) the ‘source’ of the thing-in-itself we call ‘the house’?

A: If you answered ‘yes’ to these questions, you are affirming that ‘it makes sense’ to understand dynamics, as Newton presented them, in terms of a ‘local sourcing agency’ (a ‘force’) that explains actions and developments.  This is the ‘nature’ option in the ‘nature’-‘nurture’ psychological dichotomy

 

B: If you hesitated in answering the first question, it was perhaps because you saw ambiguity in whether the whorl was the source of the water flow or whether the water-flow was the source of the whorl (the enigmatic ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ dichotomy which gives rise to ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ division in understanding reality.  This is the ‘nurture’ option in the ‘nature’ – ‘nurture’ psychological dichotomy.

 

C: If you retained in your understanding the impression of relational transformation, you would see that it was the ‘naming’ of the form ‘whorl’ together with the use of ‘grammar’ that INVENTED a new REALITY wherein the named pseudo-thing-in-itself was formed in the psyche in the role of the ‘author’ or ‘sorcerer’ of the action and development.  If you follow this psychological path, you have two cohoices; i.e. the whorl sources the flow, or the flow sources the whorl.  In considering these two options, you are forgetting that you used the grammar based ‘double error’ to create, in your mind, by way of ‘naming’, the impression of an independently existing thing-in-itself which you notionally equipped with the power of sourcing actions and developments.

 

Western culture ‘trains us from youth’, through learning to speak with a particular type of language, which is not at all like the relational language of indigenous aboriginal, nor like the ‘rheomode’ language of modern physics proposed by David Bohm for the reasons being discussed here; i.e. to retain the inherent relational nature of the realty of our actual experience, in our language based capture and sharing of our experience.   Indigenous aboriginal languages are ‘relational’ and do, in fact, retain the sense of our inclusion, as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.  That is why Bohm observes that indigenous aboriginals (those who have kept their native language) are already fully conversant with the inherently relational reality as understood in modern physics.

 

RE YOUR RESPONSES.

 

Your three possible answers to questions 1 and 2 can be an indication of your psychological impression of ‘reality’.  For example, the ‘ego’ derives from the language-and-grammar triggered psychological impression that we are ‘human beings’ (or national collectives or corporate collectives), notional name-instantiated things-in-themselves with the power of ‘sourcing’ actions and developments.  This ‘double error’ serves as the foundation of Western culture INVENTED REALITY.

 

EGO associates with the language-and-grammar triggered impression of ourselves as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-ourself’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

 

EGO plays a foundational role in Western culture social dynamic via the ‘double error’, whereby language and grammar have us Western culture adherents see ourselves as ‘independently-existing-things-in-ourselves’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.

 

The psychological mis-impression of EGO that (mis)represents us as independently-existing ‘sorcerers’ is the basis of REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS that characterize Western culture.

 

Question: Do YOU believe in  EGO as in the ‘double error’, a language and grammar based psychological (mis-)impression of yourself as an independent being that is fully and solely responsible for sourcing your own actions and development, such ‘sorcery’ being ‘to your credit’ in the case of actions and developments deemed ‘good’ and being ‘to your detriment’ in the case of actions and developments deemed ‘bad’?  If your answer is YES, you can claim to be a member in good standing of Western culture.

 

If your answer is NO, you do not believe in EGO as in the ‘double error’, then it follows that you do not believe in ‘local name-instantiated thing-in-itself based sourcing of actions and developments, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but instead understand reality (the world dynamic) in terms of relational forms in a transforming relational continuum, as with ‘whorls’ in ‘flow’ where the ‘whorl’ and the ‘flow’ are NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES but merely ‘appear’ to be different and which ‘naming’ (language and grammar) gives us the psychological impression of two separate, independently-existing things-in-themselves.

 

END OF QUIZ.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

We Western culture adherents tend to BELIEVE in “SORCERY” as derives from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, and thus to let our individual and collective behaviours be shaped and organized by such beliefs that ‘come together’ within a Western culture social collective via a language-and-grammar based INVENTED REALITY that features name-instantiated things-in-themselves notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments (this IS the ‘double error).

 

This is all ‘intellectual artifice’ but as we know, different people adhere to different psychological impressions that become their behaviour-shaping ‘operative reality’.  For example, the Western culture INVENTED REALITY which cultivates belief that relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, once assigned names, are, to the intellectualizing part of the psyche, things with persisting thing-in-itself ‘being’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments, even though a whorl in the flow only gives the ‘impression’ or ‘appearance’ of persisting thing-in-itself existence.  But such language and grammar triggered impression is sufficient to ‘put the name-triggered thought (psychological impression) of persisting thing-in-itself existence’ in our mind where it can serve in any further language and grammar based psychological constructions.

 

As Nietzsche has pointed out, the concept of EGO (one’s sense of ‘self’ as an independently-existing thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments) derives from a ‘double error’ and it is this ‘double error’ that gives us the psychological impression of name-instantiated things-in-themselves  (abstractions) with powers of ‘sourcing’ actions and developments (abstraction that conflates abstraction).

 

If you do NOT believe in EGO based reality according to the ‘double error’ and the follow-on beliefs as listed in the paragraph just above, but continue to be immersed in Western culture social circles, you are in a position similar to the indigenous aboriginal under colonizer rule.

 

If you; (a) on a deep and primary level of consciousness (e.g. on the level of the topological understanding of self we are born with which is prior to our intellectual ‘individuation’ in the notional terms of an ‘independent self’) UNDERSTAND that you are a relational form in the transforming relational continuum but nevertheless; (b) intellectually picture yourself through your Western culture EGO based acculturation, on the basis of the double error as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with locally incipient powers of sourcing actions and developments, you will have an exposure to internal conflict of the ‘split personality’ variety (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder). This conflict will be fuelled by the demands of Western culture social dynamics which oblige one to conform to an EGO based understanding of ‘self’ (something indigenous aboriginals and Taoists have resisted and/or ‘opted out of).  This internal tension is the source of psychological confusion which Western culture addresses by having you reaffirm your sense of self according to the psychological ‘double error which is deemed the ‘normal’ understanding of self and reality.

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

 

If you are an ID-card/passport-carrying member of Western culture that believes in the ‘reality’ of people (and ‘nations’ and ‘corporations’) as name-instantiated ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments [the ‘double error’], then you, in effect, believe in ‘sorcery’.   The belief in ‘sorcery’ and ‘sercerers’, in turn, supports belief that we can distinguish between ‘good sorcerers’ (the sorcerers of actions and developments that are consistent with Western values), and ‘bad sorcerers’ (the sorcerers of actions and developments that go against Western values).   This intellectually contrived, ‘naming-instantiated’ objectification of relational forms in the flow and their ‘re-animation’ with grammar underpins the INVENTED REALITY of Western culture.  Because we are seen, in Western culture, as sorcerers of actions and developments that may be perceived as EITHER ‘good’ OR ‘bad’ according to current Western culture values, Western society has established a system of ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ based on assuming that ‘actions and developments’ are in fact ‘sourced’ and that the sorcerers can be identified and thus either ‘rewarded’ (if the action or development in question is perceived as ‘good’) or ‘punished’ (the action or development in question is perceived as ‘bad’).  This system of identifying the ‘source’ and applying ‘rewards’ or ‘punishments’ is aimed at continually improving the relative balance in favour of ‘good actions and developments’ relative to ‘bad actions and developments’.

 

Since ‘sorcery’ is language and grammar based abstraction, sorcery acts like a Cuckoo’s egg laid in our centre of intellection that hijacks our natural relational understanding, serving as a tool for the EGO.  All this has been elucidated by Nietzsche, Bohm and others.  The result is psychopathology infused into the foundations of Western culture by way of the double error of language and grammar.

 

HOW ARE WE (WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS) ABLE TO PERPETUATE THIS MEDIEVAL BELIEF IN ‘SORCERY’ IN THE YEAR 2019?  THE ANSWER, IN A WORD, ‘EGO’.

 

The EGO is based on belief in the double error where we see ourselves as ‘independently-existing things-in-ourselves (‘beings’) with our own innate powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e. WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR OPENS THE WAY FOR US AND OTHER NAME-INSTANTIATED ENTITIES SUCH AS NATIONS AND CORPORATIONS TO REPRESENT OURSELVES AS  (NOTIONAL) ‘THINGS-IN-OURSELVES’ WITH POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.  This is the DOUBLE-ERROR that is foundational to the INVENTED REALITY of Western culture.

 

Western culture arises from an EGO-BASED intellectual understanding of the world.  Otherwise stated THE INVENTED REALITY of Western culture is DOUBLE-ERROR BASED.  In complex systems terms, ‘we have (psychologically) ‘locked ourselves in’ with ‘high switching costs’.  Because the system is EGO based (belief in sorcery based), and because Western culture has operationalized a system of rewards and punishments based on the assumed ‘reality’ of the ‘sorcery’ of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ actions and developments, a psychological evolution has occurred which has progressively elevated those regarded as ‘superior performing sorcerers’ into positions of disproportionately higher influence over as to what gets changed in our Western culture approach to INVENTING REALITY.

 

In other words, those who have been assigned the most influence over ‘what gets changed’ in the Western culture belief system have been given disproportionate change-endorsing/vetoing power on the basis of their being ‘superior performing sorcerers’.   In order to correct the DOUBLE ERROR, then, which ‘debunks’ the concept of ‘sorcery’, those who have been made the most unnaturally elevated, rewarded, adulated and EMPOWERED with respect to ‘what changes will be made’ in the Wester culture collectively supported ‘reality’, and who thus have become pivotal to ‘what changes to the popularly accepted ‘operative reality’ are made’, … are those who have ‘most to lose’ by acknowledging the nonsense of the concept of ‘sorcery’. This is known in complex systems as ‘lock-in-by-high-switching costs’.

 

That is, … as Henri Laborit (philosopher and developer/patent holder of the psychotropic medication Chlorpromazine) observes in his book ‘La Nouvelle Grille’ (the new framework), bringing forth relational understanding into the way that Western culture understands ‘reality’ is a prime exemplar of ‘lock-in by high switching costs’;

 

‘We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.  – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Laborit

 

 

Whether we are talking about personal relations, the dynamics of social collectives or ‘climate change’, there is no such thing as ‘sorcery’ or ‘cause-and-effect’ in a transforming relational continuum. The abstract reduction of the transforming relational continuum of our actual experience (of inclusion therein) by way of the psychological device of the ‘double error’, to a ‘thing-in-itself’, ‘sorcery’ authored dynamic has supported an intellectually simplified INVENTED REALITY that has been taking Western culture ‘down the garden path’ and sourcing widespread psychopathology which is meanwhile seen as arising from ‘within the individual’ and termed ‘schizophrenia’ and/or ‘bipolar disorder’. There is a reason why sensitive miner’s canaries develop disordered behaviour; i.e. because they find themselves immersed within a social collective that regards an aberrant, double-error based INVENTED REALITY as their socially endorsed ‘operative reality’ ‘norm’.