The world we are included in is a ‘wave-field’ which is a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is in flux.


We ‘see’ things’ but these ‘things’ are purely relational, continually changing forms within the ONE-FLOW or wave-field; i.e. the flow is the basic ‘reality’ and it is ineffable because words impute persisting ‘thing-ness’ to whatever we ‘name’ in order to talk about it.


We ‘name’ a hurricane but the hurricane is a continual gathering and regathering or swirling within the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.  There is a locally appearing ‘form’ but there is no ‘local thing-in-itself’; i.e. the world of our actual sensory experience is characterized by NONLOCALITY because all forms are continually gathering and regathering within the overall flow, aka ‘Tao’ aka ‘wavefield’.


We can live in this fluid reality without talking as many of our related forms do; i.e. the winged forms, the four-legged forms, the slithering forms and other forms that get by without using language to share and learn from one another’s experience.  We can revert to non-word-based-language communications too when we train horses or mingle with people whose language we don’t know.

In order to employ ‘word-talk’ to share our experiencing of reality, we have to ‘name’ a form and use grammar to describe ITS actions and developments.   This is the ‘double error’ (as Nietzsche pointed out) that we use so that we can talk about the flow-continuum by way of the continually changing forms within it.  This imposes LOCALITY on forms that appear within the NONLOCALITY.  For example, the hurricane APPEARS TO BE A LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF even though it is a continually forming and reforming flow-feature within the overall wave-field aka ‘Tao’.


So, for sure, we can use the ‘naming’ tool of language to impute LOCAL PERSISTING BEING to a continually changing INNATELY NONLOCAL flow-form.  If point out the approaching ‘hurricane’ or tornado’ give it the name ‘Katrina’ or whatever, … then after turning our  glance away for a moment and then pointing back to it again, … we are wrong if we point it out as ‘Katrina’ to someone, and then, after a few minutes have passed, turn back to point to it once again, and again, calling it Katrina, because by doing this we are implying it is a persisting thing-in-itself when it is just the swirling appearance of the flow we share inclusion in.   Likewise, if we are in plane flying over friends camping in the desert during a windstorm, we can refer to a dune that is forming like a wave in the desert and is about to engulf our friends’ tent, but it is a ‘double error’ to say ‘the dune is building and is about to cover your vehicles and tent.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘A LOCAL DUNE’ WITH THE POWER OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (moving and covering up tents).  THERE IS ONLY ‘DUNING’  which is a NONLOCAL RESONANCE (wave-field) PHENOMENON.


But when we say the ‘dune is moving’ and imply that ‘the dune’ has the capability of ‘covering your tent’, we are guilty of the ‘double error’ pointed out by Nietzsche which renders the ‘ineffable Tao’ effable in a reduced double-error based form.


The first error is in naming the NONLOCAL fluid form to give it a notional persisting LOCAL BEING, and the second error is to ‘animate’ it with grammar, hence the purely relational, NONLOCAL (resonance based) phenomenon of ‘duning’ is reduced to ‘dunes’ that we use grammar to animate and impute ‘growth’ and ‘movement’ to.   HEY!  this is a resonance phenomenon aka a wave-field phenomenon and it is intrinsically NONLOCAL; i.e. it is a relational resonance feature deriving from solar energy, gravity  and other intrinsically NONLOCAL phenomena.

‘Duning’ in purely NONLOCAL (relational) phenomenon is the reality, ‘the ‘Dune’ as a thing-in-itself with persisting being endowed with the capability of moving and coving things up is language and grammar based abstraction


This gives us a kluge where we can talk about something is otherwise ‘ineffable’ because it is purely NONLOCAL flow without any persisting LOCAL lumps, … although there are forms as in ‘duning’ or as in ‘hurricaning’, which are swirlings in the flow that are made of flow and without LOCAL being.


We use language and grammar to reduce this ineffable flow aka ‘the Tao’ aka the ‘wave-field’ to effable terms so we can talk and learn from one another about the world and ourselves etc.


If we are flying over the desert and want to warn our friends that ‘duning’ is going on, such NONLOCAL inference is not as USEFUL as being LOCALLY EXPLICIT and saying that ‘your emergency supplies are being buried by a sand dune’.  But once we start employing language and grammar to construct LOCAL, EXPLICIT THING based messages, we are MISREPRESENTING the reality of our sensory experience by constructing a ‘double error’ based pseudo-reality.  Such ‘misrepresentation’ is the message in Heraclitus’ “one can’t step into the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same person stepping into it’.


But it is very useful in ‘communicating’ to make this double error which reduces the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL as, for example, in the case of an observer in an airplane warning the people in the desert that there is a ‘dune’ building up and covering their emergency supplies.


One will ‘get the message across’ with statements like ‘the dune is covering up your emergency supplies’ without worrying about trying to capture in language the full-blown reality of our inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.




Where we RUN INTO TROUBLE is where we use the double error to reduce the NONLOCAL to LOCAL in more tricky phenomena like relational dissonance.  There is a good reason why adages crop up like ‘ALL WARS ARE CIVIL WARS’ and/or why Heraclitus said that ‘one can’t step into the same river twice (because it is not the same river and not same person stepping into it) and Schroedinger Bohm and Nietzsche have all made similar observations about the non-reality of subject-object spliiting; e.g;


“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


For example, as in the “all wars are civil wars” adage, the reality is relational dissonance that is NONLOCAL in spacetime and to split this apart into ‘doer’ and ‘done-to’ (subject and object) is only achievable by way of the double error-based abstraction of language and grammar.   That is; the first error is to use naming to impute the existence of a thing-in-itself and the second error of grammar conflates this by imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (the first error).


THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ reduces the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL; e.g. relational dissonance as implied in ‘all wars are civil wars’ is reduced to LOCAL incipience as in the ‘shot that started WWI’.  In the relational understanding of dynamics, relational tensions are the source relational tensions are NONLOCAL while the person that pops off (as in Bohm’s explanation of why James Wilkes Booth is not the source of Lincoln’s death from a modern physics point of view) is a secondary double error based construction.  Similarly Robin Hood was not the source of the theft from the King’s granaries, the rising relational imbalance that manifested as rich and poor was, and likewise in Les Miserables, Jan Valjean was not the source of the theft of the loaf of bread, the relational imbalance was.


Note that ‘rising relational imbalance is a NONLOCAL phenomenon and the ‘double error’ is a mechanism for fabricating LOCAL phenomena.  The first error is to invent the name-instantiated concept of an independently existing thing-in-itself we called ‘the thief’ and conflate this by giving this name-instantiated thing-in-itself the power of sourcing actions and developments. Thanks to this ‘double error’ of language and grammar, the NONLOCAL phenomena of relational tensions is ECLIPSED by the imposing into the intellect (by an infusion of language and grammar) a double error based LOCAL phenomena.


The nonlocal web of relational tensions as they tensioned up with imbalance, tensioned up the relational matrix to the point that a ‘rebalancing’ transpired.  The web of relational tensions is NONLOCAL but the ‘breaking point’ or ‘short-circuit’ where rebalancing occurs, is LOCAL.   SHOULD WE THEN FOCUS IN ON THE SECONDARY ‘SHORT-CIRCUIT’ AND PORTRAY IT AS THE BASIC REALITY must because the real NONLOCAL origins are INEFFABLE in explicit finger-pointing terms?


After a stray cat streaks across the busy freeway and sets off a long train of braking and swerving and finally, far from the initial perturbation, someone rear-ends someone else and we and then we cast this in LOCAL double-error terms wherein we identify the LOCAL perpetrator and the LOCAL victim.  Evidently, NONLOCALITY is too loosey-goosey for us Western culture adherents.


For quickly communicating impending developments, it is ‘useful’ to employ double error abstraction as when we say that the ‘the dune is moving towards our emergency equipment and threatening to cover it up.  But is rapidity of communications all we need to concern ourselves with?


The ‘bottom line’ is that we Western culture adherents are using the ‘double error’ reduction as if it were ‘reality’ that we can use, GENERALLY, as our ‘operative reality’.   This is a mistake which is really screwing up our Western culture dominated world.   This MISTAKE has been expressed by  Emerson in the terms that; “the tool (of approximating reality with language and grammar) has run away with the workman”, since we start off by defining OURSELVES  as a LOCAL sorcerer of actions and developments, using the double error.


The EAST (indigenous aboriginals, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents) UNLIKE THE WEST, haven’t forgotten that language and grammar are just a tool for rendering the ineffable Tao ‘halfway effable’, but whether our understanding is EASTERN or WESTERN, we are all living a SOCIAL-RELATIONAL dynamic that has been dominated by Western culture beliefs, and when one confuses ‘the double error’ for reality, this is where ego comes from and ego gives us the understanding that we humans are jumpstart authors (sorcerers) of things like buildings and cities.  This is called the ‘producer-product’ syndrome and it is craziness because we are all included in the transforming relational continuum and there is no such thing as a producer-product dynamic outside of language-and-grammar- abstraction.


We say that we ‘built a city on the hill’, but this is not ‘real’ because what is really going on is the transformation of the common relational space and while we are included in this as ‘agents of transformation’, we cannot ‘put the double error based concept of ‘construction of a city’ in precedence over the reality that we, ourselves, are included in a transforming relational continuum.   In other words, the tool of language and grammar allows us to reduce the NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE reality by way of the double error so that we can LOCALIZE IT and talk about it, … not actually talk about ‘it’,  but talk in terms of a crude representation of it by means of language and grammar that delivers a reduced portrait of the fluid world (Tao, wave-field) in terms of name-instantiated things-in-themselves notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (i.e. the double error abstraction).




Modern physics is a wake-up call that this tool has been running away with us and making ourselves out to be ‘sorcerers’ of ‘the city on the hill’ and thus blinding ourselves to an understanding of our inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  Meanwhile, within the transforming relational continuum, the bad news is that we cannot be form than agents of transformation (there are no sorcerers) but the good news is that subject and object are only one, thus we ARE the Tao in the manner that resonances within the wave-field ARE the wavefield.  For intellectually understanding this, it cannot be reached via the standard Western culture EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium but requires a jump to “Quantum logic”, the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium where subject-and-object, ‘figure-and-ground’ ARE ONE.  Example, the duning and deserting are one.  There are no ‘dunes’ that shift across a ‘desert floor’.


Ourselves, as agents of transformation within the Tao, we are in no way jumpstart authors (sorcerers) of actions and developments, …. that abstraction impression is just the intellectual impression induced by the double error of language and grammar, … a useful tool of inference as recognized in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, but not a tool that is ready for stand-alone articulating of reality.  REALITY IS NOT ‘LOCAL’, only ‘language based talk’ is local and at some point the talk of those in their LOCAL reference fame within the Titanic may be confronted by the inadequacy of the LOCAL concept which is the basis of the DOUBLE ERROR formulations.  It may be ‘convenient’ to ground articulations of our experience in the abstraction of LOCALITY, since our inclusion in the great NONLOCALITY is ineffable/inarticulable, but when we are inviting a girl to dance on the dance floor in the Titanic, is there not some similarity with the drunk who is searching for the watch that he lost in a dark section of the road, under the corner street light because the search conditions are much better there?


As far as language and grammar are concerned, the message is clear and simple; Language-and-grammar is only good as a tool of inference, and does not capture ‘reality’ because it is impossible to capture the Tao (wave-field continuum) with language-based representations.  The EAST accepts this and clearly states “The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao”, but the WEST believes that language is capturing ‘reality’ and this is a crazy-maker.   But Western culture adherents dominate in the establishing of social behavioural norms and practices; i.e. this is where the global pervasiveness of top-down DOUBLE ERROR BASED governance comes from.  As Western culture adherents, first we name something and thereby impute to it its own thing-in-itself existence; e.g. a ‘human’, a ‘nation’, a ‘corporation’ and we conflate this by imputing to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself its own power of sourcing actions and develpments.  That is the ‘double error’ that is foundational in Western culture intellectual ‘reality construction’.


But Western culture adherents do not, of course, control nature.  The birds and animals do not listen to all the clever intellectual rhetoric about why it is best for us all to have to believe in (employ as our ‘operative reality’) the double error wherein name-instantiated things-in-themselves are seen as the sorcerers of actions and developments; i.e. notably ‘human beings’, ‘nation-beings’, ‘corporation-beings’.


The tool of double error based reality construction is a very useful tool which breaks through the barrier of ineffability of our actual experience of inclusion in the Tao, BUT NOT WITHOUT REDUCING THE NONLOCAL THAT CHARACTERIZES THE TAO, TO ‘LOCAL’ and thus injecting the abstract concept of a name-instantiated LOCAL being, notionally with its own powers of sourcing actions and developments’ (GOODBYE NONLOCAL RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION).


The tool of the double error based reality construction is very valuable as a ‘rough go-by’ for ‘communications’ purposes’ as where we say; ‘the dune is growing larger and longer and shifting to the South’, watch out for your equipment that is about to be buried.  One might say that it is good for ‘communicating’ because we clearly cannot communicate ‘the Tao’ since ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’ as Lao Tzu pointed out.


Reality is by sensory experience and NOT by language-communicated intellectual abstraction.


However, the tool of language and grammar double error based reality constructing, among Western culture adherents such as ourselves, has become seen as having the capability of capturing and communicating and therefore sharing representations of ‘reality’.


This flies in the face of the message that ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’, but such conflict arises only among us WESTERN culture adherents.  We are the ones Emerson is talking about where he says that ‘the tool of language and grammar has run away with the workman, the effable with the ineffable’ (the human with the divine).


That’s why behaviours in the Western culture dominated world are getting weirder and weirder because the double error based understanding of reality is only good for service as a tool of inference, and not fit for explicit use as an ‘operative reality’.


We Western culture adherents are living in the land of the double error believer base aka THE WEST.  In the EAST, we hear the same double error reductions as in the WEST, while we WESTERN culture adherents accept the double error literally and do not ‘make the Wittgenstein leap, those in the EAST (along with Wittgenstein, Bohm, Schroedinger, Nietzsche) DO make the leap.  The leap as Wittgenstein describes it is takes us from the EFFABLE propositions regarding reality which have been reduced to LOCAL phenomena, back to fullblown NONLOCAL phenomena; thus ‘dunes’ that ‘grow larger and drift to the south’ as in the LOCAL view of reality, are understood, view the leap, in NONLOCAL terms of wavefield resonance wherein NOTHING originates from a ‘dune’ because a ‘dune’ is NOT REALLY A THING-IN-ITSELF WITH THE POWER OF SOURCING ITS OWN ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, such abstraction arising only from the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  As Wittgenstein describes this ‘leap’ in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus;


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


* * *




The first point concerns the impossibility of summarizing how ‘the lower level reality paradigm’ maps into the ‘higher level reality paradigm’, using the limited language and grammar of the lower-level reality paradigm.  That was Bohm’s point in pursuing the development of a new, higher-level capable language, as alluded to here;


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’


In other words, this language that I am using (English) as commonly used in rational formulations which are incapable of sharing the higher level (relational) understanding as are involved in modern physics wherein we can no longer build in any hard dependency on things-in-themselves as in common Western culture language use.


Meanwhile, languages such as English are capable of poetic expression which opens the door to relational inference that is without dependency on local things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (as in ‘the double error’ portrayals of LOCAL dynamics).


Poetic usage exploits relational associations that can capture NONLOCALITY (e.g. Shakespeare’s ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? ) wherein a multitude of sensory impressions are brought into connective confluence, … in an intrinsically NONLOCAL inference.  In this type of poetic usage, there is no dependency on explicit LOCAL things-in-themselves.  There is no explicit LOCAL OBJECT that is being analyzed with the rational crow’s-eye stare into the mind of the observing SUBJECT.  ‘Beauty’ is perhaps that sensory condition of connectedness wherein subject and object are only one, as it is neither the case that ‘beauty’ is LOCAL in the object nor is it LOCAL in the mind of the beholder.  In a modern physics and/or indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta understanding of ‘reality’, NONLOCALITY prevails, so that subject and object are one.


In this ‘summary’, I have pointed to two different ways of understanding ‘reality’, that of the WEST and that of the EAST.  While some might object to the vagueness of this EAST – WEST distinction, I would use it as Bohm et al use it, to distinguish between those whose understanding of ‘reality’ is SUPPORTED by language based INFERENCE (the EAST) and those whose understanding of ‘reality’ is EXPLICITLY GIVEN by language.  For example, in speaking of the concept of ‘duning’ (resonance, wave-field manifestation), if I am ‘of the EAST’ (which I have come to be), I will understand what you mean if you speak of ‘the dune’ in the LOCAL terms of how it is ‘becoming longer and higher’ and shuffling along the ‘desert floor’.   I will nevertheless UNDERSTAND that you are speaking about the NONLOCAL phenomenon of ‘resonance’ aka ‘wave-field’ phenomena, regardless of what the author of those statements is understanding.


It is unlikely that we will ever explore and discover whether our understanding differs in the case of ‘duning’.


But the same EAST/WEST ambiguity comes into play in the case of ‘humaning’ within the wavefield/Tao as associates with the indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta understanding.  In this case there is an EAST – WEST clash because while I (coming from an EAST view) would not object to TALKING in terms of the double error reduction of ‘duning’ to ‘dunes’ that grow larger and shift across the desert floor (implying the figure-ground split), I would disagree with the double error treatment of ‘humans’ (or nations or corporations) that makes humans, nations and corporations out to be name-instantiated ‘independently existing things-in-themselves with powers of LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments BECAUSE such agreement would support the WEST’s practices of meting out rewards and punishments on the basis of the ‘double error’ belief, underscoring how the ‘double error’ is not simply used as convenient (linguistically conveyable) inference, but is treated as if it were ‘real’.

In the EAST, as exemplified in indigenous aboriginal communities (mitakuye oyasin),  LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments IS NOT ASSUMED and thus rewards and punishment schemes while they may be administered on the basis of perceived LOCAL SOURCING do not assume JUMPSTART LOCAL SOURCING, but more like ‘channeling’  Thus punishments for persisting trouble-may be administered with apologies to the person through whom these behaviours are channeling.  The implication is that the events are NONLOCAL in origin but practicality may demand the closing of the CHANNELS.  That is, while the artesian ‘spring’ is not the LOCAL SOURCE of a ‘producer-product event, closing it down may be an expedient.  The point is that what manifests as ‘local’ may in actuality be highly NONLOCAL as in the ground to sky water cycle.


In the EAST, the understanding of events deemed positive or negative is that they are of NONLOCAL origin, deriving from relational harmonies or relational dissonances so that an entire social collective and beyond (as in mitakuye oyasin, all my relations) may be understood as the (NONLOCAL) origin of favorable and/or unfavorable developments.





The double error of language and grammar is useful as a tool of inference, as it is employed in ‘the EAST’ but it is a crazy-maker if taken literally as if it were describing ‘reality’, as it has been taken in the WEST.


The name-instantiated person, nation, corporation IS NOT “REALLY” AN INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING THING-IN-ITSELF WITH THE POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS as we present ourselves using the double error.   We and all things are included within the Tao, the transforming relational continuum, the ‘wave-field’, the Logos of Heraclitus.


The double error is serves as a Wittgenstein ladder of inference that infers a natural reality that lies innately beyond words and language.  The dune is growing larger and shifting to the South, is a double error construction that infers an all-encompassing resonance or ‘wave-field’ which is the deeper NONLOCAL source of the ‘duning’, thus all talk of ‘dunes’ as if they are ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own powers of actions and development, are INFERENCE of something (NONLOCAL RESONANCE AKA WAVE-FIELD) that cannot be captured in language.  Language deals in LOCAL ‘figures’ within ‘ground’ but cannot express figure-in-ground as one NONLOCALITY as in resonance aka ‘wave-field’.


While the EAST employs the double error  split as useful INFERENCE that alludes to a REALITY that lies innately beyond the ‘double error’ depictions, the WEST employs the double error ‘literally’ as the OPERATIVE REALITY.  This is the ‘crazy-maker’ that permeates Western culture adherency,


In the relational understanding of the EAST (mitakuye oyasin, all is related), emergent dissonance, whether murder, rape or theft,  is understood as arising from the relational dynamics of the social collective that manifests through a person in the manner that one person within an agitated social collective will be the one that ‘pops off’ like a popcorn grain in a hot frypan.  This BOTH ‘is’ AND ‘is not’ a LOCAL incipient event.  EAST and WEST ‘divide’ on the optional logic that can be used to understand what is going on in relational developments; e.g. the EAST employs what is referred to as ‘quantum logic’, the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium while the WEST employ the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.


The real media are relational and to give an example, … as drivers within a heavy flow of freeway traffic, it may happen that a stray dog crosses the freeway and triggers a long succession of breaking and swerving until, at some point from where the disturbance ‘originated’, one driver ‘loses it’ and crashes into another.  In the EASTERN view, this collision emerges from NONLOCAL phenomena whereas the WESTERN culture sees this as a LOCAL phenomenon based on the ‘double error’ wherein we have a ‘perpetrator’ and a ‘victim’.  This decomposition into a binary pair LOCALIZES an inherently NONLOCAL phenomena.  While the EAST might say; ‘shit happens, let’s get over it’, … the WEST will be going to ‘trial’ to identify the perpetrator and hold them personally responsible for the collision.


Such double error-based reduction to LOCAL incipience of action and development in the WEST gives rise to the EGO and the associated feelings of ‘pride and shame’ along with ‘innocence’ and ‘guilt’.  Did little Jack Horner really just stick in his thumb and pull out a plumb, or do a lot of others contribute to such purportedly LOCAL outcomes?  The double error based reduction to LOCAL events IS NOT a suitable foundation for our understanding of ‘reality’ as it has been chosen to be in the WEST, which sets the WEST’s view of ‘reality’ apart from that of the EAST  and that of modern physics, both of the latter being grounded more naturally by their employing BOTH/AND logic that accords with NONLOCALITY .   NONLOCALITY DOES NOT SUPPORT LOCAL authorship (sorcery) and thus dissolves support for double error based pride, shame, guilt, innocence  and THIS is the message of modern physics in its support of NONLOCALITY which is implicit in Kipling’s aphorism “EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET”


Personally, I am in full accord with the EAST on this, which puts me ‘at odds’ with the mainstream mode of understanding in our WEST dominated social dynamic.  This, in turn, puts me in the Mahavit category along with other WEST immersed subscribers to the reality understandings of modern physics and the EAST.


* * *

FOOTNOTE:  ‘Nonlocality’ vis a vis ‘Local’.

The producer-product concept is exemplary of reducing NONLOCALITY to LOCAL actions and developments as in the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

For example, we say ‘our community constructed a village in the valley, however, we are included in a transforming relational continuum where there is no ‘LOCAL’, there is only ‘NONLOCAL”.  While  language and grammar give us the ‘double error’ option to fabricate abstractions such as the producer-product abstraction wherein we can say that ‘we built a city on the hill’, … in the reality of our actual sensory experience, we are contributing to the NONLOCAL relational transformation (which includes the uplifting and subsiding landscape and developments within it) that we share inclusion in.  .



“Nonlocality’ is ‘ineffable’ and as Wittgenstein observes in this final proposition in ‘Tractatus Logico Philosophicus’ (cited above);

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

So, while ‘reality’ is the transforming relational continuum AND NOT THE LOCAL CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE, … ‘reality is nonlocal and thus ineffable, so we can only allude to reality, as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ suggested in modern physics and also in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.  The capture and conveying of NONLOCALITY (the transforming relational landscape) in explicit LOCAL terms is impossible.  Meanwhile, the phrase “the house we are constructing on the hill” is a sneaky way (an ‘end run”) of avoiding the ineffability barrier where ‘The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao’.  That is to say, what is really going on is transformation of the terrain and the full relational continuum as trees grow taller, houses appear, run off waters etch canyons in hillsides etc.  Relational transformation is inherently NONLOCAL and ineffable.  Yes, we can allude to it with the double error of language and grammar but as with the observation that we can’t step into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, … so it is also that we can’t construct a house on the hill twice for it is not the same hill.

Subject and object, figure and ground, ARE ONE, but in our language and grammar representations, we like to invoke the concept of a Euclidian space reference frame as a kind of uninvolved container that lets us split figure and ground into two separate entities, as far as language and grammar ‘double error’ representations go, so that ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ can change independently of one another (in the language and grammar constructed abstraction world).

The reduction of the NONLOCAL (the transforming landscape) to the pseudo-local (We built a house on the hill‘) is an expedient for alluding to the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao, … that is beyond the explicit concept conveying capability of language..

We are participants within the NONLOCAL relational transformation, as adherents of WESTERN culture, but we present ourselves via the double error of language and grammar as LOCAL independent beings with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is the crazymaker that plagues WESTERN culture adherents.

* * *