TRANSFORMATION is IMPLICIT and INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL.  Our sensory experience is of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Wave-field/the Tao).  TRANSFORMATION implies FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE.

GROWTH is EXPLICIT and EFFABLE-because-LOCAL. Our intellectual representations are constructed from visual observations that reduce the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL (e.g. DUNING which is resonance that is inherently NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT is reduced to DUNE which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT) by the FOCUSING power of visual closed-form perception concretized by NAMING, and re-animated with the intellectual conceptualizing of GRAMMAR which imputes the POWER of SOURCING of GROWTH and MOVEMENT to the NAMING-instantiated thing-in-itself, ‘DUNE’.  This is the “DOUBLE ERROR” of language and grammar pointed out by Nietzsche where we reduce TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE to GROWTH wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.

Out of this DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR arises the abstract intellectual splitting of DUNING (FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE) into DUNE-and-DESERT (FIGURE and GROUND as TWO).  The ONE dynamic of TRANSFORMATION is thus intellectually RE-presented by way of the DOUBLE ERROR as TWO separate DYNAMICS; that of “THE INHABITANT” and that of “THE HABITAT”.   Note that in modern physics, as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, INHABITANT-and-HABITAT-are-ONE (i.e.  The ONE is the all-including Transforming Wave-field continuum aka ‘the Tao’).

 

THE DOUBLE ERROR as the source of AMBIGUITY

Not only does the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR reduce the NONLOCAL-and-thus-INEFFABLE TRANSFORMATION to the LOCAL-and-thus-EFFABLE LOCAL SOURCING of actions and developments, it does so AMBIGUOUSLY.

That is, NAMING can be applied to either FIGURE or GROUND (e.g. BOIL and FLOW) as in the expressions; ‘One bad apple sources rotting of the whole barrel’ (conservative), and “it takes a whole community to source the raising of a good/bad child (liberal).  This ‘apparent’ AMBIGUITY divides us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into polar opposite ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ camps.  This ambiguity-come- ‘BIPOLAR DISORDER’ can also arise within the individual as well as in the WESTERN social collective.

All of this dysfunction arises from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR infused SOURCING of actions and developments.

Once the abstract concept of LOCAL SOURCING is at play in language and grammar based representations, the unresolvable ambiguity arises as to whether SOURCING is from the INHABITANT to the HABITAT (or INDIVIDUAL to the COLLECTIVE) or from the HABITAT to the INHABITANT (or COLLECTIVE to INDIVIDUAL).  Again, … does one bad apple source spoilage of the barrel?  … or does it take a whole community to source the raising of a good child (or bad child)?

These apparent AMBIGUITIES that divide us and put us into polar opposing conservative and liberal camps, stand or fall on the basis of belief in SOURCING, which is not ‘real’ but abstraction coming from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR wherein FIGURE and GROUND are TWO.   That is, in a fluid reality (the Tao, the transforming relational continuum) FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  E.g. the eddy and the flow are ONE and only APPEAR as TWO, and thus there is no such thing “SOURCING, there is only “TRANSFORMATION”.

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICIT-because-NONLOCAL and the EXPLICIT-because-LOCAL.

While language and grammar, tools of the intellectualizing mind, do have this capability of DOUBLE ERROR based reduction of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL, that does not mean that it ‘makes sense’ to SUBSTITUTE the EFFABLE for the INEFFABLE as language and grammar allows, and it is the EAST’s understanding that SUBSTITUTING the EFFABLE for the INEFFABLE, as is the habit of the WEST, is a CRAZY-MAKER.

That is, the EAST employs the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that reduces the IMPLICIT-and-INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL to the EXPLICIT-and-EFFABLE-because-LOCAL, as an expedient-because-EFFABLE ‘tool’ of INFERENCE. Wittgenstein explains the approach of employing the EXPLICIT to infer the IMPLICIT as follows;

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.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

For example, in the reality of our sensory experience there is DUNING and it is a NONLOCAL and thus INEFFABLE resonance (Wave-field) phenomenon and while it is the PRIMARY-but-INEFFABLE, REALITY that lies beyond the limited representational capabilities of language, language does allow us the ability to use the EXPLICIT which is EFFABLE to IMPLY the IMPLICIT which is INEFFABLE; e.g. we can capture the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL resonance of DUNING in the reduced to EFFABLE-because-LOCAL “the DUNE is growing higher and longer and is shifting across the DESERT FLOOR’.  NOTA BENE: This “IS” the DOUBLE ERROR technique of NAMING and GRAMMAR which delivers a crude-but EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT account of the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT reality.

MAKE NO MISTAKE!  THE EXPLICIT DOES NOT MERIT FIRST PRIORITY IN DELIVERING REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY since it is an abstract, major reduction of the IMPLICIT reality of our sensory experience.  Meanwhile, the WEST has elevated the EXPLICIT to the role of PRIMARY reality representation provider while the EAST, and modern physics, by contrast, acknowledge natural primacy of the IMPLICIT-because-NONLOCAL over the EXPLICIT-because-LOCAL  The IMPLICIT-because-NONLOCAL is supported by modern physics Wave-field aka the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’.

There is thus some truth in Kipling’s observation that “East is East and West is West and never the Twain shall meet” due to the fact that while EAST acknowledges the natural primacy of the IMPLICIT over the EXPLICIT, the WEST persists in imputing the primacy of the EXPLICIT over the IMPLICIT (READ MY LIPS!).

The cornerstone of our WESTERN CULTURE resistance to changing our upside-down stance in this basic philosophical understanding is EGO.  EGO is what rises up when we believe in LOCAL SOURCING POWER which comes from believing in the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.

The ‘step NOT taken’ by us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS is the step TAKEN  by the EAST as pointed to by Wittgenstein in his penultimate proposition in Tractatus; i.e. the use of the EXPLICIT not as the primary reality as it is being used in the WEST but as a BOOTSTRAPPING tool to INFER the IMPLICIT reality;

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.

There are many such philosophical representations made against the practice of using explicit language to deliver representations of the reality of our sensory experience, encouraging support for precedence of the IMPLICIT over the EXPLICIT.

The tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine – Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Method of Nature

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

 “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we continue to believe in grammar” — Nietzsche

 

* * *

 

ADDENDUM

 

Ambiguity Resolved by Holographic Understanding of Reality

The ambiguity that arises in Euclidian space based geology, as to EITHER ‘continents drift’ OR ‘seafloors spread’ derives from FLATSPACE geometrical thinking wherein we IGNORE the reality of spherical fluidity and its subduction (inwelling) and eruption (outwelling). [Note: ‘welle’ is German for ‘wave’].

Understanding in terms of transformation by way of ‘outwelling’ and ‘inwelling’ requires an ‘increased dimensionality’ in our ‘thinking’ which takes us out intp the no-man’s land beyond visual images, the stuff that our language and grammar is grounded in.

Only in a superficial ‘FLATSPACE’ sense can we reduce our understanding of spherical earth dynamics such as ‘continental drift’, … or is that ‘seasfloor spreading’, to the EITHER/OR binary logic of the EXCLUDED medium, and when reduce our understanding in this manner, we encounter the ambiguity that divides us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into two groups with polar opposite understandings of the manner in which dynamics are SOURCED’; i.e. the conservative view wherein the flapping flag moves the air, and the liberal view wherein the moving air flaps the flag.  In terms of people actions, this becomes ‘the individual sources the stirring into action of the social collective into action’ versus the ‘social collective sources the stirring into action of the individual’.

In modern physics, as in the EAST as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as “SOURCING”, there is only relational TRANSFORMATION.

The FLATSPACE understanding of our WESTERN CULTURE ‘works’ in supporting an explanation of reality tied to our superficial visual observations, but is incomplete in the sense that visual objects are named which reduces them to notional ‘things-in-themselves’ which, when employed in discourse constrains such ‘re-presentations’ to the ambiguous superficial imagery, the ‘male’ version of which is ‘continents drifting’ (name-labelled objects drifting) and the ‘female’ version of which is ‘seafloors spreading’.  Since the full-flown fluidity of TRANSFORMATION involving circulating currents of EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION  is beyond capture in language (i.e. ‘is ineffable’) the superficial FLATSPACE reduction, ambiguous though it is, of EITHER ‘continental drift’ OR ‘seafloor spreading’ have persisted as popular options BECAUSE THEY ARE EFFABLE.

The holographic understanding of reality is more true but more difficult to communicate, so we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have persisted in schooling our children in understandings of reality that are over-simplified reductions of reality.

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

The point is, that the FLATSPACE REDUCTION of fluid, Wave-field TRANSFORMATION with its spherical space circulation that superficially manifests as eruption and subduction, to ‘continents-that-drift’ and ‘seasfloors’ that spread, is just that, a “FLATSPACE REDUCTION”, however, once we employ it in our everyday rhetorical constructions of ‘reality’, we propagate an innately REDUCED and superficial effigy of ‘reality’ wherein we can SEE Robin Hood stealing grain from the King’s granary without being able to see, at the same time, the relational dynamics giving rise to the rising imbalance between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.  Yet our intuition informs us that the visual representation, as in the testimony against Robin Hood, is incomplete.  In fact if we delve into it, we shall reproduce Goedel’s theorem that proves ‘The incompleteness of all finite systems of logic’.

Our intuition is correct, there is more this story of Robin Hood than the LOGICAL TRUTH that Robin Hood stole grain from the King’s Granaries.  The incompleteness problem derives from the incompleteness of the ‘producer-product’ constructs of language and grammar.  They are based on the DOUBLE ERROR pointed out by Nietzsche; i.e. the FIRST ERROR is NAMING that imputes LOCAL thing-in-itself BEING and this is conflated with the SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR that imputes the power of SOURCING to the naming-instantiated (notional) thing-in-itself. 

The DOUBLE ERROR allows us to come up with RE-PRESENTATION that LOCALLY JUMPSTARTS/SOURCES EXPLICIT ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS which kind of ‘wallpapers over’ in our intellectualizing minds, the INEFFABLE reality of an all-including relational TRANSFORMATION aka ‘Wave-field’.  This DOUBLE ERROR REDUCTION with its invoking of abstract LOCAL SOURCING  is illustrated by Nietzsche with the example ‘LIGHTNING FLASHES’ and by Nishitani with the example ‘FIRE BURNS’ which exemplify how the DOUBLE ERROR displaces INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL Wavefield TRANSFORMATION and substitutes EFFABLE-because-LOCAL jumpstart SOURCING, but which, in the EAST is NEVERTHELESS retained as the primary representation even though TRANSFORMATION can only be IMPLICITLY represented by INFERENCE and lies beyond the capabilities of EXPLICIT representation. This is where modern physics’ ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ comes into play, as well as the modern physics technique of BOOTSTRAPPING in general; e.g; the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ approach at employing the EXPLICIT so as to INFER the IMPLICIT aka the INEFFABLE.

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.

7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

–Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

In geology, while we acknowledge the spherical (Wave-field) space understanding of the Earth and planets, when we  speak of ‘ERUPTION’ and ‘SUBDUCTION’ we do so in a FLATSPACE sense as if these are separate and unrelated LOCAL events wherein FIGURE (the erupting plume) and GROUND (the ‘base’ or ‘floor’ from which the eruption spurts) are TWO separate and independent things-in-themselves.  If we did not accept the reduction of FIGURE-and-GROUND to TWO separate things-in-themselves for the purposes of REPRESENTATION, … REPRESENTATION in terms of NAMED VISUAL FIGURES would be impossible; i.e. the ACTUAL FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE reality is INEFFABLE since ‘everything is in flux’ as it actually is in relational TRANSFORMATION.

In order to ‘talk about it’ (to capture the FIGURE as if it were a fixed and persisting thing-in-itself) we need to EXPLICITIZE the innately transient flow-form FIGURE such as the extruding/subducting continent and/or the continual gathering-and-scattering ‘hurricane’.  Once we apply the NAME to it, we can use the NAME to refer to ‘it’ even though there is no persisting-thing-in-itself there but only a continually extruding/subducting or gathering/scattering flow-form.  That is, NAMING the APPARENTLY LOCAL gathering/scattering LOCUS imputes a persisting thing-in-itselfness to it due to the persisting/unchanging NAME.   The name POLAND imputes some LOCAL THING with persisting ‘thing-in-itself BEING’ but that is intellectual abstraction.  E.g. see ‘The Changing Borders of Poland’

The point is that the inherent ambiguity exemplified by our being able to speak of EITHER continental drift OR seafloor spreading derives from the inability (limited dimensionality) of language based on fixed thing-in-itself images (which are, in reality, IMPLICIT flow-forms (continually gathering-scattering forms) persisting within TRANSFORMATION whose EXPLICIT persistence is conjured up in the inellectualizing mind by NAMING providing a based for a mechanistic re-animation in the abstracting psyche by way of GRAMMAR.  This “IS” the DOUBLE ERROR pointed out by Nietzsche and it is abstraction that we create by splitting FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE into FIGURE-and-GROUND-as TWO, abandoning the understanding of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE and setting ourselves up for the ambiguity as to whether the FIGURE (inhabitant) is SOURCING changes in the GROUND (habitat) or whether the GROUND (habitat) is SOURCING changes in the FIGURE (inhabitant).

NOTA BENE!:  This ambiguity only arises when we assume LOCAL SOURCING.  It does not arise in understanding reality as TRANSFORMATION (wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE).  But when we are understanding reality in the binary split-apart terms of the separate and LOCAL INHABITANT and the separate and LOCAL HABITAT wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO, … this is where the ambiguity arises as to whether the INHABITANT is stirring up changes in the HABITAT or whether the HABITAT is stirring up changes in the INHABITANT.  Again, this ambiguity DOES NO ARISE when we understand reality as TRANSFORMATION, …. this ambiguity only arises from language and grammar that abstractly splits FIGURE-and-GROUND-into-TWO as we must do in order to FALSELY impute the reality of LOCAL SOURCING via the DOUBLE ERROR.

In a TRANSFORMING spherical space, circulating currents of eruption and subduction (outwelling and inwelling) are operative.  In this case, Ambiguity is Resolved by Holographic Understanding of Reality

A holographic understanding of reality is not directly picturable but points to the wave-field that we can have sensory experience of inclusion within.  The following is an excerpt from the Nobel prize award presentation to Denis Gabor for his discovery of holography (discovered in 1947) describing how the holodynamic could be captured/represented optically;

“ The photographic plate preserves for us a picture of a fleeting moment, which perhaps we may make use of over a long time period for measurements, or it transforms a wave-field of heat rays, X rays, or electron rays to a visible image. And yet, important information about the object is missing in a photographic image. This is a problem which has been a key one for Dennis Gabor during his work on information theory. Because the image reproduces only the effect of the intensity of the incident wave-field, not its nature. The other characteristic quantity of the waves, phase, is lost and thereby the three dimensional geometry. The phase depends upon from which direction the wave is coming and how far it has travelled from the object to be imaged. Gabor found the solution to the problem of how one can retain a wave-field with its phase on a photographic plate.” – Erik Ingelstam, in presenting Gabor with his Nobel Prize in Physics (for holography) in 1971

The holographic sensory experience is an INCLUSIONAL experience that overcomes the limitations of the VOYEUR visual experience that limits us to views as might be seen by an observer-subject that is an infinite distance from the observed-object (i.e. where the imagery does not ‘balloon out and around’ as we move deeper into the space that we, the viewing subject, share inclusion in with the viewed object).

Our sensory experience, as contrasted with our binocular (plane-wave or flatspace) vision, is innately holographic as if we were blindfolded and moving within an array of ‘heat lamps’ sending out infra-red thermal beams of various intensities from diverse azimuths, our movement being guided by our situating ourselves within exposure to the most pleasurable/desired and/or by avoiding exposure to the most unpleasurable/undesired situations within the azimuthal configuration.

Sensory-experience-wise, we are living in a holographic universe wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE (subject-and-object-are-one), as Schroedinger observes;

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

The REDUCTION to FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO is by way of intellectual abstraction as with the DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar.

Ambiguity is Resolved by Holographic Understanding of Reality as the title of this short comment suggests.

The ambiguity that arises in Euclidian space-based geology, as to EITHER ‘continents drift’ OR ‘seafloors spread’ derives from FLATSPACE geometrical thinking wherein we IGNORE the reality of spherical fluidity and its subduction (inwelling) and eruption (outwelling). [Note: ‘welle’ is German for ‘wave’].

While we may pass over it unsuspectingly, the problem of ambiguity arises from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR.   We have no justification for imputing persisting being to, for example, a piece of congealed slag in a molten flow; i.e. if the exception establishes the rule, the rule is that everything is in flux.

OUTWELLING-and-INWELLING-are-ONE, and it is otherwise known as ‘the WAVE-dynamic’ aka TRANSFORMATION aka ‘the Tao’.  The Wave-dynamic is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and thus INEFFABLE.  If we reduce this to BIRTH and DEATH e.g. ‘of continents’, we are imposing the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR to LOCALIZE innately the NONLOCAL phenomenon of TRANSFORMATION.

Hurricane Katrina was given a BIRTH and DEATH that belong to NAMING-instantiated-BEING and the details of her GROWTH and LIFE were constructed with language and GRAMMAR, as is the WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT habit.  Could we INSTEAD understand Katrina by may of mitakuye oyasin,  ‘all my relations’?  Could we INSTEAD understand Katrina by way of the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’; i.e. by the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ approach; i.e. could we understand OURSELVES by the sum of ‘all our relational dynamics’ instead of reading a biography that we wrote “in the FIRST PERSON and elaborate on ‘everything we have done’ without considering ‘how others see us’ or how we can understand ourselves in the overall context of the transforming relational continuum.

There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing’; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.– Nietzsche

 

The holographic view resolves ambiguity; The issue of ambiguity as to whether continents drift or seafloor spreads is resolved by understanding that both of these statements are infected with DOUBLE ERRORS of language and grammar that impute LOCAL SOURCING of actions and development.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “LOCAL SOURCING”, … IT IS THE ‘DOUBLE ERROR’ OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.  THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

* * *