PREFACE:  We live in a WAVE-FIELD, an electromagnetic WAVE-FIELD wherein material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the WAVE-FIELD which constitutes a QUANTUM LOGIC relation.   Indigenous Aboriginals employ languages that are QUANTUM LOGIC based while WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGES (the Common Average European languages as Whorf classifies them) have an architecture which commonly employs BINARY LOGIC STRUCTURE.  When we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS “dumbed down” our LANGUAGE by giving it BINARY LOGIC based ARCHITECTURE, we introduced cognitive confusion such as FRAGMENTATION with an exposure to Schizophrenia and Paranoia as pointed out by Bohm.

Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky demonstrated that the our NATURAL COGNITIVE CAPABILITY is QUANTUM LOGIC based, and NO, this is not spoken about using the term ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ but in this essay I have explained Vygotsky’s findings which contradicted the standard WESTERN CULTURE views on language and schooling. Vygotsky pointed out that the natural process of learning employed a QUANTUM LOGIC structure, yet PIAGET and WESTERN SCHOOL TEACHING in general employs a ‘dumbed down’ BINARY LOGIC approach, as explained in this essay.  Thus the way we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘using language’ and ‘teaching children’ incorporates a DUMBING DOWN from QUANTUM LOGIC to BINARY LOGIC.  Vygotsky explains this and I have included his explanations in this essay, of course, using his terminology which makes no mention of ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ but the reader will find that he is using QUANTUM LOGIC in his key point of disagreement with Piaget, and yes, Piaget is using BINARY LOGIC where Vygotsky is pointing to how QUANTUM LOGIC is needed for a natural “LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT’ based learning experience.

Vygotsky says;

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

. . .

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.”

In Vygotsky’s first comment his ‘scientific’ relates to the ‘local and explicit’ (ontological) while his ‘spontaneous’ relates to the ‘nonlocal and implicit’ (relational unfolding).  His second comment is to critique Piaget’s treatment of these two processes as ‘independent’.

We can compare Piaget’s view to the standard WESTERN CULTURE simple viewing of ‘the TOWN GROWING’ local, explicit, ‘scientific’) and the LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMING (nonlocal, implicit) as “entirely separate, incommensurate processes” while Vygotsky opts for the ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ view wherein scientific (local, explicit) and spontaneous concepts (nonlocal, implicit) “represent two sides of the same concept formation”.  (as in; there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE which expresses the QUANTUM LOGIC relation.).

Vygotsky’s approach to education is essentially QUANTUM LOGIC based which is an approach designed to deal with inclusion in an all-including continuing transformation where the nonlocal and implicit is in a natural primacy over the local end explicit in order for the system to function in the presence of continuing transformation.

 

* * * * * *  END OF PREFACE * * * * * * 

 

:

 

The common WESTERN CULTURE understanding, influenced by Piaget (whom Vygotsky disagreed with), is that we have two separate modes of concept formation, ‘spontaneous’ (situational) and ‘structured’ (intentional) and that (according to Piaget) intentional concept formation prevails over situational concept formation. Vygotsky believed that Piaget (and thus mainstream Western thinking) had it wrong, … that there is only the one process of concept formation with two reciprocally complementary aspects (situational and intentional) and that the ‘situational’ aspect in this conjugate relation is in a natural precedence over ‘intentional’. 

 

“NOTE: compare this to the natural precedence of the FEMALE VALLEY in organizing ‘runoff’ water to comprise the ‘MALE ASSERTING ‘raging river’; i.e. the RAGING RIVER appears to have its own POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development, like the ploughing of the female furrow of the valley to author an ‘opening up’, however, it the reality is that that the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING, which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT is the deeper authoring influence while the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE-ASSERTING ‘RAGING RIVER’ is SECONDARY rather than PRIMARY. 

 

So, it is our ERROR OF GRAMMAR (as Nietzsche has coined it, that creates the illusion of LOCAL, EXPLICIT MALE-ASSERTING AUTHORING AGENCY even as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS substitute ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT that OBSCURES the NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING INDUCTIVE conjugate, the result being ‘LANGUAGE-based REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS’ which are ONE-SIDEDLY MALE ASSERTING, and while capturing GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, as if ON THEIR OWN, OBSCURES the natural CONJUGATES of SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION, these conjugates together constituting the continuing TRANSFORMATION affirmed by our sense-experience of inclusion therein.

 

The following citations from Vygotsky’s writings makes clear THIS IMPORTANT OPENING UP of our REALITY INTERPRETING approach that, in our natural mental capacities for interpreting reality, IMPLICIT awareness and EXPLICIT representation are conjugate aspects of ONE COMPLEX (real + imaginary) COMPREHENDING DYNAMIC.

https://goodshare.org/wp/authoritarianism-is-a-globally-rampant-learning-disorder/

 

The analogy can be carried further in the ‘as-above-so-below’ inquiry (exploiting self-similarity across multiple levels) by noting the parallelisms to the research of Vygotsky and Piaget into ‘learning’.

 

Vygotsky uses the term ‘spontaneous concept formation’ for a (b) type of learning where thought-behaviour is shaped by the (spatial-relational) situational dynamics the individual is included in, and ‘scientific concept formation’ for the (a) type of learning where the individual’s thought-behaviour is intentionally directed from his interior.  This understanding appears to reflect the WAVE-FIELD structure that pervades nature.

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

Though scientific and spontaneous concepts develop in reverse directions, the two processes are closely connected. … In working its slow way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept and its downward development. It creates a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive, elementary aspects, which gives it body and vitality. Scientific concepts, in turn, supply structures for the upward development of … spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and deliberate use. Scientific concepts grow downwards through spontaneous concepts; spontaneous concepts grow upwards through scientific concepts. Vygotsky ‘Thought and Language’, p.194 “

 

The strength of scientific concepts, according to Vygotsky, lies in the child’s capacity (developed through instruction) to use these concepts voluntarily, which he called ‘their readiness for action’.

 

“The strength of scientific concepts lies in their conscious and deliberate character. Spontaneous concepts, on the contrary, are strong in what concerns the situational, empirical, and practical.. These two conceptual systems, developing “from above” and “from below”, reveal their real nature in the interrelations between actual development and the zone of proximal development.”

 

Vygotsky’s view is that the relationship between the two types of learning are like the relationship between the atmosphere and the storm-cell; i.e. while our focus tends to be on the genesis of the form within the flow, the parenting role of the flow persists rather than simply ‘hatching’ the storm-cell and then moving on to other projects, leaving us to talk about the storm-cell as if it is a local system with its own locally originating, internal process directed behaviour. His view on this persisting conjugate relation between spontaneous conceptualizing (b) and scientific conceptualizing (a) differs from the prevailing interpretation, that of Piaget.

 

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.”

 

I have included mention of this point of disagreement between Vygotsky and Piaget since it seems to be at the heart of the pervasive WESTERN CULTURE ‘learning disorder’ that puts (a) THE LOCAL AND EXPLICIT  into an unnatural precedence over (b) THE NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT

 

That there should be competition between these two ‘sources of behaviour-genesis’ is dismissed by Vygotsky. His view is that hypothesis-and-theory grow in conjugate relation;

 

“Hypothesis and experiment — these two poles of one dynamic whole, as Kurt Lewin called them — developed and grew side-by-side, promoting each other.”

 

Vygotsky thus favoured education by way of situational learning wherein the child’s …inquiry, hypothesizing, and experimenting, … were phases in the learning cycle. On the other hand, Piaget preferred education by way of structured learning, where ‘the answer’ (theory) was given to start from so that ‘learning’ was then focused on (constrained to focus on) confirming the validity of the theory.

 

* * *

 

So, in ‘Thought and Language’, Lev Vygotsky points out that ‘spontaneous concept formation’ induced by the dynamic relational situation we find ourselves in, … and ‘scientific concept formation’ which we can think of as our corresponding asserting intention-driven  response that is inductively actualized by the unfolding situation, are a single system; i.e. a situational-intentional nonduality.

 

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have clearly developed a LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE  which SPLITS APART the “NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT” FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate (the part about how the NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT ‘VALLEY’ inductively gathers together the rainfall runoff) from the “LOCAL AND EXPLICIT MALE ASSERTING conjugate (the part about how the RAGING RIVER is ploughing the female furrow and CREATING A CANYON).

 

But this is NOT an ACT of CREATION AUTHORED by a MALE ASSERTING ACTION-AGENT (the RAGING RIVER that we say is CREATING a CANYON), “UNLESS” we are willing to FORGET ABOUT and OBSCURE the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT phenomenon of the FEMALE VALLEY’S ACCOMMODATING INFLUENCE that is INDUCTIVELY ORGANIZING the RIVER FLOW.

 

Well, our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE does exactly that for us; i.e. The DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR gives us a LOCAL AUTHORING REPRESENTATION capability and this LOCAL AUTHORING is the MALE ASSERTING ACTION AGENCY as manifests in the form of ‘the RAGING RIVER’, a FOCUS on which OBSCURES the overall process of TRANSFORMATION.

 

To REPEAT, for clarity;

 

So, it is our ERROR OF GRAMMAR (as Nietzsche has coined it, that creates the illusion of LOCAL, EXPLICIT MALE-ASSERTING AUTHORING AGENCY even as we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS substitute ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT that OBSCURES the NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING INDUCTIVE conjugate, the result being ‘LANGUAGE-based REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS’ which are ONE-SIDEDLY MALE ASSERTING, and while capturing LOCAL, EXPLICIT MALE ASSERTING GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION, as if ON THEIR OWN, OBSCURES the natural CONJUGATES of NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION, these conjugates together constituting the continuing TRANSFORMATION affirmed by our sense-experience of inclusion therein.

 

While our SENSE-EXPERIENCE is of INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION, the DIFFERING LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES developed and employed by DIFFERING CULTURES (whose patterns of behaviour are undoubtedly shaped to some considerable extent by their respective LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES), are capable of sharing experiences and understandings of ‘their sense-experience reality’ by means of sharing language based (nonlocal and implicit) “IMPRESSIONS” and (local and explicit) “REPRESENTATIONS” of what is taken to be the PHYSICAL REALITY as understood by way of our LANGUAGE-INFLUENCED PSYCHICAL IMPRESSIONS which is a MIX of nonlocal and implicit “IMPRESSIONS” and local and explicit “REPRESENTATIONS i.e. a MIX of PSYCHOLOGY and PHYSICS.

 

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical,

 

It is EVIDENT that our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE employs a form of OBSCURANTISM that DROPS OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE, which is the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT ‘conjugate’ of our sense-experience reality, so that we proceed with the SIMPLIFIED LANGUAGE based constructions of ‘REALITY’ based solely on the MALE ASSERTING LOCAL and EXPLICIT ‘conjugate’ that is the source of WESTERN CULTURE OBSCURANTISM

 

In our WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMIC CURRENTLY, we speak constantly of our MALE-ASSERTING ACTION, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION capability as if these were transpiring within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT (this constitutes an effective DROP OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE, and thus OBSCURING THE NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION which, together with THE LOCAL, EXPLICIT GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION constitutes the full-blown dynamic of TRANSFORMATION which, whether we want to acknowledge it in our LANGUAGE BASED DISCOURSE OR NOT, is our SENSE-EXPERIENCE AFFIRMED REALITY comprised of the  CONJUGUATE RELATION of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING RECEPTION and the MALE ASSERTING ACTION).

 

From the WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECT’S POINT OF VIEW, and as COPERNICUS also observed, a SIMPLER LANGUAGE could be engineered by DROPPING OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE (which equates to substituting EMPTY SPACE for the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM aka the WAVE-FIELD).  By this OBSCURANTISM wherein our language DROPS OUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE by substituting for it, an absolute empty space of infinite extent, we effectively ‘engineer a SIMPLIFIED SUBSTITUTE REALITY’ where there is no longer any linguistic acknowledgement of the FEMALE-ACCOMMODATING — MALE ASSERTING CONJUGATE STRUCTURE, which means that as far as LANGUAGE BASED REPRESENTATIONS of the SIMPLIFIED SUBSTITUTE REALITY go, this PSEUDO-REALITY is exclusively about the POSITIVES of MALE ASSERTING LOCAL, EXPLICIT GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION without acknowledgment of the  NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION. 

 

This DROPPING OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE of NONLOCAL, IMPLICIT SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION is OBSCURANTISM that BLINDS US (as far as we rely on language-based representations for our “VISION”) to TRANSFORMATION since all we “SEE” through our ONE-SIDED MALE-ASSERTING LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTS is LOCAL, EXPLICIT GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.

 

* * *

 

This OBSCURANTISM is responsible for bringing to us, through our LANGUAGE and BECAUSE of this DROP-OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJGUATE, LANGUAGE BASED VISIONS of GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION which is ABSTRACTION that is not supported by our SENSE-EXPERIENCE.  What IS SUPPORTED by our SENSE-EXPERIENCE is TRANSFORMATION, … an ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMATION which INCLUDES (and does not “DROP OUT”) the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE of SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION.

 

While TRANSFORMATION IS what we pick up with our sense-experience of inclusion therein, … when we start talking, employing our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, our representations are OBSCURANTIST in that they DROP OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE or in other words, the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT conjugate, and GO WITH only the MALE ASSERTING conjugate, or in other words, the LOCAL and EXPLICIT conjugate  …. WHICH IS SOMETHING that Modern physics and the INDIGENOUS BORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARCHIITECTURE DO NOT DO, so that INDIGENOUS ABORIGINALS will say, for example, the equivalent of, ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’ which is a conjugation that BRINGS TOGETHER the LOCAL, EXPLICIT (the TOWNING) and the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE).    There is a persisting pattern in the relationship between THOUGHT and LANGUAGE as given in the earlier exploration;

 

‘spontaneous concept formation’ induced by the dynamic relational situation we find ourselves in, … and ‘scientific concept formation’ which we can think of as our corresponding asserting intention-driven  response that is inductively actualized by the unfolding situation, are a single system; i.e. a situational-intentional nonduality.

 

This note entitled WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC OBSCURANTISM: DENIAL of WAVE-FIELD REALITY is reviewing how the WAVE-FIELD STRUCTURE of our actual sense-experience, when we are capturing it in language based representation, is IN THE CASE OF OUR WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, ‘dumbed down’ and SIMPLIFIED by the DROPPING OUT of the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE which is captured by the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT form of linguistic capture which we could say is in this case an IMPRESSION rather than a REPRESENTATION.

 

 

THAT IS, … WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE, ‘DROPS OUT ‘ the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and instead of developing an IMPRESSION to give context to the REPRESENTATION, goes SOLELY with the SIMPLE LOCAL and EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION which is, in effect, the mathematical operation of DIFERENTIATION in which the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING component IS LOST and while the acknowledgement of its IMPRESSION based contribution which is no longer accessible is marked by the CONSTANT ‘C’, what is LOST is EVERYTHING BUT THAT WHICH HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE DIFFERENTIATON PROCESS that is reducing the IMPRESSION to the REPRESENTATION.  The IMPRESSION OF TOWNINGS in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE is reduced to LOCAL, EXPLICIT “TOWN” THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES which are ORPHANED FRAGMENTS split out of the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE.  

 

INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE retains the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE as the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING receptacle within which THERE IS THE LOCAL, EXPLICIT TOWN or rather ‘TOWNING’ since in this language architecture, EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX and that which is LOCAL and EXPLICIT is APPEARANCE or SCHAUMKOMMEN as requires expression by way of  QUANTUM LOGIC rather than BINARY LOGIC. 

 

We can compare this relating of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT (scientific) with the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (spontaneous) to the findings of Vygotsky as follows;

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

 Though scientific and spontaneous concepts develop in reverse directions, the two processes are closely connected. … In working its slow way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept and its downward development. It creates a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive, elementary aspects, which gives it body and vitality. Scientific concepts, in turn, supply structures for the upward development of … spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and deliberate use. Scientific concepts grow downwards through spontaneous concepts; spontaneous concepts grow upwards through scientific concepts. Vygotsky ‘Thought and Language’, p.194 “

 

There is likewise the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE as the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING receptacle (spontaneous concept) within which THERE IS THE LOCAL, EXPLICIT (scientific concept) TOWN.

 

What PIAGET has done is to consider the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT FEMALE ACCOMMODATING conjugate as SEPARATE and NO LONGER NECESSARY once we have extracted the LOCAL and EXPLICIT MALE ASSERTING conjugate which Vygotsky is understanding these two conjugates as being aspects of a single entity;  “Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:

 

“Our disagreement with Piaget centers on one point only, but an important point. He assumes that development and instruction are entirely separate, incommensurate processes, that the function of instruction is merely to introduce adult ways of thinking, which conflict with the child’s own and eventually supplant them. Such a supposition stems from the old psychological tradition of separating the structural from the functional aspects of development.” –Vygotsky

 

EVIDENTLY, WE ARE AT THE CROSSROADS OF INTUITING THE NEED FOR A LESS SIMPLE LOGIC THAN BINARY LOGIC.  IN OTHER WORDS, VYGOTSKY IS DESCRIBING THE QUANTUM LOGIC ARCHITECTURE, the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM which he (Vygotsky) is IN EFFECT using to describe the relationship between THOUGHT and LANGUAGE.

 

Quantum logic is the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDING MEDIUM reminding us that GROUND (of thought) and FIGURE (of language) are ONE in the fluid manner that the WHORLING in the FLOWING is ONE.  While the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT describes the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE, what we may see as the LOCAL and EXPLICIT (the TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE) is NO LONGER SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT but instead, RELATED and INTERDEPENDENT’ by way of (in Modern physics QUANTUM LOGIC terms) being CONDENSATIONS in the ALL-INCLUDING WAVE-FIELD.

 

* * *

 

To ‘make a long story short’, … the basic make-up of NATURE is the WAVE-FIELD make-up, and the SOCIAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are experience is deriving from WESTERN CULTURE LINGUISTIC OBSCURANTISM: DENIAL of WAVE-FIELD REALITY by DROPPING OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE and substituting ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT. As a result, we blind ourselves to the ALL-INCLUDING TRANSFORMATION which INCLUDES (and does not “DROP OUT”) the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE of SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION which is the inseparable conjugate of MALE ASSERTING ACTION, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.

 

SHRINKAGE, DECLINE and CONSUMPTION are NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and correspond to VYGOTSKY’S SPONTANEOUS CONCEPTS while GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION correspond to VYGOTSKY’S ‘SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS’.

 

“Though fundamentally different in nature, the development of scientific and spontaneous concepts represent two sides of the same concept formation:  (aka TRANSFORMATION).

 

 * * *