WESTERN CULTURE MISTAKES THAT WE LEARN HOW TO MAKE FROM AN EARLY AGE
My investigations (tapping into the investigations of others such as Bohm and Nietzsche) point to a number of things that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have got driven into our brains that are plain WRONG which screw up understanding leading to a whole WESTERN CULTURE that is in mutual agreement on understandings which are IN ERROR.
This is where the BUS TRIP TO HELL comes in that WE ALL ARE ON even Chief SEATTLE’s offspring who all know that the dominant culture is on a bad course, because it is like we are all on same boat and if the majority votes to take us down iceberg alley, we are going down iceberg alley because that is the way things work and those who don’t agree can’t ‘transfer to another universe’.
MISTAKE NUMBER ONE: There is no such thing as LOCAL AUTHORING of ANYTHING because we are all included in the transforming relational continuum.
This means that no-one’s AUTHORING RECORD is better than anyone else’s because we can’t separate the origins of stuff, but we can be smart and get lucky and be the CHANNEL for a lot of good stuff or bad stuff but NEVER THE AUTHOR. People may give us credit for AUTHORSHIP but what is really going on there is our ability to CHANNEL stuff like the invention of gunpowder that may channel on to James Wilkes Booth shooting Abe Lincoln as Bohm points out and as Nietzsche similarly points out, to say that JAMES WILKES BOOTH killed ABE LINCOLN is a DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that just oversimplifies a far more complex world.
MISTAKE NUMBER TWO: there is no such thing as GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION. They are all LOCAL AUTHORING ABSTRACTIONS once again but belief in them is so popular among WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS that I give it its own slot. Because we believe in these three we employ them as a SUBSTITUTE REALITY because if we are saying that the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING then we have spent our coin and INVENTED AN EMPTY SPACE TO PUT THE TOWN IN, otherwise “IT” couldn’t “GROW” and we would have to speak in broader terms, and of course, QUANTUM LOGIC would say that the LANDSCAPE IS TRANSFORMING which is purely relational as in a FLOW-based worldview. GROWTH of the TOWN and TRANSFORMATION OF THE LANDSCAPE CAN”T BOTH BE THE CASE, and we know that GROWTH is part of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which gets confusing since some of us are understanding that what is going on is TRANSFORMATION. The STATE GOVERNOR is going to go with GROWTH (of housing development, production of stuff etc.) because that’s related to the TAX base and who the hell cares what the other guys are doing and if ANYONE OUT THERE is managing the SHRINKAGE of the WILDERNESS. WE WESTERN CULTURE FOLKS think in terms of a FLAT SPACE of INFINITE EXTENT.
HOW DO I KNOW? Because there is NO SUCH THING AS “GROWTH” IN A CURVED SPACE WORLD, there is only TRANSFORMATION because if something is growing, there must be conjugate shrinkage of something else which means that GROWTH on its own is impossible, there is only TRANSFORMATION. People think of GROWTH because they are looking at things locally and they can measure out an increase in a croplands area from 10 acres to 20 acres and that is a RATIONAL calculation because it uses RATIO so that we can pivot off something LOCAL and never have to know whether the land bends round like on a sphere or hits edges like on a big cube. So anybody can figure that out, and that means there is no such thing as GROWTH in the world of our sense-experience, there is only TRANSFORMATION.
BUT WE USE GROWTH ALL THE TIME AS IF IT WERE REAL and we INVEST IN INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL GROWTH and sometimes someone gets worried about what is happening to the “environment” but no-one is letting go of the concept of GROWTH because it is a WESTERN CULTURE TRADITION to promote GROWTH and it is supported by ECONOMIC INVESTMENT.
MISTAKE NUMBER THREE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “BEING” How could there be when our sense experience informs us that everything is in flux?
BEING is a BIG PROBLEM not just on its own but because it comes with its BINARY OPPOSITE, NOT BEING or EMPTY SPACE and we can do a LOT OF DAMAGE to our own PSYCHE as well as to our social dynamic with this BINARY LOGIC business. The worst thing is that BINARY LOGIC is like the Cuckoo’s egg, once it occupies the nest, there’s no room for anything else and what deserved to be there in place of BINARY LOGIC is QUANTUM LOGIC which is BALANCE and IMBALANCE. When we want to feed our community we don’t need to get into binary logic disputes over TOO MUCH or TOO LITTLE, we just need to orient towards BALANCE and away from IMBALANCE and that brings in the question of NATURAL NEED instead of pure intellectual argument over issues of ENTITLEMENT.
ENTITLEMENT derives from BEING, WHO THAT SOMEBODY IS, like whether they are SUPERIOR “BEINGS” or INFERIOR “BEINGS”.
”Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.” —Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations 1776 (Darwin must have been reading Smith).
The MISTAKEN concept of ENTITLEMENT remains alive and well because the concept of BEING remains alive and well in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY.
indigenous aboriginal cultures, and Modern physics because they are grounded in QUANTUM LOGIC and BALANCE, support the natural tendency to BALANCE based dynamics. The concept of BEING is ABSTRACTION that brings in BINARY LOGIC and BINARY LOGIC invasively FRAGMENTS THINGS, including the PSYCHE .
* * *
MISTAKE NUMBER FOUR: Our system of ENTITLEMENT is RATIO (REASON) based and REASON cannot substitute for BALANCE/
WESTERN CULTURE gives a foundational role in social structure to ENTITLEMENT while Modern physics has established that BALANCE is the essential motivating dynamic in NATURE as also recognized by the indigenous aboriginal culture.
“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter from Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas, and associated context (jailing of first nations people for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see ‘First People First Voices’, edited by Penny Petrone, University of Toronto Press, 1991]
ACKNOWLEDGING THE NATURAL CONDITION OF BALANCE does away with the need for TITLE-based systems of AUTHORITY-directed actions and developments (systems of ‘ENTITLEMENT’).
My own (company sponsored) research into ‘exceptionally performing teams’ exposed how BALANCE is the NATURAL substitute for TITLE-based organizational structure. The following is a summary of the TEAM research findings;
In about 1993, I maneuvered my way, in my work, to undertake a study of ‘exceptionally performing teams’. I had been asked to develop a workshop for producing managers [within a petroleum exploration and production operational setting] on ‘how better to invest in ‘information technology’. My idea was to explore exceptional team operations, to see how they were ‘drawing in technology’ into their operations, so that the investigation didn’t have to start from the various current strains of technology and specify ‘how these should be used’.
A lot of things fell out of this investigation, and a successful workshop was developed, which was run two or three times prior to truncation by a major company re-organization. But there was an important ‘philosophical finding’ that I was left ‘holding in my hands’, that needed to ‘go somewhere’, to be communicated and then more deeply understood, but I did not know where to take it, or exactly how to share it, since it was very subtle.
My early ‘retirement’ in March 1, 1996, was strongly influenced by my desire to ‘work on’ a continuing investigation into this ‘philosophical finding’ and developing ways to generally share it. One place I took it was to ‘Complexity’, the Journal of the Santa Fe Institute which was a new ‘university’ orienting to the ‘sciences of complexity’. This institute was created by scientists-philosophers who felt that universities were pre-occupied with ‘linear theory’ and that ‘nonlinear dynamics’ was being largely ignored.
This seemed like a very appropriate ‘home’ for my ‘orphaned’ philosophical finding and I tried to capture it in an essay entitled ‘Complexity and the ‘Learning Organization‘: Addressing team performance in new science terms’. The ‘new science’ referred to modern physics, relativity and quantum physics, which opened the door to ‘re-connecting’ the ‘team’ and the ‘environment’ that it was situationally included in, in the manner of [and this came to my attention later] Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants.”
That is, the ‘orphaned philosophical finding’ I was left ‘holding in my hands’ was that the ‘identity’ of the exceptionally performing team ‘blurred’ by virtue of its building resonance into its interfacing with the world [with its host community; its suppliers, customers, service contractors, employee families etc.].
The orthodox ‘best practice teams’ were more like precision engines, ‘things-in-themselves’ with clear stand-alone identities and well defined component parts [employee roles] while the three teams that were identified as ‘exceptionally performing’ that we [myself and a colleague] ended up ‘investigating’ were distinguished by BREAKING ALL THE RULES, having thrown away their business cards [abandoned their defined credentials and position descriptions; i.e. their TITLES] and put the organization chart in the blender [The largest of the three teams, ‘team X’, was comprised of 150 members and used an unused aircraft hanger to have their ‘general assemblies’] . They had also blurred the interfacing between their ‘self’ and the ‘others’ they were engaging with, dragging portions of the activities of the others inside of their team operations and letting part of their own activities be drawn into the operations of the others. This was an operation in which everyone’s spirits soared. In fact, one of the hourly union workers who was made a full member of the team like everyone, extolled the process saying how happy he was to work in this team-X environment since it had ‘put his head back on his shoulders’.
[To put this person’s comment into context, hourly workers in typical operating situations are simply ‘told what to do’ and are not privy to what the operations are all about much less the business, and in team-X’s reinventing of itself, everyone was given instruction in all aspects of the operation, including the financial/business aspects, and union workers found themselves sitting beside engineers after hours, on their own hook, watching the vital statistics of the operation on computer monitors and using their on-site knowledge to kibitz on how to solve performance problems and devise performance improvements].
So the philosophical problem was at the same time a quasi-mathematical problem. As always, headquarters management scrutinized the production of all of the teams, giving rise to a ‘system performance’ curve as a function of ‘time’. This curve was outstanding in the case of the team under study, and seemed to be almost doubling the performance of the best ‘normal’ teams. Headquarters management, far from the teams themselves, were ecstatic and naturally wanted to promote the members of the team most responsible for this remarkably high production, and clone the team.
The members of the exceptional team realized that HQ management was ‘getting it wrong’, the high performance was not coming from them, the team components/members in the sense of the team as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed ‘production’, … the exceptional performance was coming from the team’s deliberate attempt to be defined more from the outside-inward, by the needs of those they were engaging with. They were moving away from being locally defined; i.e. they were moving towards letting the defining of the team = ‘the universe expressing itself’, in the sense that the web of relational engaging they were included in was influencing them outside-inwardly at the same time they were influencing the relational web inside-outwardly [Mach’s principle].
What ‘the numbers said’ was clear in a historical graph of production. The production of ‘team X’ had climbed up to where it was doubling the performance. Even after describing the ‘complex source’ of this rising production, headquarters management regressed to the view that the rise in production had to be attributed to ‘improvements in the team’; i.e. improved skills and commitment of the team members, improved cooperation, teamwork, synergy within the team, improved leadership in the team. In other words, the increase in production, they attributed to the team seen as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own locally originating, internal components and processes driven and directed productive behaviour.
Headquarters’ management selected those team members who most impressed them, promoted them and transferred them to other operations so as to ‘clone’ this high performing ‘team X’. But it didn’t happen. It turned out that it had been a rare exception in team X’s middle management having let team X ‘break all the rules’ and blur their positional role plays within the team and blur the boundaries where the team operations ended and the supplier, customer, service contractor operations began. The middle management in the case of team-X not only provided this umbrella protection beneath which team X was breaking all the rules of engagement, but in their [middle management’s] interfacing with headquarters management, they translated everything arising in the new mode of team play into the orthodox format thus presenting a continuous picture of what was going [in the usual numbers based format]. Team X could not be cloned because such umbrella protection and translation was a rare item and it had been a necessary prerequisite to what had been the spontaneous emergence of the exceptionally performing ‘team X’.
The philosophical problem I was left holding on to was;
‘how does one explain that the source of ‘local’, ‘visible’, ‘material’ physical results derives from purely relational dynamics; i.e. from influences that are ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’ as seemed to be the case with ‘team X’?
The associated mathematical problem was;
‘how does one show that the bending in the curve [team X’s production as a function of time] comes NOT from the ‘point’ that is describing the trajectory, that little fiery spark, the moving point-source genie that determines the direction of each new increment, according to the calculus?
Of course, my 1997 essay, ‘Complexity and the ‘Learning Organization’’ was an attempt, as if by a man who had no tongue for it, to share the questions and formulate some sort of explanation.
The REMOVAL OF TITLES and ENTITLEMENTS in this exceptionally performing TEAM dynamic was key the amazing performance benefits which accrued to the entire inter-connected, interdependent relational matrix. What TOOK OVER as the organizing influence, from the tradition of TITLE-based LOCAL AUTHORITY was simply BALANCE, the sustaining of BALANCE and the resolving of IMBALANCE. It is no COINCIDENCE that the shift from Newtonian physics to Modern physics is that exact shift from TITULAR STRUCTURE based on NAMING and GRAMMAR where a dynamic is seen in terms of FORCE and MATTER such as the FORCE of AN AVANACHE as it crashes down the MOUNTAINSIDE and DESTROYS the VILLAGE. This same phenomenon can be seen in terms of BALANCE and IMBALANCE which comprehends not only the material dynamics aka the MALE ASSERTIVE ASPECT, but also the FEMALE INDUCTIVE ‘complex conjugate’ of relational BALANCE in the presence of relational IMBALANCE. This is where MODERN PHYSICS transcends NEWTONIAN PHYSICS in the same manner as TRANSFORMATION transcends MATERIAL MECHANICS.
The TRANSFORMATION OF THE LANDSCAPE is the MORE MEANINGFUL PHENOMENON and it is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) while the AVALANCHE is the LOCAL and EXPLICIT SECONDARY “APPEARANCE” which language presents as a SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
Our WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE has oriented to SUBSTITUTE REALITY REPRESENTATION while indigenous aboriginal languages have oriented to the fluid dynamic of TRANSFORMATION where one would speak the equivalent of ‘THERE IS AVALANCHING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’ which retains the sense of the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational), … while WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE (Common Average European languages in Whorf’s classification) orients directly to the LOCAL and EXPLICIT, in which case the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT “GOES MISSING”, a LOSS which does not occur if the language architecture STARTS with the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT and supplements it with the LOCAL and EXPLICIT; e.g. the AVALANCHING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE IS LIKE THE BREAKING WAVES THAT ARE CONTINUALLY REDESIGNING THE BEACH.
All of this LANGUAGE is RELATIONAL and WE CROSS OVER INTO ANOTHER “SUBSTITUTE REALITY” when we impose the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, as Nietzsche has pointed out, and IMPLANT a TITLE to suggest that there is an AUTHOR of an observable ACTION and DEVELOPMENT. This ENTITLING or ENTITLEMENT is the NOTIONAL ASSIGNMENT of AUTHORING POWER to the relational form in the flow which is give the TITLE. The result is the INTELLECTUAL ASSIGNING of a LOCAL AUTHORING SOURCE, and this is playing out within the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM in such a manner at to pound a LOCAL STAKE IN THE GROUND to sidestep the physical NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (because in continuing flux) SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY.
THUS, in saying that BALANCE does away with the need for TITLE-based AUTHORITY (systems of ‘ENTITLEMENT’), this is NOT saying that BALANCING is something WE CAN DO; BALANCING IS INNATE IN NATURE and WE CAN LET IT ORGANIZE US! …. if we can LET GO of our system of TITLES and ENTITLEMENTS which leads to RIGID HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES.
MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE: The inventing of POLAR DUALITY using NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE BEINGS (BEINGS are ERROR 3). POSITIVE BEINGS are designated as NORMAL or CONSTRUCTED BEINGS while NEGATIVE BEINGS are designated ABNORMAL or DESTRUCTIVE BEINGS. Using this abstract (ABSOLUTE) concept of LOCAL BEINGS with notional POWERS OF AUTHORING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (MISTAKE NUMBER ONE), it has been possible to REPLACE BALANCE with the LOCAL AUTHORING by way of a BINARY LOGICAL TUG-OF-WAR between the ABSOLUTES of NORMAL (GOOD) BEINGS, notionally with THEIIR OWN POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORING of CONSTRUCTIVE actions and developments, … and ABNORMAL (BAD) BEINGS, notionally with THEIR OWN POWERS of LOCAL AUTHORING of DESTRUCTIVE actions and developments. In this manner, a SUBSTITUTE REALITY is constructed wherein ‘BALANCE’ is no longer needed since the QUANTUM LOGIC wherein material forms are CONDENSATIONS of the immaterial FIELD is no longer needed.
As a result of MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE, the ELIMINATION OF BALANCE by way of SUBSTITUTING the POLAR OPPOSITES of NORMAL/GOOD and ABNORMAL/BAD has led to a strategy of PURIFICATION where the goal is to ELIMINATE the ABNORMAL/BAD and AMPLIFY the NORMAL/GOOD. The INVENTING of BEING has enable this PURIFICATION and BEING can be imputed to any relational form in the flow bay an INCANTATION, simply by NAMING the relational form to create a LOCAL STUB of BEING upon which the SECOND part of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR can be imposed; i.e. the application of GRAMMAR to impute the notional power of LOCAL AUTHORING.
This MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE, the ELIMINATION OF BALANCE through SUBSTITUTING BEING in POLAR OPPOSITE FLAVOURS of GOOD and BAD. INSTEAD OF “REBALANCING” as in the ROBIN HOOD and JEAN VALJEAN examples, WESTERN CULTURE has substituted PURIFICATION which orients to the AMPLIFYING AND PRESERVING OF ‘GOOD’ and the ATTENUATING and ELIMINATING of BAD.
The MISTAKES are used to create a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which SIDESTEPS or SUBSTITUTES for the QUANTUM LOGIC of BALANCE wherein there is a FUZZINESS between MATTER and FIELD (where MATTER is a condensation of FIELD), a FUZZINESS that is the manifesting of TRANSFORMATION as in the WAVE-FIELD dynamic aka the Tao.
Given that the indigenous aboriginal culture has embraced the NATURE-based phenomenon of BALANCE, as have also the Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, and have incorporated reference to it in the Yin/Yang symbology which implies the UNION OF OPPOSITES, there has been no need in those cultures, to INTRODUCE A SUBSTITUTE REALITY WHICH IS SPLIT APART INTO THE BINARY LOGIC OPPOSITES OF MATTER AND SPACE. That is, the QUANTUM LOGIC of BALANCE wherein MATTER is a CONDENSATION of the all-including energy FIELD does not in itself require an abstract SPLITTING of REALITY into the POLAR OPPOSITES of MATTER and EMPTY SPACE wherein MATTER is given all of the CREATIVE responsibility through MALE ASSERTING such as GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION while the FEMALE is reduced to the abstraction of an always passive acceptance of the MALE ASSERTING. This situation of the DEA ABSCONDITA is BUILT IN to the WESTERN CULTURE language-based SUBSTITUTE REALITY construction. And, as is the nature of language, people can rally round and organize their thoughts on the basis if sharing a common language, and there is no requirement that that such language should have THIS or THAT RATING as far as its ability to trigger in the users minds an ACCURAGE conception of REALITY. The language based representation or TRIGGERED CONCEPTUALIZATION is always going to be MILES OFF from conveying an impression of SENSE-EXPERIENCE reality.
So, the various SUBSTITUTE REALITIES conjured up by different language groups, however useful for putting people, psychologically, ON THE SAME PAGE, can only be on the SAME SUBSTITUTE REALITY PAGE’, and so it would be wise to avoid getting arguments over who has CORRECTLY CAPTURED REALITY IN THEIR LANGUAGE BASED REPRESENTATION because none of those LANGUAGE-BASED REPRESENTATIONS are up to the job, or even close. That is the reason for having LEARNING CIRCLES and bringing a multiplicity of those innately incomplete reality representations into connective confluence so as to extract the relational resonances or ‘coherencies’ therein which will be INEFFABLE because purely relational coherence based, but very valuable as informers on the ineffable, all-including WAVE-FIELD that is also know as ‘the Tao’. This has been compared to HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGING which derives from relational (phase) coherency.
So, the point is that this MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE build from TWO OTHER MISTAKES; i.e. MISTAKE NUMBER 3 (inventing of BEING with NAMING) and MISTAKE NUMBER 1 (LOCAL AUTHORING with GRAMMAR) are BOTH required in order to create a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which SIDESTEPS or SUBSTITUTES for the QUANTUM LOGIC of BALANCE wherein there is a FUZZINESS between MATTER and FIELD (where MATTER is a condensation of FIELD).
The TWO MISTAKES NUMBER 3 (inventing of BEING with NAMING) and MISTAKE NUMBER 1 (LOCAL AUTHORING with GRAMMAR) are BOTH required in order to create a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which SIDESTEPS or SUBSTITUTES for the QUANTUM LOGIC of BALANCE wherein there is a FUZZINESS between MATTER and FIELD (where MATTER is a condensation of FIELD).
* * *
SUMMARY: THE FIVE MISTAKES continue to provide the foundation for the most popular version of the WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY, which is no longer supported by BALANCE as is the case with indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta (Balance supports MATTER and FIELD as a BALANCE-based UNUM). Instead of being supported by FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE BALANCE, the WESTERN CULTURE secured in place by FIGURE-and-GROUND are TWO of MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MATTER and SPACE where EGO becomes the ANIMATOR of the NOW SEEN AS INDEPENDENT “MATERIAL BEING”.
Because BALANCE is inherent in our WAVE-FIELD sense-experience reality and since our WESTERN CULTURE social collective has decided to go with a HARD SPLIT between MATTER and SPACE; i.e. a BINARY LOGIC based SPLIT, the soft relational phenomenon of BALANCE as within the QUANTUM LOGIC energy field wherein matter is a condensation of field has had to GIVE WAY to the HARD BINARY LOGIC and the QUANTUM LOGIC relational dynamic of harmony/dissonance which is a reality that runs deeper than material forms, has had to BOW OUT as far as precedence on the stage of our INTELLECTUALIZING mind, and give way to POLAR OPPOSITES of GOOD and EVIL instead of the NONDUALITY of RELATIONAL RESONANCE AND DISSONANCE, leading to programs of PURIFICATION wherein the GOOD must take action to ensure the ELIMINATION OF EVIL.. This is the result of having introduced MISTAKE NUMBER THREE of BEING into the language based SUBSTITUTE REALITY and conflating it with MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE, the ELIMINATION OF BALANCE.
This brings us up to date, and to David Bohm’s warning which I am describing as THE BUS TRIP TO HELL, … which we are fully capable of resolving, but as has been noted, we are holding ourselves hostage by EGO which supports, in particular and without reservation, the belief in the abstraction of LOCAL AUTHORING (MISTAKE NUMBER ONE) which as Nietzsche points out derives from the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR. While many of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, like myself DO NOT BELIEVE in LOCAL AUTHORING, whether by INDIVIDUAL, NATION, CORPORATION or any other NAMED AUTHOR of actions and developments, … since this contradicts our sense experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, …. that COMMON SUPPORT (here and there a BELIEF) in LOCAL AUTHORING is the ‘LOCK-IN-BY-HIGH-SWITCHING COSTS” that is keeping us on the BUSTRIP TO HELL.
We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS continue to see things like ROCKET TRIPS INTO THE OUTER ATMOSPHERE as assertive actions and developments. THEY ARE NO ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, what is going on there is TRANSFORMATION that we all share inclusion in. Just as the less rich and powerful peoples of the world have discovered, we are all in this game together and if the rich and powerful are pissing around with rockets in the atmosphere, we are all sucking on those fumes, so, so much for the ‘INDEPENDENT BEING’ and ‘INDEPENDENT NATION” and all that talk of INDEPENDENCE which is just an ERROR OF GRAMMAR as NIETZSCHE has pointed out, and systems sciences like my friend Martine;
The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization’ (N.B. SUBOPTIMIZATION IS FRAGMENTATION).
“The above aphorism, attributed to Kenneth Boulding, points to the inherent weakness characterizing the mindset and socio‐economic, political, educational and managerial practices of Western Industrial society as it developed over the past 300 years. It has its basis in the analytic‐reductionistic scientific paradigm, which, despite the remarkable technological applications it spawned, is inappropriate, conflict‐generating and dysfunctional in a world characterized by global interconnectedness and mutual interdependence …” — György Jaros and Martine Dodds-Taljaard (International Society of Systems Sciences)
So, why do we continue to promote the DELUSION of INDEPENDENT NATIONS, INDEPENDENT HUMANS, INDEPENDENT CORPORATIONS? SURE, IT IS A LANGUAGE GAME THAT WORKS BY CONJURING UP A SUBSTITUTE REALITY THAT THE FOLLOWERS OF THAT LANGUAGE GROUP CAN ALL BUY INTO AND IT WILL PROVIDE A MEANS OF COORDINATING THE ACTIONS OF MANY PEOPLE, BUT ALL WITHIN A SUBSTITUTE REALITY THAT BEARS LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THE SENSE EXPERIENCE REALITY OF INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.
Some people are in “A GOOD PLACE” within the WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY GAME and want to continue the game, while others want call it quits and to GET REAL, like the indigenous aboriginals, but there is only this ONE SHOW called LIFE and anyone in it can CONTAMINATE IT, as the indigenous aboriginals have pointed out, in the wake of the rise to dominance of WESTERN CULTURE. It’s like the two cultures being SIAMESE TWINS, there’s no getting away the issues that develop, the only way forward to work it out, and if our Siamese brothers and sisters as smart-ass know-it-alls, we may be in for a BUSTRIP TO HELL.
* * *
So, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS differentiate ourselves from the indigenous aboriginals, Modern physics, Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta because of these following MISTAKEN BELIEFS;
MISTAKE NUMBER ONE: There is no such thing as LOCAL AUTHORING of ACTIONS, DEVELOPMENTS or ANYTHING
MISTAKE NUMBER TWO: there is no such thing as GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION.
MISTAKE NUMBER THREE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “BEING”
“In the writing of Heraclitus, to a larger degree than ever before, the images do not impose their burden of concreteness but are entirely subservient to the achievement of clarity and precision
“Heraclitus had declared ‘being’ a perpetual ‘becoming’ and had correlated the two concepts with his ‘hidden attunement.’ Now Parmenides declared the two to be mutually exclusive, and only ‘being’ to be real.” — ‘The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man’, — ‘Henri Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, and William A. Irwin.
MISTAKE NUMBER FOUR: Our system of ENTITLEMENT is RATIO (REASON) based and REASON cannot substitute for BALANCE/
MISTAKE NUMBER FIVE: There is no such thing as POLAR OPPOSITES of POSITIVE and NEGATIVE (GOOD and BAD), there is only BALANCE and IMBALANCE
* * *
REFLECTION on these FIVE MISTAKES will reveal that the overall WESTERN CULTURE PROBLEM is the NEGLECT of the FEMALE CONJUGATE (DEA ABSCONDITA).
The FIVE MISTAKES are MISTAKES relative to the MODERN PHYSICS understanding of reality which is the same as the indigenous aboriginal understanding of reality wherein everything is in flux.. REFLECTION SHOWS that all of these FIVE MISTAKES involve REDUCTION TO LOCAL BEING, in conflict with the understanding of Modern physics and indigenous aboriginal reality wherein everything, including ourselves, is part of the transforming relational continuum
EVERYTHING that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are REDUCING TO LANGUAGE and PRESENTING IN LANGUAGE is DUMBED DOWN (SIMPLIFIED) to give it a LOCAL BASE of EXPLICIT BEING-BASED PRESENCE and ITS OWN “LOCAL AUTHORING POWERS” as is technically required to FRAGMENT REALITY, or rather to construct a FRAGMENT based SUBSTITUTE REALITY which we can ‘make sense of’ (or try to) by fabricating and analyzing a SERIES of LOCAL (in space and time) EVENTS as if reality could actually be broken down into such local fragments as is the hopeful outlook since LANGUAGE cannot capture the transforming relational continuum and our inclusion therein.
The indigenous aboriginals, having come upon this same problem with the limitations of language and its inability to capture and represent sense-experience reality language, have had to use language to construct SUBSTITUTE REALITIES which ARE capturable in language. Something HAD TO GIVE to BREAK INTO THE CONTINUUM with is infinite and ongoing and come up with something that WORKS as a shareable pseudo-representation. For example, while the transforming landscape is a reference to the continuum, it nevertheless preserves the impression of there being an overall unbounded transforming so this FLUID based representation has great appeal. We could therefore say that ‘there is HURRICANING in the transforming landscape’. On the other hand, if wanted to warn someone of a tornado about to descent upon their camping tent, the utility of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based language which SPLIT FIGURE and GROUND into TWO where we could speak of the FIGURE as if were MOVING THROUGH THE GROUND, would be very useful even though it would be a language based SUBSTITUTE REALITY.
So, while one language could say ‘there is HURRICANING IN THE TRANSFORMING’, that would be an expression that is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) which language could also say ‘the HURRICANE is about to devastate New Orleans’ which appears to be an ANTHROPOMORPHISM but a useful one as far as sharing a PICTURE of what is going on within the space we share inclusion in, a PICTURE that CONSTRUCTS a LOCAL and EXPLICIT scenario.
We have TWO CHOICES in how we look at, and how we formulate language to construct a REPRESENTATION of what is going on here, and this is where the indigenous aboriginal language architecture splits off from the WESTERN CULTURE language architecture. While the indigenous aboriginal language preserves the fluidity of the continuing transforming with ‘there is HURRICANING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE (which sounds like whorls within an overall flow), WESTERN CULTURE language has opted for the alternative that assigns NAMES to prominent relational features in the flow to impute LOCAL BEING to them and to conflate this NAMING ERROR with a SECOND ERROR of GRAMMAR to invoke the impression of LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and development. This latter language architecture approach is where the WESTERN CULTURE has gone, so instead of “THERE IS HURRICANING IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM” which is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational), the WESTERN CULTURE language-based representation approach of the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR allows us to impute LOCAL AUTHORING of actions and developments.
The FIVE MISTAKES cited above are all falling on the WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE based representation side; i.e. In our inclusion within the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM, … THERE IS NO LOCAL AUTHORING of ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS, THERE IS NO GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION (only TRANSFORMATION), there is no such things as BEING (everything is in flux), … there is no case for SUBSTITUTING ENTITLEMENT in place of BALANCE since ENTITLEMENT is one-sided and has no sense of BALANCE,, … and there is no sense experience REALITY support for POLAR OPPOSITE STATES OF BEING since there are no STATES of BEING in the TRANSFORMING continuum.
At the moment , we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are, through the SUPPORTED CULTURE AT LARGE, are teaching our children to accept and put our behaviour in line with these FIVE MISTAKES.
* * *
THESE FIVE MISTAKES CONTINUE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SHAPING OUR IMPRESSIONS AND RESPONSES TO WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE ‘REALITY” WHICH, IN VIEW OF THESE FIVE MISTAKES, IS NOT SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY BUT AN ABSTRACT SUBSTITUTE REALITY WHICH BOHM CLAIMS IS FRAGMENTED AND SCHIZOPHRENIA INDUCING.
This resonates with R. D. Lang’s comment that … What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” and ANTHROPOLOGIST JULES HENRY’S similar critique of our WESTERN CULTURE.
ARE THINGS REALLY THIS BAD? It depends on which REALITY we are talking about. The SUBSTITUTE REALITY where we accept GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION as ‘REAL’ is doing rather well and it may continue to do APPEAR TO US to be ‘doing well’ because we are only considering the MALE ASSERTIVE CONJUGATE without THINKING of the FEMALE CONJUGATE in the manner that we RATIO UP the cultivated and industrialized area, which is what GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION are ‘all about’, believing that such action is REAL, but it is only REAL within a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that has no FEMALE CONJUGATE. If we were taking into account the FEMALE CONJUGATE, then we wouldn’t be using the terms GROWTH as if it were ‘real’ and ‘meaningful’.
When we expand our wheat field from 10 acres to 10,000 acres, just as sure no-one is blinking an eye about such a statement, that’s the way our WESTERN CULTURE world is working. Our language embodies BINARY LOGIC assumptions. QUANTUM LOGIC is BALANCE-based in which case it COMPREHENDS that the extension of the wheat field 9990 cares is conjugate with a loss of 9990 acres of something else. Were they rare wildflowers with medicinal properties or plants essential to certain insects important to the stability of the local ecosystem. Balance Is important. QUANTUM LOGIC comprehends BALANCE. BINARY LOGIC DOES comprehend BALANCE.
So, what exactly do we mean when we speak in terms of GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION? These are all “ONE-SIDED” MALE-ASSERTIVE RATIO based words. They have meaning in a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that is ALL MALE, NO FEMALE. Like WESTERN CULTURE reality where the way we see things, the man whose chain saw throws some sparks on a hot summer day is said to have AUTHORED the FOREST FIRE, IGNORING the FEMALE ACCOMMODATIVE CONJUGATE that was TILTING the FEMALE-MALE BALANCE. HOW COULD WE IGNORE THE BALANCE AND THINK JUST IN MALE ASSERTIVE TERMS?
So, the FIVE MISTAKES that set up WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY don’t seem to be ‘going anywhere soon’. What is deceptive is that it is the SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the FIVE MISTAKES that is being reported in the TV news and not so much the sense-experience reality which informs us in terms of TRANSFORMATION.
* * *