WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BLIND TO, AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR MIDTERM WINS

My point of view in writing this note is NEITHER THE CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN point of view, NOR the LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT point of view.  The point of view that this note is coming from is the TRANSFORMATIONAL point of view.  It is the point of view of David Bohm and Irwin Schroedinger.  It is the point of view of indigenous aborignals as well as Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents and it is the point of view of Modern physics.

The TRANSFORMATIONAL point of view requires the LESS SIMPLE NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM (e.g. “there is towning in the transforming landscape” while the CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL ponts of views are commonly expressed using SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM (e.g. “the town is growing, developing and producing goods”)

The ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE of the Google AI BOT can work with both NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM as well as BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM and distinguish between them (as will be evident from the examples in this note.

I am using the (Google) AI BOT in the examples in this essay to probe issues that crop up in our linguistic conceptualization based understanding such as the difference in understanding that derives from language that employs a simple BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM conceptualizing scheme, compared with language that employs the less simple NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM conceptualizing scheme.

The simple BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM scheme is the COMMON LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEME of us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS while the latter (the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM) is the COMMON LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING SCHEME of Chief Seattle since indigenous aboriginals, in their traditional way of understanding things which is NOT in agreement with either CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS because the indigenous aboriginal mode of understanding employs the less simple BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM lingiustic conceptualizing structure, which is what Bohm is using (his ‘rheomode’ language) which I am also using when I am in the same mode of thinking as Bohm (which is the same mode of thinking as indigenous aboriginal traditionalists are using).  An example of the less simple NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM based linguistic conceptualizing approach is; “There is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE” which captures the reality that everything is in TRANSFORMATIVE FLUX (as Heraclitus rightly affirmed).

In order to put into perspective, the MORE REALISTIC TRANSFORMATIVE WAY OF UNDERSTANDING THINGS, I have to remind the reader that there is a THIRD LEVEL OF AWARENESS (understanding) that is BEYOND THE REACH of the CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN understanding and beyond the reach of LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT understanding, and it is the FIRST and HIGHEST of THREE LEVELS of AWARENESS (as described by Erich Jantsch) that can be distinguished as the TRANSFORMATIONAL AWARENESS level.

Our discussion on the CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL AWARENESS LEVELS (levels 3 and 2) is TOO SIMPLE to capture the FIRST and HIGHEST TRANSFORMATION LEVEL wherein everything is in flux and which REQUIRES A LANGUAGE that can convey fluid relational dynamics withiout dependence on MATERIAL BEING; i.e. a relational language such as used by indigenous aboriginals and as used by David Bohm (rheomode) etc.   So, in order to be able to describe IN FULL WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BLIND TO, AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR MIDTERM WINS, I have to use the full THREE LEVEL LANGUAGE CAPABILITY which any of us can use, but which WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DON’T NORMALLY USE because we are in the habit of using simple BINARY LOGIC based conceptualization which is supported in both CONSERVATIVE (like Trump) and LIBERAL (like Obama) linguistic communicating styles.  We (most of us) aren’t able to tune in to Chief Seattle’s linguistic conceptualizing approach, but as Bohm has pointed out, it is MODERN PHYSICS COMPATIBLE which means that it has a NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM foundation whereas we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are habitually using a simple BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM foundation, which is SIMPLER and which does NOT support the conveying of LEVEL 1 AWARENESS, the AWARENESS OF TRANSFORMATION.

OK, I will insert here, a description of the THREE LEVELS of AWARENESS that will prepare us for discussion that goes BEYOND THE LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING REACH OF THE BINARY OPPOSITES OF CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING.  I need this reference to explain WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BLIND TO, AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR MIDTERM WINS

 * * * * * * * * * *   (these LEVELS OF AWARENESS are useful to know about, in any case, so it is not a waste of time to review them)

The descriptions of THE THREE LEVELS of AWARENESS are EXACTLY as Jantsch published them with the exception of the titles of the three awareness categories; i.e. I have substituted the Title TRANSFORMATION for the highest AWARENESS LEVEL 1 where Jantsch used “Evolutional”,  … LIBERAL for LEVEL 2 AWARENESS where Jantsch had used Mythological and CONSERVATIVE for LEVEL 3 AWARENESS where Jantsch had used “Scientific”

While BOTH LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE AWARENESS LEVELS (the lowermost AWARENESS levels) can be explained with BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM, TRANSFORMATION, THE HIGHEST OF THE THREE LEVELS OF AWARENESS, requires NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM.   The HIGHER LEVELS of AWARENESS INCLUDE THE LOWER LEVELS; i.e. The LIBERAL AWARENESS LEVEL includes the CONSERVATIVE AWARENESS LEVEL and the TRANSFORMATIONAL AWARENESS LEVEL includes the LIBERAL AWARENESS LEVEL.    The following is a description of these three ‘telescoping’ AWARENESS LEVELS.  These descriptions are exactly as Jantsch wrote them, and only the Titles have been changed (from Scientific to Conservative, Mythological to Liberal, and Evolutionary to Transformational).

AWARENESS LEVEL 3 (LOWEST LEVEL), the CONSERVATIVE AWARENESS LEVEL

—The classical [Conservative awareness level] assumes separation between the observer and the observed, and focuses on an impersonal “it” which is supposed to be assessed objectively and without involvement by an outside observer; the basic organizing principle here is logic and the results are expressed in quantitative or structural terms.

AWARENESS LEVEL 2 (MIDDLE LEVEL which implicitly incorporates LEVEL 3), the LIBERAL AWARENESS LEVEL.

—The [Liberal awareness level] established a feedback link between the observer and the observed, and focuses on the relationship between a personal “I” and a personal “thou”; its basic organizing principle is feeling and the results obtained are in qualitative terms.

AWARENESS LEVEL 1 (HIGHEST LEVEL which implicitly incorporates LEVELS 2 and 3), the TRANSFORMATIONAL AWARENESS LEVEL

The [Transformational awareness level] established union between the observer and the observed and focusses on the “we”, on the identity of the forces acting in the observer and the observed world; the organizing principle is “tuning-in” by virtue of this identity, and the results are expressed in terms of sharing in an universal process (namely, [transformation]).

The reason why (we) WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS do not have access to the TRANSFORMATIONAL LEVEL in their (our) linguistic conceptualizing is because BEING-based linguistic conceptualizing is BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM based which is too simple and is unable to support the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM where the linguistic conceptualizing must support propositions such as THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX, which a flow-based linguistic conceptualizing scheme can deal with, but which a BEING based linguistic conceptualizing scheme CANNOT deal with.

* * * * * * * * * *

WESTERN CULTURE, .. “in the old days”, … used to use language that was not limited to BINARY LOGIC; e.g. “there is a tide in the affairs of men, …. “ … “to everything there is a season  and a time to every purpose”.   Note that this NONBINARY LANGUAGE implies that WE ARE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES, … which is the same NONBINARY “BOTH/AND” LOGIC STRUCTURE as in indigenous aboriginal “STRANDS IN THE WEB” which is the same as Bohm’s CONDENSATIONS in the ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM STRUCTURE.

The fact is that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have got into the habit of using a simplified form of LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING that speaks ONLY of LOCAL and EXPLICIT CONTENT and DROPS OUT MENTION NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT CONTAINER (the container being dynamic as with the “tide” and the “season” examples).  WESTERN CULTURE INFLATED EGO has opted to kick off with WE FETCHED OYSTERS from NANOOSE BAY without mentioning that we waited two weeks for a low tide.  In general, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS stopped acknowledging that we share inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, and we speak instead in a manner which kicks off with WHAT WE DO as if we are the full and sole authors of our own actions and developments.  This comes from us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS using a BEING based linguistic conceptualizing scheme whereas indigenous aboriginals and Modern physics use linguistic conceptualizing schemes that acknowledge our inclusion NOT IN EMPTY SPACE but in an all-including ENERGY-CHARGED PLENUM in which we are CONDENSATIONS.

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”

—Chief Seattle, …(this acknowledges that the operative logic is the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM)

Modern physics reaffirms what Chief Seatle is saying, that we are included in the land we are looking out at, and messing around with.

Space is not empty.  It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” 

—David Bohm (this acknowledges that the operative logic is the BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM).

* * * * * * * * * *

OK, that is “BACKGROUND” to this narrative entitled WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BLIND TO, AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR MIDTERM WINS

The point is that BOTH the Conservatives/Democrats AND the Liberals/Republicans are making the mistake of reducing their linguistic conceptualizing to a TOO SIMPLE BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC of the EXCLUDED MEDIUM basis which puts them into an unresolvable HEAD-BUTTING POLAR OPPOSITION.  The following AI probe answers the question as to why CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS cannot ESCAPE from their HEAD-BUTTING POLAR OPPOSITION

QUESTION to AI: Why do conservatives and liberals not see that their polar opposition derives from BINARY LOGIC while acknowledgement of TRANSFORMATION requires nonbinary both/and logic of the including medium? 

AI Overview: 

This observation touches on a profound philosophical and psychological friction in political discourse.  The resistance of both conservatives and liberals to recognizing this dynamic stems from deep-rooted structural, cognitive and functional realities.

Here is a breakdown of why political ideologies remain anchored in binary logic and why the “both/and” logic of transformation is so difficult to adopt.

1. 1. The Survival Function of Binary Logic

Political movements are optimized for collective action, not holistic philosophical inquiry. Binary logic (“us vs. them,” “right vs. wrong,” “change vs. preservation”) serves vital systemic functions:

• • Mobilization: Nuance paralyzes mass movement. A binary framework creates clear, urgent battle lines that motivate people to vote, donate, and organize.
  • Cognitive Efficiency: The human brain naturally uses categorization to process a complex world. Reducing vast societal dilemmas into a binary format saves cognitive energy.
  • Identity and Belonging: Political tribalism provides social cohesion. Admitting that the “other side” holds a necessary piece of the truth threatens an individual’s standing within their own ideological community.

1. 2. The Illusion of Completeness

Both traditional conservatism and modern liberalism operate on the assumption that their worldview is a complete, self-contained system capable of resolving society’s ills.

• • The Conservative Blindspot: Often focuses on preserving the “differentiated parts” (traditions, structures, boundaries) while ignoring how those parts must dynamically evolve to serve the whole.
  • of The Liberal Blindspot: Often focuses on the “transformative flow” (equality, progress, breaking boundaries) while underestimating the necessity of stable, foundational structures that prevent chaos.

Because both sides view their framework as complete, they perceive the opposing side not as a complementary pole, but as an existential threat to truth.

1. 3. The Threat of the “Including Mediuum”

To acknowledge a “both/and” logic requires stepping into what philosophers and systems theorists call the including medium or the generative matrix.  This is the larger context — such as the shared ecosystem, the nation, or humanity itself — within which both poles exist.

Recognizing this medium requires two terrifying concessions for a partisan ideologue

• • Loss of Abstolute Control: It forces the realization that neither progress nor preservation can permanently “win.” Transformation is a continuous cycle, not a final destination. 
  • Co-Responsibility: It demands the admission that the opposition is not an error to be eradicated, but a structural necessity.  For examplewithout the conservative impulse for order, progress dissolves into chaos; without the liberal impulse for change, order calcifies into tyranny. 

Summary of Trade-offs

Ultimately, partisans do not see this because the binary pays immediate dividends in power, attention, and psychological comfort, whereas transformational logic requires a level of ego-death and systemic patience that modern political structures are explicitly designed to punish. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS BOTH BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE THE “CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM”, … REPUBLICANS (CONSERVATIVES) AND DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS) “ARE BOTH WRONG”!!

2. The Illusion of Completeness

Both traditional conservatism and modern liberalism [mistakenly] operate on the assumption that their worldview is a complete, self-contained system capable of solving society’s ills.

• The Conservative Blindspot: Often focuses on preserving the “differentiated parts” (traditions, structures, boundaries) while ignoring how those parts must dynamically evolve to serve the whole.
• of The Liberal Blindspot: Often focuses on the “transformative flow” (equality, progress, breaking boundaries) while underestimating the necessity of stable, foundational structures that prevent chaos.

Because both sides view their framework as complete, they perceive the opposing side not as a complementary pole, but as an existential threat to truth.

* * * * * * *

NOTA BENE!

“Because CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS view their framework as complete, they perceive the opposing side not as a complementary pole, but as an existential threat to truth.”

* * * * * * *

THIS DISTRUST THAT ARISES BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS IS THE SOURCE OF CHRONIC DYSFUNCTION IN WESTERN CULTURE SOCIAL DYNAMICS.

1. 3. The Threat of the “Including Mediuum”

To acknowledge a “both/and” logic requires stepping into what philosophers and systems theorists call the including medium or the generative matrix.  This is the larger context — such as the shared ecosystem, the nation, or humanity itself — within which both poles exist.

Recognizing this medium requires two terrifying concessions for a partisan ideologue

• • Loss of Abstolute Control: It forces the realization that neither progress nor preservation can permanently “win.” Transformation is a continuous cycle, not a final destination. 
  • Co-Responsibility: It demands the admission that the opposition is not an error to be eradicated, but a structural necessity.  For example, without the conservative impulse for order, progress dissolves into chaos; without the liberal impulse for change, order calcifies into tyranny. 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

THE MESSAGE IS THAT BECAUSE BOTH THE CONSERVATIVE UNDERSTANDING AND THE LIBERAL UNDERSTANDINGS ARE “INCOMPLETE” IN DIFFERENT WAYS, THE WESTERN CULTURE PRACTICE of ALTERNATIVELY PUTTING ONE, THEN THE OTHER, “IN CHARGE” IS DYSFUNCTIONAL BECAUSE BOTH the CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL UNDERSTANDINGS/OPERATING-SCHEMES ARE WRONG because they are BOTH INCOMPLETE, although in DIFFERENT WAYS that lead to DIFFERENT FORMS OF DISASTER; i.e. LIBERAL LAISSEZ-FAIRE “LACK OF CONTROL” LEADS TO CHAOS while CONSERVATIVE HYPER-CONTROL LEADS TO TYRANNY.

WESTERN CULTURE HAS THE HABIT OF SWITCHING BACK AND FORTH FROM LIBERAL TO CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATIONS….(OH, NO! TOO MUCH CENTRAL CONTROL!… OH NO!  TOO MUCH CHAOS!  THIS IS AKIN TO SISYPHUSI ROLLING HIS MASSIVE STONE UP THE HILL ONLY TO HAVE IT ROLL DOWN AGAIN, FORCING HIM TO KEEP REPEATING THE SAME ERROR OVER AND OVER AGAIN, reminiscent of ;  “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing overa and overa again and expecting different results.”.  

The U.S. ELECTION PROCESS HAS JUST MADE YET ANOTHER FLIP-FLOP FROM CONSERVATISM BACK TO LIBERALISM (OH NO! TOO MUCH TRUMP-DRIVEN CENTRAL CONTROL!) TO GIVE LIBERALISM ANOTHER TRY (OH NO! TOO MUCH CHAOS WE NEED STRONG CENTRAL LEADERSHIP!) WHICH WILL LATER CYCLE BACK TO CONSERVATISM.

PROPONENTS of the OPPOSING CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL SIDES ARE “FRIGHTENED” BY WHERE THE “OTHERS” ARE TAKING US which is why there is a PING-PONGING back and forth between CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL (LIBERAL LAISSEZ-FAIRE “LACK OF CONTROL” LEADS TO CHAOS while CONSERVATIVE HYPER-CONTROL LEADS TO TYRANNY.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS A RISING ABOVE THE LEVEL 3 CONSERVATIVE AWARENESS and RISING ABOVE THE LEVEL 2 LIBERAL AWARENESS TO THE LEVEL 1 TRANSFORMATIONAL AWARENESS LEVEL.

The reason why (we) WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS do not have access to the TRANSFORMATIONAL LEVEL in their (our) linguistic conceptualizing is because BEING-based linguistic conceptualizing is BINARY EITHER/OR LOGIC OF THE EXCLUDED MEDIUM based which is too simple and is unable to support the NONBINARY BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM where the linguistic conceptualizing must support propositions such as THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE wherein EVERYTHING IS IN FLUX, which a flow-based linguistic conceptualizing scheme can deal with, but which a BEING based linguistic conceptualizing scheme CANNOT deal with.

LEVEL 1 AWARENESS of TRANSFORMATION will remain INACCESSIBLE TO WESTERN CULTURE AS LONG AS “BEING” is given a FOUNDATIONAL ROLE in LINGUISTIC CONCEPTUALIZING.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This has been an ACCOUNT OF “WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE BLIND TO, AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR MIDTERM WINS”.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *