PROLOGUE: The findings in this philosophical investigation are expressed in this language; i.e. English, which has a Common Average European Language Architecture that lacks the sufficient complexity to express its own shortfalls since it now lacks the comprehensive reach it would need to address the complexity which it was precipitated from by way of simplification.  That is, this current English language employs a simplified architecture which no longer HAS THE MEANS to craft representations of the complex reality that ENGLISH now consistently DUMBS DOWN in order to convey it in the limited terms of ENGLISH.

The DUMBING DOWN built into ENGLISH and the CAE languages is by giving BINARY LOGIC a foundational role in the language, putting QUANTUM LOGIC, which is more complex, beyond the REPRESENTATIONAL CAPABILITY of English.  For example, We can speak of QUANTUM LOGIC as if it were something accessible to understanding, which it is, but that is not the same as being able to build QUANTUM LOGIC based linguistic representations wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.   Supposing one can see that TOWN and COUNTRY are only one, or that in general, INHABITANT and HABITAT are only ONE as is the implication of QUANTUM LOGIC.

When we go to talk about dynamics in this ENGLISH LANGUAGE, we only have a NOUN and VERB structure to work with so while we can put together words that express the idea that the INHABITANT moves through the HABITAT, ENGLISH lacks the capability of directly expressing TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE rather than TWO as in a WAVE-FIELD or FLOW where there is no longer ONE THING moving THROUGH ANOTHER THING. 

First, it is useful to speak to the GROWTH of the FIGURE and only separately speak to the SHRINKAGE of the WILDERNESS.  But IN SENSE EXPERIENCE REALITY, there is only ONE thing going on and it is TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE which captures BOTH at the SAME TIME.  The BOTH/AND LOGIC of the INCLUDING MEDIUM is QUANTUM LOGIC which doesn’t NEED to DUMB the talk DOWN to BINARY LOGIC based terms of an INDEPENDENT FIGURE that is separate from an INDEPENDENT GROUND.   But we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have a LANGUAGE-based REPRESENTATION scheme which DOES EMPLOY BINARY LOGIC based FRAGMENTATION.   In sense-experience reality, TRANSFORMATION is DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE-ABLE regardless of what LANGUAGE is and is not capable of REPRESENTING.

BECAUSE ENGLISH is constrained to BINARY LOGIC based REPRESENTATION wherein something “EITHER” IS “OR” IS NOT and is not architectured to deal with REPRESENTATION wherein something”BOTH” IS “AND” IS NOT as in TRANSFORMATION, there can be no expression, in ENGLISH, of TRANSFORMATION that is all-inclusive (that implies to all of reality).   In English language based representation “TRANSFORMATION” can only apply to a FIGURE in the GROUND where FIGURE and GROUND are TWO so that while TRANSFORMATION could apply to the FIGURE and the GROUND separately, TRANSFORMATION where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE as in QUANTUM LOGIC is not directly expressible in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE because ENGLISH LANGUAGE based REPRESENTATIONS are BINARY LOGIC based and thus treat FIGURES as INDEPENDENT of GROUND.

LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES that can directly handle QUANTUM LOGIC wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, such as Algonquin, are flow-based and do not start from a BINARY LOGIC based foundation of NAME-based THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR animated powers of GROWTH and PRODUCTION as if living in a GROUND that is INDEPENDENT of the FIGURE.  In a QUANTUM LOGIC reality, FIGURE and GROUND are only ONE so that it is impossible to use language that employs representation based in the MALE ASSERTIVE TERMS of WHAT THINGS DO.  Once such BINARY LOGIC based language is employed, a SUBSTITUTE REALITY is CONSTRUCTED wherein the abstraction of FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO becomes the notional operative reality.

* * *  end of PROLOGUE  * * *



In all of these recent notes, including those pointing to problems with the COVID 19 immunization strategy, there is the suggestion of a common SUBSTITUTE REALITY which the reader may not ‘detect’ because it is our WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY that we are currently using as our OPERATIVE REALITY.




So, the SUBSTITUTE REALITY that we are using is a REDUCTION of our SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY in the sense that when we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, it is a kind of VOYEUR VIEW of something that is BEYOND CAPTURE by voyeur viewing.


SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY IS something that continues around and behind and above and below us that we are included in; i.e. we are included in the transforming relational continuum.  This SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY that is beyond capture by voyeur viewing is THE REAL REALITY from the point of view of Modern physics and also from the point of view of indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  The adjective “REAL” in front of ‘REALITY’ is used here to emphasize that we use language to construct  REPRESENTATIONS of sense-experience, or in other words language-based SUBSTITUTE REALITIES which differ in their approach to conveying SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY.  For example, the “EASTERN” approach is to use language to construct relations-based impressions of reality without using NAME-based LOCAL OBJECTS, while the “WESTERN” approach is to construct LOCAL OBJECT based scenarios.  For example, the EASTERN CULTURE language representations are in such terms as ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE while the WESTERN CULTURE language representations  are in such terms as ‘the TOWN that is GROWING larger and more populous and productive’.

NOTE that the WESTERN CULTURE language representations are based on ALL CONTENT AND NO CONTEXT while the EASTERN CULTURE language representations are based on CONTEXT WHICH INCLUDES, IMPLICITLY, CONTENT.


For example, where one says ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’, there is information in such representation that spans both CONTENT and CONTAINER (INHABITANT and HABITAT).  HERE we see the use of QUANTUM LOGIC , the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.


BUT in the case of the ‘the TOWN is growing larger and more populous and productive’, we see BINARY LOGIC, the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO.


In the REALITY we construct REPRESENTATIONS of using BINARY LOGIC, we SEPARATE OUT THE FIGURE from the GROUND and continue to use the FIGURE in the REPRESENTATION as if it ‘existed in its own separate right’, IGNORING the GROUND as in the example ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous and productive’.


In the REALITY we construct REPRESENTATIONS of using QUANTUM LOGIC, the FIGURE and GROUND remain ONE and MEANING is in the relational understanding of reality as in ‘There is TOWNING in the transforming LANDSCAPE (i.e. the transforming relational continuum’).


In the philosophical writings of Nietzsche, we see here difference between the APOLLONIAN (FIGURE and GROUND-as-TWO such that the FIGURE’s SEPARATE STATUS ‘takes over’) and the DIONYSIAN (FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-ONE so that the relational ONE-ness ‘takes over’).  This is a layover to the difference between BINARY LOGIC and QUANTUM LOGIC which gives an EMOTIONAL SENSE of these TWO WAYS of understanding OURSELVES.  As Nietzsche points out, WE DO NOT HAVE CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER as in BINARY LOGIC but can CHOOSE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.


The suggested NON-DUALITY shows up in Modern physics wherein the particle is understood as a CONDENSATION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, a reality that requires QUANTUM LOGIC, the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium.  This QUANTUM LOGIC understanding is already present in the works of Roger Boscovich

‘The Theory of Natural Philosophy’ (1758), who has been described by modern physicists as being “200 years ahead of his time”.  Boscovich’s theory builds on nonduality (matter-field equivalence) aka QUANTUM LOGIC.


The SUBSTITUTE REALITY that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are always ‘talking in terms of is ONE-SIDED, MALE-ASSERTING dynamics based; e.g. ‘the TOWN is GROWNING’.


The REALITY PRESENTATIONS in Indigenous aboriginal languages, by contrast, instead employ QUANTUM LOGIC whereby ‘THERE IS TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.   While the WESTERN REPRESENTATION is LOCAL and EXPLICIT as in BINARY LOGIC, the EASTERN REPRESENTATION is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT as in QUANTUM LOGIC.  This is the difference that has been discussed by Nietzsche in terms of the APOLLONIAN and the DIONYSIAN which gives us a sense of an ‘emotions-based’ way of understanding NONDUALITY.   Here we can see how it would be possible to ‘go with’ “EITHER” one “OR” the other of the APOLLONIAN or DIONYSIAN options but only if we HAVE OUR BINARY LOGIC EYEGLASSES ON, whereas if we HAVE OUR QUANTUM LOGIC EYEGLASSES ON, we can see the APOLLONIAN and DIONYSIAN as dual aspects of ONE REALITY, in the manner that we can understand the material particle as a CONDENSATION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD.


In this case, REALITY is like a HOLOGRAM in that the seemingly ‘LOCAL’ material figures are NOT LOCAL, but are APPEARANCES in the NONLOCAL all-pervading electromagnetic field as can be understood in terms of the Modern physics finding that matter is a condensation of the electronic field.  The only BASIC REALITY is the NONLOCAL FIELD CONTINUUM while the LOCAL-APPEARING forms which our VISION can orient to and impute MOTION and GROWTH and PRODUCTION of actions and developments to, is SECONDARY in that it is APPEARANCE based and if were to use our LANGUAGE to grant PRIMARY REALITY status to flow-forms, which amounts to our employing BINARY LOGIC to split out the FIGURE from the GROUND and give the FIGURE a notional ‘LIFE OF ITS OWN’, we would be constructing REPRESENTATIONS  of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY that would no longer be GROUNDED IN SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY.


In other words, QUANTUM LOGIC wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE is consistent with our SENSE-EXPERIENCE while BINARY LOGIC wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO is NOT CONSISTENT with our SENSE-EXPERIENCE but is nevertheless available to our INTELLECTUAL CONSTRUCTIONS and our BINARY LOGIC based manipulations as may deliver a SUBSTITUTE REALITY in our MINDS which we could use to direct our actions and developments.   In this case, we could ‘construct a TOWN’ or even a ‘NATION’ and understand it as if it were a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of AUTHORING actions and developments. THIS FRAGMENTATION is DELUSIONAL but, as Bohm points out, it is endemic in our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY because it is given a foundational role in our language based representations.


FOR RE-GROUNDING REFERENCE, we can think of the APOLLONIAN in terms of ‘the TOWN is GROWING LARGER and MORE POPULOUS and PRODUCTIVE’ which is MALE-ASSERTIVE and the DIONYSIAN in terms ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.   In the APOLLONIAN view, everything is LOCAL and EXPLICIT while in the DIONYSIAN view, everything is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational, fluid).




This everyday, WESTERN CULTURE CRAZY-MAKING REPRESENTATION of REALITY is by way of MALE ASSERTIVE ABSTRACTIONS and the DROP OUT of FEMALE-INDUCTIVE ABSTRACTIONS.  Because the FEMALE aspect is something we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS “DROP OUT”, it becomes a kind of haunting afterthought, the DEA ABSCONDITA.   For example, we say that the HURRICANE stirs up the ATMOSPHERE and this is the MALE-ASSERTIVE understanding of the dynamic reality.  But in the ‘back of our minds, there may be the nagging question, … is it not also the case that the ATMOSPHERE may be inductively stirring up the HURRICANE?   Similarly, we say that the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous and productive, and this is the MALE-ASSERTIVE understanding of the dynamic reality which may cause us worry, in ‘the back of our mind’ as to the implicit (not explicitly stated) CONJUGATGE SHRINKAGE of WILDERNESS.


That is; … WHAT ABOUT THE SPACE THIS MALE-ASSERTING takes place in?  Is there not a FEMALE ASPECT which might be encouraging the MALE ASSERTING, … or perhaps even PULLING THE MALE ASPECT INTO ACTION?


These are very basic or archetypal ‘geometries’ that we all have ‘in us’ that we can use to ‘make sense’ of things and how we may choose to include or exclude use of them differs by culture.  While indigenous aboriginal cultures embrace a QUANTUM LOGIC  two-sided FLOW-based conception of reality wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have opted for a BINARY LOGIC one-sided MALE-ASSERTIVE conception of reality wherein FIGURE and GROUND are TWO where we then DROP OUT the FEMALE INDUCTIVE conjugate.  That is, reality that is TRANSFORMATION based does not SPLIT APART the FLOW (the WAVE-FIELD or the TAO) into separate MALE and FEMALE components, however, that splitting is exactly what we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DO and we follow up by simply DROPPING OUT the FEMALE component and retaining the MALE component as our OPERATIVE REALITY.


We WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are firmly entrenched in this habit of SPLITTING where we select the MALE ASSERTIVE aspect and employ it as our OPERATIVE REALITY; i.e. a REALITY that is EXPLICIT and based on LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with GRAMMAR given powers of AUTHORING actions and developments. This is captured in language based representation with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as pointed out by Nietzsche.  This is where we say ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous and PRODUCTIVE’.


NOTA BENE: This is where we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS construct our SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on the ONE-SIDED ABSTRACTION of MALE-ASSERTIVE actions and developments, as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING larger and more populous and PRODUCTIVE.


This ONE-SIDED MALE ASSERTIVE construction of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY builds on FOUR abstract concepts; the concept of LOCAL which establishes ‘the PLACE’, the concept of BEING (thanks NAMING that creates a notional THING-in-ITSELF) which establishes  the EXISTENCE of some LOCAL THING, then the concept of GROWING which implies local authoring of a developing form, and concept of PRODUCTION, which implies local authoring of something ‘outside-of itself’ as where  a chicken lays an egg.  Note the ONE-SIDED RATIO or REASON based development of an active FIGURE here which is on its own and without INCLUSION in a broader ‘ground’ of context.


AS WE CAN SEE, it is possible to CONSTRUCT A SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on a MALE-ASSERTIVE construction method as just described, with the abstractions of LOCAL, BEING, GROWING and PRODUCTION.




We might think of these two conjugates as a FOUNTAIN and as a SINKHOLE or as volcanic extrusions and subduction zones “ON A PLANET” which is in quotes because since there is continuing TRANSFORMATION, the coniunctio oppositorum of extrusion and subduction CONSTITUTES “PLANETING; i.e. there is no PLANET-AS-LOCAL AUTHOR of the EXTRUSION and SUBDUCTION.  INSTEAD, the EXTRUDING AND SUBDUCTING “IS” THE “PLANETING”


What we are talking about here is TRANSFORMATION and how, in language-based representation, it can be DECOMPOSED into MALE-ASSERTIVE and FEMALE-INDUCTIVE CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS.


The point here, as stated above, is that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS  CHOSE TO CONSTRUCT A SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on a MALE-ASSERTIVE construction method as just described, with the abstractions of LOCAL, BEING, GROWING and PRODUCTION.


As a result, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are ‘haunted’, in our psychological conceptualizing, by the DEA ABSCONDITA; i.e. by the FEMALE ASPECT OF REALITY that we have ABANDONED in our ONE-SIDED orientation to the MALE-ASSERTIVE.   To say that ‘the TOWN is GROWING says NOTHING about the ACCOMMODATING on the part of the LANDSCAPE.  In fact the statement that ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ implies ABSOLUTE, FIXED, EMPTY and INFINITE EUCLIDIAN SPACE FRAMING, since we have now SPLIT OUT ‘the TOWN’ as if it were a MALE-ASSERTIVE LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with its own powers of GROWTH and PRODUCTION.


As far are our WESTERN CULTURE language architecture is concerned, dynamics are purely one-sidedly MALE-ASSERTIVE while the FEMALE INDUCTIVE IS DROPPED OUT ENTIRELY.  In other words, the SUBSTITUTE REALITY we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS create with language is exclusively MALE-ASSERTIVE.


* * *



The indigenous aboriginal cultures, along with Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have chosen language architectures that are FLOW-based.


REFERRING BACK to the MALE-FEMALE representational options in language architecture


It is possible to CONSTRUCT A SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on a MALE-ASSERTIVE construction method with the abstractions of LOCAL, BEING, GROWING and PRODUCTION.




What does this say about REALITY?


It says a few things;


-1- Accepting the ineffable nature of sense-experience reality.   Our sense-experience reality seems to be of our inclusion in a flow aka a transforming relational continuum aka a WAVE-FIELD (the Tao) which, by this nature of things, it would be impossible to capture in language since everything is in continual flux including the sensible experient.


-2- Indigenous aboriginal cultures have developed QUANTUM LOGIC FLOW-based language architectures that use relational inference to allude to the flow; e.g. there is Towning in the transforming landscape.  This representation is QUANTUM LOGIC based where FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.  This relational language architecture is capable of describing fluid forms without imposing the “BURDEN OF CONCRETENESS” on the forms


-3- WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, aka the Common Average European languages as Whorf refers to them, REDUCE sense-experience reality to a BINARY LOGIC based SUBSTITUTE REALITY featuring a MALE-ASSERTIVE construction method employing the abstractions of LOCAL, BEING, GROWING and PRODUCTION.




-1- FRAGMENTATION: As David Bohm and Friedrich Nietzsche have both pointed out, our CAE language architecture, by setting up notional LOCAL BEINGS with GRAMMAR given powers of AUTHORING actions and development FRAGMENTS the REPRESENTATION of sense-experience reality.  By making statements such as ‘the TOWN is GROWING’ or the ROCK is FALLING, we put the REPRESENTATION on a MALE ASSERTIVE path within a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which makes NO MENTION of the TRANSFORMATION of the LANDSCAPE; i.e. the GROWTH of the TOWN implies a conjugate female accommodating by the WILDERNESS which is not comprehended in the male-assertive statement.  The ROCK is FALLING implies a female conjugate hole in the rock face which is not comprehended in the male-assertive statement.


-2- The MALE-assertive representation structure implies LOCAL AUTHORING which supports the allocation of responsibility for events which may be “EITHER” constructive (and thus meriting of rewards and recognition) “OR” destructive (and thus meriting of punishment and denigration). This BINARY LOGIC is a cultural habitual assumption.


-3- The one-sided imputing of MALE-assertive AUTHORING introduces a ‘phantom’ ambiguity (the DEA ABSCONDITA) which divides WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS into polarized, mutually opposing groups on phenomena that are perceived as LOCALLY AUTHORED.  For example, does the HURRICANE stir up the ATMOSPHERE or does the ATMOSPHERE stir up the HURRICANE?   Note that while there seems to be a ‘female’ influence option here, as in the example of conservative and liberal politics, both poles orient to the achieving of male-assertive action, the difference being that the conservative supports the male-assertive action of a single individual as leader (be it male or female) while the liberal supports the male-assertive action of a social collective as leader.


* * * OVERALL, WESTERN CULTURE Common Average European language representations serve up a SUBSTITUTE REALITY based on a MALE-ASSERTIVE construction method employing the abstractions of LOCAL, BEING, GROWING and PRODUCTION


What ‘GOES MISSING’ in this case is the CONJUGATE FLIP-SIDE of this which would be the FEMININE ACCOMMODATING which involves the abstractions of NONLOCAL, NONBEING, ACCOMMODATING, and CONSUMING. 


NOTE THAT TRANSFORMATION as involves QUANTUM LOGIC does not involve a GENDER SPLITTING of reality as WESTERN CULTURE SUBSTITUTE REALITY does.  Likewise there is no equivalent in the indigenous aboriginal language representations, to this WESTERN CULTURE GENDER SPLITTING of reality.


* * * *


Since our WESTERN CULTURE social collective employs language that is already REDUCED to MALE conjugate only, the language is inherently lacking in the discriminating power needed to probe gender based problems in the language because the language we are using for the investigation lacks the complex conjugate interrogative capacity that is required.  This is not to say that intuitive leaps cannot be made, only that speaking in terms of TOWNS GROWING cannot, at the same time, climb up and stand on its own shoulders to see the larger context of LANDSCAPES TRANSFORMING.


In short, we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS are working with a language that is inducing fragmentation and general confusion, and at the same time, obscuring our awareness of the reality that language is the problem so that we continue to use this language-that-is-the-problem to try to formulate ways to identify and solve the problem.


* * *