As someone who believes that our common WESTERN CULTURE REALITY is putting us on a BUSTRIP TO HELL, … it seems an appropriate thing to do share my views on our DIFFERENT REALITY OPTIONS.


The THREE POPULAR REALITY OPTIONS have been written up by the Austrian – American physicist Erich Jantsch (Design for Evolution).  People perceive the world differently and these THREE LEVELS of REALITY  describe three of the different ways and to cut to the quick I am going to label them Conservative, Liberal and Zen and the Zen could also be labelled, Indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta reality.



The conservative view is where we see ourselves as an independent being with our own powers of authoring actions and developments.  (IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE HOW THESE DIFFERENT REALITY VIEWS TIE TO LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURES).  This COSERVATIVE view accords with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR that implies the power of local authoring of actions and developments. This CONSERVATIVE language architecture (first of two variations on this theme, the MALE ASSERTING version) is a view of reality wherein we say things like ‘the HURRICANE is stirring up the ATMOSPHERE. .


-2- LIBERAL REALITY (level 2):


The liberal reality is where we see ourselves as independent being based GROUPS with our own powers of authoring actions and developments.  This LIBERAL view also accords with the DOUBLE ERROR  of NAMING and GRAMMAR that implies the POWER of LOCAL AUTHORING.  The LIBERAL language architecture (the second of two variations on this them, the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING version) gives a view of reality wherein we say things like the ATMOSPHERE is stirring up the HURRICANE.




Both of these versions of reality employ the notion of LOCAL AUTHORING and while the CONSERVATIVE reality is MALE ASSERTING as in saying that the HURRICANE is STIRRING UP THE ATMOSPHERE which is a MALE AUTHORING impression of reality, the LIBERAL reality is FEMALE ACCOMMODATING as in saying that the ATMOSPHERE is INDUCING the HURRICANE which is a FEMALE AUTHORING impression of reality..




The Zen reality is where THERE IS NO LOCAL AUTHOR, so that there is no division over whether the MALE ASSERTING ‘takes precedence’ (CONSERVATIVE) or the FEMALE INDUCING ‘takes precedence’ (LIBERAL).  The Zen reality is TRANSFORMATION and it is what happens in an OVERALL sense as we can visualize in the HIGH PRESSURE ASSERTING (MALE) and LOW PRESSURE INDUCING (FEMALE) circulations in the earth’s atmosphere.  OVERALL, what is going on is TRANSFORMATION and we can SENSE EXPERIENCE THIS but because we are INCLUDED IN THIS TRANSFORMATION we cannot SEE IT in a VOYEUR VIEWING SENSE and ‘give a LANGUAGE-BASED ACCOUNT of “IT”’, we can only give an account of our sense-experience of inclusion in “it” (TRANSFORMATION).

If we understand that we are included in the all-including WAVE-FIELD which is TRANSFORMATION, and that TRANSFORMATION in  a WAVE-FIELD CONTEXT is ANDROGYNOUS having both MALE-ASSERTING and FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATES, there is NO POINT in arguing amongst ourselves whether WHAT WE ARE SEEING is a HIGH-PRESSURE, MALE-ASSERTING (surplus-pushed) DYNAMIC (CONSERVATIVE REALITY) or a LOW-PRESSURE FEMALE-INDUCTIVE (shortage-pulled) DYNAMIC (LIBERAL VIEW).   The ZEN REALITY is NOT OUT THERE FOR US TO SEE AS IN A VOYEUR VIEWING, as in the case of the CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL VIEW but is the sense-experiencing of inclusion in the overall, all-including TRANSFORMING WAVE-FIELD in which we, and all material forms are CONDENSATIONS.




While there are polarizing ARGUMENTS that derive from conceiving of REALITY on the basis of level 3 (CONSERVATIVE) and level 2 (LIBERAL) both of which are VOYEUR VISUAL PERSPECTIVES of REALITY expressible in language, the ALL-INCLUDING WAVE-FIELD is NOT something that WE CAN SEE OUT THERE IN FRONT OF US because it is the ALL-INCLUDING WAVE-FIELD (1) in which case we can only understand it by way of our ZEN sense-experience of INCLUSION IN THE WAVE-FIELD, or in other words, our ZEN sense experience of INCLUSION IN THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM aka the Tao.

The CONSERVATIVE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL SELF AS A LOCAL ASSERTING SOURCE, for example a LOCAL SOURCE of actions and development (e.g. the HUNTER-PROVIDER), runs counter to the LIBERAL COLLECTIVE SENSE OF SELF as a LOCAL CENTRE OF NEED (the COMMUNITY EMPTY BELLY) which can be a natural complement as in traditional male-family-provider relations, but the natural ‘glue’ in this situation comes from a ‘QUANTUM LOGIC’ awareness of common inclusion within the all-including Tao or Wave-field so that the MALE PROVIDER and FEMALE CONSUMER are NOT understood as TWO POLAR OPPOSITES as in BINARY LOGIC but are understood as CONJUGATE ASPECTS of the ONE WAVE-FIELD DYNAMIC of CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION.   The rise of BINARY LOGIC by way of its being given a foundational role in WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE thus has the makings of a catalyst that REDUCES the less simple QUANTUM LOGIC understanding to the simple BINARY LOGIC misunderstanding.   The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of MALE and FEMALE is the catalyst in question.  There is no such thing as INDEPENDENT BEING in the sense-experience world of inclusion in transformation (i.e. as in the all-including WAVE-FIELD).  BELIEF in the ABSTRACTION of INDEPENDENT BEING fostered by WESTERN CULTURE DOUBLE ERROR of LANGUAGE and GRAMMAR ABSTRACTIONS establishes a SUBSTITUTE REALITY which, in WESTERN CULTURE is now THE OPERATIVE REALITY.

So long as we are TIED UP by TAKING SIDES in ARGUING in favour of EITHER (-3-) the CONSERVATIVE LOCAL AUTHOR REALITY, OR (-2-) the LIBERAL LOCAL AUTHORING REALITY, these TOO-SIMPLE BINARY LOGIC REALITY OPTIONS, the REALITY OPTION -1- of our INCLUSION in the WAVE-FIELD (our inclusion in TRANSFORMATION) will not be “on our radar screen” and we will instead stay focused (mesmerized) on the resolving of the LOCAL AUTHORING based BINARY SPLIT as to whether MALE ASSERTING (how providers fill the empty bellies of consumers) generates REALITY or whether our FEMALE ACCOMMODATING (how consumers empty bellies motivate providers) generates reality.  By considering the MALE ASSERTING and FEMALE ACCOMMODATING as TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT DYNAMICS we generate BINARY LOGIC POLARIZING ABSTRACTION.  QUANTUM LOGIC resolves the apparent polar opposition within WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION.  We can’t PRICTURE THIS as in visual perception of FORMS OUT THERE IN FRONT OF US, because we are INCLUDED IN TRANFORMATION and it is in CONTINUAL FLUX, so that our awareness of it is coming through our sense-experience primed INTUITION.

* * *

Both OPTIONS -3- and -2- are LOCAL and EXPLICIT ACTIONS and DEVELOPMENTS.  HOWEVER, level -3- is distinctly different and in -3- we imagine the ASSERTING LEADER organizing by DIRECTING the crowd to construct a new development, while in -2- we imagine the ACCOMMODATING LEADER organizing by SEDUCING the crowd to participate in filling a hole (satisfying a need).  In both -3- and -2- realities, there will be LOCAL, EXPLICIT GOALS that give sense to the organizing of the social collective such as the reality level -3- asserting construction of a football stadium or the reality level -2- filling the empty bellies and sheltering the poor and homeless. In both realities, LOCAL AUTHORING is seen as playing a foundational role and the overview of how the plenum we all share inclusion in may be OVERLOOKED because it is beyond the reach of language.


In the REALITY -1- Zen reality option, we go beyond the EITHER conservative OR liberal limitations of BINARY LOGIC and it is no longer about double error of naming and grammar ‘how we do things around here’, but INSTEAD, how our movements within the relational dynamics we share inclusion in support the cultivating of balance or resonance.  There is NO LOCAL AUTHORING here but as we know even from driving in the flow of a busy freeway, in moving relative to others, we can move so as to contribute to the cultivating of relational resonance and harmony, or move so as contribute to the cultivating of relational dissonance and conflict.  In REALITY -1-  EGO DROPS OUT as we open our awareness of being included in the transforming relational continuum or ‘one with everything’ as this reality level is sometimes expressed.  Here we are aware that we do NOT have powers of local authoring as when we make it appear so LINGUISTICALLY with the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR, but because we are included in the all-including WAVE-FIELD, which is composed of relational harmonies and dissonances, we are able to move relationally so as to cultivate  relational harmonies and attenuate the relational dissonance or vice versa.


Because this level -1- reality is one of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, it is beyond capture in words, and as Wittgenstein observes in his final proposition exploring reality in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,


(Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”)

‘Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent’


That is, because our moving so as to feed harmonies and starve dissonances are not ‘separate’ but included in the transforming relational continuum, there is no record of our actions.


“They were upright and correct without knowing that to be so was righteous. They loved one another without knowing that to do so was benevolence. They were sincere without knowing that to do so was loyalty. They kept their promises without knowing that to do so was to be in good faith. They helped one another without thought of giving or receiving gifts. Thus their actions left no trace and we have no records of their affairs” – Chuang Tzu


If there is no record of our actions, where do we get the actions that we do speak of, as if they ARE OUR ACTIONS?  Level 3 and Level 2 actions are available in language based representations but it is our level 1 actions that are bound up in transformation that Chuang Tzu is talking about.  They are like our actions within the flow of traffic that can make a real difference by cultivating relational harmony and subsuming relational dissonance.  Since there is NO local authoring in the transforming relational continuum yet the resonances and dissonances are real and we can speak of them improving with the incorporating of a new participant or deteriorating even though there is no chance of identifying a local, explicit author within a nonlocal and implicit dynamic.

When the synchronized swim team or the aerobatics team coordinate their actions so as to simulate an opening lotus blossom, the relational coherency that is achieved is holistic and not the sum of the parts, therefore we can assess the relational dynamics of the groups but not those of the individual member.  All participants can let their movements be in the service of cultivating overall harmony of the group which means moving so as to subsume what might have been called, without such action, an ‘error’ ascribed to an individual.  If one dinner guest drinks from his fingerbowl, there is only harmony and no dissonance where everyone makes the same move so as to cultivate and sustain harmony.


* * *




So, this has been a brief review of how we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS divide into separate groups on the basis of how we USE LANGUAGE and how we DO NOT USE LANGUAGE in our conceptualizing of ‘reality’.

What is missed is the foundational reality of inclusion in WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION.  Since we are INCLUDED IN TRANSFORMATION and while we can sense our inclusion in it, we cannot “SEE TRANSFORMATION” out there in front of us and thus we cannot capture TRANSFORMATION in terms of language based on LOCAL and EXPLICIT forms and their movements and interactions.

The reality of TRANSFORMATION draws comments such as Wittgenstein’s Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent’ but that does not imply that can ignore it, and yet that has been our WESTERN CULTURE folly which is to do just that, to ignore the all-encompassing reality of WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION and seek dependency on language-based representations of reality which are innately incomplete in the manner that Goedel’s Theorem speaks to the INCOMPLETENESS of all finite logical propositions.  We can’t capture in local, explicit terms the reality of the all-including WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION that we are included in.

OUR MISTAKE IS TO BELIEVE that LANGUAGE based on the LOCAL and EXPLICIT “DOUBLE ERROR” conceptualizations of NAMING and GRAMMAR can SUBSTITUTE for our SENSE-EXPERIENCE REALITY of INCLUSION in TRANFORMATION.  That is, OUR MISTAKE is to our deployment of LOCAL and EXPLICIT language based REPRESENTATION of a SUBSTITUTE REALITY as our OPERATIVE REALITY.  NO!  THE TOWN IS “NOT” GROWING!  We are included in TRANSFORMATION  wherein there is TOWNING and we are in error when we PULL OUT OF THE HAT LIKE THEM MAGICIAN’S RABBIT, a TOWN-THING-IN-ITSELF as if it were possible to grab hold of a TOWNING IN THE TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE and ‘hold it up by its ears’  as if it were a LOCAL, EXPLICIT THING-IN-ITSELF as language based reduction to abstraction can make it seem.


OK, so we can use language and grammar to construct synthetic LINGUISTIC SUBSTITUTE REALITIES that are useful for linguistic representation-based sharing purposes, NOT THAT what we are sharing with linguistic substitute reality fabrications can ever capture the equivalent of our sense-experiencing of reality, particularly since the linguistic representations are VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS of what is OUT THERE IN FRONT OF US ACCESSIBLE TO OUR VOYEUR PERSEPECTIVE, and falls far short of reproducing our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD reality.  While indigenous aboriginal languages incorporate a fluid foundation as in ‘there is TOWNING in the transforming landscape’, the language that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS have architected is BEING-based as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING products etc.’.  NEITHER of these language based representations come close to capturing and conveying impressions of our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, but it is clear that our WESTERN CULTURE language architecture which gives a foundational role the LOCAL and EXPLICIT is confusing us users, unlike the INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL language architecture which preserves the foundational role of NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMATION as in ‘there is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.

Language is unable to ‘go the distance’ and capture the reality of our sense-experience of INCLUSION IN TRANSFORMATION (our inclusion in the WAVE-FIELD aka the transforming relational continuum), but because we struggle to get language to do the impossible anyway, it can be a crazy-maker.  As Wittgenstein points out, since PHILOSOPHY attempts to get to the bottom of things and provide a full explanation, there are problems because PHILOSOPHY is stuck with having to us language and language has basic limitations;;

Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen die Verhexung  unsres Verstandes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache” (Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.)” – Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

We have to get to an understanding that lies beyond the reach of language and while such understanding can come to us through our sense-experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION, which, being in continual flux, is beyond capture in language yet available to our sense-experience.  So while we may attempt to capture our sense-experience of inclusion in TRANSFORMATION in terms of language, this is innately impossible, therefore, it makes sense to accept the primacy of the NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT over the LOCAL and EXPLICIT, something that indigenous aboriginal languages and cultures do, as well as Taoists/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta adherents, but something that we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS DO NOT DO, having chosen to instead put the LOCAL and EXPLICIT into precedence over the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT, hence the LOGCAL and EXPLICIT ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING products’ … INSTEAD OF the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT ‘There is TOWNING in the TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE’.

NEITHER of these different forms of language can capture the sense-experience affirmed reality of the all-including TRANSFORMATION (WAVE-FIELD DYNAMIC) but language which has a NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT foundation KEEPS THE DOOR OPEN so that the listener can use the NONLOAL and IMPLICIT relations to support an INTUITIVE LEAP into the reality of the all-including WAVE-FIELD TRANSFORMATION, whereas that entrance is SHUT OFF by embracing the LOCAL and EXPLICIT constructions of reality in such terms as ‘the TOWN is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING products etc.’

If we can VISUALIZE the LOCAL and EXPLICIT ‘TOWN that is GROWING, DEVELOPING and PRODUCING stuff, we can no longer see the innate primacy of the CONTINUALLY TRANSFORMING LANDSCAPE in which TOWNING is a relational forming in the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT TRANSFORMING CONTINUUM.

WE WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS, thanks to our CAE LANGUAGE ARCHITECTURE, are LOCKED IN to the LOCAL and EXPLICT form of representation with its LOCAL and EXPLICIT NAMING and GRAMMAR based features hat seem to have a life of their own as if situated within an ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE OF INFINITE EXTENT.


* * *

No matter the quality of the language architecture, it is not going to be able to capture our sense-experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the WAVE-FIELD and so what we are faced with is;

(Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen”)

‘Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent’  — Wittgenstein

But yes, we do have the tool of relational languages such as the indigenous aboriginal languages that can serve as a SPRINGBOARD to stimulate and intuitive leap to a sense of inclusion in transformation, an intuitive approach akin to the ‘learning circle’ of indigenous aboriginals where the understanding of inclusion in one all including (WAVE-FIELD) transformation is intuited in the coherencies found when a diversity of accounts of innately related sense-experience when these are brought into connective confluence as in the ‘learning circle’.  No-one is able to capture in language the understandings that derive from learning-circle participation because they are intuitive leaps into how we are included within the transforming relational continuum.

* * *