Why the REALITY of the EAST is MORE REAL than the REALITY of the WEST

Why the REALITY of the EAST is MORE REAL than the REALITY of the WEST

Or, to be more blunt, ‘How the REALITY of the WEST is a Crazy-Maker

The following ‘observations’, in my view, support this proposition that the ‘REALITY OF THE EAST ‘makes sense’ while the ‘REALITY OF THE WEST’ ‘makes no sense’ and is a ‘crazy-maker’.

By the ‘REALITY OF THE EAST’, I mean the view of reality in terms of the BOTH/AND logic of the INCLUDED medium where the difference between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ (inhabitant and habitat) is APPEARANCE.

By the ‘REALITY OF THE WEST’, I mean the view of reality in terms of the EITHER/OR logic of the EXCLUDED medium where the distinction between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ (inhabitant and habitat) is ontological.

(-1-) The BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’ would have us understand the distinction between FIGURE AND GROUND as ‘appearance’ as with relational forms within a common flow-field or transforming relational continuum where everything is in flux.

(-2-) The EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium of the ‘WEST’ would have us understand the distinction between FIGURE and GROUND in terms of two mutually exclusive ‘things-in-themselves’ (each one an independent ontological ‘thing-in-itself’).

While the understanding of REALITY as in (-1-) is fluid and without dependency on the abstraction of ‘being’, the understanding of REALITY as in (-2-) depends on the abstraction of ‘being’ (the notional existence of ‘things-in-themselves’).

In my view, the one ‘sensible’ understanding of REALITY is the understanding in terms of the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’.

It is a ‘sensible’ REALITY since it is an understanding that is consistent with and supported by our ‘sensory experience’ of inclusion in the continuing world-flow wherein everything is in flux, including ourselves, as Heraclitus noted.

The REALITY of the WEST; i.e. the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium is based on intellectual abstraction featuring notional permanently existing things-in-themselves that come into being (are ‘created’) and pass out of being (are destroyed).

In the REALITY of the WEST, we speak of ‘the birth of an island’ such as Surtsey’, when the physical reality is instead relational transformation.

NONLOCALITY characterizes the REALITY of the EAST while the WEST’s concept of the LOCAL thing-in-itself is abstraction introduced into the psyche by ‘naming’ a relational form in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. there are not LOCAL things-in-themselves where ‘FIGURE AND GROUND’ are understood in the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’.

In the REALITY of the WEST, we make use of name-instantiated things-in-themselves as a means of reducing the purely flow based transforming relational continuum to easily discussable terms.  Where there is ‘duning’ we are at a loss to get more specific about what is going on, unless we break the relational continuum down into pseudo-LOCAL pieces as where we speak of ‘dunes’ as if they were ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments; e.g. ‘the dunes are growing longer and higher and are shifting to the south’.   What we are describing is the NONLOCAL phenomenon of ‘resonance’ or ‘wave-field dynamics’ and since nonlocal phenomena are ineffable, use the abstracting power of language and grammar to reduce the nonlocal forming to LOCAL FORMS we call ‘dunes’.

This reduction technique, Nietzsche has pointed out, is a ‘double error’ of language and grammar; the first error is to use ‘naming’ to imputing thing-in-itself being to a relational flow-form, and we conflate this with a second error of grammar wherein we impute the power of sourcing actions and development to name-instantiated thing-in-itself (the first error).

The general template for our WESTERN constructing of REALITY follows this pattern of abstract invention based on the double error.

This allows us to reduce the NONLOCAL fluid dynamic of the REALITY of our sensory experience; e.g. of inclusion in resonance as in duning, to an abstract LOCAL material dynamic featuring notional name-instantiated things-in-themselves.  There is a FIGURE and GROUND splitting that comes into play here, since when we use naming to impute thing-in-itself (ontological) being to the ‘dune’ and add grammar to impute to it its own powers of action and development, we make it into a ‘FIGURE’ that is now split off from the ‘GROUND’, forcing us to invent a name for the GROUND, in this case ‘the desert floor’.

In reality, FIGURE and GROUND are ONE.  In modern physics, ‘SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE’  (Schroedinger, Bohm).

There is no doubt that language that LOCALIZES the NONLOCAL dynamics of our SENSORY REALITY of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is a very handy tool since it reduces the ineffable to ‘something’ effable (i.e. a reduced, abstracted impression of reality).  For example, reducing ‘duning’ to ‘dunes’ understood as LOCAL things-in-themselves with powers of sourcing their own actions and development, … is such a tool the reduces the ineffable to something effable.

Language and grammar that allows me to say; ‘The dune is growing larger, shifting to the south and is in the process of burying your tent and provisions is very useful and I fully support it.  What is not so useful is the phraseology; “I am growing larger, shifting to the south am in the process of burying your tent and provisions’.  Like ‘duning’, ‘humaning’ is relational development within the transforming relational continuum and as such is NONLOCAL and INEFFABLE (or as Bohm would say, duning manifests the ineffable implicate ordering in nature that we must reduce to ‘explicate’ order to render it effable.  The reductive tool of language and grammar is very useful in this regard.  It is exemplary of the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium.

AS I HAVE SAID,

In my view, the one ‘sensible’ understanding of REALITY is the understanding in terms of the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium of the ‘EAST’.

I didn’t say ‘DON’T USE EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium’, … I said don’t use EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium for the understanding of REALITY.

I you tell me that ‘the dune is growing longer and higher and shifting to the south where my tent is’, I will get what you mean and find your reduction from NONLOCAL to LOCAL dynamics (from implicate to explicate order) a very useful tool.

BUT IF YOU TELL ME THAT ‘YOU ARE GROWING LARGER, SHIFTING TO THE SOUTH AND ARE BURYING MY TENT AND PROVISIONS’, … I will have to call you out on this as I could have called you out when you reduced ‘duning’ to a ‘dune’ that you animated with the double error of language and grammar FOR THE EXPEDIENT OF SIMPLIFYING OUR LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR BASED COMMUNICATING.

Now you are applying this double-error based simplification to YOURSELF as a humaning in the transforming relational continuum, making yourself out to be a LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF with YOUR OWN POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (per the double error of language and grammar aka the ‘producer-product’ abstraction).

It is one thing to use the tool of double error-based reduction on the ‘duning’ so as to impute to it LOCAL producer-product powers, but quite another to use it on yourself as a humaning, to impute to yourself LOCAL producer-product powers.  If you start saying things like ‘I produced 50,000 bushels of wheat this year’, this is one of those double error based constructions that makes it sound as if you were the jumpstart source of actions and developments that resulted in this 50,000 bushels of wheat, … YOU WERE NOT, but this abstract producer-product REASONING is where WESTERN ego comes from.

NOTE:  Nietzsche quote on the deceptiveness of ‘reason’ in philosophy — (Proposition 5 in Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols.

Chapter 5.

“Reason” in Philosophy

At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say “we” for politeness’ sake.) Formerly, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, conversely, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error. So certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things–only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.

Very much later, in a world which was in a thousand ways more enlightened, philosophers, to their great surprise, became aware of the sureness, the subjective certainty, in our handling of the categories of reason: they concluded that these categories could not be derived from anything empirical–for everything empirical plainly contradicted them. Whence, then, were they derived?

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

… CONTINUATION from before the quote, repeating a paragraph to get re-started;

It is one thing to use the tool of double error-based reduction on the ‘duning’ so as to impute to it LOCAL producer-product powers, but quite another to use it on yourself as a humaning, to impute to yourself LOCAL producer-product powers.  If you start saying things like ‘I produced 50,000 bushels of wheat this year’, this is one of those double error based constructions that makes it sound as if you were the jumpstart source of actions and developments that resulted in this 50,000 bushels of wheat, … YOU WERE NOT, but this abstract producer-product REASONING is where WESTERN ego comes from.

WHERE WEST DEPARTS FROM EAST IS RIGHT HERE!

As I mentioned, I am now of the understanding of the EAST so I, too, use the producer-product language because it LOCALIZES action and because the reality wherein dynamics are NONLOCAL is ineffable.  But that doesn’t mean I have to ‘let the tool run away with the worker’ as is the common WESTERN screw-up.  I can tell you a lot about ‘producing oil’ but without mentioning how surface lands are collapsing as oil is being extracted and how pollution is increasing as the produced oil is burned and how petroleum fuelled metal vehicles are clogging up the surface of the earth and the lower portions of the atmosphere.

It’s enough to make one think that we should be talking about ‘transformation’ rather than in ‘producer-product’ (double error) terms.  Is ‘production’ a ‘real’ concept?  Does it not sound as if ‘something is missing’ when we mouth the word ‘production’?  Do you see what I see?, … Seismic crews all over the place making soundings to find oil, drilling rigs poking holes down everywhere, pipelines and tankers running all over the place to collect the product and bring it to ‘refineries’ that belch out all the unwanted constituents, then there’s the refined product deliveries, and the consumers who burn that stuff and spew the exhaust into the atmosphere.

Like I say, … ‘is ‘production’ aka ‘the producer-product dynamic’ a ‘real’ concept?  When we speak of ‘construction’ it sounds very LOCAL and we snap pictures of the new skyscraper, but what we don’t see in the picture of this LOCAL phenomena is all the holes from mining stone for the building, and holes for gravel and sand for the concrete and mines for the ore and smelters for the steel and smoke and dust and exhaust and by the time you get finished talking in terms of production or construction, we might as well concede that what is really going on is ‘transformation’ and that there really isn’t any real dynamic associated with the words ‘production’ and ‘construction’.  If we take ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures of ‘production’ or ‘construction’, do we not have to examine both FIGURE and GROUND in context?

WHAT IS REALITY?   Is ‘reality’ LOCAL and EXPLICIT?  Or, is ‘reality’ NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT?

What we know is that ‘EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium’ reduces ‘reality’ to LOCAL and EXPLICIT terms whereas the reality of our sensory experience of inclusion is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT.

I am NOT saying; ‘DON’T USE EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium’, … What I am saying is; don’t use EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium, DIRECTLY, for the understanding of REALITY.  Either/or logic lacks the basic capability for expressing NONLOCALITY.    Either/or logic reduces everything to ontological terms of EITHER ‘IS’ OR ‘IS NOT’.  But the boil in the flow (the FIGURE IN THE GROUND) as ‘APPEARANCE’ requires the ‘quantum logic’ of BOTH ‘IS’ AND ‘IS NOT”  to deal with the reality that while there is the ‘appearance’ of FIGURE and GROUND as two, there is, in reality, only ONE.  It is ourselves as voyeur observers, who split reality into TWO as in the ‘subject’ – ‘object’, ‘in-here’ – ‘out-there’ split.

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” – Erwin Schroedinger

When we observe a ‘boil’ or ‘boiling’ in the flow, the ‘boiling’ and the ‘flow’ are NOT two separate ontologies, the distinction between ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ is APPEARANCE and NOT ontology- based (not ‘being’-based).

The NONLOCALITY implied by a ‘boil’ (or ‘boiling’) means that THE BOIL (or BOILING) IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A LOCAL THING-IN-ITSELF is where the issue of INEFFABLE comes into play; i.e. the LOCALLY VISIBLE FORM, in the case of the boil(ing), is the LOCAL manifesting of NONLOCAL phenomena, in the same sense of iron filings that (in a magnetic field) gather in aesthetic ‘cooperative’ arrangements (as if THEY, the ‘iron filings’ are LOCAL ontological entities with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments, that are cooperatively moving together ‘in unity’).

That is, … when it comes to ‘humans’ moving together ‘in unity’, should we suppose that we are all included in a common spatial-relationally organizing energy field, … or should we instead assume that we are joining together as innately independent things-in-ourselves with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments directed by our ‘internal control centre’ as laid out in the ‘double error’ of language and grammar?

That is, is our human social organizing FIRSTLY intellectually ordered up by us as rationally calculating independent beings?   Or is our human social organizing arising from the ineffable dynamic wherein we are relational forms in a transforming relational continuum that experience ‘feelings’ that bring us together in the manner that iron filings in a magnetic field experience feelings that bring them together?  Whether or not we speak in terms of ‘dunes’ as independent things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and development, or of ‘duning’ as nonlocal relational resonance, we can come up with ‘talk’ (language and grammar constructions of visualizable impressions) that delivers an approximate picture of what we say is ‘reality’.

If iron filings get together over a beer, their egos might take over so that they claim that their cooperative actions were fully and solely coming from their own internal will, or is there such a thing as ‘will’?   That is, the concept of ‘will’ certainly ‘comes in handy’ after one has reduced relational flow forms to local things-in-themselves and is then stuck with having to construct a rationale to explain the local source of animating of their now-local and independently-existing thing-in-itselfness.

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things–only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols.

If we want to construct a reality based on LOCAL name-instantiated things-in-themselves that we impute to be LOCAL material beings independent of the Tao (the wave-field), then we are going to have to equip these ‘independent beings’ with a LOCAL ‘will’ to give them some locally instantiated animation, since in imputing independent being to them, we are removing their natural source of animation that comes with their inclusion within the Tao where ‘everything is in flux’.  Absolute Cartesian reference frames of WESTERN thinking do not supply their ‘occupants’ with motive sourcing apparatus as comes with relational forms in the flow.

Meanwhile, THE ATTRIBUTION OF COOPERATION TO THE VISUALLY INDEPENDENT IRON FILINGS IS A NONSENSICAL PROPOSITION that is meanwhile USEFUL in describing and thus being able to SHARE the appearance of NONLOCAL phenomena which are, as far as explicit capture by language is concerned, INEFFABLE.  But our talk of the ‘collaborative dynamics’ of the iron filings induces, in our intuition, an understanding that there is a NONLOCAL organizing force-field that is beyond capture in LOCAL terms, but we can at least capture, in LOCAL TERMS, the EXPLICATE ORDER induced by the IMPLICIT ORDERING INFLUENCE.

But would it not be more simple and more direct to admit that our language and grammar is wrong in imputing ‘independent being’ to ‘iron filings’ and then come up with the concept of an electromagnetic field that permeates everything, including the filings?  We similarly choose to elevate ‘dunes’ and make them out to have a greater reality than ‘duning’ and ‘deserting’.  WHY? because of ‘effabiliity’ considerations.  ‘Duning’ as NONLOCAL resonance is ineffable which means that it requires 4+ dimensions whereas 3 dimensions is the limit of effable expression.  When it comes to 4+ dimensional phenomena, we are stuck with the ineffable, as Wittgenstein points out;

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

So why this reduction to 3 dimensions when what we really need is 4+ dimensions?   ANSWER: … like the drunk searching under the street light for the watch he lost on a dark stretch of the road, ‘because the search conditions are better there’, … we seek to explain in LOCAL, EXPLICIT 3d  action terms (the coordinated movement of iron filings), phenomena that is innately NONLOCAL AND IMPLICIT and 4+ dimensional.  In other words, we can employ the LOCAL and EXPLICIT aka ‘the effable’ as a kind of psychological springboard to make a leap to the NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT aka the ‘ineffable’, … BUT WATCH OUT, LEST WE ARE CONFRONTED BY SOME ‘READ-MY-LIPS’ WESTERN CULTURE RATIONAL-REASONING FANATIC, who is going to insist that we CONSTRUCT REALITY on the basis of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT.

But all we were doing with language and grammar was using the EFFABLE to INFER the INEFFABLE, as Wittgenstein was pointing out in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus;

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.

 He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Why reduce ‘duning’ to ‘dunes’?

Well, it is of course useful to share that the ‘dune is shifting across the desert floor and is about to bury your tent, but such producer-product talk, when used to reduce ‘humaning’ in the transforming relational continuum to ‘humans with producer-product powers’, is deceptive and crazy-making.  It is a case of ‘the tool running away with the workman, the human with the divine’ as Emerson observes.

Reducing ‘humaning’ to ‘humans’ delivers the same communications shareability as reducing ‘duning’ to ‘dunes’ does; i.e. it reduces the NONLOCAL to the LOCAL and IMPLICATE ORDER to EXPLICATE ORDER, as described by Bohm.   The REALITY of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is ineffable as is 4+ dimensional ‘geometry’ associated with ‘resonance’ phenomena.

In other words, ‘REALITY’ is ‘INEFFABLE’ so that if we want to use language to share our experiences of ‘REALITY’, we have to reduce our experience to ‘effable propositions’ as Wittgenstein points out, … a whole mess of them that we can fashion a relational network from as in the modern physics ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Question’ where ‘what the REALITY we are REALLY talking about (the ‘real reality’ is a purely IMPLICIT reality since ‘everything is in flux) can only be IMPLIED and lies beyond EXPLICIT articulation.  Thus, ‘reason’ can never be more than a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ that can be used as a springboard for us step on, in our passage to understanding the ineffable that lies beyond the limits of language-based effable-izings otherwise known a ‘reason’.

As Nietzsche points out, ‘reason’ is a scam because it is ‘tool’ that Western culture adherents have been allowing to ‘run away with the workman’.

… the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things–only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego.

IS THERE AN EASIER WAY TO TELL THIS STORY, GIVEN THAT I AM USING THIS LANGUAGE THAT ‘CAN’T GO THE DISTANCE’ AND THAT I CAN ONLY USE TO MAKE INFERENCES ABOUT THE REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE THAT LIES INNATELY BEYOND THE REACH OF EXPLICIT CAPTURE IN THIS LANGUAGE I AM USING?

As Heraclitus said; ‘Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one.’

So, since we have to chop up the NONLOCAL in order to use language to share LOCAL bits of what is not chopped up in REALITY, it is important for the listener NOT to try to interpret the explicit messaging in a ‘read-my-lips’ reason based fashion WITHOUT using it as a Wittgenstein ladder to make a leap to the ineffable that lies innately beyond the explicit messaging.  ‘The dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the south’ … is a case in point since ‘duning’ is a NONLOCAL resonance phenomenon and is thus ineffable (not directly and explicitly capturable in language as with something LOCAL that can be visually scrutinized and described in local detail).   For example, the raging ‘boil’ or ‘vortex’ in the bend in the river below the floodgates in the dam above, may wax and wane as the floodgates are opened wider, then narrower, but our tendency would nevertheless be to attribute the waxing and waning to the ‘boil’ as in the popular ‘producer-product’ logic of Western culture adherents that stems from ‘the double error’ of language and grammar as Nietzsche has pointed out.   The ‘boil’ itself is NOT a local jumpstart author of producer-product powers, the boil is an ‘appearance’ or ‘apparition’ within the flow.

If we impute the power of sorcery to the ‘boil’, we end up with the schizophrenic ambiguity as in the Zen wind and flag koan, not knowing whether the boil is actualizing the flow or whether the flow is actualizing the boil.  Our psyche’s first mistake is to assume ‘sorcery’ where there is only relational transformation that we mistakenly attribute to ‘sorcery’.  This is the ‘double error’ (aka the ‘producer-product abstraction’ that we Western culture adherents build into dynamics generally.  THERE IS NO SUCH DYNAMIC AS ‘SORCERY’ AKA ‘THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT’ DYNAMIC, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

THE PRODUCER-PRODUCT ABSTRACTION IS AN INTELLECTUAL DEVICE FOR ‘BREAKING INTO’ THE INEFFABLE NONLOCAL CONTINUUM (THE TAO) SO AS TO EXTRACT ‘EFFABLE’ REDUCTION THAT OPENS THE WAY TO INTELLECTUAL SHARING OF WHAT IS GOING ON.  WITHOUT SUCH REDUCTION, WE ARE STYMIED; “7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

If I open my mouth and say something about reality, I will be wrong.  So, should I move my tent which is about to be buried in a dune if there is no such thing as ‘a dune’ (only ‘duning’)?  Yes, of course!  Is the talk of dunes shifting useful?  Yes, of course!  Are we capturing ‘reality’ in our discourse that is in terms of ‘dunes’ that ‘grow longer and higher and shift across the desert floor’?  NO, that is not ‘reality’, it is radically reduced-to-LOCAL caricature that merely alludes to ineffable NONLOCAL phenomena (our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum).  Just because this reduction of the NONLOCAL to the pseudo-LOCAL is useful for coordinating actions and developments does not mean that such LOCAL construction captures ‘reality’.  The ‘reality’ of our sensory experience is of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  The visual imagery revealing the construction of the village on the hill is a voyeur viewer’s pseudo-reality, NOT the REAL REALITY.  The REAL REALITY is the transforming relational continuum in which we share inclusion.

Is there ANYTHING that is LOCAL and merits thing-in-itself ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE BASED REALITY STATUS?

NO! the concept of LOCAL independent existence is abstraction that comes from ‘naming’ as in the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.  The first error is ‘naming’ that imputes thing-in-itself existence to a name-designated relational form, and the second, error is that of grammar that conflates the first error by imputing the power of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.  What is REAL is the NONLOCAL TAO, the transforming relational continuum.

The pseudo-realities that language and grammar enable us to CONSTRUCT are potentially useful (if not taken literally) as ‘go-by pseudo-realities’ that infer an INEFFABLE fluid reality (the Tao) that lies innately beyond effable capture and articulation.

Where EAST and WEST split is that WEST has adopted the habit of treating the LOCAL constructions as the ‘operative reality’ whereas the EAST continues to regard effable articulation as no more than inference of an ineffable reality that lies innately beyond effable capture.

For the EAST, ‘duning’ is the INEFABLE-because-NONLOCAL dynamic of resonance.

For the WEST, ‘dunes’ are LOCAL EFFABLE things-in-themselves with their own (grammar-given) powers of sourcing actions and developments (shifting across the desert and growing larger and longer).

This Western view which features ‘reasoning’ based on the ‘double error’; i.e. (first error) naming that imputes ‘thing-in-itself being’ and (second error) grammar that imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated being’ (first error); are the abstract components of ‘reason’.

 “Reason” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

 – Nietzsche Ch. 5 ‘Reason in Philosophy’, Twilight of the Idols

The ineffable reality of the EAST is only accessible by way of intuition wherein one must make an ‘intuitive leap of inference’ to go beyond the LOCAL and effable, as described in Wittgenstein’s final two propositions (6.54 and 7.0) in ‘Tractatus’, quoted above.  Having to make this ‘intuitive leap of inference’ is because, while everything is in flux, our language makes use of ‘names’ that freeze the identity of relational flow forms; e.g. reduce ‘duning’ (purely relational resonance phenomena)  to ‘dunes’ (abstract LOCAL things-in-themselves supplemented in language by ‘grammar’ that imputes to them their own powers of sourcing actions and development’ (the dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting across the desert floor).

SO, ‘REALITY’ IN THE WEST ENDS UP BEING THIS ABSTRACTLY REIFIED (EFFABLE-IZED) CONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR; I.E. NAME-IMPUTED LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES WITH GRAMMAR-IMPUTED LOCAL POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

‘REALITY’ IN THE EAST REMAINS ‘FLUID’ AND THUS INEFFABLE AND THEREFORE FULLY-AVAILABLE ONLY TO INTUITION AS INFERENCE TRIGGERED BY THE DYNAMICS OF RELATIONAL FEATURES IN THE FLOW, AND ONLY AVAILABLE TO DISCURSIVE INTELLECTION THROUGH A PROCESS OF REDUCTION.  The intuitive understanding as in THE NONLOCAL REALITY OF THE EAST can be stimulated by such techniques as modern physics’ ‘THE SURPRISE VERSION OF THE GAME OF TWENTY QUESTIONS’, which essentially reproduces the approach that Wittgenstein is describing in his ‘ladder’ approach in proposition 6.54 in ‘Tractatus’ cited earlier.

The CRAZY-MAKING arising from the DOUBLE ERROR BASED “REALITY” OF THE WEST as captured in .

FOUR CHARACTERISTICS that distinguish WEST from EAST

-1- EGO: THE BELIEF IN ONE’S OWN PRODUCER-PRODUCT POWERS OF AUTHORSHIP.

There is no ‘producer-product’ dynamic, there is only relational transformation.  However, the Western culture adhering social dynamic assumes that there is something called ‘economic growth’ that is seen as manifesting, for example, by an explosion of new houses and new vehicles and new manufactured products.  In REALITY, what is going on is relational transformation.  The new city on the plain is, in reality, transformation of the common relational space that includes human activity within it.  While language and grammar can be used to construct the ‘double error’ of naming (e.g. a new city) and conflating this with grammar to impute to the first error (the name-instantiated notion of a ‘new city’, the power of that new-city to source actions and developments (e.g. manufacturing), … the greater reality comprehends the overall space  which includes the ‘developing city’.  This overall transformation which includes within it what we are calling ‘the city’ is the primary reality.   To speak of the city as a thing-in-itself is a double error of language and grammar as just described.  ‘Naming’ or ‘Christening’ a relational feature within the transforming relational continuum does NOT impart physical LOCALITY to the named feature, but simply sets it up for grammar to follow through and impart to the naming-instantiated LOCAL ENTITY it’s own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  The transforming relational continuum continues to be the transforming relational continuum regardless of how different people inject notional LOCAL things-in-themselves into the continuum by ‘naming’ LOCAL persisting features and animating them with grammar, starting with ourselves.  Ego is the beginning of the WESTERN producer-product based pseudo-reality.

-2- THE EGO-BASED BELIEF THAT HUMANS ARE THE SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING (THE GRETA THUNBERG SYNDROME)

The double error of language and grammar is pure intellectual abstraction that sets up the notional existence of name-instantiated things-in-themselves with jumpstart powers of sourcing actions and development. Because this is the thinking that sets up the ‘ego’, it is held in place by Western society’s elevating in stature, power and influence those considered to have superior powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Because this ‘double error’ is name-instantiated, anything with a name (human, nation, corporation) can be seen as being the jumpstart source of producer-product actions and developments.  Instead of the world being seen, as in modern physics and as in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta cultures, as ONE transforming relational continuum incorporating relational forms in the manner of flow in which ‘boils’ or whorls are continually ‘making their appearance’, the world of Western culture adherents is seen as a ‘habitat’ which is populated by ‘independent inhabitants’.  This inhabitant-habitat dichotomy is intellectually captured in the relationship between an absolute Cartesian space frame populated locally by notional independently-existing material things-in-themselves.  In this latter Western culture adherent ‘pseudo-reality’, each name-instantiated ‘double error’ person, nation or corporation is understood to be an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself having its own jumpstart producer-product powers.  The ‘world dynamic’ aka ‘reality’ is thus understood on this basis.  In contrast to this Western culture adherent model of reality, as David Bohm points out with his example of ‘the death of Lincoln’, … such producer-product abstraction (aka ‘causality’) is far from reality and that which is actually unfolding.

“In the book ‘Causality and Chance in Modern Physics’ Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln’s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth’s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln’s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.”  –The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality: Michael Talbot:

Nietzsche makes the same point in a different manner.  While both Bohm and Nietzsche point their finger at ‘language’ as the problem, Nietzsche points to the ‘double error’ of grammar which sets up the notion of jumpstart LOCAL sourcing (causality) of actions and developments while Bohm points to the inadequacy of our thing-based language and grammar to handle the fluid reality of our experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum, and thus proposed a new flow-based language he called ‘Rheomode’ but later discovered that indigenous aboriginal cultures had already developed it;

A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

What these NONLOCALITY based (relational) languages ‘get rid of’ is the LOCAL ‘producer-product’  (aka ‘causality’) concept that is still mainstream in Western culture adherents’ conceptualizing of reality (it is ‘locked in by high switching costs’).  The producer-product concept is propagated via the abstract notion of the ‘independent individual, nation, corporation’, and the binary concept of win/lose competition (between notionally ‘independent’ competitors as underlies (Nietzsche opposed) Darwinism).

‘Competition’ is an abstract concept based on EITHER/OR logic of the excluded medium which makes no sense in a reality wherein the BOTH/AND logic of the included medium prevails;

“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

As in the Zen koan of wind-and-flag; i.e does the movement of the air source the movement of the flag or does the movement of the flag source the movement of the air?  One might think the two are in competition in this respect, but the conundrum vaporizes with the understanding that there is no such thing as ‘sourcing’, there is only relational transformation.  ‘Competition’ vanishes for the same reason’, … One can’t step into the same conflict twice (there is only relational transformation).

-3- The inversion of accelerator and brakes re intellect and intuition; i.e. the natural way is to lead with intuition and to brake with intellect (reason), however Western culture leads with intellect (reason) and brakes with intuition.  Intuition is NONLOCAL and implicit while intellect is LOCAL and explicit.  Western culture has inverted the natural order of NONLOCAL in precedence over LOCAL because of the ineffable nature of this arrangement (although Western culture does break into the NONLOCAL so as to render the ineffable in reduced effable LOCAL form; e.g. duning is ineffable because it is NONLOCAL while ‘dune’ is effable because LOCAL.  Bohm’s description of endless contributions to present unfolding is the ineffable-NONLOCAL (pure intuition, see Kepler on ‘nous’ vis a vis ‘ratiocinative intellection’).  While the effable LOCAL (pure intellect) gives us LOCAL explicit, jumpstart instructions, …. the reason why Robin Hood and Jean Valjean got into trouble was because they ‘tuned in’ to the NONLOCAL need for relational balance.  Kepler celebrates ratiocinative intellection as being what makes humans different from animals and associates this with the position of the planet earth being in the middle among the planets so as to give its occupants ratiocinative ‘perspective’ of inclusion as contrasted with pure νous (nous) or intuition of inclusion.  While the natural way of the EAST is to put pure (ineffable) νous first and to moderate with (effable) intellection, the WEST has chosen to put (effable) intellection first and to moderate with (ineffable) intuition.  The basic difference in understanding ‘reality’ between WEST and EAST lies in the relative precedence given to (effable) intellect and (ineffable) intuition (νous ); i.e. two means of understanding reality associating with the relative precedence given to the NONLOCAL and the LOCAL; e.g. to ‘duning’ and to ‘dune’, as distinguished Heraclitus ‘continual becoming’ from Parmenides ‘absolute 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.

The burden of concreteness leads to the invention of ‘grammar’, a strange out-of-the-blue animating force that operates on the name-instantiated things-in-themselves that we invent (first error), and ‘gives them the notional power of sourcing actions and development’ (second error).  As Nietzsche explains in his note; “on the deceptiveness of ‘reason’ in philosophy” — (Proposition 5 in Chapter 5 (Reason in Philosophy) of Twilight of the Idols), reason is abstraction (reduction of ineffable to effable) that does not merit the unnatural elevated position given to it in the WEST;

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: “We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have REASON!” Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “REASON” in language–oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

-4- How WEST dominates in the EAST – WEST Schism

NONLOCALITY is characteristic of the ‘ineffable reality’ of the EAST whereas LOCALITY is characteristic of the ‘effable reality’ of the WEST.

One might say that the concept of ‘LOCAL’ as in the local thing-in-itself with its LOCALLY INCIPIENT powers of sourcing actions and development (the ‘double error of language and grammar) is characteristic of WESTERN REALITY CONSTRUCTION.

The basic ineffability of our sensory experience of living within a transforming relational continuum, as understood in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is accepted in the EAST, but the WEST has employed abstract reductionist concepts within language and grammar to trigger in the intellect, a sense of LOCAL being as a name-instantiated thing-in-itself.  This is an ‘error of language’ that is conflated with a second ‘error of grammar’ imputing to the first error (the abstract name-instantiated thing-in-itself) ‘its own powers of sourcing actions and development’.

This ‘double error’ delivers, within the intellect and its abstract constructions of reality, a means of overcoming the INEFFABILITY of NONLOCAL inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  We who are inherently NONLOCAL are thus able to re-cast ourselves as name-instantiated LOCAL THINGS-IN-OURSELVES with grammar-given powers of sourcing our own actions and developments.  This abstract intellectual construction that reduces the NONLOCAL and thus ineffable to the LOCAL and thus effable, thanks to the ‘double error’ of language and grammar.

The WEST, rather than employing this surrogate double error based pseudo-reality as a ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ to infer an ineffable nonlocal reality that lies innately beyond effable capture, accepts and deploys the double error based effable pseudo-reality as the OPERATIVE REALITY.  For the Mahavits and Atmavits, those who accept reality as ineffable, but who live within a culture which employs double-error based effable reality as the ‘operative reality’, it is necessary to manage one’s interface with Western culture adherents who are employing the double error based pseudo reality as the operative reality.

For a Mahavit such as myself, I must find ways to deal with the clash in my understandings and WESTERN culture beliefs;

For example, I do not subscribe to the double error based concept of ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ as comes with the WESTERN concept of ‘ego’ and the producer-product abstraction.

Henri Laborit expresses this dilemma in his intro to ‘La Nouvelle Grille’ wherein ‘pioneers’ that try to bring in new understandings that undermine established reward and punishment schemes expose themselves to angry reaction from the cultural establishment;

We’ who explore such topics, cannot easily share them because (a) they do not fit into the typical dinner conversation format of our present culture, since to express them takes a lot of relational connections that can’t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism  implicit in trying to share them is not seen as “a humanism of real worth” since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.  – Henri Laborit, ‘La Nouvelle Grille’  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Laborit

Ego comes with the understanding of ‘self’ in the double error ‘producer-product’ terms which support the binary concepts of ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’.  In the relational understanding of modern physics, there is no ‘local sourcing’ of actions and development (i.e. there is no ‘double error’), thus there is no binary ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’, there is only ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related).

As Chief Maquinna of the Nootkas observed, orienting to relational balance and harmony is Nature’s way and can serve as the primary animator of actions and developments.  This is very much an ethic of the EAST whereas there is the antithetical ethic of the WEST which supports the unabalanced (unbalancing) accumulation of wealth where one ‘banks’ one’s surpluses;

“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 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]

In the WEST, the producer-product belief (ego), based on the ‘double error’ of language and grammar, leads the WESTERN culture adherent to the belief that people are ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with our own powers of sourcing actions and developments, thus we personally ‘own’ what we see as ‘the producer-product results of our actions’.

For example, in Adam Smith’s 1776 treatise; ’Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, people are judged and appraised as ‘independent things-in-themselves’ rather than in a relational context (as with ‘duning’ versus ‘dunes’, so too with ‘humaning’ versus ‘humans’;

“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

This statement gives credence to name-instantiated independent being, and the story of ‘reproduction’ follows from this abstraction.  There is no ‘reproduction’ in an understanding of reality in terms of the transforming relational continuum.

-5- How EAST and WEST split in sidestepping the INEFFABILITY of NONLOCALITY

PROBLEM: -NONLOCALITY is the essential nature of the TAO, the WAVEFIELD, the transforming relational continuum, the ‘REAL REALITY’ of our actual sensory experience of inclusion in the TAO.

EAST sidesteps the ineffable nature of NONLOCALITY through an effable-izing approach in which language is deployed obliquely or inferentially as in the phrase; ‘Dances with Wolves’.  This approach is captured in the modern physics allusion to ‘The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ where conveying understanding is purely implicit and inferential (NONLOCAL) and avoids resorting to the explicit and LOCAL.  Many oblique or indirect references such as ‘Dances with Wolves’ are used to build a nest of relational inferences which, taken together, ‘image’ a reality that is NONLOCAL and in continual FLUX.

WEST, on the other hand, ‘brute-forces’ the articulating of NONLOCALITY by invoking the abstract concept of SORCERY as in the Nietzsche-described DOUBLE ERROR of language and grammar which features (error 1) ‘naming’ in absolute terms; e.g. ‘John Wilkes Booth’ and then conflating this first error with a second (error 2) known as ‘grammar’ where we impute the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself; e.g. ‘John Wilkes Booth’ killed Abraham Lincoln’.

NOTA BENE!  … in the pre-lingual experiencing of nonlocal dynamics of our sensory experience of inclusion in the Tao (wave-field), while relational conflict unfolded wherein the relational form we tagged with the name Lincoln was subsumed within the transforming relational continuum, it is only the abstracting power of language and grammar that reduces this transformation to a producer-product action by way of the ‘double error’ to terms of a naming-invoked thing-in-itself that we notionally ‘put in motion’, in our abstracting intellect, with ‘grammar’ that imputes to the ‘thing-in-itself’ ‘it’s own powers of sourcing actions and developments.

For example, ‘duning’ is a purely relational, nonlocal resonance phenomenon which we reduce by way of the double error of language and grammar, wherein we use ‘naming’ to reduce to the local form ‘dune’ and conflate this with grammar that animates the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself, imputing to it ‘its own powers of sourcing actions and development’; … ‘the dune is growing longer and higher and is shifting to the south’.

Thanks to this ‘double error’, we mentally ‘step out of’ the intuitive relational-sensational world of our felt experience into the rational-intellectual pseudo-world of language and grammar constructions.  The dune is now ‘out there in front us’ in our voyeur gaze based ‘mind’s eye’, even though the resonance phenomenon we know as ‘duning’ may be swallowing us up ‘inclusionally’ within it, like Jonah’s whale.  The transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the wave-field’ is ‘all-inclusive’, while ‘visualization’ is a reductive intellectualizing device which makes use of intellectual (language-supported) observer-observed (subject-object) splitting.  Watching filmed action sequences on a flat screen provides a capable ‘voyeur visualization’ means of subject-object splitting capturable in intellectual code (language and grammar codification).

So, while EAST employs a relational web of inferences to ‘mentally model’ the NONLOCAL reality of the Tao, the WEST reduces flow-forms to abstract name-instantiated things-in-themselves and employs grammar to impute God like powers of self-sourcing motion and development to the notional naming-instantiated things-in-themselves; i.e. ‘giving them a ‘life of their own’, at least within our intellectual ‘reason’ based mental constructions.

“In Reason’ in language!  – oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Once we WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS embark on this hard-nosed intellectual language and grammar based story-trail that serves us up our WESTERN ‘operative reality’, it can be difficult to ‘stop the talk’ and get back in touch with the natural primacy of the silence of our sensory experiencing of inclusion in the Tao and getting back in touch with our ability for ‘letting the soft animal of our body love what it wants to love’; i.e. in acceptance of the ‘beyond-intellectual’ reality that Wittgenstein is referring to in his final proposition in Tractatus;

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

While the EAST does a better job at dealing with NONLOCALITY (through its use of relational inference), the WEST seems to have been taken hostage by its own sorcery-imputing tool of language, as Emerson observes with his observation that ‘the tool runs away with the workman, the human with the divine’.    When we start depending on language as if it were our only tool for understanding, we fall into the trap that; when one’s only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.   That is, ‘give whatever (flow form etc.) a name’, and we can then use ‘grammar’ to give that ‘thing’ its own power of sourcing actions and development.  ‘The dune’ is one example of naming the standing wave resonance (‘duning’) to impute thing-in-itselfness to ‘it’ and then again, there is ‘the human’, ‘the nation’, ‘the corporation’, ‘the continent’ (that ‘drifts’), all of which are forms included in the flow (Tao) that we split out and mobilize as things-in-themselves in our intellectualizing minds-eye.

But, what is the problem/challenge again, that put us on this path of invention?  The problem/challenge is in coming up with an aid to learning by sharing ineffable experiencing of inclusion in the Tao, by way of effable-izing, even if it has to be in a crude and approximate manner, our ineffable experiencing of inclusion in the Tao (the wave-field aka the flow-continuum) and thus opening the way to intellectually SHARING EXPERIENCE and learning from one another’s life activities without each of us having to remain silent while repeating a long series of sensory experiences or experimentations on the way to personal discovery of ‘best practice’.

[N.B. As mentioned with the example of the chimps and the ice-cold water spray, the intellectual bypassing of sensory experience on the way to intellectually-captured and linguistically shared ‘best practice’ can cultivate in us artificial, intellectually contrived behaviours that we push forth with IN SPITE OF the continually unfolding sensory influences we share inclusion in.  The degree to which we, as individuals and collectives, put intellectual direction into primacy over the inductive influence of sensory experience of our unique inclusion in the Tao is an issue associated with the use of language].

Do we understand ourselves in the LOCAL sense of a ‘dune’ with our own powers of sourcing actions and development, or do we understand ourselves in the NONLOCAL sense of ‘duning’; i.e. as resonance within the transforming relational continuum?  Is EITHER/OR logic appropriate to this question, or is BOTH/AND logic more appropriate?  In other words, are we, ourselves, ‘NONLOCAL’ or are we ‘LOCAL’ things-in-ourselves’.  This is once again where the respective understandings of EAST and WEST part company.  While the EAST employs BOTH/AND logic of figure-and-ground-as-ONE, the WEST employs EITHER/OR logic of figure-and-ground-as-TWO.

How we approach the challenge of ‘sharing’ via language-based-logic divides EAST and WEST.

The challenge of localizing the nonlocal is akin to the challenge of seizing a Leprechaun in one’s fist; since the Tao is fluid it will frustrate attempts to localize and explicitize it by always letting that which is grasped, slip through one’s grasping fingers.  Yet the value of sharing accounts of our experiences is so high that even a crude method of sharing can pay huge dividends in helping us navigate relational complexity.

If we are to avoid the misconceptions that come with the explicitizing of the innately implicit, our toolbox should acknowledge that; ‘A man’s reach can exceed his grasp or what’s a meta phor?’   The virgin may be more of an intellectual expert on sexual relations than the inarticulate sensory experienced person, however, that ability to follow an intellectually defined procedure with great precision, while it may define, the ‘expert’, is radically incomplete since the concept of an expert is one-sided and is based on the UNREAL ‘one-sided’ abstraction of ‘producer-product’ (double error based) logic.  Just as ‘resonance’ based ‘phase relation’ was left out of three-dimensional physics and put back in by Dennis Gabor to give us holography, so does ‘resonance’ continue to be left out of such one-sided thing-in-itself producer-product definitions such as ‘the expert’.  As Mach observed, 3 dimensions is insufficient to capture the dynamics of nature and 4+dimensions are required to let FIGURE AND GROUND to lose their 3D geometric assertor-receptor constraint and be understood in fluid 4+ dimensional topological terms.

In viewing flow in ‘figure and ground’ terms, we can let our mind move from the ground to the figure so that, as in watching a boil in a river bend below the dam, the waxing and waning of the boil is not understood as ‘locally sourced’ by the boil but is coming from the opening and closing of the floodgates in the dam above.  However, it is very easy for us language users to deliver to ourselves, with language, AS IN THE COMMON DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR IN THE WEST, the impression of local sourcing ( aka ‘sorcery’) through language and grammar constructions such as; ‘the boil is growing larger and stronger, and now it is diminishing in size and is weakening’, … making it seem as if there is a locally incipient ‘sourcing’ agency where there is none, … there is only NONLOCALITY that takes on the APPEARANCE of LOCALITY whereupon we hang such language and grammar on it as to intellectually concretize the impression of LOCAL SOURCING.

The understanding of the EAST is alluded to by Wittgenstein where he speaks of ‘approaching the surface of truth from the outside moving inwards, from ‘what is obviously not the case towards ‘what is not so obviously not the case’.

That is, it is possible to avoid the imputing of SORCERY to figure-in-ground dynamics which come to us ambiguously with two opposite polarities that divide WESTERN culture adherents into two opposing camps called ‘conservative’ (“one bad apple spoils the barrel”) and ‘liberal’ (“it takes a whole community to raise a [good/bad] child”).  The ambiguity associated with sorcery also emerges in language such as ‘Does the man make the times or do the times make the man’, and also in the Zen koan of wind-and-flag’; i.e. ‘does the movement of the flag stir the air the air into action or does the movement of the air stir the flag into action’?

This ambiguity, while it divides WESTERN culture adherents into two opposing camps, … is not a problem in the EAST since, in the EAST, there is no such thing as LOCAL SOURCING thus there is no need to assume EITHER the FIGURE is sourcing movement of the GROUND OR the GROUND is sourcing movement of the FIGURE.  In other words, in the EAST, the FIGURE-GROUND distinction is only APPEARANCE as with flow-forms in flow.  It is only in the WEST that FIGURE and GROUND are seen (and spoken about) as mutually exclusive things in themselves, an abstraction-based impression that gives rise to the conservative – liberal ambiguity as to whether the dynamics of the FIGURE ‘sources’ the dynamics of the GROUND or whether the dynamics of the GROUND sources the dynamics of the FIGURE.  This ambiguity is unresolvable since it arises from the unreal abstraction of SORCERY, a language-and-grammar based double error that imputes jumpstart powers of sorcery to name-instantiated things-in-themselves (abstractions).  Instead of ‘duning’, language (naming) allows us to invent ‘dunes’ which ‘grammar’ then equips with the powers of sourcing actions and developments; ‘the dune is growing higher and longer and is shifting to the south’.

HOW DOES THE EAST (AND MODERN PHYSICS) IN THEIR PORTRAYALS OF REALITY, AVOID THE IMPUTING OF ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ WITH POWERS OF ‘SORCERY’?

In modern physics the NONLOCAL FLUIDITY OF DYNAMICS is captured by ‘the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’, as is the technique (for inferring NONLOCALITY) described by physicists Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler.

DON’T FORGET, … these EAST and WEST language techniques are for capturing some semblance of the NONLOCAL phenomena of the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the Wave-Field’ aka ‘the LOGOS of Heraclitus.  We can’t ‘take them literally’ as Wittgenstein reminds us (below), and here he is talking about an EAST style approach of alluding, by relational inference, to fluid reality that is not explicitly picturable or otherwise capturable, as also recalls the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’;  [As Mach noted, ‘resonance based dynamics require more than 3 dimensions and 4+ dimensional resonance phenomena such as ‘duning’ are not directly and explicitly picturable but can be inferred with the help of 3 dimensional pictures]

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

“7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  — Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

In my view, the WEST, faced with the problem of ineffable-ness of the all-including Wave-field, and responding to it by adopting a LOCAL SOURCING abstraction, is screwing up as Emerson puts it; by letting ‘the tool run away with the workman, the human with the divine’; i.e. by CONSTRUCTING A PSEUDO-REALITY using the double error of language and grammar to re-present himself or actually, any NAMED flow-form as a ‘local, independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own powers of SOURCING actions and developments.

HOW EASY IS IT TO FALL INTO THE TRAP OF USING THIS INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACT SORCERY-BASED PSEUDO-REALITY TO HIJACK THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF OUR SENSORY EXPERIENCE AS THE PRIMARY INFORMANT ON REALITY?  EVIDENTLY, IT IS SUFFICIENTLY EASY AS TO HAVE BECOME THE ERSATZ STAND-IN DEFAULT OPERATIVE REALITY OF OUR WESTERN CULTURE ADHERING SOCIAL COLLECTIVE.

Unlike the EAST where the tool is only for throw-away use for the purpose of INFERENCE of a fluid reality that lies innately beyond the reach of language (“The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao” — Lao Tzu), the WEST has allowed the synthetic intellectual pseudo-reality based on LOCAL incipient actions and developments to HIJACK the ineffable reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the NONLOCAL WAVEFIELD.  In other words, the WEST’S ABSTRACT INTELLECTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY is being used not just as a support tool to infer the ineffable reality of our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum (the Tao, the wave-field), but as if IT WERE THE OPERATIVE REALITY.  THAT IS THE CRAZY-MAKER OF WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENCY.

The pitfalls which that leads us into include the belief in ‘independent being’ triggered by ‘naming’ and the associated belief in ‘sorcery’ by way of the double error of language and grammar where we use grammar to conflate the error of naming to impute thing-in-itself being by further imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error), whether the purported name-instantiated thing-in-itself is a ‘human’ a ‘dune’, a ‘nation’, a ‘corporation’ or whatever.  Anything we give a ‘name’ to can, in the intellect, serve as the stem for grammar that in turn imputes the power of sourcing actions and developments, thus imputing the dynamic of jumpstart sorcery of actions and developments.

Nietzsche’s ‘God’ comment thus bears repeating.  The ‘God’ that he is speaking of is the implied local author of SORCERY we build into language with grammar AND CALL IT ‘REASON’;

 “In Reason’ in language! .– oh what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

* * *