Author’s Prologue:


Ok, all I really need to say to capture the psychosis built into Western culture is to point to the ‘double error’ which sets up the abstract (aberrant) concept of ‘naming-instantiated being’ as the stem for notional powers of sourcing actions and developments’.


If one believes in this ‘double error’, one is a Western culture adherent, who believes in the ‘reality’ of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ (beings) with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This psychological ‘double error’ comes in the form of ‘humans’, ‘nations’, ‘corporations’.


I understand that most of the people I know and have ‘grown up with’, including most of my immediate and extended family, ‘buy into’ this Western culture psychosis inducing belief system, as I too, have formerly done.   Ok, nothing new as far as the world social dynamic goes, other than I now find myself in the position of a Mahavit as the Advaita Vedanta adherents call it.   What may be different in my case is that the psychosis-inducing influence of Western culture hits very close to home, and that makes me more sensitive to the overall damage being done and more in resonance with efforts such as those of ‘Mad in America’ to pick up where R. D. Laing left off in pointing out that what is called ‘normal’ in Western culture is the source of psychosis.


I personally believe that anyone who takes a serious experience-grounded look at the Western culture beliefs in name-instantiated ‘humans’, ‘nations’ and ‘corporations’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments will have to call ‘bullshit’!   Meanwhile, I can also see that the ‘lock-in’ due to ‘high switching costs’ is phenomenally large.  The ‘big lie’ as written about by Hitler and used by him has nothing on the ‘humongous lie’ of Western culture’s being-based ‘sorcery’.


So, where did this ‘humongous lie’ giving us humans and our nations and our corporations the powers of sorcery come from?

Wherever it came from, it seems to me that Benjamin Whorf is correct in pointing out that Newton put it into physics and physics became the quasi-religious basis for understanding ‘reality’.  That is, Newton, by way of (matter-sourced) gravity, invented ‘material bodies’ or ‘things-in-themselves’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.  Modern physics ‘backs out of such beings-with-powers-of-sorcery’ ‘reality’, dissolving it within the larger understanding of ‘field’ as energy-based relational influence. The ‘field’ based reality with its relational forms in the flow, is a reality WITHOUT any binary ‘inhabitant’ – ‘habitat’ split which thus avoids the dichotomous ambiguity as to whether ‘the inhabitant dynamics are sourcing transformation of the habitat, … or whether the habitat dynamic is sourcing transformation of the inhabitants (or, whether the binary splitting into ‘inhabitant and habitat’ is the psychological artifact of language and grammar as associates with the ‘double error’).


Today, we remain hung up on the Western culture belief in ‘beings’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.   This got ‘locked in’ via language and grammar that has us speaking in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ with the powers of sorcery such as humans, nations, and corporations.  As Nietzsche shows, we incorporated this concept into our intellectual conceptualizing of ‘reality’ by way of a ‘double error’, so now, when we speak and write in English and similar languages, we slip this ‘double error’ into our language-based conditioning of the intellect.


A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein


What we actually experience is relational transformation but we use language to articulate this in the abstract terms of ‘beings’ with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  ‘Lightning flashes’ is a case in point as is ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger, … Katrina is ravaging New Orleans, … Katrina is weakening and dissipating’…. This is a language based reduction of purely relational phenomena to depictions in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’, notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This is the double error.  The lightning and the hurricane are relational forms that are appearance/apparition as associates with the transforming relational continuum.  In physical-experiential reality, there is no ‘thing-in-itself’ (a notional independent inhabitant that forces the intellect into a house-of-cards game-play of inventing a separate ‘habitat’ to give the ‘inhabitant’ a place to exist); i.e. there is no ‘thing-in-itself that ‘sources actions and developments’.  The same applies to all such language-based abstractions of ‘independent things-in-themselves’ such as human, the nation, the corporation, but language and grammar facilitate our making a ‘double error’ (circular reasoning aka petitio principii) and that’s the basis of the ‘Invented Reality’ that we (Western culture adherents) build into our intellectual reality-inventing rhetoric.  It is an ego-driven Invented Reality since ego is the psychological belief in locally incipient powers of sorcery.


In Western culture, there is no ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (relationall understanding) thus no matter how extreme the non-locally developing relational tensions may become, a violent elastic-band snapping rebalancing (as in Nietzsche’s lightning example), will be captured as Western language-and-grammar based ‘double error’ and brought into play to intellectualize purely relational phenomena in terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ notionally endowed with powers of sourcing actions and developments, thus giving rise to a sorcery oriented culture that celebrates and rewards ‘the sorcerers of good’ and punishes ‘the sorcerers of bad’ .

Note: ‘Sorcery’ (abstraction) based concepts give rise to the ‘double error’  innate ambiguity as in the ‘nature’ – ‘nurture’ dichotomy; i.e. ‘attenuating ‘the sorcery of bad’ is equivalent to ‘amplifying ‘the sorcery of good’. (arguing over which approach is best makes no sense since ‘sorcery’ is an unreal artifact of the intellectualizing imagination)  That is, what is ‘missed’ in both cases is the non-reality of ‘sorcery’ in the real (relational) world of our actual experience. (‘sorcery’ is the abstract product of language and grammar which is not found in our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum).


 * * * end of Prologue * * *


Why Western culture language-based Invented Reality ‘appears to work’ and how its psychosis inducing influence is concealed.


“English compared to Hopi is like a bludgeon compared to a rapier.” – Benjamin Whorf


Language seeks to capture and report on our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  However, its ability to do this constrains it to ‘voyeur’ views from the outside.


Our real-life experience is not constrained in this manner since we are relational forms within the transforming relational continuum.   This constraint of logical language was formally affirmed in Goedel’s Theorem of Incompleteness (of systems of logic) in 1931.


In ‘topological terms’, this is a problem akin to not being able to bite one’s own nose.  Nietzsche warns us of the ‘dodge’ that we use to ‘try to’ get around it which incurs a ‘double error’ which is what is infusing psychosis into the Western culture-adhering mind, since Western culture has put language-based intellection into an unnatural precedence over relational experience.  An example of this is the public panic over Orson Wells radio dramatization (1949) of ‘War of the Worlds’ which listeners mistakenly took for ‘reality’.  That is, the reality that was coming to people by way of language and intellect was over-riding their own natural relational experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.  This language-based ‘reality’ is ‘Invented’ as we put together our own impressions, based on our translating the language into ‘psycho-visual imagery’.


In other words, it is not only possible, but it has become ‘routine’ for Western culture adherents to put language-based ‘Invented Reality’ into an unnatural precedence over their natural relational experience.  Of course, the ‘Imagined Reality’ of what it’s like to be in Bergen, Norway or etc, on the basis of film imagery etc. is no substitute for the experience of being there.  The difference can be compared to the difference in giving one’s child ‘sex education’ and ‘sex lessons’ (sex experience).  The film imagery, and visual imagery in generally, is understood by the intellect.   It is ‘perspectival’ while experience is ‘inclusional’.

Information on ‘reality’ passed by language and grammar is visual/perspectival.  Nevertheless, when we watch films showing the experiences of people we don’t know in places we have never been, we can develop a feeling of understanding, as if we had been there and experienced inclusion in the dynamics that we are only informed on in a voyeur visual manner.  We may even remember this voyeur visual informing as if we had actually experienced it.


In our remembering, then, when we access memories of real inclusional experiences and memories of visual voyeurism, is it possible for the difference between these to ‘blur’?  Might we see a filmed travelogue of some place that we have previously seen in a different filmed travelogue and get the sense of our having experienced previously being in that place?  How good are we at keeping visual memory records properly classified as ‘voyeurism based’ versus ‘experience based’?  Maybe we did experience being in that Italian beach resort and recognize the familiar buildings in the travel film but which of those buildings was, for example, obscured from our view by a large van at the time we visited the place?   That is, to what extent can we distinguish between what we actually experience and what we are intellectually informed of?


Note that ‘relational reality’, as understood by indigenous aboriginal cultures, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and by modern physics, avoids dependency on notional ‘things-in-themselves’ [things-in-themselves are abstraction], however, language such as English, construct ‘Invented Reality’ based on name-instantiated (abstractly conceptualized) ‘things-in-themselves’, where ‘grammar’ imputes to these things-in-themselves, the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.  The result is an ‘Invented Reality’.


Once one builds a language and grammar structure based on notional’ things-in-themselves’ with the notional powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’, … how does one, in loading one’s cognition with these being-based abstractions, distinguish this from conveying understanding in purely relational terms, as in the reality of our actual relational experience???  How would you know, from my visual description of my trip to Greenland, that I had never experienced being in Greenland?


This is what the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ and the aboriginal ‘sharing circle’ approaches are all about, … transcending the limitations of language which limit us to voyeur ‘perspective’ when we would like to be able to tap into understanding of inclusion, as symbolized in medieval times (inferentially since self-inclusion is not visually picturable), by the ouroborus.


[Note that in sharing circles, the tradition is to ‘speak from the heart’ and not ‘from the head’.].


Western culture stands out as a culture that accepts the constructions of language as directly and explicitly signifying ‘reality’.  In other words, Western culture employs language to ‘Invent Reality’ rather than to build relational impressions of ‘reality’ by such techniques as ‘the sharing circle’.  The impact of the Western culture’s ‘normal practice’ of using, as the social ‘operative reality’, the language-and-grammar based ‘Invented Reality’, is to induce psychosis in the user group


“What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” – R. D. Laing, author of ‘The Divided Self’


Again, the problem with Western culture’ Invented Reality is that is invokes the ‘double error’ of ‘beings with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.  This double error is a crazy-maker (psychosis-inducer) but it is at the same time, the foundation of Western culture ‘Invented Reality’.


Since Western culture adherents are working together within the same (psychosis-cultivating) language-based operative reality, … those that have a problem with it (i.e. the ‘miner’s canaries’) are seen as ‘the one’s with a problem’.  Western psychiatry, by failing to acknowledge that Western culture ‘normality’ is psychotic, seeks to restore the individual that is behaving strangely BECAUSE he/she has intuited that Western ‘normality’ is ‘psychotic’ (the ‘miner’s canary’), to the psychotic Western culture ‘normality’.


Meanwhile, the limitations of language apply to all cultures employing language to assist in understanding the reality we experience, and the ‘limitations of language’ is a general problem.   Not all cultures have done as Western culture has done, and simply appointed the innately incomplete individual perspective to serve as ‘the truth’ (reality), giving rise to a ‘free-for-all’ wherein individual perspectives are put into competition for which is the ‘true reality’ that is resolve by the principle of Lafontaine; ‘la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’).


The indigenous aboriginal culture, acknowledging the radical incompleteness of the individual, perspective has developed the ‘sharing circle’ which corresponds to the ‘Wittgenstein ladder’ and to the modern physics-based ‘surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’ (Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler).


One must keep in mind that the struggle here is with the ‘limitations of language’.  Language as used in descriptions of physical dynamics is based on visual perspective or ‘the voyeur view’ of an outsider looking in on the world, and is incapable of directly capturing our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.   The ‘sharing circle’ of indigenous aboriginals and the following ‘bootstrap’ approach of modern physics researchers, are attempts to circumvent the inherent limitations of visual perspective-based language;


[Geoffrey Chew]: “when you formulate a question, you have to have some basic concepts that you are accepting in order to formulate the question. But in the bootstrap approach, where the whole system represents a network of relationships without any firm foundation, the description of our subject can be begun at a great variety of different places. There isn’t any clear starting point. And the way our theory has developed in the last few years, we quite typically don’t know what questions to ask. We use consistency as the guide, and each increase in the consistency suggests something that is incomplete, but it rarely takes the form of a well-defined question. We are going beyond the whole question­and­answer framework.”


This sort of ‘bootstrapping’ (the sharing circle and the Wittgenstein ladder are essentially the same approach) serves as a means of alluding to a purely relational reality without dependence on the abstract notion of ‘things-in-themselves’ with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.


  – Experiential (relational) reality

Harmony and discord have no source; they are purely relational

The “Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions” invokes relational understanding without invoking the delusion of ‘beings’ with the powers of ‘sorcery’.


– Intellectual (beings with powers of sorcery based) Invented Reality

Sorcery’ arises psychologically from a double error that is not just oversimplification but delusion.

‘Blame’ and ‘commendation’ derive from the abstraction of ‘sorcery’.

Eliminating pathogens is not an expedient approach to securing a peaceful and productive community dynamic, it is delusion that assumes the ‘reality’ of ‘independent beings’ with the powers of ‘sorcery’.

Rewarding virtuousness is based on the same ‘double error’ as punishing pathology; Such actions presume the ‘reality’ of ‘sorcery’.


Western culture ‘Invented Reality’ is based on the abstractions of ‘independent beings’ with the powers of sorcery and thus cultivates collective delusion that passes for ‘normality’.  To repeat, for emphasis;


“What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.” – R. D. Laing


Western culture has fallen into the trap of using ‘perspective’ viewing ‘literally’ as if it captured ‘reality’, while the reality of our actual relational experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, which we can’t get to from ‘perspectival vision’;


There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing’; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.– Nietzsche




Yes, we can and do ‘construct perspective based pseudo-realities’ as a ‘thinking tool’.  On the day of the big earthquake, we may be on our way downtown (without an inkling of what is about to happen) to our 11th floor business office.  Our movements are guided by our intellectual visual perspective, which is highly simplified (e.g. ignores the fact that the people on the street in that perspective are not the same people (and the building is not the same building) but such continuing variations due to ‘everything is in flux’. – Heraclitus, are not captured in language (don’t forget, language employs ‘naming’ and ‘naming’ imputes ‘persisting thing-in-itself being’ to relational forms in the flow without acknowledging their inclusion in a transforming relational continuum).  The point is that language provides ‘visual perspective’ based storage and recovery to inform our psyche, and this is a very limited (voyeur observer based) intellectual form of ‘understanding’ of ‘reality’.  Recognition of the gestalt triggers recall of name-labelled known things and with the intellect thus satisfied we abandon further gathering of fine detail (e.g. we can draw much better pictures of familiar people from photographs by turning the photos upside down that that our visual investigation is not prematurely terminated by ‘recognition’)..


When we get to our office building on the day of the earthquake, our 11th floor office is now on ‘the ground floor level’.  Our mental perspectives from yesterday and before, on going through the lobby and catching an elevator to the 11th floor now need radical revision.   Note that while our language may need to be revised from our previously stable and persisting perspective, the ‘base case’ is NOT a static ‘being’ based perspective that requires ‘updating’ with a new ‘static ‘being’ based perspective, … the base case is inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.  The transformation associated with the earthquake was a reminder that while visual perspectives can be intellectually retained in our mind in articulable form, there is no way to intellectually capture the experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, in articulable form.


Language is limited to the capture of ‘visual perspectives’ or voyeur snapshots of what is ‘out there in front of us’.  Therefore, language-based knowledge is limited in this same way, but not all knowledge falls into that category; i.e. there is ‘experience-based knowledge’ such as ‘carnal knowledge’.  Most parents will give their children ‘sex education’ rather than ‘sex lessons’ (‘sex experience’), pointing out the limitations of language-based knowledge, and also pointing to the ‘limitations of language’ and how much trouble a social collective could get into if they (like Western social collectives) put the intellectual understandings of language-based knowledge into an unnatural primacy over the sensory understandings of relational experience.


Language is visual and vision is perspectival and is thus innately incapable of capturing/sharing ‘relational experience’ (the stuff of holographic reality).  In order to cultivate the ‘inclusional view’ (the omni-perspectival or holographical view) as associates with our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, we have to bring a diverse multiplicity of perspectives into relational confluence and intuitively extract the ‘relational coherencies’ therein.  That is essentially a description of ‘holographic imaging’, and that ‘sort of thing’ is what is needed to partially overcome the ‘limitations of language’ and get us closer to an intellectually conveyable sense of the relaitonal reality we share inclusion in.  Wittgenstein describes this ‘work-around’ for the ‘limitations of perspective and language’.


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.


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


Our experience based understanding of inclusion in transforming relational continuum (a holographic reality) demands that one ‘let go’ of fixed perspectives since they are innately incomplete and exposed to being pushed beyond their intrinsic limited capability “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure”.


Adjusting to living within a transforming relational continuum, requires that one ‘let’s go’ of any ‘tight hold’ on particular perspectives, since perspectives are innately incomplete.  Holding on to fixed perspectives is the source of psychosis which is a Western culture predilection.


“If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it’s not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.”


“We must be willing to let go of the life we planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us.”






There is a problem here that can be alluded to in the topological imagery that associates with ‘trying to bite one’s own nose’.  That is, the English language I am using has ‘built-in’ the double error (Nietzsche) wherein, when we start to talk about a purely relational phenomenon, Nietzsche’s example is ‘lightning’ but I prefer ‘boil’ as in the ‘boils’ we see in tidal flow, we split this relational phenomenon into two abstract parts by saying, for example, ‘lightning flashes’.  This suggest two things; the lightning as a thing-in-itself, and the lightning’s power of sourcing the flash.   In the case of the boil and flow, ‘the boil as a thing-in-itself and the boil’s power of sourcing the flow.  This is the ‘double error’.   Evidently we linguistically reduce a purely relational ‘appearance’ in the relationally transforming one-ness of the reality we are included in, to ‘two’ things; a ‘thing-in-itself’ and an ‘activity’ that the ‘thing-in-itself’ purportedly authors.


“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531


In the case of the example of ‘the boil sources the flow’, we might also ponder the possibility of whether ‘the flow sources the boil’.   This is the ‘nature’ – ‘nurture’ dichotomy (paradox) that divides Western culture adherents into ‘conservatives’ (the boil sources the flow or ‘the individual stirs up the collective’ or ‘the man makes the times’) and ‘liberals’ (the flow sources the boil or ‘the collective stirs up the individual’ or ‘the times make the man’).


The first mistake that Western culture adherents make is to accept the abstract concept of ‘sorcery’, without which, we wouldn’t have the ‘nature’ – ‘nurture’ paradox and/or the ‘double error’ that Nietzsche is discussing, and/or the conservative-liberal political division.   If the boil in the flow is ‘appearance’ then neither of these two words ‘boil’ and ‘flow’ refer to ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments.  The power of ‘naming’ to impute ‘being’ strikes again.


Western culture ‘Invented Reality’ is ‘built on the back’ of this ‘double error‘ and it is the basis of the related abstractions of ‘sorcery’ and ‘ego’ (ego as in the language-based impression of possessing the powers of sorcery).


How do we Western culture adherents put this deception over on ourselves?  That is, while there are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, there are no such things as ‘beings’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments, … this is an illusion [delusion] triggered in the mind by language.


Using the assumption that ‘there are such things’ as independently existing beings, If I accuse one of these ‘beings’ of sourcing problems and I shoot and kill him (N.B. here I am using the language of things with the powers of sourcing), I claim to have eliminated a source of troublesome actions and developments.  This conjecture will ‘hang together’ and be validated so long as we remain within the same ‘name-instantiated’, being-based ‘house-of-cards’ reality.


However, in the relational reality of our actual experience, the eruption of violence would be understood in a relational sense, as arising from tensions associated with relational imbalance, as between the full-bellies and the empty-bellies (relatives of starving children). The relational imbalance could be intensified by the removal (shooting and killing) of a balancer (a Robin Hood) of relative abundance and relative deficiency.  If we ignore the relational basis of dynamics, we can label flow-forms (‘cells’) associated with ‘relational rebalancing’ as ‘pathogens’ (notional things-in-themselves with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments).  Clearly, in the Western culture reality, relational balancing a la ‘Robin Hood’ does not take precedence over the ‘double error’ concept of ‘beings’ with the power of ‘sourcing actions and developments’.  If there is ‘abundance here’ and ‘scarcity there’, Western culture assumes that arises from being-based sourcing actions and Western culture gives special status and authority to the most prolific producers.  Meanwhile, Robin Hood and his merry band (along with indigenous aboriginal) understand relative excesses and deficiencies as arising (at base) from nature (the transforming relational continuum) and not from ‘being-based sorcery’.


The Western community dynamic could, if it chose, take on a natural orientation to the restoring and maintaining of balance and harmony, if it could ‘escape from the clutches of’ the language-and-grammar based psychological ‘double error’ which instils in the Western culture adherent a self-conscious sense of ‘independent being’ with the power of sorcery (aka ‘ego’).   ‘Ego’ ties together with the understanding of a Western culture human, or a nation, or a corporation, as a ‘being’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.


“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 faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’


One can conclude ‘what is going on around here’ in Western culture based society by observing that it is possible to ‘Invent Reality’


Experiential (relational) reality

Harmony and discord have no source; they are purely relational

The “Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions” invokes relational understanding without invoking the delusions of ‘beings’ with the powers of ‘sorcery’.

Intellectual (beings with powers of sorcery based) Invented Reality

Sorcery’ arises psychologically from a double error that is not just oversimplification but delusion.

‘Blame’ and ‘commendation’ derive from the abstraction of ‘sorcery’.

Eliminating pathogens is not an expedient approach to securing a peaceful and productive community dynamic, it is delusion that assumes the ‘reality’ of ‘independent beings’ with the powers of ‘sorcery’.

Rewarding virtuousness is based on the same ‘double error’ as punishing pathology; Such actions presume the ‘reality’ of ‘sorcery’ (a ‘double-error of grammar based delusion).


So why do people believe that Western culture based on ‘Invented Reality’ really ‘works’?


It is a language-and-grammar based ‘house of cards’ that creates a psychological impression of reality  (‘Invented Reality’) that has drifted apart from relational experience-based reality.


Its ‘house of cards’ (double error)- based logical consistency gives it internal logical self-consistency, albeit on the backs of abstractions such as ‘thing-in-itself beings’ with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.


This psychosis breeding Western ‘Invented Reality’ culture is sustained by the nonlinear dynamic of ‘lock-in’ by ‘high switching costs’ since the notion of ‘being-based sorcery’ elevates, in power and influence over what changes may be made to the current understanding of reality, those who most benefit by society’s current understanding of reality (which gives an inflated view of, and special status (including disproportionate power over what gets changed) to those deemed to have superior ‘sourcing powers’ .  This is a de facto ‘lock-in’ to the current Western culture (psychosis inducing) belief system.


Others who have discovered ‘problems’ in the workings of Western culture thus find themselves constantly viewed as troublesome ‘outsiders’.


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’


The language and grammar based (‘double error’ based) ‘Invented Reality’ of Western culture ‘occludes’ the relational reality of our actual experience, keeping intellection understanding in an unnatural primacy over experiential understanding, as is the Western culture ‘way’.



* * *