![\"\"](\"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/ouroboros-yin-yang.jpg\" "\\"ouroboros-yin-yang\\"")
<\/a>Where opposites find union<\/p><\/div>\n
This following is an update on research into what I previously have called \u2018inclusionality\u2019 and \u2018complex community dynamics\u2019, our \u2018take\u2019 or pyscho-physical experiencing of the world understood as a world of \u2018flow\u2019, also known as ‘the Tao that cannot be named’ [is beyond language-based description] also known as \u2018Brahman\u2019, \u2018Logos\u2019.\u00a0 This update is a review of the different ways that different people [or the same people in different situations] are currently interpreting it.<\/p>\n
I am never sure how to word such \u2018reports\u2019 but I can say, again, that I feel motivated to keep providing updates at intervals on the chance that a report such as this could help \u2018put some things in perspective\u2019 re the unfolding world dynamic and popular views thereof [e.g. the notion of a \u2018world revolution\u2019 or etc.], that might otherwise [with fewer ways to explore it at our disposal] be \u2018more unsettling\u2019.<\/p>\n
Or, I could say that the past seventeen years has afforded me the time to pursue my passion of deep sea diving and explorative forays into the dark depths have given me familiarity with a deep sea creature whose tentacles come out in the darkness and are manipulating our individual and collective behaviour at a level below our foreground intellectual discourse, … so that it is not a bad idea to bring this out into the light of day insofar as it could help to clarify developments that might otherwise seem \u2018more mysterious\u2019.<\/p>\n
INCLUSIONALITY UPDATE: JUNE 14, 2013<\/p>\n
As usual, I can report that very few people see things as I do.\u00a0 <\/span>I say this on the basis of having many dialogues which relatively few people have a sustained interest in.\u00a0 <\/span>But this is the same as, for example, the views of Amit Goswami http:\/\/www.amitgoswami.org\/<\/a> whose \u2018quantum activism\u2019 has a lot in common with my own understanding, but which is also missing a lot of what I am seeing.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n In this update then, I\u2019ll try to do less of direct explanation of what I am understanding and a bit more of how I see the new understandings of the \u2018quantum activism\u2019 ilk \u2018playing out\u2019 in our societal dynamics.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n In the anarchist crowd, there are many searchers of new understanding.\u00a0 <\/span>I would say 90 % are searching for an improved understanding and many have been \u2018trying on\u2019 a diversity of ideas (and practices) to see how they \u2018fit\u2019 and not being satisfied, are continuing their explorations.\u00a0 <\/span>In Spain, I see some whose understanding is very close to my own.\u00a0 <\/span>I don\u2019t know who they are personally; this is just my \u2018take\u2019 from reading some writings from an anonymous source in Spain.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>For example, they see it, as I also do, that we live in a relational space so that \u2018the State\u2019 is not something \u2018real\u2019 but something which is continually sustained by our manner of socially relating.\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, it makes no sense to \u2018attack the State\u2019 for \u2018its\u2019 faults because \u2018the State\u2019 is the symptom that is sourced by a certain manner of social relating that derives, in turn, from a certain worldview.\u00a0 <\/span>\u2018The State\u2019 and its institutions will just keep rebuilding after every attack, in the same manner that \u2018criminals\u2019 and \u2018terrorists\u2019 will just keep rebuilding after being attacked by \u2018the authorities\u2019 until the source of these manifestations is finally addressed … a source that lies \u2018upstream\u2019 of the actual State institutions and resides in the worldview that orchestrates and shapes the social-relational dynamic.<\/p>\n REALITY IN THREE LEVELS OF COMPREHENSIVENESS<\/p>\n Throughout my investigations, the understanding that \u2018reality\u2019 is available in three levels of comprehensiveness, with the more comprehensive realities including the less, has held up.\u00a0 <\/span>The levels are basically as Erich Jantsch (Austrian physicist) cited them in Design for Evolution: Self-Organization and Planning in the Life of Human Systems <\/em>(The International Library of Systems Theory and Philosophy)<\/span> in 1975.<\/p>\n Since I have \u2018been in the business\u2019 of fleshing out and deepening my understanding of these three levels, how they come about and how they are \u2018at play\u2019 in society, I will use my own terminology.\u00a0 <\/span>In any case, this three level view comes directly to one\u2019s intuition and experience.<\/p>\n Level I: – Relational Features in Relational Space [non-dualism]<\/strong><\/p>\n In this most comprehensive level of reality, the intuition of our pre-lingual[un-intellectualized] sensory experience, the universe is ONE, an ALL-including, continually transforming relational spatial plenum.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>This has been described by Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger and others in association with understandings coming from relativity and quantum physics.\u00a0 <\/span>This is the \u2018non-dualist\u2019 relational space reality of Mach\u2019s principle [\u201cThe dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants\u201d] as validated in the physical phenomenon of inertial force\/guidance.<\/p>\n The relations of self, other and space, in this view are as one would understand the relations of one storm-cell with other storm-cells with the flow of the relational space of the atmosphere-plenum. \u00a0<\/span>The whole dynamic is one of thingless-connectedness and simultaneous mutual interdependence.<\/p>\n One can imagine how \u2018things\u2019 emerge in the flow and register as separate and individual \u2018things\u2019 in our mind by considering the tornado.\u00a0 <\/span>It is \u2018flow-within-flow\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>There is an \u2018input\u2019 \u2018sink\u2019 [female aspect] which air rushes into and is channelled and an \u2018output\u2019 \u2018source\u2019 [male aspect] which air fountains forth from, and these are conjugate aspects of one circular flow-dynamic.\u00a0 <\/span>The tornado, or hurricane or, in general, convection cell, appears to us as a local, visible, material \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019, even though it is, physically, a NON-LOCAL, NON-VISIBLE, NON-MATERIAL relational flow-feature, \u2018made manifest\u2019 by the vapour and\/or flotsam\/debris its purely relational flow-currents gather and animate. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>As with an eddy-current in a conductor that derives from an electromagnetic field, the purely relational flow force is a field of potentials\/possibilities that precedes the manifest, material actualization, just as tensions in the earth give rise to local, visible, material manifestations such as earthquakes and volcanoes.\u00a0 <\/span>That is, the local, visible, material manifestations are NOT the primary physical reality, they are \u2018appearances\u2019 or \u2018schaumkommen\u2019, variations in the transforming relational structure of space [Schroedinger].\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n We know this intuitively.\u00a0 <\/span>For example, we know that the earth\u2019s lithosphere behaves as a fluid and that convection currents within it are continually carrying molten material to the surface where it solidifies and elsewhere subducts it into the interior where it is \u2018recycled\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>Still, it is convenient for us to speak of \u2018continents\u2019 as if they are local material \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 and we do name them and speak of them as if they were, just as we name hurricanes \u2018Katrina\u2019, \u2018Ivan\u2019 etc. and speak of them as if they were local, visible, material \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>[We would have to see the whole atmosphere at once to \u2018really know\u2019 the hurricane, and that is impossible, so it is easier to speak of the hurricane by way of its local, visible aspect, the pinwheeling vaporous arms etc, …ignoring the non-local, non-visible, non-material field of potentials that is spawning it.<\/p>\n There are spiritual implications here since if all things, including our human selves, are relational features in the relational flow, then we are both, at the same time, the local, visible material aspect, the pin-wheeling thing called Katrina that is ravaging New Orleans, and the non-local, non-visible, non-material field of potentials aspect that is sourcing its local, visible, material aspect.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>We are Brahman (eternal self, the \u2018all\u2019) at the same time as we are Atman (individual self). \u00a0<\/span>This is the picture that physicists like Erwin Schroedinger and Amit Goswami [\u2018Quantum Activism\u2019] are painting.<\/p>\n In understanding ourselves in this third level of reality; i.e. as a relational feature in the continually transforming relational-spatial plenum, like Katrina the hurricane, we can see ourselves both as a \u2018causal agent\u2019 [Katrina is ravaging New Orleans] and, at the same time, as an \u2018agent of transformation\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>In fact, if one goes back to the physics, one acknowledges that the atmosphere-plenum in taking on infusions of solar thermal energy, is brought towards the \u2018boil\u2019 and these \u2018boils\u2019 [convection cells] emerge in the service of restoring balance in the thermal energy distribution; e.g. to \u2018transport thermal energy from thermal energy rich equatorial regions to thermal energy poor polar regions\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>The hurricane is born into a Robin Hood service, the need of restoring balance.\u00a0 <\/span>The hurricane is an agent of transformation that transmits thermal energy from the non-local to the point on which it can act (e.g. from the whole of the atmosphere-plenum to the city of New Orleans).<\/p>\n This level one reality, as applies to man, is captured by Ralph Waldo Emerson in \u2018The Method of Nature\u2019, as follows;<\/p>\n \u201cWhilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man\u2019s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now, Emerson is already getting into the reduction of levels of reality by pointing out that man has a tendency to see himself only as a \u2018causal agent\u2019 and not acknowledge his greater \u2018agent of transformation\u2019 aspect.\u00a0 <\/span>This is like recognizing Katrina only for her \u2018act\u2019 of levelling New Orleans and forgetting that she is an agent of transformation that is contributing to the continuing transformation of the relational spatial plenum.\u00a0 <\/span>As Schroedinger points out, this more profound aspect of self, our agent-of-transformation aspect IS God\/Brahman.\u00a0 <\/span>We ARE Brahman, which is what Emerson is saying.\u00a0 <\/span>Why reduce ourselves to our \u2018causal agent\u2019 status; that is too small a view of who we are.<\/p>\n This level one reality comes with a spiritual aspect that overlays aboriginal spiritualism, as well as the Taoist, Buddhist and Vedanta spiritual traditions.<\/p>\n In the non-dualist level I reality, space is a fullness which is both male and female at once.\u00a0 <\/span>For example, the potential [pressure\/tension] field that is the non-local, non-visible, non-material accommodating\/orchestrating\/shaping [female] influence on the local, visible, material [male] hurricane\/actualization is ONE phenomenon with conjugate female and male aspects.<\/p>\n One is reminded here of the basic suggestion in quantum physics where \u2018actuality\u2019 arrives with the \u2018collapse of the wave function\u2019 [the probability distribution] in the act of observing\/measuring.\u00a0 <\/span>In the macro-world of our physical experience, we seem to use language to \u2018reduce to the male pole\u2019 our full experience.\u00a0 <\/span>By this, I mean that we psychologically\/intellectually shift all attribution of dynamics away from the fullness of relational space [the female aspect] and give it all to \u2018local, visible, material things-in-themselves\u2019 and \u2018what they do\u2019[the male aspect].\u00a0 <\/span>To give a simple, familiar example, if we have two friends working for two similar companies and Fred sits in the same low-level job for years Bob rockets up to the top of the organization, we attribute this to Bob, and so does Bob feel he has \u2018earned the promotions\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>But his advancements could be due to being in the right place at the right time; i.e. his immediate bosses could have retired or died, opening up a chain of vacated positions that he simply flowed into.<\/p>\n Our scientific thinking makes use of absolute space and absolute time reference framing which captures dynamics in terms of \u2018what absolute things-in-themselves do\u2019, which is a \u2018reduction to the male pole\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>This is a \u2018reduced\u2019 intellectual reality that will be spoken of shortly, but the point here is that there is this sense that we impute a rising star \u2018trajectory\u2019 to Bob, as if it were of his making, when it was the opening of a corridor in relational space that orchestrated and shaped \u2018his trajectory\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>If we don\u2019t know of Bob or the company [when we don\u2019t look], the transforming relational spatial plenum just keeps on relationally-spatially transforming, but when \u2018we look\u2019, we Bob\u2019s trajectory.<\/p>\n It is important to note that when \u2018we look\u2019, we look as an excluded observer \u2018voyeur\u2019 as if from the outside-in; i.e. a God\u2019s-eye view.\u00a0 <\/span>We might capture this God\u2019s-eye view as the place where \u2018intellection\u2019 takes over.\u00a0 <\/span>If we are Bob, navigating within the relational space in the manner of one of many drivers in the flow of the freeway, then we let the opening of relational corridors orchestrate and shape our asserting behaviour.\u00a0 <\/span>When three or more bodies move under one another\u2019s simultaneous influence, it is impossible to solve for the trajectory attributable to the individual participants [the \u2018three-body problem\u2019], so Bob, if he is honest, does not claim \u2018his apparent [male, assertive] trajectory\u2019 as seen by a voyeur observer, to be attributable to his \u2018intentions\u2019 [it was outside-inward orchestrated and shaped by the fluid\/relational dynamics he was included in.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n The scientific observer, who has mapped his movements on the freeway using a GPS in his car and putting black paint on his tires which register his trajectory on the freeway pavement, can pull out these pictures and show Bob that he does indeed have a \u2018male, assertive\u2019 trajectory.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Bob\u2019s point will be that his trajectory has no meaning in the standard scientific reduced-to-the-male-pole \u2018what a thing-in-itself does\u2019 sense, since his individual movements and the collective movements were orchestrated and shaped outside-inwardly from the relational space dynamics they shared inclusion in.\u00a0 <\/span>Mach\u2019s principle applies wherein the group \u00a0<\/span>[and the group\u2019s] movements are orchestrated and shaped by the relational space they share inclusion in; \u201cThe dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are shaping the dynamics of the inhabitants.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>This self-referencing habitat-inhabitant dynamic has an ouroborical-like topology; i.e. in a crowd dynamic, the islands and channel banks that accommodate, orchestrate and shape the flow passing through them are themselves the flow.<\/p>\n The conclusion is that the probability function \u2018does not collapse\u2019 unless we \u2018get outside of the dynamics\u2019 [impossible] and look down and in upon them as an excluded voyeur observer [the \u2018God\u2019s-eye view\u2019].\u00a0 <\/span>We then \u2018intellectualize\u2019 what is inherently beyond intellectualization.\u00a0 <\/span>It is this God\u2019s-eye view \u2018intellectualization\u2019 constituted by a \u2018reduction-to-the-male-pole\u2019 [imposing of absolute space and absolute time reference framing which makes possible the notions of absolute things-in-themselves and \u2018their own behaviours\/trajectories\/development].<\/p>\n Of course, there is nothing more \u2018God\u2019s-eye view-like\u2019 than the scientist\u2019s looking through the barrel of a microscope or telescope at the world; i.e. it is almost certain to psychologically split the observer out of the relational spatial plenum he is included in.\u00a0 <\/span>This is the formula for creating \u2018knowledge\u2019 based on \u2018scientific observations\u2019, the sort of knowledge, as Heraclitus says; \u201cthat does not teach understanding\u201d.<\/p>\n There is just one more \u2018connection\u2019 between this level I [quantum wave dynamic] reality with \u2018spirituality\u2019 that I\u2019d like to make before leaving it, and it bears on this God\u2019s-eye, excluded voyeur observer view that we can equate to \u2018intellectual observation\/knowledge\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Since being in this God\u2019s-eye view mode splits us out of and apart of the relational spatial plenum we are inherently, physically included in, we must suspend this intellectualizing [suspend intellectual thinking] in order to \u2018get back inside our real world experience\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>This point is made by the spiritual guides of many spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta, aboriginal traditional spiritual guides etc.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n The innocent experience of a child is like that of the child-driver of a \u2018bumper-car\u2019 in the bumper car ride in the fairgrounds.\u00a0 <\/span>The child has no destination-orientation and does not own his\/her own trajectory.\u00a0 <\/span>He\/she enjoys the in-the-now unfolding journey of inclusion in a continually transforming relational space, … seeing the corridors of possibility opening up, some morphing into cul-de-sacs and others into fairways for speedsters, one never knows until one ventures forward and even then there is no answer, only the continuously unfolding in-the-now experience.\u00a0 <\/span>Outside, the parents get to look in and see their child making his\/her moves and following his\/her trajectory, … \u2018oh, he\/she made a good move there!\u2019, as the child turns into what unfolds into a fairway that could have as easily turned into a cul-de-sac,… the parents adopting the \u2018reduction-to-the-male-pole\u2019 that characterizes intellectual excluded voyeur observer thinking.<\/p>\n Suspending the God\u2019s-eye view mode of intellectual thought equates to the suspending of the collapse of the probability distribution, allowing us to remain in unlimited possibility space.\u00a0 <\/span>One might say, to bring our Brahman aspect to the helm of \u2018self\u2019, the flow-plenum aspect of the hurricane that is \u2018transmitting influences from the vast and universal to the point on which its genius can act\u2019, and giving a break to our Atman aspect, our Katrina thing-in-ourselves-that-does-stuff [personal causal results achieving] aspect of \u2018self\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>that does stuff aspect.<\/p>\n In the spiritual tradition of the Gnostics, this pure innocence-based experiencing state, the non-dualist state where the split between \u2018inside\u2019 and \u2018outside\u2019 dissolves, is referred to as \u2018entering the kingdom\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>For the Gnostics, the \u2018kingdom\u2019 is here and waiting for those who can bring the duality of \u2018within and without\u2019 into a non-dualist unity;<\/p>\n 3. Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father’s) kingdom.”<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n They said to him, “Then shall we enter the (Father’s) kingdom as babies?”<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].”<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The idea here is, as in Schroedinger\u2019s \u2018What is Life?\u2019 essay, that we, at the same time, Brahman, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum [the \u2018eternal self\u2019 or \u2018spacetime continuum\u2019] and Atman, the relational feature in the relational space that is uniquely, situationally included within the flow-plenum.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Our intellectual thought, meanwhile, reduces relational-features-in-the-relational-plenum to \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 with their own internal God-like sourcing of force and direction.\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, it reduces-our-self-to-the-male-pole, to pure Atman, no Brahman.\u00a0 <\/span>When we are at one with our Brahman self, we are \u2018in the kingdom\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>This is a different kind of \u2018knowing\u2019 from \u2018intellectual knowing\u2019.<\/p>\n \u201cIn this gospel, and this is also the case in the Gospel of Luke, the Kingdom of God is not an event that’s going to be catastrophically shattering the world as we know it and ushering in a new millennium. Here, as in Luke 17:20, the Kingdom of God is said to be an interior state; “It’s within you,” Luke says. And here it says, “It’s inside you but it’s also outside of you.” It’s like a state of consciousness. It’s hard to describe. But the Kingdom of God here is something that you can enter when you attain gnosis, which means knowledge. But it doesn’t mean intellectual knowledge. The Greeks had two words for knowledge. One is intellectual knowledge, like the knowledge of physics or something like that. But this gnosis is personal, like “I know that person, or do you know so and so.” So this gnosis is self-knowledge; you could call it insight. It’s a question of knowing who you really are, not at the ordinary level of your name and your social class or your position. But knowing your self at a deep level. The secret of gnosis is that when you know yourself at that level you will also come to know God, because you will discover that the divine is within you.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In this view, the \u2018fall of man\u2019 is the fall from non-dualism to dualism;<\/p>\n \u201cThe Gospel of Thomas draws on the imagery of Genesis throughout, and this is no exception. In Genesis 2:9 we are told of two trees in Paradise, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These fit well into the themes of Thomas; good and evil are two opposites, and life is a single thing, a unity. By eating of the tree of two things, Good and Evil, Adam and Eve are eventually cast out of Paradise. Paradise, Hebrew Pardes, is a good place for trees, since the Hebrew literally means \u2018orchard\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n With this comment on \u2018spirituality\u2019 [which takes a lot of words!], this completes the outline of the \u2018level I reality\u2019 and its relation with scientific reality or \u2018rationality\u2019 which is actually \u2018level III reality\u2019 in this model.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Just to mention, … that this three-level reality model is similar to the model of Erich Jantsch [\u2018Design for Evolution\u2019] whose level I he called \u2018evolutionary\u2019 while his level II, he called \u2018mythological\u2019 and level III, he called \u2018rational\u2019.<\/p>\n While there is strong accord, my feeling is that my descriptions are more \u2018tied down\u2019 than his, but of course, I have had the benefit of critically reviewing his.\u00a0 <\/span>In particular, in distinguishing between level II [his mythological] and level III [his rational], I use the metaphor of the sailboater [level II] and the powerboater [level III] where the distinction is that one is \u2018voyage oriented\u2019 since one sees one\u2019s force and steerage as deriving from the relational space one is included in in the sailboater level II reality, and one is \u2018destination oriented\u2019 and sees one\u2019s force and steerage as deriving fully and solely from one\u2019s internal components and processes, in the powerboater level III.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Jantsch similarly sees \u2018divinity\u2019 as permeating, and being accessible, in level I reality.<\/p>\n \u201cIn a world which is creating itself, the idea of divinity does not remain outside, but is embedded in the totality of self-organization dynamics at all levels and in all dimensions. —Erich Jantsch\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Level II Reality: – Nature and Nurture: Sailboater reality<\/strong><\/p>\n This level II reality can be understood as a reduction\/simplification of level I reality, … a reduction that delivers \u2018economy of thought\u2019, as Mach would say.\u00a0 <\/span>It is \u2018dualist\u2019 in that it splits apart \u2018inhabitant\u2019 and \u2018habitat\u2019, as when we refer to \u2018the environment\u2019, that which \u2018surrounds us\u2019 but which is \u2018not us\u2019.<\/p>\n In level I reality, all \u2018things\u2019 from atoms to galaxies and from body cells through organs to organisms were understood as \u2018relational features in a relational flow\u2019 [relational flow = relational spatial plenum].\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Now, in level II reality, we use the \u2018subjective idealizing power of language\u2019 to reduce the relational feature to a NOTIONAL local, visible, material \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>Language and grammar are key here, and we know the \u2018power of the word\u2019 from our experience as to what happens when we take a dimpling-up in the flow [a storm-cell] and \u2018give it a word-name-label\u2019 such as \u2018Katrina\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>We can forget about the flow which is really, physically what is going on, and switch over to talking about \u2018Katrina\u2019 and \u2018how Katrina is growing and developing, and \u2018what Katrina is doing\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>This level two reality is a pseudo-reality that is in terms of \u2018what things-in themselves are doing\u2019; i.e. we have dropped down a level from understanding dynamics figures or forms in terms of \u2018activities\u2019 to using the subjective idealizing power of language to re-render these activities as \u2018things-in-themselves-that-do-stuff\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, we have done exactly what Emerson warns us not to do, to re-cast the agent of transformation as a causal agent that is defined by his acts. [forgetting that he is Brahman in his aspect of transmitting influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his [Brahman] genius can act.<\/p>\n How did language do this to us?\u00a0 <\/span>How did it drop out the divine and leave only the human?\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>How did it reduce us from \u2018relational feature in the relational flow [Brahman, Tao, Logos]?<\/p>\n Nietzsche and Watts and Sapir and Whorf all explore how our language architecture to shape our reality.\u00a0 <\/span>I will cite a few of their propositions since this is a key point; i.e. we observe something that is essentially \u2018dynamic\u2019 and somehow extract from this dynamic, \u2018absolute being\u2019 that we then say is \u2018the source of the dynamic\u2019;<\/p>\n \u201cOur judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author\u201d;\u2013but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say \u201clightning flashes,\u201d 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, \u201cis\u201d and does not \u201cbecome.\u201d\u2013To regard an event as an \u201ceffecting,\u201d and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Will to Power\u2019, 531<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c[Descartes\u2019 \u2018I think therefore I am\u2019 reflects] \u2026 our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate\u201d \u2026 \u201cThat which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force\u2013in will, in intention\u2013it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the \u201csubject.\u201d Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Will to Power\u2019 484<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAs soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot \u201cperform\u201d actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, \u201cgoeswith\u201d) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?\u201d \u2014Alan Watts, \u2018Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are\u2019 <\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe fact of the matter is that the \u2018real world\u2019 is to a large extent unconsciously\u00a0 built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.\u201d\u00a0 \u2013 Edward Sapir<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cFinally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.\u201d \u2013 Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Again, we start with our experiencing\/observation of dynamics, and we use the subjective idealizing power of language to reduce the activity [e.g. the storm-cell], the relational feature in the transforming relational spatial plenum, to a \u2018thing-in-itself-that-does stuff\u2019 [\u2018Katrina\u2019].\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, we use language to reduce our level I reality to this level II reality in terms of \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 and \u2018what these things-in-themselves are doing\u2019.<\/p>\n Now, in this dualist level II reality, we acknowledge a role for both the \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 and for \u2018the environment\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>In the non-dualist level I reality, there was no \u2018time\u2019 since the relational spatial plenum was undergoing transformation wherein the entire plenum is changing at the same time.\u00a0 <\/span>And, as Einstein observes;<\/p>\n \u201cThe only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/span>In other words, level II reality not only makes use of words and grammar to reify the relational features and reduce them to \u2018things-in-themselves, but it re-renders dynamics, which were relational in level I reality, to the actions\/interactions of \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 IN SPACE AND TIME.\u00a0 <\/span>Instead of the figures being relational features in the relational spatial plenum, the figures are now \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>Snap, Snap.<\/p>\n Imagine a picture of yourself in front of you along side a picture of a hurricane.\u00a0 <\/span>As you look at the images, you see them as local, visible, material things-in-themselves or \u2018beings\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span>But if you think of the earth\u2019s biosphere as it must have been over the past few million years, you can imagine how billions of people must have been bubbling up within it and then the human \u2018being\u2019 starts to look more like a \u2018bubble\u2019 in the boil-up; i.e. an activity more than a thing, an agent of transformation more than a local machine with its own jumpstart behaviour so that it is know by its causal acts rather than by its tornado-like \u2018transmitting of influences from the non-local [vast and universal] to the point on which its [Brahman] genius can act\u2019.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n The subjective idealizing power of language does for the human relational feature what it does for the hurricane relational feature, it reduces it from an activity [level I reality] to a notional \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019 that notionally acts and interacts in space and time.<\/p>\n A major social dynamics \u2018glitsch\u2019 develops from the fact that we use what we take to be \u2018reality\u2019 to orchestrate and shape our individual and collective behaviour.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>David Bohm spent his latter life in trying to alert people to the \u2018incoherence\u2019 which resulted from using one reality as the basis for acting so as to change that reality in a desired way, when that was not \u2018really\u2019 the operative reality, thus the change we were expecting to bring about didn\u2019t happen; … some other change happened instead.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>We compound this problem if we try to straighten out the mess we just made, without changing the reality that we are presuming is the operative reality, while the operative reality is something else.\u00a0 <\/span>This is Bohm\u2019s \u2018incoherence\u2019, and one can see and discuss how this comes about across these \u2018three levels of reality\u2019.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n