<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n The following is a commentary by a national political leader manifesting the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. That person is David Cameron, Prime Minister of the U.K. who says, in his January 1, 2016 New Year\u2019s address to the nation;<\/p>\n \u201cAnd we will take on another social problem too. When our national security is threatened by a seething hatred of the West, …one that turns people against their country and can even turn them into murderous extremists. I want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us. And we will not just confront the violence and the terror, we will take on the underlying poisonous narrative of grievance and resentment. We will come down hard on those who create the conditions for that narrative to flourish. And we will have greater confidence in, … indeed we will revel in, our way of life because if you walk our streets, learn in our schools, benefit from our society, you sign up to our values; freedom, tolerance, responsibility, loyalty. These are the big challenges of our age; some of the biggest our nation ever faced. And this year is a test of our metal.\u201d \u2013 David Cameron<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n David Cameron is speaking to others with a grievance against the actions of the colonial powers, as if they were an independent body of people, an independent body of \u2018evil people\u2019 who had divided themselves from the relational social collective, and were on the attack against another independent body of people, the independent body of \u2018good people\u2019 that he represents. He is confused as to the physical reality of the world dynamic wherein \u2018relations are all there is\u2019, where conflict is a coincidence of opposites rather than two separate, independent factions. Where the world is only given once, as a transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n In the physical reality of our natural experience, we live within a unum that is undergoing continual relational transformation and is therefore a unum-in-opposition [Heraclitus]. Eruptions of violence that manifest through particular relational forms within a transforming relational unum do not imply a local authoring source of the violence, however, it is an \u2018economy of thought\u2019 to assume that the source of the conflict arises from the relational forms through which the tensional energy is released. For example, the \u2018child-soldier\u2019 is a vent for releasing relational tensions in the social collective, though not the jumpstart source of such release. The source, being relational, is non-local, yet Western civilization, because of its elevating of reason and moral judgement into an unnatural precedence over intuition and the instinct to cultivate, restore and sustain relational balance and harmony, scapegoats the \u2018venting\u2019 child-soldier [or \u2018miner\u2019s canary\u2019] by making him out to be the local jumpstart author of the violence who is fully and solely responsible for the results of the violence.<\/p>\n The extended family\/community that points the finger of blame at the child-soldier [the alleged guilty offender], by portraying him as the local jumpstart cause of the violence, render themselves, because of the binary logic of moral judgement, as \u2018innocent victims\u2019 although they, too, are included within the relational continuum and share in the sourcing of the relational tensions that found release through the child-soldier.<\/p>\n Binary logic that permeates noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar underpins the theological and secularized theological [scientific] notion of \u2018independent being\u2019 which permits the reasoned deconstruction of purely relational conflict, making it out to be violent intentions authored by \u2018evil independent beings\u2019 that aim to maim and kill \u2018good independent beings\u2019. Since it is physically impossible to divide up a relational continuum into \u2018independent beings\u2019, this portrait of conflict as the battle between \u2018good independent beings\u2019 and \u2018evil independent beings\u2019 amounts to paranoid schizophrenia, as in Cameron\u2019s statement;<\/p>\n \u201cI want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chr\u00e9tien observed in a nationally televised interview on the first anniversary of 9\/ll [2002], polarization arises within a relational social collective from a build up of relational tensions do to unrelenting humiliation of colonized peoples by Euro-American colonizing powers; i.e. divisions arise from simultaneous RELATIONAL [relative] tensions within a transforming relational unum [continuum].<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 it is a division in the world that is building up. And I knew that it was the inspiration of it [9\/11] \u2026 You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don\u2019t look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. \u2026 we\u2019re looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more.\u201d \u2013 Jean Chr\u00e9tien<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Cameron\u2019s paranoid schizophrenic worldview [which couples with a mirror image paranoid schizophrenia arising in the \u2018feared others\u2019] cultivates an \u2018auto-immune disease\u2019 within the global social collective.<\/p>\n This archetype of mirrored paranoid schizophrenia is a general template for \u2018mental illness\u2019. As Thomas Szasz, Ronald Laing and Raymond Cochrane have all pointed out [and as is the case with \u2018child soldier\u2019], the source of the disturbing energy is not situated within the individual that vents this energy: it derives from relational social tensions.<\/p>\n In \u2018Crazy for You\u2019, Jill Astbury similarly interprets WHO statistics that show that women have twice the incidence of affective disorders as men, as indicating that women tend to be the first point of breakdown for venting tensions in a relational social dynamic. The emotional disturbance that manifests through women is a venting from the tensioned relational continuum [e.g. the extended relational matrix of family, friends, co-workers].<\/p>\n Once the \u2018others\u2019 are looking on the emotionally disturbed person as if her disturbing behaviour [which can be very scary and suggestive of superstitious \u2018possession by the devil\u2019 paranoid fears] derives from within her, the emotionally disturbed person can see in their eyes, that she is nothing [sub-human] and that they would like to \u2018get rid of her\u2019 [and get the other normal person back]. This paranoid schizophrenia mirrors back into itself like the infinite images in mirrors that face each other. As is the case with terrorism, one faction will be more solidly anchored in the dominant social structure so that the one that breaks down first will be first identified as the defective one that must be straight-jacketed or taken into custody for the protection of the public, the good, innocent, normal people, who will be determined not to be distracted from their status quo practices by the disturbances coming from deranged people.<\/p>\n \u201cI want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Eruptions of conflict within an interdependent relational social dynamic are like earthquakes that associate with the transforming lithosphere. Those through whom relational tensions release are miner\u2019s canaries who \u2018take the hit\u2019 for the needed reconfiguring\/transformation that seeks to lower tensions. These \u2018miner\u2019s canaries\u2019, in a transforming relational social dynamic are the so-called \u2018mentally ill\u2019, the so-called\u2019 criminal elements\u2019, and the so-called \u2018terrorists\u2019 or \u2018rebels\u2019.<\/p>\n In Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s interpretation of terrorism, there is one global collective that is undergoing a build-up of relational tensions within itself, that is the source of eruptions of violence. The perceived cure becomes the restoring of balance and harmony within the global relational social dynamic.<\/p>\n In Cameron\u2019s interpretation of terrorism, the relational Unum is perceived to be \u2018splitting into two\u2019; \u2018the evil\u2019 and \u2018the good\u2019 [an impossibility in physical reality], and the perceived cure becomes \u2018the elimination of the evil\u2019. This is like environmentalists trying to construct houses in the forest without destroying any forest. It is a view that is blind to the physical reality of our experience wherein \u2018construction\u2019 and \u2018destruction\u2019 are conjugate aspects within a single, \u2018coincidence of opposites\u2019 dynamic [relational transformation].<\/p>\n Cameron uses \u2018two voices\u2019 at the same time as he splits the \u2018us\u2019 into \u2018you and us\u2019;<\/p>\n \u201c…a seething hatred of the West, …one that turns people against their country and can even turn them into murderous extremists. I want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Cameron\u2019s \u2018you will not defeat us\u2019<\/span> treats conflict not as something \u2018relative\u2019 as in relational tensions within a transforming relational unum, but as a collection of \u2018independent beings\u2019 that can morph into two real polar opposites; \u2018the good\u2019 and \u2018the evil\u2019 implying \u2018the innocent\u2019 and \u2018the guilty\u2019 so that the remedial action becomes one of smoking out \u2018the evil offenders and potential offenders\u2019 and eliminating them in order to protect \u2018the good and innocent\u2019.<\/p>\n Cameron\u2019s view is like the view of the self-appraised \u2018normal\u2019 person who judges the individual undergoing emotional distress [venting tensions in the relational social matrix that the \u2018normals\u2019 are contributing to], as the local source of her own emotional distress; i.e. as defective others aka \u2018evil independent beings\u2019. The \u2018evil eye\u2019 that Cameron aims at the terrorists mirrors the \u2018evil eye\u2019 that the terrorists give to Cameron and herein ensues bilateral paranoid schizophrenia, which began as relational social tensions that could have been [and still can be] resolved through restorative justice processes.<\/p>\n This view of Cameron\u2019s, which seems to be the default view of Western civilization [i.e. as Nietzsche says, it is a ‘being’-based view that puts reason and moral judgement into unnatural precedence over intuition and restoring of balance and harmony] is radically unlike the view that understands eruptions of violence as deriving from relational tensions within a relational social collective or transforming relational unum, wherein those tensions are buffered by local absorption or reconfigured by local push-back. This latter view is common to indigenous aboriginals who have been chronically humiliated and exposed to cultural genocide through the policies of the Euro-American colonizers. As Ward Churchill said of the \u2018terrorist\u2019 9\/11 action, on September 12, 2001, the day after the attack on the WTC towers;<\/p>\n \u201cLooking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ve got to learn, \u201d the line went, \u201cthat when you push people around, some people push back.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n As they should. \u2026 As they must. \u2026 And as they undoubtedly will.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n There is justice in such symmetry\u201d.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ward Churchill might have also noted that the binary logic of reason and moral judgement does not acknowledge that the child-soldier is a \u2018vent\u2019 for relational tensions in the overall social matrix, and not the local jumpstart authoring source, meaning that the good and innocent doing the judging were co-contributors to the tensions in the relational matrix which sourced the push-back through the \u2018venting actions\u2019 of extremists.<\/p>\n In a relational social unum, internally tensioned against itself, the tension is \u2018relative\u2019 and push-back is natural. The issue of how the push-back is done; i.e. with cluster bombs, drones, napalm or beheadings does not change the reality that the tension arises \u2018relatively\u2019 as in a \u2018coincidence of opposites\u2019. There is nothing in physical reality that established an absolute \u2018norm\u2019 of \u2018correct behaviour\u2019 that defines \u2018bad behaviour\u2019 in terms of such behaviour being discernible as a departure from some absolute norm of \u2018good behaviour\u2019. In a relational social dynamic there is no absolute \u2018norm\u2019 or baseline. European \u2018absolutism\u2019 is the source of global societal dysfunction, as is the title of this note, and as is the inference in Russell Mean\u2019s 1980 comments in Mother Jones;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe process itself epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate thinking”: what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken\u201d \u2013 Russell Means<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What Means is addressing is that<\/p>\n \u201cThe process itself<\/span> [articulating views in subject-verb-predicate rhetoric] epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate thinking”: what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken<\/span> [what is spoken from the \u2018heart-voice\u2019 rather than the \u2018head-voice\u2019].\u201d \u2013 Russell Means<\/span><\/p>\n The European view conceives of the world in a mechanical way which sees dynamics in terms of material parts whose actions speak for themselves.\u00a0 This mechanical view is a ‘de-spiritualizing’ view that fails to acknowledge how influence flows through the relational social dynamic and how people locally vent that which is nonlocally sourced.<\/p>\n In the indigenous aboriginal \u2018peace-making\u2019 tradition, evil must be transformed in a restorative justice process in which there is no splitting of the community into \u2018good\u2019 and \u2018evil\u2019 followed by wars of elimination of the evil that correspond to refining and distilling out \u2018the good\u2019.<\/p>\n How the global relational social dynamic unfolds in 2016 and beyond depends a lot on whether the schizophrenic views of society continue to dominate, as they have been encouraged, by political leaders such as Cameron, Hollande and Obama.<\/p>\n Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s views on terrorism are similar to those of Russell Mean\u2019s and Ward Churchill, perhaps because Chr\u00e9tien derives from an \u2018under-dog\u2019 culture, the Quebecois Franco-Canadien minority, that has experienced \u2018humiliation\u2019 by the winning \u2018imperialist\/colonialist\u2019 Anglo-culture, and realizes that such humiliation can come from sleeping in the same bed with an elephant whose rolling around can cause injury more from insensitivity than from maliciousness, an elephant that will interpret \u2018push-back\u2019 as an unprovoked and unjustified \u201cpoisonous narrative of grievance and resentment\u201d<\/span>.<\/p>\n Question:<\/p>\n Do those that view terrorism as \u2018push-back\u2019 within a relationally tensioned social unum, such as Chr\u00e9tien, Means and Churchill \u2018have it right\u2019? [the non-dualist view of conflict], or do those that view terrorism in terms of the war of \u2018the good\u2019 against \u2018the evil\u2019 such as Cameron, Hollande and Obama \u2018have it right\u2019? [the dualist view of conflict].<\/p>\n This essay is to suggest that the views of Cameron, Hollande and Obama are Western civilization \u2018mainstream\u2019 views which, because they draw from binary logic based discursive reason and binary logic based moral [\u2018good-and-evil\u2019] judgement, infuse dysfunction into the global social dynamic that manifests as \u2018the war on terrorism\u2019, \u2018the war on criminal behaviour\u2019 and \u2018the war on mental illness\u2019. In all cases, these \u2018wars\u2019 attempt to eliminate something [perceived as] \u2018going wrong with others out there\u2019, as if the global social collective can be split into the \u2018normals\u2019 and the \u2018abnormals\u2019 when the global social collective cannot, in any real physical, phenomenological sense, be \u2018split\u2019 at all [the world is only given once, as a transforming relational continuum]. What we are dealing with is paranoid schizophrenia, an auto-immune disease in which the relational collective is attacking its own miner\u2019s canaries aka alarm systems.<\/p>\n \u201cI want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The binary logic comes from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which RE-presents the dynamics of our relational experience in the fragmented terms of \u2018independent material objects and organisms\u2019 and \u2018what these independent entities do\u2019. This is a view that comes from language that does not reconcile with our experiencing of dynamics. For example, thanks to language, we talk about the atmosphere as if it were a factory that produced widgets called \u2018storm-cells\u2019, however, these \u2018cells\u2019 never \u2018individuate\u2019 from the energy-charged relational unum, they remain as \u2018features\u2019 within it, so that in order to understand what a storm-cell is, we must understand the relational continuum in all its depth, which is impossible. One alternative, facilitated by noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, is to measure all of the properties of the cells relative to a notional absolute space and absolute time reference\/measuring frame and then describe the cells in terms of a category of notional widgets [local, independent material entities] on the basis of \u2018common properties\u2019 and variations therein.<\/p>\n This method of giving meaning to \u2018humans\u2019 and\/or \u2018storm-cells\u2019 by way of notional categories whose members have common properties and variants therein, bypasses the complexity of having to take into account the physical reality of \u2018cosmic fetalization\u2019 of relational features such as storm-cells and human forms.<\/p>\n \u201c[In nature]\u2026 \u201cthe individual parts reciprocally determine one another.\u201d \u2026 \u201cThe properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,\u201d \u2026 \u201cEvery single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.\u201d Therefore, no object can \u201cbe regarded as wholly isolated.\u201d And even in the simplest case, \u201cthe neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.\u201d \u2013 Ernst Mach<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the world seen as a transforming relational continuum, there are no \u2018independent material objects or organisms\u2019;<\/p>\n What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).\u201d \u2013 Erwin Schroedinger<\/span> Mach, Schroedinger, Bohm and Faraday are addressing the physical reality of our actual, natural experience, whereas the world of \u2018independent material entities and organisms\u2019 is a \u2018world of talk\u2019, a language-built \u2018operative reality\u2019 that does not reconcile with the physical reality of our actual, natural experience. In the physical reality of our actual experience, we are relational features in a transforming relational continuum. Because we are features in a common flow-field, all of us are influenced by all of us; i.e. \u201cEvery single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> This can also be expressed in terms of ‘field’ where we acknowledge that ‘gravity is everywhere at the same time’.<\/p>\n The common energy-charged relational continuum gathers within itself the relational forms that are its agents of relational transformation;<\/p>\n \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 \u2013 Mach\u2019s principle<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This difference in the (a) views of Jean Chr\u00e9tien, Russell Means and Ward Churchill [terrorism is people-who-have been humiliated for generations by the Euro-American colonial powers, \u2018pushing back\u2019], versus the (b) views of Cameron, Hollande and Obama [people have separated into two real physical groups; \u2018the good\u2019 and \u2018the bad\u2019], corresponds to this difference in (a) the physically real experiencing of the world as an energy-charged transforming relational continuum, and (b) the subject-verb-predicate discursive world of notional \u2018independent material objects and organisms\u2019 that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is notionally \u2018independent\u2019 of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.<\/p>\n The criticisms of Western civilization, by Russell Means and Ward Churchill, are the same criticisms aimed at Western civilization by Friedrich Nietzsche; i.e. it is the unnatural elevating of reason and moral judgement above relational experience based intuition and inherent tendency to restore balance and harmony, that leads to societal dysfunction or \u2018incoherence\u2019.<\/p>\n Only Western civilization being-speak literalists would think that it would make sense to divide the entire space of the surface of the globe up into two sovereign states giving 99% of the space to one [e.g. a European culture state] and reserve 1% of the space to the other [e.g. an indigenous aboriginal culture free space] then think it meaningful to consider both as \u2018independent states\u2019 each with the right to pursue their own self-interests in whatever manner they choose. The indigenous aboriginal 1% would see no sense in conceiving the two states as \u2018independent\u2019 since what the 99% did would shape the dynamics of the entire world-habitat which are at the same time influencing the dynamics of 100% of the inhabitants of the world; i.e. what the 99% did to earth, air, water and fire would not be contained within the imaginary line boundaries of the 99% European state, and vice versa for the 1%.<\/p>\n Is it possible for the massively powerful majority to humiliate the scarcely powerful minority just by pursuing their own self-interests in an insensitive way? Yes, what would stop it? [the error lies in the belief in \u2018independent being\u2019]. The mouse that sleeps with the elephant had better hope that the elephant is sensitive and caring. But in the case of the cultural genocide of the indigenous aboriginals of Turtle Island, by Euro-American colonizers, the attempts at converting them to the European colonizing culture was likened to curing them of a disease or deficiency [their \u2018savage\u2019 and \u2018ignorant\u2019 pagan conditioning].<\/p>\n Actions have no intrinsic goodness or badness in themselves.<\/p>\n \u201can action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same \u201d crime \u201d may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).\u201d\u2014 Nietzsche on \u2018Morality\u2019 and \u2018Herd Behaviour\u2019 in \u2018The Will to Power\u2019.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To those of the European colonizer culture, the forced removal of indigenous aboriginal children from their parents and putting them in residential schools to \u2018kill the indian, save the man\u2019, was a charitable act.<\/p>\n \u201cWe will come down hard on those who create the conditions for that narrative [poisonous narrative of grievance and resentment] to flourish. And we will have greater confidence in, … indeed we will revel in, our way of life because if you walk our streets, learn in our schools, benefit from our society, you sign up to our values; freedom, tolerance, responsibility, loyalty.\u201d \u2013 David Cameron<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As with the cultural genocide of indigenous aboriginals of Turtle Island by purveyors of of European colonialism [including what was once overtly, proudly called \u2018British Imperialism’], there is no acknowledgement in Cameron\u2019s present interpretation of terrorism that people are being differentially oppressed\/privileged by the dominating colonizing culture and that such oppression\/privileging may be the source of the \u2018poisonous narrative\u2019 and terrorist actions.<\/p>\n Just as there was dismissal of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s suggestion that terrorist attacks were inductively sourced \u2018push-back, meaning that the terrorism derived from the ongoing oppression of the Euro-American colonizing powers [this was dismissed with cries of \u2018don\u2019t make excuses for evil terrorists\u2019], there continues to be such dismissal, of the continuing testimony from reliable monitoring sources; e.g;<\/p>\n Robert Fisk is a veteran Middle East correspondent for the British paper The Independent who has been covering conflict in the Middle East for over 30 years. He says that Western colonial powers have left a legacy that has led to the instability and continued violence in the Middle East; <\/span> * * * At Issue is whether the global social collective is, as linguistic idealization depicts, a collection of \u2018independent beings\u2019 with their own local, internal process driven and directed behaviours, who are fully and solely responsible for the results of their behaviours, … or, whether, as in the physical reality of our actual, natural experience, we are all relational forms within a transforming relational continuum. The former \u2018schizophrenic\u2019 view of individual relational forms as \u2018independent beings\u2019 is the enabler of the now globally dominant view encouraged by Cameron, Hollande and Obama, of a global populace split into \u2018good people\u2019 and \u2018evil people\u2019. The alternative view of a global populace, as relational forms included within a world given only once as a transforming relational continuum, has been largely silenced. The silencing of the Chr\u00e9tien et al view associates with the simple and straightforward appeal of the \u2018good\u2019 versus \u2018evil\u2019 binary logical view which has been historically supported by Western monotheist beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam which portray \u2018man\u2019 as an \u2018independent being with free will and mastery over his acts; e.g;<\/p>\n \u201cMan is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.\u201d \u2013 Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Western science likewise depicts man as an independent being\u2019 through analytical inquiry that breaks man down, notionally, into a number of layers of smaller and smaller parts and explains the independent operation of the \u2018whole local system\u2019 in terms of the operations of its parts contributing to a mechanical \u2018whole\u2019. This analytical fragmentation and mechanical reassembly is made possible by imposing a notional reference\/measurement frame;\u00a0 – absolute space and absolute time, which allows a notional break-out and separation of relational forms from the transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n In the philosophy of Plato and Socrates, the notion of man as an \u2018independent being\u2019 is tied to man\u2019s intellectual sense of self [i.e. independent being is language and reason derived];<\/p>\n \u201cIn 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 \u2014 only thereby does it first create the concept of \u201cthing.\u201d Everywhere \u201cbeing\u201d 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.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Twilight of the Idols\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further support for language derived sense of \u2018independent being\u2019 in contradiction to the \u2018relations are all there is\u2019 findings of modern physics, comes from the investigations of linguist Benjamin Whorf;<\/p>\n \u201cIt is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.\u201d \u2013 Benjamin Whorf, \u2018The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Newtonian physics, it is ‘standard procedure’ to \u2018break out\u2019 relational forms from the transforming relational continuum by imposing the absolute space and absolute time reference\/measurement framing using these measures to describe the relational form (e.g. a storm-cell) in terms of \u2018categories\u2019 established by \u2018common properties\u2019. In this manner the relational forms can be compared across multiple \u2018appearances\u2019 and their similar properties, and variations therein, rather than seeking to understand them relative to the transforming relational continuum in which they gather. Seeking meaning\/value in terms of categories can lead to assigning meaning\/value by putting category into an unnatural precedence over \u2018cosmic fetalization\u2019;<\/p>\n The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2026 [in modern physics] It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n This leads to a profoundly different way of approaching and thinking about the world. For, in the absence of categories, each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the \u201crheomode.\u201d It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist\u2019s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 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 \u2014 quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode \u2013 were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.\u201d \u2013 F. David Peat, \u2018Blackfoot Physics\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n * * * Review of the relational view of the world, from which point of view, David Cameron\u2019s views are \u2018schizophrenic\u2019 in the sense that he is splitting our inherent \u2018One-ness\u2019 into two parts, the \u2018good part\u2019 and the \u2018evil part\u2019 and treating both parts as \u2018real\u2019 rather than as one relational matrix within which relational tensions are sourcing conflict as a \u2018coincidence of opposites\u2019, is contributing to a mutually mirrored paranoid schizophrenia. \u201cBy the principle of Occam\u2019s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.\u201d \u2013 Meinard Kuhlmann, \u2018What is Real\u2019, Scientific American, August 2013<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Escaping from the \u2018bewitching of our understanding by language\u2019 [Wittgenstein] can be aided by finding ways to \u2018visualize\u2019 the world in the modern physics terms where \u2018relations are all there is\u2019 so that we will not be stuck with a view that insists on seeing the world dynamic in terms of it being driven by \u2018independent material entities and organisms and what they do\u2019.<\/p>\n One such archetype for a purely relational form that is local, visible and tangible, although NOT an \u2018independent being\u2019 is toroidal flow as in a convection cell.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A planet and\/or a human being and\/or a particle can be understood in this manner; i.e. as a relational feature in an energy-charged transforming relational continuum;<\/p>\n Although the purely relational view is certainly intuitively accessible; i.e. man as a relational feature within the transforming relational continuum, it is commonly contradicted and trumped by the Western theological, scientific and psychological view of man as an independent being; all of which have a common origin in noun-and-verb language-and-grammar; e.g;<\/p>\n Theological;<\/p>\n \u201cMan is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.<\/span> Scientific;<\/p>\n \u201cIt is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.\u201d \u2013 Benjamin Whorf, \u2018The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Psychological;<\/p>\n \u201cIn 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 \u2014 only thereby does it first create the concept of \u201cthing.\u201d Everywhere \u201cbeing\u201d 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.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Twilight of the Idols\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Those raised within \u2018Western civilization\u2019 and speaking a noun-and-verb Indo-European\/scientific language-and-grammar have a lot of \u2018civilizational baggage\u2019 such as elevating reason and moral judgement into an unnatural precedence over intuition and the inherent will to restore balance and harmony, to continue to \u2018bewitch our understanding’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In physical reality [the reality of our natural experience], there is no justifiable basis for assuming that one part of the world [some \u2018collection of independent beings\u2019] is attacking some other part of the world [some other \u2018collection of independent beings\u2019] since our experience is of a world that is given only once; i.e. a world given as a transforming relational continuum. In other words, \u2018conflict\u2019, rather than deriving from two separate and opposing entities, derives from a \u2018coincidence of opposites\u2019. In the philosophy of Heraclitus, conflict is \u2018union-in-opposition\u2019.<\/p>\n We are accustomed to thinking of conflict in terms of two positive, but opposing, agencies because we visualize the opposing two things on a stage or in a \u2018theatre of operations\u2019 (a reference\/measuring frame). However, simultaneous convergence and divergence is also conflict of the \u2018coincidence of opposites\u2019 form. For example, if people are dispersed in the space on the surface of a sphere, and connected with one another by relational tensions or springs, … as some converge, others will at the same be diverging, and vice versa. Rocks diverge away from the peaks of mountains and, at the same time, converge towards the pit of the valleys. The view is not that \u2018two things are moving in opposite directions but that there is relational transformation [the terrain is slumping]. Instead of two \u2018real\u2019 opposites, there is one \u2018relationally transforming\u2019 reality; this is the physical reality of our actual, natural experience.<\/p>\n In addition to physical reality, there is an \u2018alternative reality\u2019 that comes to us by way of language and discursive reasoning that Western society has been [unnaturally] putting into precedence over the physical reality of our natural experience.<\/p>\n The hallmark of \u2018Western civilization\u2019 is the setting aside of the physical reality of our experience, and putting in its place as \u2018reality\u2019, an intellectually idealized [language-based] pseudo-reality which serves as an \u2018operative reality\u2019.<\/p>\n This pseudo-reality depicts the world in terms of symbols (words) that are given persisting meaning (\u2018identity\u2019) and put into subject-verb-predicate constructs so that the subjects are portrayed as the local authors of cause-effect behaviour. We do this even with storm-cells where we can plainly see that what we are talking about is relational form, … relational \u2018features\u2019 within a transforming relational continuum. These forms are in no way \u2018independently existing material entities, but using language to define them as such allows us to \u2018construct a symbolic reality based on the movements and interactions of notional, \u2018independently-existing\u2019 local objects and organisms.<\/p>\n The world presented through the imagery of subject-verb-predicate constructs delivers a symbol based \u2018operative reality\u2019 wherein we name the local, visible and tangible \u2018forms\u2019 that we can see and touch, and speak of \u2018their dynamics\u2019 as if they were independently-existing things. As discussed, these relational forms are \u2018appearances\u2019, … \u2018variations in the relational structure of the world-plenum’.<\/p>\n It is in this rhetorical \u2018reality\u2019 that \u2018conflict\u2019 as the battle between \u2018the good\u2019 and \u2018the evil\u2019 arises, … NOT in the physical reality of our actual, natural experience, wherein the world is given only once and \u2018relations are all there is\u2019.<\/p>\n We cannot construct a house in the forest without destroying some forest. While people can themselves get into conflicts over which value to assign to the same act, there is a way out of the dichotomy, and that is to acknowledge that we are included in a transforming relational continuum. The logic of relational transformation [physical reality] is \u2018both\/and\u2019 logic rather than binary \u2018either\/or\u2019 logic. The rhetorical reality of positivist logical propositions is not the physical reality of our natural experience.<\/p>\n The field of psychology, which informs the general public as to the origin and nature of eruptions of emotional distress in individuals, perpetuates the view of the individual human as \u2018independent being\u2019, setting the stage for the mutual mirroring of paranoid schizophrenia that permeates David Cameron\u2019s statement;<\/p>\n \u201cI want us to be very clear. You will not defeat us.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for the world\u2019s \u2018miner\u2019s canaries\u2019 that are labelled as \u2018the mentally ill\u2019, \u2018the criminals\u2019 and \u2018the terrorists\u2019, they continue to be treated as scape-goats that binary logic based \u2018discursive reason\u2019 and binary logic based \u2018moral judgement\u2019 identify as the local authoring source of disturbing behaviour, while in the same binary stroke, identifying those whose discursive reasoning and moral judgement is dominant, as good, innocent, victims of such disturbance. In this way of viewing the world dynamic; i.e. in terms of \u2018independently-existing material objects and organisms\u2019, the physically real source of the \u2018venting\u2019 of relational tensions through \u2018the child-soldier, the sensitive person, the angry oppressed person who \u2018pushes back\u2019, is lost from view, and what remains for the fingers-of-blame to point at, are science and theology approved; \u2018independent beings with internal process driven and directed behaviours who are full and solely responsible for the results of their actions’.<\/p>\n Retaining the relational view and avoiding the incoherence as in collective paranoid schizophrenia means retaining an intuitive hold on \u2018the coincidence of opposites\u2019 as a basic physical reality.<\/p>\n As Nicholas of Cusa observes;<\/p>\n![\"paranoid-schizophrenia\"](\"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/paranoid-schizophrenia1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n.
\n\u201cSpace is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.\u201d \u2014 David Bohm<\/span>
\n.<\/span>
\n\u201cFields of force are the primary reality, and \u2018matter\u2019 a secondary or derived phenomenon\u201d \u2014Michael Faraday<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n1. The Syrian conflict has its roots in the Sykes-Picot Agreement: This treaty between France and the U.K. divided the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence after World War I. This led to borders that made no sense, and countries that are basically creations of France and the U.K., Fisk says.<\/span>
\n 2. ISIS is the result of Sykes-Picot: When The U.K. and France set up these countries, they set them up for their own benefit, Fisk says, not for the benefit of the people living there. They became unstable dictatorships where education was hard to come by, and Fisk says this laid the groundwork for ISIS and al-Qaeda.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nWhat is the basis of the assumption of ‘man’ as \u2018independent being\u2019?<\/p>\n
\n 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one\u2019s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one\u2019s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u2018Independent being\u2019, as discussed, … is an idealization born of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar. While it is a useful concept for discursive communicating on simple matters, it can lead to \u2018incoherence\u2019 in the relational social dynamic if confused for \u2018reality\u2019. That is, it can lead to mutually mirrored paranoid schizophrenia as is currently being intensified. Rather than being \u2018one relational social matrix\u2019 in which relational tensions breed conflict, as in nature, generally, there has been increasing paranoid schizophrenia in police and minority relations, as well as in Christian \u2013 Muslim relations. Such incoherence develops in concert with substituting a collection of notional \u2018independent beings\u2019 for a relational social matrix.<\/p>\n
\nModern physics, meanwhile, supports an understanding of the physical reality of our experience in relational terms; i.e. in terms where \u2018relations are all there is\u2019, and relational forms, rather than being understood as \u2018independent\u2019 material objects and organisms, are understood as relational features in the transforming relational continuum;<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one\u2019s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one\u2019s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.<\/span>
\n 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.\u201d \u2013 Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nConclusion:<\/h5>\n