<\/p>\n
Introduction:<\/strong><\/p>\n Suboptimization of the human condition within the global diversity would only make sense if \u2018humans\u2019 were \u2018independent beings\u2019 (an abstraction that is NOT grounded in experiential reality).\u00a0\u00a0 But there are no \u2018independent beings\u2019 in a transforming relational continuum, \u2018reality\u2019 as understood by modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism\/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.\u00a0 Nevertheless, Western culture not only embraces such \u2018suboptimization\u2019, it celebrates the continuing advancement of the conditions of living enjoyed by \u2018human beings\u2019 irrespective of ‘the rest’.<\/p>\n The ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ is a concept wherein ‘independent existence’ arises from ‘difference’, in the manner of the ‘constant’ (persisting thing-in-itself) in mathematics that replaces continuing change\/transformation, by means of the process of ‘differentiation’.\u00a0 In human social dynamics, while the inter-relating activities of many people may manifest as relational webs, there may be no explicit separation from the larger web of relations in which a local human relational web is included (i.e. the relational-social system that is included within a relational-social suprasystem may be a purely relational phenomenon). Local polarized opposition may be the development that establishes a new ‘apparent’ ‘stand-alone’ entity.\u00a0 The new entity arising ‘out of division’ may provide ‘psychological traction’ as a base for the sourcing of actions and developments.\u00a0 The fact that the self-declared independence of a new thing-in-itself nation may have internal political poles (e.g. conservative and liberal polarization) suggests that that the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’<\/em> can provide the psychological base for ‘independent being that can serve as a notional (psychological) ‘launching-pad’ for the sourcing of actions and developments; i.e. a notional ‘difference-based’ thing-in-itself.<\/p>\n The ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ thus appears to be a ‘means’ of\u00a0 instantiating ‘being’.\u00a0 As Carl Jung said;\u00a0 “The self is made manifest in the opposites and the conflicts between them; it is a\u00a0coincidentia oppositorum.<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 The opposition of ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ may not simply be ‘within the nation as pre-existing thing-in-itself’ but may instead be the coincidentia oppositorum<\/em> that is the very basis of the persisting ‘thing-in-itself’.\u00a0 As in the mathematics of differential calculus, the persisting ‘difference’ gives birth to a ‘constant’ (persisting thing-in-itself) that hijacks centre stage’ while the transforming continuum it was ‘abstracted’ disappears from view. Could the Western concept of an ‘independent nation’ acquire its ‘self-hood’ from a political coincidentia oppositorum?\u00a0 Is the conservative – liberal split the psychological source of persisting ‘thing-in-itself being of the Western nation as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n But there are no such things as \u2018beings\u2019 outside of the language-based \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 of Western culture so this \u2018suboptimization\u2019 of the social dynamic, custom-tailored for humans seen as independently-existing beings (things-in-themselves), is a \u2018design for dysfunction.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The aberrant thinking of Western culture that manifests in the \u2018suboptimizing\u2019 of planetary living conditions for the \u2018human\u2019 is the source of rising dysfunction given that there is no \u2018independent being\u2019 that associates with the intellectual abstraction that language identifies by the name \u2018human being\u2019.\u00a0 As modern physics would have it (and indigenous aboriginal belief tradition), \u2018everything is in flux\u2019; i.e. we are relational features that form and unform within a transforming relational continuum. \u00a0Western culture language and grammar may \u2018cover this story\u2019 with the reductionist abstractions of \u2018beings\u2019, notionally with powers of \u2018sourcing actions and developments\u2019, but such Invented Reality construction is not to be confused for (but is being confused for) the \u2018reality\u2019 of our experience of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n The fallout out from this Western culture confusing of \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 for \u2018reality\u2019 is the illusion of human engineered \u2018suboptimization\u2019 of living conditions for the convenience and benefit of \u2018humans\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 The transformation of the world as we see it (intellectually understand it) based on a human convenience-oriented design, is a \u2018design for dysfunction\u2019.\u00a0 The essential condition necessary for \u2018suboptimization\u2019 to \u2018make sense\u2019, is missing; i.e. the \u2018independence\u2019 of the \u2018subsystem\u2019 that is being ostensibly \u2018optimized\u2019.\u00a0 Only in a language-based \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 can humans be considered \u2018independent beings\u2019, inhabitants of a \u2018habitat\u2019 that is \u2018independent\u2019 of the inhabitants that feed on it.<\/p>\n In the reality of our actual experience (rather than in the Invented reality of language and grammar constructions), the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum and there is no \u2018inhabitant\u2019 \u2013 \u2018habitat\u2019 dichotomy, other than that \u2018invented\u2019 by the intellect on the basis of \u2018language and grammar\u2019 constructions.<\/p>\n As systems scientists Martine Dodds-Taljaard and \u00a0Gy\u00f6rgy Jaros observe, optimizing a \u2018system\u2019 such as \u2018human society\u2019 is a recipe for dysfunction if the subsystem is not \u2018independent\u2019 of the suprasystem it is included in.<\/p>\n The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization\u2019<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe above aphorism, attributed to Kenneth Boulding, points to the inherent weakness characterizing the mindset and socio\u2010economic, political, educational and managerial practices of Western Industrial society as it developed over the past 300 years. It has its basis in the analytic\u2010reductionistic scientific paradigm, which, despite the remarkable technological applications it spawned, is inappropriate, conflict\u2010generating and dysfunctional in a world characterized by global interconnectedness and mutual interdependence \u2026\u201d \u2014 Gy\u00f6rgy Jaros and Martine Dodds-Taljaard<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A Review of the Overall \u2018suboptimization\u2019 Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n The above introduction brings forth the basic \u2018problem geometry\u2019 of suboptimization.\u00a0 This leads into the larger view of how this problematic assumption of \u2018suboptimization\u2019 triggers general dysfunctionality characteristic of Western culture, as outlined in the following;<\/p>\n The key point (that keeps emerging and strengthening\u2019 in this philosophical investigation is how Western languages like English are incapable of sharing the understanding we are experientially capable of since language is visual while understanding can derive from a more profound form of comprehension (of \u201chigher dimensionality\u201d than visual).\u00a0\u00a0 After one participates in a (indigenous aboriginal style \u2018pass the talking stick and speak from the heart\u2019) sharing circle with others, even without the four-leggeds, winged-ones, crawlers and\/or \u2018their spokespersons\u2019, one acquires a kind of omni-perspectival or \u2018holo-graphical\u2019 understanding by getting in touch through being in the center of things as a sensory experient and not just a visual observer (who is limited by \u2018perspective\u2019 that \u2018looks outward\u2019 without capturing one\u2019s situational inclusion in the \u2018ongoing relational transformation\u2019).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n If one listens to a lot of different people sharing their experiences within a \u2018sharing circle\u2019, experiences within the same space that one is themselves sharing inclusion in, \u2026 one\u2019s own understanding of \u2018who one is\u2019 seems to \u2018flesh out\u2019 in one\u2019s understanding, in the circle process.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Enigmatic questions may arise such as \u2018does the man make the times or do the times make the man\u2019?\u00a0 Such questions as posed in that \u2018split-into-two\u2019 format lead to the \u2018nature\u2019-\u2018nurture\u2019 dichotomy which carries with it the implication of \u2018sourcing influence\u2019; i.e. who says that our development or sense of \u2018who we are\u2019 should be EITHER \u2018sourced\u2019 from the influences inside of us OR \u2018sourced\u2019 from outside influences.\u00a0 Such a question presupposes that we are \u2018separate\u2019 from the world we are living in; i.e. it presupposes an \u2018inhabitant\u2019 \u2013 \u2018habitat\u2019 split.—WHERE DID THAT NOTION of the INHABITANT-HABITAT SPLIT COME FROM?\u00a0 Only when we mentally make this abstract split does the dichotomous ambiguity arise in regard to the \u2018sourcing\u2019 of developmental influence of the one on the other.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [Note: in modern physics, the \u2018either\/or logic of the \u2018excluded third<\/em>\u2019 is insufficient for dealing with a transforming relational continuum and the \u2018both\/and\u2019 logic of the included third<\/em> is required.\u00a0 For example, the \u2018boil\u2019 and the \u2018flow\u2019 are both included in \u2018the (all-inclusive) transforming relational continuum, and the container-content division is only \u2018appearance\u2019.]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Wherever the notion of the Inhabitant-Habitat split came from, our WESTERN CULTURE system of language and grammar keeps repeating it to us over and over again until we can hardly help but think of ourselves as \u2018inhabitants\u2019 that are separate from the \u2018habitat\u2019 we are included in.\u00a0 Of course, modern physics disagrees with the inhabitant-habitat split, and so does the indigenous aboriginal culture and so do the adherents of Taoists\/Buddhists and Advaita Vedanta, and so do I. \u00a0So this Western culture language-and-grammar based splitting of the \u2018undivided self\u2019 amounts to culturally imposed psychosis\/schizophrenia.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Let\u2019s face it!\u00a0 There is no \u2018inhabitant\u2019 \u2013 \u2018habitat split\u2019 in our actual relational experience.\u00a0 We farm ground that is enriched with the recycled remains of our predecessors and this all transpires in a kind of giant \u2018blender-dynamic\u2019 with heating and cooling and spinning, \u2026. all of which is purely relational as in \u2018relational transformation\u2019 which is the nature of \u2018experiential reality\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course we have \u2018language\u2019 and can \u2018name\u2019 whatever forms we want and use grammar to \u2018animate\u2019 those notional \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 we create by naming flow-forms and portraying them as having the powers of \u2018sourcing\u2019 actions and developments, \u2026 all of which is very useful for sharing experiences and understandings, \u2026 at least a kind of trivialized talking-head version of them; i.e. your child can know more than you ever knew about sex and reproduction without yet experiencing any of it.\u00a0 \u00a0The rich man can talk about how the poor man lives but understanding it requires the relational experiencing of it.\u00a0 Of course, that\u2019s where the Buddha was coming from; i.e. a language-based \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 is very different from the reality of our relational experience, no matter what our IQ is and how clever we are with language and grammar.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, that\u2019s probably the \u2018core point\u2019 in my philosophical investigations, and it\u2019s not at all \u2018new\u2019 (though the force and \u2018fit\u2019 of it are continually growing in our awareness; e.g. as modern physics slowly \u2018seeps in\u2019 to general mindfulness.).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Again, the core point is that Western culture employs an \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 as its \u2018operative reality\u2019 based on belief in the abstractions of \u2018beings\u2019 psychologically instantiated by \u2018naming\u2019 and notionally vested with the powers of \u2018sourcing actions and developments\u2019, thanks to language and grammar.\u00a0 There is no \u2018sorcery\u2019 in the real world of our relational experience, but \u2018sorcery\u2019 is the mainstream belief in Western culture and because there is a dichotomous quirk in how we imagine the \u2018sorcery\u2019 dynamic, \u2026 it splits the population roughly in two; i.e. (1) the conservative-minded who believe that sorcery is a power possessed by beings or \u2018naming-instantiated things-in-themselves\u2019 that is inside-outward asserting, and (2) the liberal-minded who believe that sorcery is a power possessed by collectives that is an outside-inward inductive kind of sourcing.\u00a0 For the conservative-mindset, the rotten apple can contaminate the whole barrel of apples if it is not quickly \u2018corrected\u2019, which suggests at the same time, that even the most pristine apple can be contaminated by the apple collective (barrel of apples) it finds itself in).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Since this abstract dichotomy is logically viable in either direction, Western culture adherents are roughly evenly divided as to whether the sorcery of a human being that is nasty is of inside-outward asserting origin (sourcing), or whether it is of outside-inward inductive origin (sourcing); i.e. is the child murderer-rapist fully and solely responsible for his actions, or is it the ugly behaviour of the social collective that is inductively shaping his behaviour?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Western people cannot agree on \u2018which it is (whether the sourcing agency is inside-outward or outside-inward).\u00a0 Meanwhile this pair of opposing choices (dichotomy) does not even arise without first assuming that people are \u2018beings\u2019 with the power of \u2018sourcing actions and developments\u2019<\/u><\/em><\/strong>.<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n That is, the \u2018nature\u2019 \u2013 \u2018nurture\u2019 dichotomy does not even arise in indigenous aboriginal cultures since in those cultures, there are no abstract assumptions of \u2018beings\u2019 with \u2018powers of sourcing actions and developments; i.e. as Heraclitus and modern physics affirm, \u2018everything is in flux\u2019, \u2026 the world is a transforming relational continuum and the forms within it are continually transforming; i.e. they are \u2018appearances\u2019 in the flow or \u2018apparitions\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 Western culture assigns names to them which psychologically anoints them with notional\/abstract \u2018thing-in-itself being\u2019.\u00a0 Indigenous aboriginal culture assign names only as a relational expedient to provide some linguistic traction as a means of getting to a \u2018thingless\u2019 relational understanding.\u00a0 The indigenous aboriginal approach (mitakuye oyasin, \u2026 \u2018all my relations\u2019)\u00a0is consistent with the \u2018surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions\u2019 of modern physics where reality is understood in terms of a transforming web of relations without dependency on \u2018beings\u2019 with \u2018powers of sourcing actions and developments\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That\u2019s the basic summary, and I think its clear how it follows that Western culture induces aberrant thinking and psychosis in its adherents by imputing belief in, and assigning value to, the individual\u2019s powers of sorcery.\u00a0 This, in turn, makes those who\u00a0are \u2018not into playing the game of pretending to be great sorcerers\u2019 (e.g. like those who exploit slaves to augment THEIR producer-product developments so as to deliver sorcery credits to THEMSELVES).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course, women in Western culture have been short-changed in the \u2018sourcing\u2019 accreditation department, as captured in statements such as that of El Salvadoran poet Claribel Alegria; \u2018my father was a famous engineer, my mother had no name\u2019<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 Unfortunately, in Western culture generally, such statements have been interpreted in terms of unfair allocation of sorcery credit, rather than rejecting the bogus concept of \u2018sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 This failure to pinpoint the real issue (the bogus concept of sorcery) has helped to put Western culture on a grand program of reassessing and reallocating \u2018sorcery credits\u2019 to make them more \u2018equitable\u2019 and \u2018gender-blind\u2019 etc., an initiative that serves to re-affirm and concretize belief in \u2018sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 [What is needed, instead is to \u2018debunk\u2019 belief in \u2018sorcery\u2019].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The sensitive miner\u2019s canary\u2019s distress problem comes in here as well, since their distress is well-founded; i.e. they are immersed in a psychologically toxic environment (known as Western culture) and the Western culture remedy for the miner\u2019s canary in distress induced by their immersion in a psychologically toxic environment, is to have them take drugs (chemical lobotomizers) to remove their sensitivity to the psychological toxicity inherent in the Western culture \u2018sorcery-values-based\u2019 environment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yes, I know, such a view of Western culture would never be accepted by present day Western culture adherents, particularly when those adherents are split down the middle between conservatives who believe that sorcery stems from the individual, and liberals, who believe that sorcery stems from the collective.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course, Western culture\u2019s national politics infuses belief in the \u2018independent existence\u2019 of the nation which unites conservatives and liberals within that nation.\u00a0\u00a0 What would conservatives and liberals do for pole-itical energizing if the hot-air-balloon of sorcery (aka \u2018ego\u2019) that is holding up both<\/em><\/strong> the conservative \u2018basket\u2019 and the liberal\u2019 basket were \u2018popped\u2019?\u00a0 One might conclude that the vitality of the notionally \u2018independent thing-in-itself\u2019 is energized by internal opposition.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But does \u2018individuating\u2019 by means of a \u2018coincidentia oppositorum\u2019 make sense?\u00a0 Does the nation or individual as an \u2018independent thing-in-itself\u2019 make natural sense<\/em> or is it a form of \u2018psychosis\u2019?\u00a0 This recalls Carl Jung\u2019s suggestion “The self is made manifest in the opposites and the conflicts between them; it is a\u00a0coincidentia oppositorum.<\/em>\u201d, \u2026 and that each \u2018individual\u2019 must strive to integrate opposing tendencies (anima and animus, persona and shadow) within his or her own psyche. \u00a0This sounds like a description of Western government in an arbitrarily invented \u2018independent thing-in-itself nation-state\u2019; i.e. its \u2018independent being\u2019 springs forth (so we say), from the coincidentia oppositorum<\/em> of polar politics, a pseudo-being notionally endowed with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is this \u2018real\u2019?\u00a0 Are nations \u2018really things-in-themselves\u2019 with powers of sourcing actions and developments?\u00a0 Or is this an \u2018Invented Reality\u2019 conjured up with language and grammar and employing the abstract concepts of \u2018being\u2019 (things-in-themselves) notionally endowed with the powers of sourcing actions and developments?\u00a0 Clearly, it is intellectual abstraction and not ‘real’ in the natural sense that relational experience is real.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The psychological impression of \u2018opposites meeting\u2019 is one of standoff or stasis and is incompatible with the dynamics of a transforming relational continuum, …yet it can serve, in the imagination, as a launching pad for the \u2018from-scratch\u2019 \u2018sourcing\u2019 of actions and developments, as in the culture and politics of Western ‘Invented Reality’<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 This is intellectual illusion, whether we are speaking of a \u2018nation\u2019 , \u2018human\u2019, or any other \u2018being\u2019 thus conceived and notionally equipped with the ‘powers of sorcery’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course, \u2018lock-in\u2019 of this ‘Invented Reality’<\/strong> <\/em>due to \u2018high switching costs\u2019 is not going to give way<\/em> easily, particularly since we have elevated the \u2018leading sorcery advocates\u2019 into positions of disproportionately high decision-making power and influence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As for those of us who sense something amiss and who investigate and report on it;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We\u2019 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\u2019t fit into a rapid-fire repartee, and (b) because the humanism \u00a0implicit in trying to share them is not seen as \u201ca humanism of real worth\u201d since it undermines, besmirches or topples the esteemed icons, pillars of society, founding fathers, and celebrities of the culture-in-place.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0 \u2013 Henri Laborit, \u2018La Nouvelle Grille\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Introduction: Suboptimization of the human condition within the global diversity would only make sense if \u2018humans\u2019 were \u2018independent beings\u2019 (an abstraction that is NOT grounded in experiential reality).\u00a0\u00a0 But there are no \u2018independent beings\u2019 in a transforming relational continuum, \u2018reality\u2019 as understood by modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Taoism\/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.\u00a0 Nevertheless, Western […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apn","count-0","even alt","author-emile","last"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3515"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3523,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515\/revisions\/3523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}