<\/p>\n
\u2018REALITY\u2019 \u2026. What is it?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION:<\/p>\n Ernst Mach, in ‘The Analysis of Sensations’ exposed how Western culture makes use of two ‘orthogonal’ impressions of ‘reality’ as associates with (a) Physics (classical\/Newtonian), and (b) Psychology.\u00a0 This essay explores how these two modes of ‘reality’ relate to one another in the manner of the ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ parts of a ‘complex variable’; i.e. physics + i*psychology.\u00a0 The respective ‘realities’ that form from PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY derive from the manner IN WHICH WE POSE QUESTIONS.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n PHYSICS QUESTIONS<\/strong> <\/em>are formulated by assuming that the reality is ‘CAUSALLY SOURCED’ by the actions of material things-in-themselves (the psychological artifact of ‘naming’ relational forms in the flow [the transforming relational continuum]).\u00a0 E.g. “The rotten apple is the CAUSAL SOURCE of the corrupting of the barrel of apples.<\/p>\n PSYCHOLOGY QUESTIONS<\/strong> <\/em>are formulated by assuming that reality is ‘RELATIONALLY SOURCED’ through the senses; i.e. the ‘sourcing’ is NOT dependent on notional ‘things-in-themselves’ abstractly fabricated by ‘naming’ relational forms in the flow; the sourcing is instead coming from the relational influence of the collective one is included in;\u00a0 E.g. “It takes a whole community to raise a child”. That is, the child’s development is not simply inside-outwardly sources as in PHYSICS and ‘genetics’.<\/p>\n ‘Reality’ in the Agatha Christie thriller is all about asking questions in the PHYSICS<\/strong><\/em> manner where unfolding developments are assumed to be CAUSALLY SOURCED.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0 The investigation ENDS once the ‘source’ that lies at the very beginning of a causal chain of events has been discovered.<\/p>\n ‘Reality’ in the Victor Hugo novel ‘Les Miserables’ as also in the classic ‘Robin Hood’, are all about how the tensions of relational disparities are the INDUCTIVE SOURCE<\/strong><\/em> of developments, which are nevertheless explored by a line of questioning that seeks to discover the CAUSAL SOURCE to what would, INSTEAD, be more fully understood ‘RELATIONALLY’ (PSYCHOLOGICALLY)’<\/strong><\/em>; i.e. nature is innately balance-seeking.<\/p>\n THE ARCHITECTURE OF LANGUAGE plays an important role in how we formulate questions; i.e. languages that reduce relational forms to notional ‘independent things-in-themselves’ offer different forms of ‘traction’ in posing questions.\u00a0 For example, indigenous aboriginal languages preserve the relational nature of reality, by employing a web of relations (naming is only an intermediate step for alluding to an inherently relational reality’.\u00a0 Modern physics reaffirms this as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’<\/em> (Geoffrey Chew and John Wheeler).\u00a0\u00a0 By the same token, Wittgenstein, in his final two propositions in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, speaks of employing a web of relations as a ‘ladder’ to induce a relational understanding that lies innately BEYOND the explicit language instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ animated by grammar, to imply it.<\/p>\n What comes out of this abstract system of language-instantiated (i.e. ‘naming-instantiated’) EXPLICIT<\/strong> <\/em>things-in-themselves with grammar instantiated “powers of sorcery of actions and developments” is an INVENTED REALITY that serves Western culture as an OPERATIVE REALITY.\u00a0\u00a0 The ‘REALITY’ of our sensory experience, as Mach points out in ‘The Analysis of Sensations’ is relational and it runs deeper than the abstract ‘INVENTED REALITY’.<\/p>\n As Western culture language and grammar users, we are intrigued by, as in an Agatha Christie mystery, the manner in which a cleverly constructed web of questioning can ‘home in on the ‘truth’, in a PHYSICS BASED CAUSAL SENSE, where the climax and end-point of the inquiry lies in the exposing of the CAUSAL SOURCE of the EVENT whose ‘SOURCING’ is ‘IN QUESTION’. \u00a0 But who says that there should be a causal ‘source’ that is ‘responsible’ for some or other emergent development?<\/p>\n THIS EXPECTATION DERIVES FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH WE USE LANGUAGE TO FORMULATE ‘QUESTIONS’.\u00a0\u00a0 THIS IS THE ‘PHYSICS’ BASED APPROACH TO FORMULATING QUESTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE ‘PSYCHOLOGY’ BASED APPROACH TO FORMULATING QUESTIONS.<\/p>\n WHAT IS INTENDED BY ‘PHYSICS’ IS ‘NEWTONIAN PHYSICS’ since modern physics understands emerging phenomena as innately relational in origin; e.g;<\/p>\n PSYCHOLOGY, on the other hand, as in Mach’s ‘Analysis of Sensations’, understands ‘reality’ in IMPLICIT<\/strong> <\/em>terms of relational influence.\u00a0 INQUIRY IN THIS PSYCHOLOGY ORIENTED VIEW opens the way into an infinite web of relations, as in the case of moving deeper into the question of ‘sourcing’ of the child’s behaviour. Meanwhile, in PHYSICS, by having ‘named the child’ (i.e. by having named the relational form in the transforming relational continuum) and thus having notionally imputed ‘thing-in-itself existence to him, there now exists a notional EXPLICIT<\/strong><\/em>, locally anchored JUMPSTART SOURCE for actions and developments; … at least this is so in the language and grammar interpreting mind.\u00a0 How do we reconcile these very different understandings of ‘reality’; i.e. the EXPLICIT reality<\/strong> <\/em>of PHYSICS<\/strong><\/em> and IMPLICIT reality<\/strong> <\/em>of PSYCHOLOGY?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cIn the book \u2018Causality and Chance in Modern Physics\u2019 Bohm argued that the way science viewed causality was also much too limited. Most effects were thought of as having only one or several causes. However, Bohm felt that an effect could have an infinite number of causes. For example, if you asked someone what caused Abraham Lincoln\u2019s death, they might answer that it was the bullet in John Wilkes Booth\u2019s gun. But a complete list of all the causes that contributed to Lincoln\u2019s death would have to include all of the events that led to the development of the gun, all of the factors that caused Booth to want to kill Lincoln, all of the steps in the evolution of the human race that allowed for the development of a hand capable of holding a gun, and so on, and so on. Bohm conceded that most of the time one could ignore the vast cascade of causes that had led to any given effect, but he still felt it was important for scientists to remember that no single cause-and-effect relationship was ever really separate from the universe as a whole.\u201d\u00a0 –The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality: Michael\u00a0Talbot:<\/em><\/p>\n Clearly, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND “REALITY”, … “PHYSICS” (Newtonian), and “PSYCHOLOGY”.<\/p>\n As it turns out, WHICH type of understanding of reality we get, is determined by the type of questions we pose.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Both the physicist and the psychologist, therefore, have to work with \u2018two worlds\u2019 that are \u2018heterogeneous\u2019, the physical and the psychological because of this \u2018mutual dependence\u2019 of each one on the other, \u2026 but this situation is not inevitable, it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms \u2013 Mach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In the Agatha Christie ‘Whodunnit’, our ‘detective inquiry’ aims to ‘detect’ and ‘unveil’ the wellspring or ‘jumpstart SOURCE’ of a notable action or development.\u00a0 The excitement and tensions build as the reader follows the ‘detective’ in his quest to ‘detect the SOURCE’ of an action or development in question. This is the REALITY OF PHYSICS and it is just ONE WAY OF POSING QUESTIONS, where the reader\/listener tends to ‘lock-in’ to the trail of investigation and discovery that aims to ‘dis-cover’ the SOURCE of the ACTION OR DEVELOPMENT ‘IN QUESTION’.<\/p>\n The quest of discovering the ultimate EXPLICIT JUMPSTART SOURCE of an event or development is central to the investigations of PHYSICS.\u00a0 It is like searching for ‘the source of the Nile’.\u00a0 English is one of those languages that captures relational reality in the abstract terms of name-instantiated ‘things-in-themselves’ and their grammar-imputed ‘actions and developments’. \u00a0 Such language and grammar delivers an ‘INVENTED REALITY’ that does not arise in relational languages wherein ‘reality’ is purely relational.\u00a0 ‘Dances with Wolves’ is exemplary of linguistic portrayals of reality that ‘bottom out’ in webs of relations as in the ‘Surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions’.\u00a0 In this approach, one employs language for articulating a purely relational reality based on IMPLICIT SOURCING.<\/p>\n The reality arising from the QUESTIONS POSED BY PHYSICS assumes the reality of ‘material things-in-themselves’ with the notional powers of ‘sourcing actions and developments’ as in the Agatha Christie thriller.\u00a0 The reality arising from the QUESTIONS POSED BY PSYCHOLOGY assumes the inherent primacy of RELATIONS over the notional existence of ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ WITH THE NOTIONAL (GRAMMAR-GIVEN) POWERS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS.\u00a0 The suggestion of ‘sourcing’ is operative in the ‘reality’ formulations of both PHYSICS and PSYCHOLOGY, however, the SOURCING is EXPLICIT IN PHYSICS AND IMPLICIT IN PSYCHOLOGY,<\/p>\n Agatha Christie’s way of posing questions induced us to follow her in a PHYSICS like quest to discover an EXPLICIT SOURCE<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Victor Hugo’s way of posing questions<\/strong><\/em> took our inquiry into a deeper level; i.e. it did not stop<\/strong> <\/em>with PHYSICS’ EXPLICIT SOURCE as a response to the question ‘who stole the loaf of bread’ (Jean Valjean), … but without even considering such abstraction (based on notional things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments), but homed in on the deeper level of understanding in terms of relational imbalances; i.e. the IMPLICIT SOURCE.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n As Mach has pointed out, even though, in Western culture, people are DIVIDED in their conceptualizing of ‘reality’ in terms of …. ‘nature’ (explicit sourcing<\/strong><\/em>) of PHYSICS, or, …. ‘nurture’ (implicit sourcing)<\/strong><\/em> of PSYCHOLOGY, there is no need to employ the EITHER\/OR logic of the excluded third.\u00a0 Instead, we can employ the AND\/AND logic of the included third which is also referred to as ‘quantum logic’ by St\u00e9phane Lupasco;<\/p>\n \u201cTo every phenomenon or element or logical event whatsoever, and accordingly to the judgment which thinks of it, the proposition which expresses it, to the sign which symbolizes it must always be associated, structurally and functionally, a logical antiphenomenon, or anti-element or anti-event and therefore a contradictory judgment, proposition or sign in such a fashion that the former can only be potentialized by the actualization of the latter, but not disappear such that either could be self-sufficient in an independent and therefore rigorous non-contradiction \u2013 as in all logic, classical or otherwise, that is based on an absoluteness of the principle of non-contradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n The point half-way between actualization and potentialization is a point of maximum antagonism or \u2018contradiction\u2019 from which, in the case of complex phenomena, a T-state (T for \u201ctiers inclus\u201d, included third term) emerges, which is capable of resolving the contradiction (or \u2018counter-action\u2018), at another, higher level of reality. \u201c \u00a0\u2013 Lupasco, St\u00e9phane., Le principe d\u2019antagonisme et la logique de l\u2019\u00e9nergie, 1951.<\/p>\n [see also; \u2018St\u00e9phane Lupasco et le tiers inclus. De la physique quantique \u00e0 l\u2019ontologie\u2019<\/em>, by Basarab Nicolescu]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, in Victor Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables’, THE DIVIDED SELF associates with the optional BELIEF in these two different levels of reality, where the IMPLICIT (RELATIONAL) REALITY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THE EXPLICIT (RATIONAL) REALITY OF PHYSICS seem to be on a collision course.\u00a0 As Mach points out, the conflict arises by way of posing this question to ourselves, as regards the true nature of the sourcing of actions and developments [whether EXPLICITLY AS IN PHYSICS, or whether IMPLICITLY as in PSYCHOLOGY]. Mach, in ‘The Analysis of Sensation’ points to the false premise underlying both.\u00a0 The false premises are termed the ‘double error’ by Nietzsche, … (1) the name-instantiating of notional ‘independent beings with (2) the notional powers of sourcing actions and developments’.\u00a0 These errors are resolved by ‘going beyond language and grammar’ and understanding the dynamics of ‘reality’ in terms of the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n * * * END OF INTRODUCTION * * *<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here\u2019s a \u2018simple representation\u2019 of the understanding of \u2018reality\u2019 [a representation common to Mach, Bohm, Nietzsche et al] that I have been working on.\u00a0\u00a0 It is \u2018simple\u2019 to present, but maybe \u2018not so simple\u2019 to open oneself up to accepting as \u2018a reality\u2019 that is more \u2018real\u2019 than our current \u2018operative version\u2019 of reality.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ernst Mach\u2019s \u2018Analysis of sensations\u2019 is \u2018right on target, in my view, and supports a whole raft of philosophical investigations, such as those by Nietzsche, Bohm, Wittgenstein<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Philosophers of \u2018physics\u2019 such as Erich Jantsch have a very similar understanding of \u2018reality\u2019 as Ernst Mach (as in Mach\u2019s \u2018Analysis of Sensations\u2019<\/em><\/strong>), and have described \u2018reality\u2019 in term of \u2018three levels\u2019.\u00a0 Later philosophers such as Jantsch have an advantage in the means of expressing the same thing as Mach, since Mach\u2019s writings preceded holography (theory in 1948 by Dennis Gabor, demonstration with lasers in mid 1960\u2019s, Nobel prize for Gabor in 1971).\u00a0 That is, the concept of reality of images being included within an energized space (not as separate entities\u2019 but as flow-features or \u2018appearances\u2019 within a transforming relational continuum was not easily conceivable by Western culture adherents who use vision of \u2018naming-reified relational forms out there in front of us\u2019 as the basis for our \u2018Invented Reality\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the year of this writing, 2019, Western culture (as it continues to be \u2018popularized\u2019) has still not accepted the \u2018holographic\u2019 reality, although modern physics supports it and as physicists such as David Bohm have pointed out, indigenous aboriginal cultures traditionally embrace this \u2018inclusional\u2019 view of realty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, here is my \u2018interpretation\u2019 of Mach\u2019s understanding or reality as he shares it in \u2018Analysis of Sensations\u2019.\u00a0 And, don\u2019t forget, the terminology of holography (space as an all-including relational transformation wherein \u2018forms\u2019 are NOT \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 but \u2018appearances\u2019 within the all-inclusive energy flow) wasn\u2019t popularly available until 1970.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, I would like to highlight that this \u2018interpretation\u2019 is Mach\u2019s but it is one which people did not seem to \u2018pick up on\u2019 otherwise he would be understood for much more than Mach\u2019s principle, Mach numbers and being Einstein\u2019s mentor.<\/p>\n \u2018Reality\u2019 or in other words, the dynamic physical realm all things share inclusion in (as in the understanding of Heraclitus et al) is something we model in two very different ways (PHYSICS AND PSYCHOLOGY), which we keep separate; i.e.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n PHYSICS: \u2018classical physics\u2019, a reality based on \u2018material things-in-themselves\u2019 and their actions and interactions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n PSYCHOLOGY: a reality based on relational sensations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mach\u2019s understanding of \u2018realty\u2019 digs into the \u2018interdependence\u2019 of \u2018physics\u2019 and \u2018psychology\u2019.\u00a0 Mach makes the key point that this \u2018splitting\u2019 does not derive from \u2018nature\u2019 but derives from our two different approaches to inquiry;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Both the physicist and the psychologist, therefore, have to work with \u2018two worlds\u2019 that are \u2018heterogeneous\u2019, the physical and the psychological because of this \u2018mutual dependence\u2019 of each one on the other, \u2026 but this situation is not inevitable, it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms \u2013 Mach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In other words, this split into two separate realities, as in \u2018nature\u2019 and \u2018nurture\u2019 (\u2018nature\u2019 = world of \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 and what things do [\u201cone rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel\u201d], \u2026 and, \u2018nurture\u2019 = world of in which we must understand the behaviour of things as deriving from the matrix of relations they are included in [\u201cit takes a whole community to raise a child\u201d].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Western culture is divided on the question of whether we should look at animate forms as if their actions and development is inside-outward asserting (\u2018nature\u2019) as in PHYSICS, or outside-inward induced (\u2018nurture\u2019) as in PSYCHOLOGY.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mach\u2019s point is that this division is merely the result of the manner in which we [Western culture adherents] are posing questions; i.e. if we question a man\u2019s physical development and his actions on the premise of his internal sourcing of actions and developments, we get one impression of him (\u2018NATURE\u2019 OR \u2018PHYSICS\u2019)<\/em><\/strong>, \u2026 and if we question a man\u2019s physical development and actions on the premise of their being induced by influences he is relationally-situationally included in, we get another impression of him (\u2018NURTURE\u2019 OR \u2018PSYCHOLOGY\u2019)<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mach\u2019s point is that THIS \u2018NATURE OR NURTURE\u2019 DIFFERENCE IS NOT THE RESULT<\/em><\/strong> OF OUR INVESTIGATION BUT IS SOMETHING WE BUILD IN TO THE QUESTIONS WE POSE.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms\u00a0 I.E. the physical and the psychological<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In other words;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018nature\u2019<\/strong><\/em> arises from questions<\/strong><\/em> of the form; \u2018which apple is the source<\/em><\/strong> of all the rot in this barrel of apples\u2019?\u00a0 [the PHYSICS question<\/em><\/strong>].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018nurture\u2019<\/strong><\/em> arises from questions<\/strong><\/em> of the form; \u2018what sort of community dynamic is inductively sourcing <\/em><\/strong>dissonance in the behaviour of this community member that is uniquely, situationally included within it? [the PSYCHOLOGY question<\/em><\/strong>]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The first question implies PHYSICS in terms of \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 and the \u2018actions\u2019 of things-in-themselves seen as \u2018sourcing\u2019<\/em><\/strong> unfolding actions and developments.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The second question implies PSYCHOLOGY in terms of sensory influence that is the deeper source<\/em><\/strong> of \u2018physical\u2019 actions and developments<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In other words, \u2018PHYSICS\u2019 and \u2018PSYCHOLOGY\u2019 are \u2018NOT TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF REALITY\u2019, \u2026 THEY ARE ARTIFACTS OF OUR SPLITTING OF THE WAY WE ASK QUESTIONS IN SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND \u2018REALITY\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Both the physicist and the psychologist, therefore, have to work with \u2018two worlds\u2019 that are \u2018heterogeneous\u2019, the physical and the psychological because of this \u2018mutual dependence\u2019 of each one on the other, \u2026 but this situation is not inevitable, it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms \u2013 Mach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is not hard to see how this situation relates to the \u2018holographic\u2019 understanding of reality; i.e. PHYSICS corresponds to the REAL component of complex reality while PSYCHOLOGY corresponds to the IMAGINARY component of complex reality.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018REALITY\u2019 in a \u2018holographic\u2019 understanding, is \u201ccomplex\u201d as in z = a + i*b.\u00a0 We can thus understand the relationship between the \u2018PHYSICS\u2019 based view of reality and the \u2018PSYCHOLOGY\u2019 based view of reality in terms of complex (holographic) reality;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n HOLOGRAPHIC (COMPLEX) REALITY= (PHYSICS REALITY) + i*(PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Now, as we know, the \u2018nature\u2019 over-\u2018nurture\u2019 or \u2018nurture-over-\u2018nature\u2019 argument (re the source of action and development) divides Western culture into \u2018conservatives\u2019 and \u2018liberals\u2019.\u00a0 But what is \u2018missed\u2019 in both viewpoints is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS \u2018SOURCING\u2019<\/em><\/strong> (there is only relational transformation).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That is, the argument is over whether \u2018nature\u2019 prevails over \u2018nurture\u2019 or vice versa in SOURCING THE ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF NAME-INSTANTIATED THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES is a NULL argument since \u2018name-instantiated things-in-themselves\u2019 are artefacts of language and grammar and are not \u2018real\u2019 in an experiential (relational) sense.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 Since there no \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019, there are no \u2018things-in-themselves with the powers of sourcing actions and developments.\u00a0 Such abstractions (the artifact of language and grammar) may be helpful as Wittgenstein ladders\u2019<\/em>, but to employ them \u2018literally\u2019 as in \u2018Inventing Reality\u2019 is a recipe for confusion and psychological aberrance.\u00a0 \u2018Things-in-themselves\u2019 and ‘their actions and developments’, are an expedient ‘WIttgenstein ladders’ for developing mental impressions that are purely relational in essence, just like our natural experience;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)<\/em><\/p>\n He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, that\u2019s about it, in a nutshell.\u00a0 Experience-grounded relational reality is \u2018holographic\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n HOLOGRAPHIC REALITY= (PHYSICS REALITY) + i*(PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Furthermore, it is not hard to \u2018get to\u2019 [by way of experience, before we start \u2018talking about it\u2019] since it is our natural way of understanding.\u00a0 Language has given us, Western culture, the ability to inquire into reality in two different ways (PHYSICS AND PSYCHOLOGY) and Western culture comes up with two different understandings of \u2018reality\u2019 on that basis that divides the social collective.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The resolution of this difference can come if one understands that the difference derives from two different ways of posing questions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Both the physicist and the psychologist, therefore, have to work with \u2018two worlds\u2019 that are \u2018heterogeneous\u2019, the physical and the psychological because of this \u2018mutual dependence\u2019 of each one on the other, \u2026 but this situation is not inevitable, it is an artefact of the splitting of inquiry into these two realms \u2013 Mach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The reality of our actual relational experience; i.e. the reality of the transforming relational continuum we are all included in, is NOT \u2018OUT THERE\u2019, but includes us within it, and while it is experientially knowable in a limited sense, it is not picturable since it is a transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 We are asking two types of questions in developing an understanding of \u2018reality\u2019 and it makes no sense to opt for \u2018one or the other\u2019 of these \u2018question-dependent-realities\u2019 but it makes sense, instead, to understand \u2018reality\u2019 in an overall context, whereby we have to reach for an understanding that composites both of these \u2018question-dependent realities\u2019; i.e.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n HOLOGRAPHIC REALITY= (PHYSICS REALITY) + i*(PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is essentially what Mach has been saying, but his meaning is being \u2018missed\u2019 because Western culture adherents are too busy squabbling over whether \u2018nature prevails over nurture\u2019 (conservatives) or whether \u2018nurture\u2019 prevails over nature\u2019 (liberals).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Western culture adherents are stuck in this standoff because of a mistaken belief in the \u2018reality\u2019 of the \u2018existence\u2019 of \u2018name-instantiated\u2019 things-in-themselves\u2019<\/em><\/strong> (error 1 \u2013 of the \u2018double error\u2019 identified by Nietzsche), notionally \u2018with<\/em><\/strong> the power of sourcing actions and developments\u2019<\/em><\/strong> (error 2 -of the \u2018double error\u2019 identified by Nietzsche).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mach has clarified how these mis-impressions have come about; i.e. by the nature of the questions we formulate and ask.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, indigenous aboriginal culture adherents did not use language-based questioning that led to this synthetic division into \u2018conservatives\u2019 and \u2018liberals\u2019 since their languages were based in the understanding \u2018mitakuye oyasin\u2019 (everything is related).\u00a0 Thus, they made no such assumptions as have led to the Western culture \u2018double error\u2019, \u2026i.e;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Error 1: the \u2018existence\u2019 of \u2018name-instantiated\u2019 things-in-themselves\u2019 \u2026 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Error 2: \u2013 \u2018with the power of sourcing actions and developments\u2019<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n As discussed earlier, Western culture is \u2018locked in\u2019 to this aberrant \u2018Divided Self\u2019 reality\u2019 due to \u2018high switching costs\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u2018REALITY\u2019 \u2026. What is it? INTRODUCTION: Ernst Mach, in ‘The Analysis of Sensations’ exposed how Western culture makes use of two ‘orthogonal’ impressions of ‘reality’ as associates with (a) Physics (classical\/Newtonian), and (b) Psychology.\u00a0 This essay explores how these two modes of ‘reality’ relate to one another in the manner of the ‘real’ […]<\/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-3569","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\/3569","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=3569"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3569\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3574,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3569\/revisions\/3574"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}