<\/p>\n
R.D. (Ronnie) Laing\u2019s classic on psychiatry \u2018The Divided Self\u2019 remains an enigmatic attractor to those searching for answers to \u2018schizophrenia\u2019 and \u2018bipolar disorder\u2019, which Laing implies is a problem deriving from Western culture social dynamics rather than the symptoms-manifesting individual.\u00a0 Laing states in a loud and clear voice that (Western culture) \u2018normality\u2019 is mental aberration.<\/p>\n
Nietzsche makes the same point in his elucidation of the \u2018double error\u2019 hiding in Western culture language and grammar usage.<\/p>\n
They are saying the same thing in different ways.\u00a0 That is, the Western culture belief in name-instantiated psychical creation of \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 (first error) grammatically conflated so as to impute to them powers of sourcing actions and developments (second error), is a crazy-making \u2018double error\u2019.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is crazy making because it has people (individually and\/or in national and corporate collectives) actually \u2018believing\u2019 in their own powers of sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 This belief in ‘sorcery’ is \u2018madness\u2019 that has been \u2018shot down\u2019 by Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, Gautama Buddha, indigenous aboriginal cultures, Advaita Vedanta, and modern physics, yet it continues to resurrect within Western culture.<\/p>\n
It is crazy making that continues to be supported in Western culture by Western culture\u2019s deep embrace of the \u2018double error\u2019 which gives rise to the \u2018divided self\u2019.<\/p>\n
For example, DNA determinations that establish \u2018guilt\u2019 aka \u2018sorcery\u2019 in criminal investigations are based on the \u2018double error\u2019.<\/p>\n
What do DNA based \u2018convictions\u2019 really \u2018prove\u2019? — They prove that Western culture adherents see \u2018reality\u2019 in terms of the \u2018double error\u2019<\/p>\n
David Bohm and modern physics note that \u2018sorcery\u2019 is not how the real world works; e.g. the example of the death of Lincoln\u2026 re the role of John Wilkes Booth.<\/p>\n
\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 \u2013The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality: Michael\u00a0Talbot:<\/em><\/p>\n Western culture adherents will \u2018close the case\u2019 once the DNA evidence identifies the \u2018sorcerer\u2019 based on the \u2018double error\u2019, an abstract finding that \u2018wallpapers over\u2019 \u2018what is really going on\u2019, blocking us from understanding reality in terms of the transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n The \u2018double error\u2019 will lead us to what we may label as the vicious rapist-murderer (no reflection on our fine community and the fine people we are) but not to the dysfunctional relational social dynamics which lie deeper than the language and grammar based \u2018double error\u2019 interpretation.\u00a0 The hurricane is not the source of the relational turbulence, and neither is the relational turbulence the source of the hurricane.\u00a0 The hurricane is NOT a \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019, it is an appearance\/apparition within the transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 Mitakuye oyasin (all things are related) suggests that harmony and dissonance are inherently relational, and that the transforming of dissonance into harmony is by way of relations.\u00a0 Meanwhile, language and grammar employ the \u2018double error\u2019 abstraction to reduce that which in our experience is purely relational as with harmony\/dissonance, to that which is in our intellect, \u2018sorcery\u2019-based INVENTED REALITY born of the ‘double error’.<\/p>\n DNA testing will establish that Robin Hood was the one who took the gold from the King\u2019s men who had extorted it from the common people.\u00a0 In Western \u2018double error\u2019 based reality, the DNA based evidence will be the QED proof of sorcery-based criminal action on the part of Robin Hood. \u00a0Relational justice is not even on the \u2018radar screen\u2019 of this intellectual jiggery-pokery that passes for \u2018Justice\u2019.<\/p>\n It is not \u2018rocket science\u2019 to understand reality in terms of our topological inclusion within it; i.e. in the manner we understand it in infancy prior to the self-other dividing we impose on ourselves by learning language \u2018salted\u2019 with the \u2018double error\u2019.\u00a0 That is, the utility of language comes from its capability to rationally express the innately inexpressible reality of our inclusion in a transforming relational continuum;- The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. <\/em>of Lao Tzu. As the Zen proverb of wind and flag suggests, there is no answer to the question of whether the flapping flag sources the movement of the air or whether the movement of the air sources the flapping of the flag.\u00a0 Likewise, there is no answer to whether the \u2018boil\u2019 in the river sources flowing motion in the river, or whether flowing motion in the river sources the \u2018boil\u2019.<\/p>\n The answer, in both cases, is that the assumption of \u2018sourcing\u2019 is wrong, since in physical reality, there is only relational transformation, and it is the \u2018double error\u2019 of language and grammar that gives us the impression that \u2018actions and developments’ are \u2018sourced\u2019.\u00a0 The first error is to use \u2018naming\u2019 to psychologically instantiate \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019 existence (based on forms in flow) and the second error conflates the first by imputing powers of sourcing actions and development to the name-instantiated thing-in-itself.<\/p>\n For example, relational transformation is immanent in nature and thus ineffable (\u201cOf that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence\u201d \u2013 Wittgenstein), but we can use the double error so that we can \u2018speak\u2019, \u2026 although what we are then speaking of is no longer relational transformation but a reduced INVENTED REALITY created by the \u2018double error\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0The \u2018boil\u2019 in the \u2018flow\u2019 is \u2018how the purely relational phenomena of flow can appear\u2019 to us.\u00a0 Reducing an \u2018appearance\u2019 to a \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019 by \u2018naming it\u2019 (first error) and conflating this first error with the second error of \u2018grammar\u2019 to impute the power of sourcing actions and developments (second error) to the \u2018thing-in-itself\u2019 is psychological aberrance that Nietzsche identified as a \u2018double error\u2019 of language and grammar.<\/p>\n This \u2018double error\u2019 is otherwise known as \u2018sorcery\u2019, psychological aberrance that we use to INVENT (a surrogate form of) REALITY in an articulable form.\u00a0 Since we can\u2019t REALLY overcome the innate ineffability of the transforming relational continuum, language gives us the ability only to speak of something<\/em> that is NOT \u2018reality\u2019 but allows us to make inferences about the ineffable reality of our actual experience of inclusion as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n Western culture \u2018insanity\u2019 on a culture-wide scale, develops when, as Emerson says, \u2018the tool runs away with the workman\u2019; i.e. when we employ language that only qualifies for the job of \u2018inferring\u2019 reality understood as ineffable relational transformation (innately relational energy-field-flow) that includes ourselves, as if we Western culture adherents were capturing the elusive Leprechaun in our intellectual vice-grip fists. \u00a0\u00a0This is where madness is built into Western culture.<\/p>\n For the infant, there is no self-other division; i.e. no \u2018divided self\u2019.\u00a0 The divided self is an acquired understanding seeded by language and grammar.\u00a0 Of course, language and grammar could be understood as \u2018capable of no more than inference\u2019 as in \u2018The surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions\u2019 or as in \u2018the sharing circles of indigenous aboriginals where the \u2018talking stick\u2019 is passed, NOT so as to hear various accounts of \u2018reality\u2019 and select \u2018the truest account\u2019, but to being them all into connective confluence in the mind so as to develop understanding from the coherencies that show up within the connective confluence.\u00a0 There is no \u2018explicit reality\u2019 when reality is a transforming relational continuum wherein \u2018everything is in flux\u2019.<\/p>\n The Double Error<\/em><\/strong> and the Divided Self<\/em><\/strong> are a common phenomenon.\u00a0 They arise from the need to \u2018reduce reality\u2019 in order to be able to linguistically articulate our experience of inclusion within it. \u00a0In order to \u2018get a look at it and discuss it\u2019, we have to \u2018get outside of it\u2019, but that is impossible without distorting our experience of inclusion within it.<\/p>\n The distortion of the \u2018double error\u2019 and \u2018divided self\u2019 is the price we pay to even get to a makeshift discursive construction that alludes to it, which is not the \u2018reality\u2019 of our actual experience, but an INVENTED REALITY that we present in terms of pictures and word captions; e.g. \u201cKatrina is growing larger and stronger\u201d, \u201cKatrina is ravaging New Orleans\u201d, \u2026 \u201cKatrina is weakening and dissipating\u201d.<\/p>\n \u2018ECLIPSED\u2019 is the transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 And superimposed on the darkness that now obscures and blocks from conscious awareness the transforming relational continuum, are words and word-instantiated pictures to serve as the replacement psychological \u2018take-aways\u2019.\u00a0 These new word-based take-aways \u2018break down\u2019 the transforming relational continuum into \u2018parts of interest\u2019 to us, even if such \u2018break down\u2019 is purely intellectual abstraction and thus a departure from the \u2018reality\u2019 of the transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n This double error of language and grammar is a technique for rendering the ineffable Tao effable must be consistently applied in order to use to INVENT REALITIES that are \u2018believable\u2019; i.e. if we apply the double error technique to the visible flow-forms of nature such as the \u2018hurricane\u2019 in order to make relational transformation \u2018effable\u2019 then we must do the same to ourselves order to achieve the logical consistency that we use to distinguish the \u2018real\u2019 from the \u2018apparent\u2019.<\/p>\n Since the real can only be \u2018apparent\u2019 (appearance) within a transforming relational continuum, this language-and-grammar based objectification of relational phenomena is not \u2018capturing reality\u2019, but INVENTING REALITY that is in terms of psychologically instantiated (by naming) things-in-themselves notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments (the double error).\u00a0 The Divided Self follows from the need for logical consistency in the reducing of relational flow forms to psychologically instantiated (by naming relational forms) things-in-themselves.\u00a0 We thus create the \u2018independent-thing-in-itself\u2019 concept of the \u2018human being\u2019 (from the human form in the flow) by \u2018naming\u2019 and we follow this up by \u2018animating\u2019 the \u2018name-instantiated thing-in-itself\u2019 with grammar that imputes to it the power of sourcing.<\/p>\n The \u2018divided self\u2019 arises from \u2018the double error\u2019 through the need for logical consistency in INVENTING REALITY based on the \u2018double error\u2019 concept.<\/p>\n That is, the undivided self of our infancy \u00a0(prior to the self-other splitting necessary for language-based share of impressions of reality) does not \u2018go away\u2019 as we \u2018learn better\u2019, it is simply eclipsed and occluded as our \u2018talk\u2019 constructs its INVENTED REALITIES over top of it.\u00a0 The problem is not in the language-based constructing of INVENTED REALITY, the problem is in NOT remembering that such language-and-grammar based INVENTED REALITY is only capable of oblique inference as a \u2018Wittgenstein ladder\u2019 to tickle our psyche into latching on to an understanding of the ineffable relational transformation that is inherently non-articulable.<\/p>\n The \u2018double error\u2019 makes it possible to articulate the ineffable (the transforming relational continuum) but at the price of reducing reality from a continuum by breaking it into separate pieces by the intellectual-psychological act of \u2018naming\u2019 relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, and using the intellectual device of language and grammar to psychologically \u2018animate\u2019 the now-objectified (thanks to naming)\u00a0 relational forms.<\/p>\n Because of the need for logical consistency (the reality test in the post-lingual real of named objects mobilized by grammar), we must do our selves as we do to all other relational forms, i.e. divide out the form from the flow, the \u2018self\u2019 from the \u2018other\u2019, the \u2018inhabitant\u2019 from the \u2018habitat\u2019, and likewise endow (grammatically and psychologically) the intellectually liberated relational flow-form with notionally powers of sourcing actions and developments.<\/p>\n So which comes first, the divided self or the double error?\u00a0 clearly the double error that is necessitated by language. \u00a0The divided self is something that follows from the double error, the expedient that reduces the ineffable to the effable.<\/p>\n This language and grammar-based reduction of the ineffable to the effable has been Biblically cast as \u2018the fall of man\u2019.\u00a0 Emerson, schooled in the psychological underpinnings of religion, speaks of this same reduction in terms of \u2018the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine\u2019.\u00a0 Mircea Eliade, in \u2018Mephistopheles et l\u2019Androgyne\u2019 (English title \u2018The Two and the One\u2019) similarly casts this reduction of the One-ness of form-and-flow to two-ness (self and other) as a devilishly clever self-deception that has confused and divided us.<\/p>\n In the same manner, in Martine Dodds-Taljaard\u2019s and \u00a0Gy\u00f6rgy Jaros\u2019 sustems sciences paper \u2018The Name of the Devil is Suboptimization\u2019, there is this same topological-geometric reduction of the ONE to the TWO that notionally unleashes the abstract concept of \u2018sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 This is the object of their critique; i.e. a system and subsystem need not be understood as explicitly \u2018two\u2019 but instead as one that \u2018appears\u2019 as \u2018two\u2019 (the boil in flow).\u00a0 Transformation of the ONE is ineffable which is fine for the experiential understanding of ourselves as sentient relational forms within the transforming relational continuum; i.e. as with our related forms in the common flow, being able to articulate and share (even crudely) the \u2018reality\u2019 that we share inclusion in, that we experience uniquely and differently, has the upside of furthering our ability to understand, cultivate and sustain relational harmonies.<\/p>\n While the \u2018double error\u2019 gives us a view of reality (i.e. an INVENTED REALITY) in which we re-cast ourselves and other relational flow-forms, thanks to the abstracting powers of language and grammar, as name-instantiated psychologically things-in-themselves with powers of sorcery driven by notional internal \u2018will\u2019 (Sayonara, \u2018transforming relational continuum!\u2019, \u2018here comes double error based \u2018Divided Self\u2019)<\/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<\/em><\/p>\n \u2018REASON\u2019 THAT DEFINES \u2018EGO\u2019 AND \u2018SORCERY\u2019 (BEINGS WITH CAUSAL POWER); I.E. THE \u2019METAPHYSICS OF LANGUAGE\u2019.<\/p>\n “… 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\u2026 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.<\/em> ” \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n The Double Error and the Divided Self are one and the same psychological aberration. This is the \u2018deal with the devil\u2019 as implied in Western religious histories, and it CAN BE a \u2018crazy-maker\u2019 if we make the mistake of understanding it \u2018literally\u2019 and \u2018explicitly\u2019.\u00a0 In other words, in order to render the ineffable \u2018effable\u2019, we make a \u2018double error\u2019 of language and grammar.\u00a0 In this way, we can psychologically \u2018break up\u2019 the transforming relational continuum into separate \u2018parts\u2019, the \u2018cost\u2019 of which is our having to artificially \u2018re-mobilize them\u2019 as if \u2018sourced\u2019 by \u2018their own locally incipient powers\u2019.\u00a0 Since language is not bound by the constraints of nature and reality (abstract invention is the forte of language and grammar), the concept of \u2018sorcery\u2019 is an ever-available expedient to \u2018cover\u2019 for a parts-wise reduction of \u2018change\u2019 experienced as inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 As Nietzsche puts it;<\/p>\n \u201cOur judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author\u201d;\u2013but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say \u201clightning flashes,\u201d I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, \u201cis\u201d and does not \u201cbecome.\u201d\u2013To regard an event as an \u201ceffecting,\u201d and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Will to Power\u2019, 531<\/em><\/p>\n The Double Error and the Divided Self<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n are a mutually supporting duo, a kind of \u2018deal with the devil\u2019 (Mephistopheles et l\u2019Androgyne) that allows us use language and grammar based abstraction to \u2018pry open\u2019 the ineffable relational continuum, are re-invent it (re-animate it) in the discretist terms of local things-in-themselves with notional powers of sourcing actions and developments.\u00a0 The price we have to pay for this (our debt to this devilishly clever scheme) is to \u2018divide our self\u2019<\/em><\/strong> in this same manner, for logical consistency, so that we, too, are portrayed by language and grammar, as \u2018independently-existing things-in-ourselves\u2019, notionally endowed with powers of sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 Thus is born Western culture \u2018ego\u2019 wherein we give credit to notional name-instantiated things-in-themselves\u2019 (humans, nations, corporations) for \u2018sourcing\u2019 actions and developments.<\/p>\n As humans, this language and grammar tool of reducing the ineffable transforming relational continuum to an effable INVENTED REALITY based on abstract \u2018independently-existing things-in-themselves notionally with their own powers of sourcing actions and developments (the \u2018double error) conflicts with the natural and innate understanding of the \u2018undivided self\u2019 that is our natural relational experience but which gets \u2018paved over\u2019 and occluded by the abstractions of language and grammar;<\/p>\n To the infant\u2019s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. \u2018pre-intellectualizing\u2019 level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.\u201d \u2013 F. David Peat,<\/em><\/p>\n The deal with the devil to render the ineffable effable; i.e. the tool of language and grammar has, in the case of Western culture, \u2018run away with the workman\u2019.\u00a0 Western culture man now sees himself as a \u2018sorcerer\u2019 and Western culture has on that basis built a system of rewards and punishments based on the \u2018double error\u2019 belief in the name-instantiated existence of things-in-themselves with grammar-instantiated powers of sorcery.\u00a0 This double error based values system has led to Western culture\u2019s current self-entrapment by way of \u2018lock-in by high switching costs\u201d.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 The high switching costs have resulted from rewarding and elevating in stature and giving disproportionate influence over \u2018defining what is real\u2019, on the false basis of \u2018sorcery\u2019. \u00a0There Is no such thing as \u2018sorcery\u2019 in our experience-grounded reality of inclusion as relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 Meanwhile, \u2018sorcery\u2019 is not only accepted as \u2018real\u2019 in Western culture, it plays the foundational role in social values, both in the positive and negative sense (\u2018rewards\u2019 and \u2018punishments\u2019), therefore, it is difficult to \u2018call out\u2019 as the language and grammar instantiated vacuous illusion that it is.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n