![\"\"](\"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/duning-image.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WHAT is there about our Western culture cultivated habits that gives us Western culture adherents a superficial understanding of reality that is crazy-making?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others have suggested that our language is the source of superficial understanding of reality; i.e. that language cannot \u2018go the distance\u2019 to reality (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao), and that language can only be used as a kind of \u2018springboard\u2019 to infer an understanding of reality that lies innately beyond the LITERAL understanding-giving capacities of language.\u00a0 (Language usage in indigenous aboriginal, Taoist\/Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta cultures is more in the sense of \u2018the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions of modern physics\u2019; i.e. as is required in approaching an understanding of the reality of an energized wave-field wherein \u2018everything is in flux\u2019).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Since language constructed with explicit concepts (name-based objects), is incapable of conveying understanding of the fluid reality we are included in, when we confuse the literal meaning conveyed by language, for \u2018reality\u2019, this delivers to the psyche an INVENTED REALITY\u00a0 that is a superficial and unreal pseudo-reality.\u00a0 Using this superficial reality as our \u2018operative reality\u2019 is a crazy-maker that has become our Western culture \u2018normal\u2019.\u00a0 As R.D. Laing has pointed out;<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
What we call \u2018normal\u2019 is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n LANGUAGE USAGE WHERE WORDS\/NAMES ARE USED ONLY AS AN EXPEDIENT FOR ALLUDING TO RELATIONAL REALITY (modern physics, indigenous aboriginal usage, Taoism\/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta) HAS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERING PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT THAN LANGUAGE USAGE WHERE WORDS\/NAMES ARE USED IN A DOUBLE ERROR BASED SENSE.\u00a0\u00a0 The \u2018double error\u2019 usage, as Nietzsche points out, is where\u00a0 we use (first error) naming to impute thing-in-itself existence to the named form (e.g. \u2018continent\u2019) and conflate this by (second error) imputing the power of sourcing actions and developments to the name-instantiated thing in itself (e.g. \u2018the continent is drifting\u2019).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is what I mean by \u2018superficiality\u2019 that we Western culture adherents build into our thinking by our manner of using language.\u00a0 To speak of \u2018continents drifting\u2019 cultivates in our intellect\/psyche, a superficial <\/em><\/strong>understanding, that OCCLUDES in our psyche, the field based REALITY wherein \u2018everything is related\u2019 (mitakuye oyasin) as in a transforming relational continuum.\u00a0 This superficial understanding brings with it a basic ambiguity that leads to division and argument as to \u2018what is real\u2019; i.e. is \u2018continental drift\u2019 what is really going on, or is \u2018seafloor spreading\u2019 what is really going on?\u00a0 This is the same polarizing division that gives rise to the \u2018conservative\u2019 (one bad apple spoils the barrel) \u2013 liberal (it takes a whole community to raise a [good\/bad] child).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Which is it for you?\u00a0 continental drift? \u2026 or, \u2026 \u2018seafloor spreading\u2019?\u00a0\u00a0 These are both superficial conceptualizations since the \u2018field\u2019 is what is transforming and it is all inclusive; i.e. it is only language and grammar that splits things up and imputes \u2018independent thing-in-itself existence\u2019 to them by \u2018naming\u2019 them, and then notionally mobilizes the name-instantiated things-in-themselves with grammar.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The language and grammar based double error (continents that drift, and seafloors that spread) is where, generally, the abstract concept of sorcery (producer-product development) comes from.\u00a0 In the course of using our intellect (rather than our resonance-attuning intuition) to understand \u2018reality\u2019, we engage in the \u2018double error\u2019 mode of understanding, \u2026. this arises like Cuckoo\u2019s egg planted in the nest of our mind that hatches and BLOCKS from occupation of the nest of our mind, the natural, more comprehensive (non-superficial) understanding of reality in terms of the Tao, the transforming relational continuum aka \u2018the wave-field\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The dividing of the self by the \u2018double error\u2019 (name-instantiated thing-in-itself with powers of sourcing actions and developments) is the source of \u2018ego-that-swells-the-head\u2019, blocking access to the purely relational (undivided self) of inspiration-that fills-the-heart as comes naturally with inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n SORCERY<\/em><\/strong>, (aka producer-product powers), once our intellect latches on to this concept, can either be invested in the continent to explicitly source its drift, \u2026 or it can be invested in the sea-floor spreading which implicitly sources its drift giving rise to a duplicity that in innately associated with \u2018sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 (e.g. \u2018is it the bad apple that spoils the barrel\u2019? \u2026 or \u2018does it take a whole community to raise a child?\u00a0 This is the conservative \u2013 liberal division; i.e. the conservative view is consistent with the concept of ego that allows us, as a single, independent individual,\u00a0 to claim authorship of powers of sorcery of actions and developments; \u2026 while the liberal view is consistent with the concept of ego that allows us, as a social collective, to claim authorship of powers of sorcery of actions and developments.\u00a0\u00a0 NOTA BENE, \u2026 the concept of \u2018sorcery\u2019 is language and grammar based\u00a0 intellectual abstraction.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n ONCE WE INVOKE THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF SORCERY, \u2026 WE INVOKE, AT THE SAME TIME A DUPLITY IN OUR UNDERSTANDING BY WAY OF TWO VERSIONS OF SORCERY-BASED \u2018INVENTED REALITY\u2019, \u2026 as in the example of \u2018continents drifting\u2019 or \u2018seafloor spreading\u2019.\u00a0 Both sides of this ambiguity arise from the superficiality of our language and grammar based imposing of the abstract of \u2018sorcery\u2019 to reduce the ineffable relational transforming (the Tao) so as to render it \u2018effable\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is really the case that we are an independent, individual thing-in-itself\u2019 endowed with the power of sourcing actions and developments as our ego is telling us through our tool of language and grammar?\u00a0\u00a0 Or, does it take inclusion in a whole community\u00a0 to develop powers of sourcing actions and developments that manifest through us?\u00a0 If our reputation collapses, so too do our powers of sourcing actions and developments.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course, both branches of this dilemma FIRSTLY PRESUPPOSE the \u2018reality\u2019 of \u2018sourcing actions and developments\u2019 aka \u2018sorcery\u2019.\u00a0 \u2018Sorcery\u2019 does not even arise in an understanding of reality as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum, as is the case in modern physics, indigenous aboriginal cultures and Taoism\/Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In other words, the dilemma of whether \u2018continents drift\u2019 or whether \u2018seafloors spread\u2019 arises from a superficial view of reality, based on the double error.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The \u2018double error\u2019 is what makes the ineffable effable; i.e. it allows us to reduce the all-including \u2018field\u2019, the transforming relational continuum of our sensory experience (the Tao that cannot be told) to effable terms.\u00a0 This gives rise to the \u2018divided self\u2019 (R.D. Laing) of Western culture adherents, which is a \u2018crazy-maker\u2019.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Does the man make the times or do the times make the man?\u00a0 This question presumes the reality of \u2018sorcery\u2019 which brings with it a binary ambiguity of the habitat-inhabitant (which is the source of changing<\/p>\n <\/p>\n WHAT IS GOING ON HERE WITH THIS WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE GAME?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n -1- Overcoming ineffability.\u00a0 The transforming relational continuum is \u2018ineffable\u2019.\u00a0 The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.<\/p>\n -2- In order to talk about the ineffable transforming relational continuum, we need to break it down into \u2018effable pieces\u2019.<\/p>\n -3- The language and grammar based \u2018self\u2019 \u2013 \u2018other\u2019 division\u00a0 and the \u2018inhabitant-habitat\u2019 division render the ineffable effable<\/p>\n -4- Using language and grammar to engineer a self-other split opens the door to portraying reality in terms of the sourcing of actions and developments by self and other or \u2018inhabitant and habitat\u2019.\u00a0 This abstract sorcery based representation of reality brings with it the ambiguity of whether the sourcing is coming from the self or the other; i.e. from the inhabitant or the habitat.\u00a0 This ambiguity comes with the sorcery package. It is the price of using the language and intellect ploy to make the ineffable effable.\u00a0 There is of course \u2018loss\u2019 incurred in this abstract division into two.<\/p>\n -5- The concepts of \u2018continental drift\u2019 and \u2018seafloor spreading\u2019 are concepts by which we explain transformation in SUPERFICIAL terms of topographical change.\u00a0 This can be validated by voyeur views as produced by a camera in space.\u00a0\u00a0 In watching time-lapse voyeur visual views of topographical change and employing language and grammar to capture these, use \u2018naming\u2019 to impute thing-in-itself existence to the visible (rising above the sea\u2019s surface) portions of the topography, and grammar to impute powers of sourcing movement and development to these forms (continents), over-writing in our mind\u2019s eye (eclipsing) the transforming relational continuum, in the manner of the TV weatherman who projects the a picture of the transforming atmospherics on a white board and uses a felt-tip pen to draw the shape of innately fluid (relational) systems, naming them so that he can then speak of these purely relational appearances, in the \u2018effable\u2019 \u2018double error\u2019 terms of \u2018name-instantiated things-in-themselves\u2019 notionally with powers of sourcing actions and developments.\u00a0 As with \u2018continental drift\u2019 and \u2018seafloor spreading\u2019, the price of using language and grammar to \u2018break in\u2019 to the ineffable continuum and reduce it to effable terms, is that we have to use the ambiguity of having both an \u2018assertive\u2019 and a \u2018receptive\u2019 conjugate pair, as with \u2018the high pressure area\u2019 (the assertive male aspect) and the \u2018low pressure area\u2019 (the receptive female).\u00a0 This is what allows us to seemingly overcome the ineffable nature of an all-including \u2018relational transformation\u2019, the reality of our actual sensory experience, .. so as to render it effable for intellectual discourse and thus available for \u2018sharing and discussing\u2019.<\/p>\n -6- The use of language and grammar to reduce the ineffable transforming relational continuum to something effable is achievable through the \u2018double error\u2019, a language and grammar tool the workman can apply to himself, but only at the risk of letting the tool run away with the workman, which is endemic in Western culture.\u00a0 That is, getting an effable foothold can be done by using language and grammar in \u2018double error\u2019 mode which uses naming to impute \u2018thing-in-itself existence\u2019 and uses grammar to conflate this by imputing powers of sorcery to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself; \u2026 GOODBYE ALL-INCLUDING RELATIONAL TRANSFORMATION (the \u2018divine\u2019), COME ON IN, EGO BASED CLAIMS OF SOURCING ACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS (the \u2018human\u2019), as is Emerson\u2019s observation as to what happens to us when we claim to have chopped up the continuum into manageable part and given ourselves powers of jumpstart sorcery of actions and developments.<\/p>\n A man\u2019s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. \u2013 Ralph Waldo Emerson, \u2018The Method of Nature\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n So, the above 6 points furnish an answer to\u2026\u00a0 WHAT IS GOING ON HERE WITH THIS WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE GAME?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nevertheless, Western culture adherents continue to be taught and to accept the double error based INVENTED REALITY that has been given a foundational role in Western culture and has been \u2018locked in by high switching costs\u2019; e.g. the division of society into \u2018GOOD\u2019 AND \u2018BAD\u2019 (\u2018heroes\u2019 and \u2018villains\u2019) on the basis of their perceived sorcery contributions.\u00a0 In other words, there is a \u2018lock-in by high-switching costs\u2019 that is infused into Western Culture by systems of Rewards and Punishments based on belief in \u2018sorcery\u2019 which give disproportionately increased influence over changes in how we understand and manage things to some (those sourcing \u2018good\u2019 actions and developments) and disproportionately reduced influence over changes to how we understand and manage things, to others (those sourcing \u2018bad\u2019 actions and developments).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Western culture belief in sorcery is the underpinning of a binary logic based INVENTED REALITY that is used by Western culture adherents as the \u2018operative reality\u2019.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO CHANGE THINGS AND BRING WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS TO THE SAME UNDERSTANDING AS MODERN PHYSICS, TAOISTS\/BUDDHISTS AND ADVAITA VEDANTA?\u00a0 David Bohm saw the needed shift in our understanding of reality as requiring a new language, a language and grammar that would preserve the relational nature of reality (reality as inclusion in a transforming relational continuum).<\/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.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/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.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/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<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is possible for any of us to \u2018get to the same understanding\u2019 without learning Algonkian by using language in relational mode, as in \u2018the surprise version of the game of Twenty Questions\u2019; i.e. by NOT using language to construct visual images.\u00a0 To say that \u2018the continents are drifting\u2019 is to use language in explicit mode to construct a superficial visible reality.[N.B. remember \u2018visible, explicit change\u2019].\u00a0 To say that \u2018the seafloor is spreading\u2019 is to use language in an implicit mode to construct a superficial visible reality [N.B. remember \u2018visible, implicit change].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The \u2018dimensionality\u2019 of both of these modes of \u2018reality\u2019: i.e. explicit visible reality (which appeals to [defines] conservatives) and implicit visible reality (which appeals to [defines] liberals), because they are both reductions of our ineffable experience of inclusion in the Tao,\u00a0 is intrinsically lacking.\u00a0 If we can visualize the reality that we are talking about, it is not \u2018reality\u2019 (the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.)\u00a0 We can sensually experience inclusion in, \u2026 but can\u2019t visually \u2018see\u2019 and articulate the transforming relational continuum we are included in.\u00a0 The reality of our voyeur visualizing reduced to language is not \u2018reality\u2019, it is merely a \u2018perspective\u2019 view of a reality that is not \u2018out there\u2019 in our visible forefront, but a reality (The Tao, the field) that includes us and everything, as is available to our sensing of inclusion in purely relational resonance\/dissonance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival \u2018knowing\u2019; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our \u2018concept\u2019 of the thing, our \u2018objectivity\u2019.\u2013 Nietzsche<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n What we can see is superficial.\u00a0 It is not \u2018reality\u2019<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 The reality of our inclusion in the transforming relational continuum is not something available to our voyeur visualizing, nor is it expressible in language. \u00a0Continents that drift and seafloors that spread are two views of the source of motion and development that are innately ambiguous BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERFICIAL. The reality of our sensual experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum cannot be seen or told. It is the ineffable reality.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Western culture adherents who are preoccupied in debate over whether sorcery<\/em><\/strong> has a \u2018boil sources<\/em><\/strong> flow (one-informs-many) topology\u2019 (conservatives) \u00a0or a \u2018flow sources<\/em><\/strong> boil (many informs one) topology\u2019 (liberals) are delaying the realization that there is no such thing as \u2018sorcery\u2019<\/em><\/strong>; it is the abstract artifact of a double error of language and grammar.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" WHAT is there about our Western culture cultivated habits that gives us Western culture adherents a superficial understanding of reality that is crazy-making? Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Bohm and others have suggested that our language is the source of superficial understanding of reality; i.e. that language cannot \u2018go the distance\u2019 to reality (the […]<\/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-3866","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\/3866","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=3866"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3866\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3872,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3866\/revisions\/3872"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}