Sapir was an early proponent of uniformitarianism in linguistics, and is quoted as follows;

“When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, and Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam” --- Edward Sapir, 'Language' (1921)

Sapir saw no conflict between “uniformitarianism”, which he subscribed to, and the ‘Sapir-Whorf’ hypothesis. Uniformitarianism, in his view, discredited attempts to link language to race (superiority);

“Uniformitarianist assumptions helped clear the air of nineteenth-century race theories and, as formulated by Sapir’s teacher Franz Boas, were a powerful weapon against the various twentieth-century attempts to link race, intelligence, and inherent ability [e.g. by fascist Germany and Italy, and for different reasons, Stalinist Russia]. ... since the oldest language that we have on record---the earliest samples of Bayblonian, Chinese, Greek, and so on---manifest the same grammatical devices as modern languages, one has typically concluded that there is no overall directionality to language change. That is, human languages have always been pretty much the same in terms of the typological distribution of the elements that compose them. ...”

“... the extension of uniformitarianism to the denial of links between language, culture and world-view was manifestly not Sapir’s position. Indeed, he believed strongly that such links exist. Such a belief even has his name enshrined in it: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Sapir believed that the structure of one’s language directly shapes one’s view of the world, and that different structures impose on the consciousness a different perception of reality.”

---Frederick J. Newmeyer, “Uniformitarian Assumptions and Language Evolution Research”

Sapir and Whorf are not saying that Turtle Island aboriginals are a more ‘highly-evolved species’ due to their language, ... a language whose relational constructs do not 'hang it up' on the notion of linear time like ours does. As Whorf put it, the Hopi language is more tied to physical reality than the Indo-European languages, and this view is also in Nietzsche’s critique of European languages’ ‘grammar’; i.e. this practice of creating doer-deed structures DOES NOT reflect physical reality [e.g. ‘lightning flashes’ and 'the earth rotates' and 'farmers produce crops' DOES NOT reflect physical reality].

“Benjamin Whorf published three articles in the MIT Technology Review titled “Science and Linguistics”, “Linguistics as an Exact Science” and “Language and Logic”. He was also invited to contribute an article to a theosophical journal, Theosophist, published in Madras, India, for which he wrote “Language, Mind and Reality”. In these final pieces he offered a critique of Western science in which he suggested that non-European languages often referred to physical phenomena in ways that more directly reflected aspects of reality than many European languages, and that science ought to pay attention to the effects of linguistic categorization in its efforts to describe the physical world. He particularly criticized the Indo-European languages for promoting a mistaken essentialist world view, which had been disproved by advances in the sciences, whereas he suggested that other languages dedicated more attention to processes and dynamics rather than stable essences. Whorf argued that paying attention to how other physical phenomena are described in the study of linguistics could make valuable contributions to science by pointing out the ways in which certain assumptions about reality are implicit in the structure of language itself, and how language guides the attention of speakers towards certain phenomena in the world which risk becoming overemphasized while leaving other phenomena at risk of being overlooked.” --- Wikipedia

it should be clear that the sort of linguistic idealization in European languages; i.e. the reducing of 'dynamics' to terms of 'what things-in-themselves-do' fits right into the fact that speakers of these languages focus on 'doing stuff' out of the context of the physical reality that "The dynaics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants." [Mach's principle].

focusing solely on 'doing stuff' is why the habitat is going to hell. as Mcluhan says, the real physical dynamics are the transformation of the relational space we all share inclusion in. this physical reality fact doesn't even show up on the radar screen of the capitalist enterprise that is focused on 'making things happen', 'getting things done'. for all practical purposes, our European language mesmerizes us into believing that 'dynamics' can really be reduced to 'what things do'. if it was good enough for newton, it was good enough for us. except that it wasn't good enough for newton. he put 'user beware' not only in the 'author's prologue' to Principia, he put it in the summarizing scholium as well. the english language clearly had an architecture that reduced dynamics to 'what things-in-themselves do' prior to newton coming up with 'local force' in conjunction with cartesian coordinates to make the same reduction, but science was given a huge boost by working on the same simplified view of dynamics. newton warns, ... 'look, you guys, this here's a neat way of idealizing dynamics and putting them in a form to make time-based predictions, but i had to leave out all the 'relational spatial' stuff, the spatial harmonies and interdependent connectedness in the celestial dynamics, so it's really only a system for describing 'what's already in place and persisting' like the planets in their orbits. this stops radically short of addressing how everything seems to be participating in a continuing relational-spatial transformation.'

ok, few people listened to the warnings of the turtle island aboriginals that we should 'tread lightly' because 'since we are included in the relational space of nature, what we do conditions the space we do it in. we can't just assume that we are doing our stuff in a big infinite box where the inhabitants are disconnected [independently-existing] causal agents that roam around and interact, the sum total of whose 'doing of deeds' adds up to the 'world dynamic'.

the reason that 'humanity is killing us' as philosophers like neyrat say ['biopolitics of catastrophe'] is for the very reason that we, as a culture [our authoritarian governments and our institutions] actually 'believe' that physical dynamics can be realistically rendered in 'doer-deed constructs' [linguistic idealization] such as 'the earth rotates'. hello! it is not 'the earth' that is doing the rotating and more than it is the hurricane-pinwheel doing the rotating'. that is just 'linguistic idealization' that, like whorf says, has us 'forget' about the physical reality, which is that the pinwheeling storm-cell dynamic IS THE ATMOSPHERIC FLOW EXPRESSING ITSELF. i.e. the 'subject' that we need to associate the animative sourcing of the turning pinwheel, is the atmospheric flow and the celestial dynamics including solar irradiance etc.

we don't 'tread lightly' in our actions within the transforming relational space we share inclusion in, which really does 'hurt us if we hurt it', because our language structures deliver mental models in terms of 'what things-in-themselves-do' as if they/we do it in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite operating theatre [euclidian space].

There’s lots of reading ‘on it’ that’s been out there for a couple of millennia (e.g. since Heraclitus) but there’s two problems with what’s out there; the first is that it tends to be mono-disciplinary, and the second is that the individual disciplines have gate-keepers that keep squelching it. That ‘works’ because the disciplines fragment our understanding of natural phenomena so that within the disciplines [within the particular fragment], the logic of fragmentation ‘rules’.

Some philosophers have pointed out that in order to ‘get’ the non-dualist view, you have to look ‘across the disciplines’ and that’s ok, but most of the ‘experts’ in the world [who are the gatekeepers of what’s legitimate and what’s not] are only ‘experts’ in ‘their discipline’. So, Richard Dawkins and his cronies are able to defend the orthodox view of biological evolution against Nietzsche’s anti-Darwinism because they have risen to the top of the discipline and are the ‘high-priests’, the supreme authorities. You can’t make it in evolutionary biology if you don’t accept Darwinism you’ll be ‘expelled’ if you go against it. They even made a film on the topic called ‘Expelled’ but they screwed it up by confusing the alternative with ‘religious views’ (‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design). Nietzsche’s anti-Darwinism wasn’t based on ‘religion’, it was based on ‘non-dualism’; i.e. Nietzsche was on the same page with Mach, Bohm, Poincaré, Schroedinger, understanding the basic world dynamic in terms of a transforming relational spatial-plenum, and Nietzsche did attack all across the various disciplines; he attached mainstream science in general, saying it was anthropomorphism based on human ego. That’s clear from his quote that cited from ‘Twilight of the Idols’. He was saying anything that was contradictory to the view of the physical world of Mach and Bohm et al, ... but he had the guts to go after all the disciplines and point out that they were all infected with the same ‘delusion’ of ‘dualism’. That’s why he remains one of the most influential philosophers of all time, because people suspect he was right, and he was. Of course trying to explain non-dualism in a non-mysticism based way is not easy. But, in my view, he did a great job.

So, here’s my recommendations for reading in various disciplines wherein, in each case, the guy with the non-dualist views is ‘squelched’ by the dualist gatekeepers in each discipline. In other words, lots of us have already read some of the works of these ‘heretics’ but if you ever want to discuss their views, holding them to be legitimate, you get comments like;

Also, Mach was a complete crank who denied atomic theory and relativity long past the point at which they had been proven true

These are the ‘A’ students in physics and they get A’s because they subscribe to the orthodox view in physics; i.e. the orthodox view certainly doesn’t buy into ‘non-duality’ of Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger, Poincaré. And they are naturally confident that they ‘know their stuff’ better than the run of the mill student of physics, because the full support of their teachers.

This happens in all the disciplines because every discipline in the sciences is ‘dualist’ and you will be ‘kicked out of the church of orthodox science’ as Mach claimed he was, if you don’t subscribe to ‘dualism’, the notion that matter and space, ‘habitat’ and ‘inhabitant’ are ‘mutually exclusive’. That is what it is all about in all of the disciplines. The ‘A’ students in each discipline are out there policing the crowd when they are not getting stroked by their high priests.

In biology, not only Nietzsche, who was not really a biologist (does this matter in the realm of basic philosophical assumptions?), but also Lamarck, Rolph, Roux and Rüdimeyer were all non-dualists; i.e. they did not split ‘evolution’ into two parts, the ‘organic realm’ and ‘the inorganic realm’. They viewed ‘evolution’ in terms of the transformation of relational space; i.e. something that operated on the ‘whole thing’, the ‘plenum’. As you know, the orthodox view is that each species, those forms that we split out by language; i.e. by word-labelling and word-defining them, are ‘really’ separate things, ‘local, independently-existing material systems’. This is a total ‘crock’ but if want an ‘A’ you are going to have to go with it, and therefore you are going to have to go with all those bullshit inventions to give logical consistency to dualism, the notion that organic forms are local, independently existing material systems with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

Hey, if we can do it for hurricane Katrina, and cover over the physical reality that Katrina is ‘the-relational-space-she-is-included-in-expressing-itself’, then we can do it for anything that looks like it has ‘its own development’ and ‘its own behaviour’. And that’s what we do, and Nietzsche says, we get that from our ‘ego-view’ of ourselves, which is burned into our brains over and over again by our language; ‘I produced those crops’ etc. etc.

How many of those bullshit concepts are we asked to believe in; ‘genes that determine the development of the ‘independent’ organism’, ‘the brain’ as the jumpstart source of consciousness and the director of behaviour, ... and it should be made clear right up front that ‘non-dualists’ do not argue with these ‘pictures’, they argue that these pictures are foreground views based on the notion that ‘space is empty’. They are saying that space is not empty, space is full, so that these foreground forms are resonance features that we use our European language to ‘subjectize’ so that we don’t have to explain them as ‘ripples in the relational spatial plenum’ but we can instead impute these forms, these flow-features in the flow, to have their own local jumpstarting powers of driving and directing their own development and behaviour, ... hence ‘Katrina, the hurricane’ we portray in the same manner as our ego portrays ourselves, as local, independently-existing form with our own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development and behaviour. ‘Dualism’, the absolute [Aristotelian logic of the excluded third] separation of ‘inhabitant’ from ‘habitat’, is foundational to our orthodox sciences, to all the scientific disciplines. Don’t think for a moment that Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger, Poincaré buy into this, ... but their philosophical views don’t count. They are all excellent sciences in the sense of orthodox dualist science but they didn’t believe that ‘orthodox science’ equated to ‘physical reality’. As Mach said;

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” –Ernst Mach

that was mach saying that, not me, and the highlighting was mach’s, not mine, but you heard what was said about Mach, which might well have been said by a physicist of the stature in his discipline of Dawkins, in his discipline of evolutionary biology [Dawkins would do it with a bit more sophistication in his snarkery];

Also, Mach was a complete crank who denied atomic theory and relativity long past the point at which they had been proven true

so, for the reading list of the non-dualists in each discipline whose views are being de-legitimized by the high priests of the discipline.

Linguistics: Sapir, Whorf, Dan (Moonhawk) Alford (MIT). Sorry, Noam Chomsky and George Lakoff don’t make the cut. They are amongst the high priests of their dualist discipline. As Moonhawk says, Chomsky was the lead assassin in what Moonhawk calls ‘The Great Whorf Hypothesis Hoax’; i.e. the successful attempt to build a strawman in place of Whorf’s hypothesis of ‘linguistic relativity’ and demolish the strawman, claiming to have demolished Whorf’s hypothesis.

See also Dan Alford’s connecting with F. David Peat (co-author with David Bohm).

Again, this is a case of the ‘dualists’ putting down the ‘non-dualist’ views. In this case, the non-dualists are the aboriginals whose language does not infuse ‘linear time’ into its mental models, and Whorf is saying that the aboriginal language ‘passes’ non-dualism while the SAE language reject it.

Biology: Well, lots of biologists have been ‘expelled’ from biology because their research suggested that ‘dualism’ could not possibly explain what their research was showing them (e.g. stem cell research, etc.) and that non-dualism as in Lamarckism was [which conflicts with Darwinism] was a ‘fit’ for their findings. The basic finding that redefines the concept of a ‘cell’ as a local system-in-itself which ‘knows how to reproduce’, wherein the cell nucleus is the ‘brain’ behind the reproduction process, is ‘epigenetics’ and the ‘epigenome’ which show that the cell is really something whose internal inside-outward asserting processes and ‘outside-inward environmental influences are in continual conjugate relation; the cell thus does not jumpstart its own cell-reproduction processes so it does not have to have within it ‘the knowledge’ of how to reconstruct both halves of a cut-in-half planarian back into full organisms. ‘epigenesis’ is the ‘new science’ that acknowledges that environmental conditions orchestrate, from the outside-inward, through cell ‘receptors’ what the cell’s ‘effectors’ need to do. As Bruce Lipton observes, the ‘cell’ can no longer be seen as a ‘unit of being’ but must instead be seen as a ‘unit of perception’ its development is the environment expressing itself.

Now, Lipton is a bit of a ‘loose cannon’ in my view but he is on the right track and that is, that he sees biology through non-dualist lenses while orthodox biology continues to insist on the ‘dualist’ lenses and excommunicates its heretics like Lipton who say things ‘in public’ like the following, in ‘The New Biology’ ;

As is described by Nijhout, genes are "not self-emergent," that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can't control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by "environmental signals." Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!

‘Epigenetics’ is now being used for cancer treatments etc. but it is still ‘fringe stuff’ but because it works, it is being used and you can even see reports on it on ‘Nova’ but that still doesn’t make it ‘mainstream’.
Medicine: Here we have a whole successful field of non-orthodox [non-dualist] medicine known as Oriental medicine and ‘holistic medicine’ which claims that ‘health’ is defined by one’s outside-inward orchestrating --- inside-outward asserting dynamics. Yes, you got it. the same view as in epigenetics, and the same view as in Lamarckism and Nietzsche’s anti-Darwinism [Nietzsche’s view of evolution was that it was the conjugation of outside-inward endosmosis and inside-outward exosmosis, and it applied to everything in the universe, as Lamarck had said; i.e. it was the outside-inward influence of ‘les fluides incontenables’ and the inside-outward influence of ‘les fluides contenables’; i.e. the outside-inward influence of ‘the fluids that can contain but which cannot themselves be contained’ such as electricity and magnetism, gravity, thermal flow, in conjunction with the inside-outward influence of regular mineral saturated fluids.

This relates to both biology and medicine and you can read Lamarck’s ‘Recherches sur L’Organisation des Corps Vivans’ online in French. It was never translated into English because the dominant English speaking scientific world was hardline ‘dualist’ and they picked up on one thing that Lamarck had said about a giraffe’s stretching its neck and that such experience within a lifetime was assimilated by its next generation. Lamarck may have the last laugh because this possibility of intra-life-time experience being ‘passed’ on is being confirmed in ‘the new science of epigenetics’.

Meanwhile, for a modern day geneticist and biophysicist’s non-dualist heresy, one can look up Mae Wan Ho, a well-respected scientist who had to quit mainstream biology because of her anti-darwinist views, and started up the ‘Institute for Science in Society’. Mae says;

So I went into biochemistry thinking I would find the answer there. But it was very dull because biochemistry then was about cutting up and grinding up everything, separating, purifying. Nothing to tell you about what life is about.

Biology as a whole was studying dead, pinned specimens. There was nothing that answered the question, what is biological organization? What makes organisms tick? What is being alive? I especially detested neo-Darwinism because it was the most mind-numbing theory that purports to explain anything and everything by “selective advantage”, competition and selective advantage.

I spent a lot of time criticizing neo-Darwinism until I got bored. What neo-Darwinism leaves out is the whole of chemistry, physics, and mathematics, all science in fact. You don’t even need any physiology or developmental biology if everything can be explained in terms of selective advantage and a gene for any and every character, real or imaginary.

Mae is also a signatory to ‘A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism’, but if you look that up on rational Wiki, you will see that she is being smeared with the charge of coming from ‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ [religion], which she is not. At least rational Wiki allows objections posted on their articles and in this case there is one posted that says;

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Justice: Those who are heaving into ‘restorative justice’ are non-dualists; i.e. they hold the view that the inhabitant’s behaviour is NOT independent of the habitat’s or community’s behaviour. This is just common sense, but our Western dualist Justice system would have us believe that that the behaviour of an individual derives fully and solely from the interior of the individual, and it therefore formulates ‘laws of individual behaviour’ while remaining blind to how crony groups can condition the habitat so as to screw individuals who are not in the crony group (and their families and children) to the point that they can put up with the INJUSTICE no more and lash out against the crony collectives who are protected by the police because the dualist view of Western Justice is blind to non-dualist ‘Mach’s principle effects’; “The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants’.

You can read Kay Pranis’ books on restorative justice ‘Peacemaking Circles’ etc. and you will find the aboriginal non-dualist view as the grounding principles.

Politics: Well this one is easy. Western politics is the epitome of the dualist view, which as i have been writing about here, is the foundation of ‘authoritarianism’, so there is plenty of reading material expressing ‘anti-authoritarian’ views, but not all of is ‘non-dualist’. For non-dualism one has to go the Zapatistas and to ‘decolonizing’ initiatives, which takes you into governance systems based on non-dualist ‘restorative justice’, as already mentioned.

Let’s see now; so far, Physics, Philosophy, Linguistics [key], Biology, Medicine, Justice, and Politics have been mentioned as all having within them a conflict between ‘dualist’ and ‘non-dualist’ views, with the dualist views common to all scientific disciplines continuing to hold on to the ‘gate-keeping’ power, but in all cases, ‘beginning to lose ground’.

There’s also ‘Anthropology’ and you can see how that has the conflict through Franz Boas, Sapir and Whorf, and there’s ‘economics’ and you can see the conflict in Frédéric Neyrat’s Biopolitics of Catastrophe (economics related);

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

And then there’s “History” where Howard Zinn gets into it ‘implicitly’ in ‘A People’s History of the United States’, where he points out that ‘executioners’ and ‘victims’ have polar opposite irreconcilable views on history. This is termed a ‘starkly dualist’ representation but Zinn is saying that one can’t split it apart into ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ and says that perspectives in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ are bogus.

“The deaths caused by the Allies were less, but still so massive as to throw doubt on the justice of a war that includes such acts.’. It becomes quite apparent that Zinn simply does not view war as the fault of one people as compared to other people, but the fault of man kind as a whole.”

McLuhan would say that instead of looking at what the two war machines do, we should look at how our relations with one another and the habitat are transformed. Zinn is implying the same thing by showing how historical perspective in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ is ‘illusion’. That is, he is speaking in the terms of ‘restorative justice’ wherein the behaviours of individuals [states and/or humans] must be understood as deriving from the relational web of social context the individuals are included in.

To sum-up, ... ‘united we stand, divided we fall’. The non-dualist views [we are all capable of both and it is matter of whether we put dualism over non-dualism or non-dualism over dualism] don't 'build' because of our public acceptance of fragmenting ‘how the world works’ into separate dualist ‘disciplines’ [this fragmentation is self-similar to the fragmentation in the dualist view] and putting faith into the ‘high priests’ of each discipline so that 'non-dualism' is always a bridesmaid and never a bride. The ‘non-dualist scientists’ are not going to change the views of those whose respect and rewards and sense of self derives from their status within a discipline. This is a tremendous ‘lock-in’ to dualism.

As the arguments between the non-dualist physicists with the dualist physicists have shown, ... physical phenomena can always be described in terms of ‘linguistic idealization’ which reduces the ‘transforming relational spatial-plenum’ to dynamics constituted in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do in time’.

But the ‘incompleteness’ of dualist science shows up in the fact that while science can describe very accurately ‘what things in themselves do’, dualist science cannot even ‘touch’ how the space we all share inclusion in is transformed in conjugate relation to ‘what things do’. There is no ‘conjugate relation’ between ‘what things do’ and the space that we are included in, in dualist science because dualist science uses the assumption of absolute space as a measuring frame for ‘what things-in-themselves do’. That's the whole non-dualist point, the measurements themselves, which are in ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ are ‘not physical reality’. In Bohm’s terms, ‘the little ripples’ are what we measure but they are not the physical reality, the physical reality is the transforming relational spatial-plenum in which the ripples emerge;

“Weber: So space is more fundamental and more real than the objects in it. Applying your theory to time, we would have to say that the interval between the moments is the real.

Bohm: It could be considered to be that. But see, if we take the view that the space is what is real, then I think that we have to say that the measure of space is not what is real. The measure of space is what matter provides. So space goes beyond the measure of space. It’s the same with time. If we want to say that the interval is real, then the measure of time cannot be taken as fundamental. Therefore we are already outside of what we ordinarily would call time. But rather, if we have silence and “emptiness,” it does not have the measure either of space or of time. Now in that silence there may appear something which is a little ripple which has that measure. But if we thought that the little ripple was all that there is and that the space between was nothing, of no significance, then we would have the usual view of fragmentation.”

What has been discussed by Whorf and Alford et al, applies to language in general, including the languages of science;

“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

what we are waiting for is when the ‘riff-raff’ like ourselves no longer believes the high priests of science in all these disciplines because they are all ‘dualist’. its not that it is not useful to model Katrina using linguistic idealization that endows subjecthood on her. It is very useful in the sense of ‘predicting in time’ ‘what notional things-in-themselves do’ or ‘may soon do’ etc., ... but such prediction obscures the more comprehensive non-dualist reality that the storm-cell is ‘the relational space that it is included in, ‘expressing itself’. Katrina is a response to differential concentrating of thermal energy in the flowing, relational space of the atmosphere, her behaviour does not jumpstart out of her notional ‘local self’, the notional aspect which comes from our European language, as Nietzsche, Whorf et al have observed. Storm cells are manifestations of the non-duality in Mach’s principles wherein the ‘inhabitant cells’ and the ‘habitat’ are not ‘mutually exclusive, but mutually inclusive’. to say that the cells are ‘things-in-themselves’ is ‘all talk’, ... all ‘European language talk’. You can say that to an aboriginal ‘individual’ as well, but not to an egotist member of the Church of Dualism aka Western Authoritarian, Retributive Justice-imposing society.