Dear Karl, Ian and all,

I have been unable to respond over the weekend because my phone line 
developed a fault.

I haven't kept all the earlier correspondence, but I honestly don't think 
Karl is responding to my own words, but to his edited version of them. I 
would fundamentally disagree with anyone who said what Karl says I've said. 
I feel that Karl has been making a mockery of what I have been trying to 
express, but he may think that's my fault for not being clear enough. I am 
perfectly happy with the idea of critically discussing goals and ends as 
part of an enquiry, given that setting objective goals and ends (and 
thereby often justifying the means of attaining them) is very much a way 
that many people and social formations operate. All I intended to suggest 
at the beginning of this long trail was that maybe such critical discussion 
was implicit in my list of ten and might not therefore need to be added 
explicitly as an 11th, but I would not be against such addition. I question 
(but do not exclude) the wisdom of assuming, as a prerequisite for enquiry, 
that anything can be defined in absolute terms (i.e. as an independent 
object isolated from context). I question the wisdom of barging in, like GW 
Bush, to what I might deem to be an abusive situation without reflecting 
upon the potentially counter-productive implications of such action.

I have learned much from Karl's responses about why my intentions and 
sensitivities can be so misconstrued as to make inclusionality appear 
cultish and me a fundamentalist guru who doesn't like criticism. Karl is 
not alone in making such projections, and I am very aware that they are a 
profound obstacle to my communication. But I think I know what my 
intentions and sensitivities are, even if I can't communicate them to 
everyone.

I have much respect for Karl and have never intended to be discourteous or 
dismissive in my responses, so I am sorry he feels these have been 
inadequate. His discourse shows me that I have been unable to communicate 
my full meaning to him, but I do not blame him for that. My silences and 
brevities have been in response to feeling myself put into a double bind by 
his arguments, whereby any response I make will serve only to intensify the 
communication barrier between us.

Meanwhile I am deeply saddened to see only too clearly how our 'human 
addiction to conflict' is sustained in the world, notwithstanding my 
feeling, which I have tried to express, that there is no real need for it.


Best

Alan




--On 29 September 2006 18:25 +0100 Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>
> Ian,
>
> I'm just responding to Alan's own words -- or is holding Alan to what he
> says against the implicit "rules" of inclusionality too? It has been
> Alan, consistently on this thread, as well as elsewhere, who has denied
> "the wisdom" of any discussion of goals and ends on the premise that such
> a discussion would contradict the principles of inclusionality theory. If
> you look back on this thread it started when Alan decided to exclude
> discussion of goals and ends on the basis that it would require
> definition. Read his own words.
> Hence, my argument has been, well, if a result of adopting inclusionality
> theory, we should not discuss ends and goals, as well as make basic
> definitions, such as human rights or how to do things, such as alleviate
> poverty or protect children from abuse, then I do not want to adopt
> inclusionality theory. It strikes me as ill conceived, at best.
> Yes, it is a social experiment, but is it a good one? Answering that
> question requires some idea of what we want to achieve doesn't it? In
> which case, it involves some kind of implicit goal, doesn't it? Even if
> that goal is no more explicitly developed than living in harmony with
> each other and with the natural world. Would it be so unwise to ask what
> that means?
> Is it so unwise to ask what good is inclusionality theory before one
> adopts it as the exlcusive means of wisdom enquiry?
> And, if it does not aim to be exclusive in one's inclusionality (i.e. a
> fundamentalist), then surely, if we are going to be pluralistic about the
> approach to wisdom, then there can be some space for critical discussion
> of ends and goals?
> If our "wisdom" allows this space, then I stand by my claim that the 11th
> characteristic of wisdom enquiry is a critical discussion of ends and
> goals, if it doesn't then our "wisdom" seems pretty daft to me.
> Karl.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre.