Dear Karl and all,

"And I have said that I consider inclusionality to have considerable merit 
as a theory of biological dynamics.

I just have reservations about whether inclusionality is applicable to 
human relations and whether it provides an adequate basis for social 
theory."



OK, I'll try to engage with this, albeit fairly briefly.


I see a line being drawn here between biological and sociological, which 
suggests that human behaviour differs in some radical way from 
non-human/natural behaviour.

Actually, in a way I accept this, because although we humans cannot escape 
our natural situation as dynamic inclusions of space, many of us have 
attempted to do so through the development of an 'anti-natural' mode of 
thought rooted fundamentally in an atomistic/axiomatic notion of individual 
independence in a fixed frame of reference (an impossible 'physical 
freedom' of isolated, internally driven-externally forced objects, not to 
be confused, as it often is, with a possible 'freedom from oppression'). 
Through this atomistic thought and associated instrumental logic, a human 
social reality has been constructed, which is out of phase with its natural 
dynamic situation and is hence, as I see it, ecologically unsustainable and 
riddled with conflict.

In this sense I recognise that inclusionality as an expression of natural 
awareness of dynamic situation does NOT currently APPLY to much 
goal-oriented individual or collective human behaviour. But this does not 
make inclusionality irrelevant or inapplicable to critical and creative 
enquiry into the wisdom of such behaviour, as I felt was implicit in my 
list of ten guidelinings [NB I have now placed this list at 
http;//people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr, without suggesting as I did in the spirit 
of Nick's invitation that it might be considered as 'wisdom' enquiry]. Is 
it wise, for example, to set human consciousness in opposition to natural 
process in the pursuit of power? How can one know what is 'good' or 'bad' 
from an independent judgemental standpoint that takes no account of 
context? Are there dangers of doing 'more harm than good' through 
superficially benevolent but ill-considered practice?


The Catch 22 of which we have been speaking lies, I think, in the 
alienation of human social reality from natural reality, accompanied by the 
demand from the social perspective to define (axiomatically) the 
indefinable (but nonetheless distinguishable). The most awful thought that 
any of us can have, the thought that seems to me wittingly or unwittingly 
to permeate our culture of blame, shame, claim and abuse is 'I AM - 
ENTIRELY ALONE' (ALL ONE, WITHOUT NEIGHBOURHOOD, COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR 
MY ACTIONS, COMPLETELY RULED BY EXTERNAL FORCE AND INTERNAL GENETICS, BOTH 
POWERFUL AND HELPLESS, WITHOUT LOVE)'. From there the desperate need to 
control our imagined incipient anarchy becomes paramount as we fail to 
appreciate that the 'Law of the Jungle' is by no means as random or without 
nurture as we may have portrayed it from a dislocated perspective. Is this 
desperation wise, helpful or necessary? Can we let it go?

I feel many of us, even as we may recognize the limitations of instrumental 
logic, get trapped in what we perceive as the gap between human and natural 
reality, and that this leads us to behave as what Jack Whitehead calls 
'living contradictions', with our values and our practice at odds. I think 
that inclusional awareness can, on the basis of sound reason as well as 
heartfelt emotion, help us out of this trap and into relating more 
lovingly, respectfully and sustainably with our natural neighbourhood. And, 
yes, I think that might be 'good'.



Best

Alan










--On 04 October 2006 21:40 +0100 Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>
> Alan,
>
> Ha ha.
> That's very generous of you. Hopefully, I shall have the opportunity to
> take you up on that offer some day.
> But, in the meantime, as I have already said, I do not have any problem
> with you or anyone else finding inspiration wherever you find it.
> And I have said that I consider inclusionality to have considerable merit
> as a theory of biological dynamics.
> I just have reservations about whether inclusionality is applicable to
> human relations and whether it provides an adequate basis for social
> theory.
> Obviously we do not need to rehash our previous discussion, if you'll
> excuse the pun, but I do not want to exclude anything -- I want to
> include a critical discussion of goals, ideals, how we understand the
> human good life, and ouur visions of an ideal human society, as part of
> the general discussion about wisdom and education.
> I don't see why that makes me straightjacketed or afraid of ideas. You
> can talk in your terms and I shall talk in mine. Hopefully we'll find
> that we have some commonality, over-lapping perspectives, as well as
> differences in perspective.
> However, I am surprised that your mycological studies did not lead you to
> experiment with hallucenogenic mushrooms. As part of my philosophical
> interests and a youthful spirit of general recklessness, when I was a lot
> younger, I tried both psilocybin "magic mushrooms", peyote, and, fly
> agaric mushrooms. Now those adventures soon opened doors to some quite
> unorthodox ways of thinking and seeing for me, to say the least, as well
> as helping me understand life from a more shamanic and animistic
> perspective, if I may put it that way. When combined with my personal
> studies of non-linear dynamics, fractal mathematics, and many-world
> cosmologies, in my incarnation as a physics postgrad, studying
> electroweak theory at CERN, this lead me, to put it mildly, something of
> an "epistemological rupture" between my understanding of the nature of
> physics and the mainstream scientific understanding of the physics of
> nature.
> I guess that, after that, my only "career options" were either to be the
> guest of a loony bin or a philosophy dept. Thankully, the philsophy dept.
> at Lancaster University took me in. Bless 'em.
> But, believe me, in this insane world, one would have to use
> hallucenogenic drugs to believe that it was possible for us to develop a
> rational world.
> Thankfully, I still hold that we do not have to live in this irrational
> state of will-to-power dynamics but, instead, can use our intelligence to
> collectively and critically envision a better world based on the freedom,
> equality, and harmonious co-existence of people capable of cooperatively
> using science and technology to develop ecologically sustainable means of
> production, distribution, and transportation.
> Karl.
>
> p.s. But, I must say that I find your dual impression of Tim "Turn On,
> Tune In, & Drop Out" Leary and Bill "Didn't Inhale" Clinton very funny.
> Unfortunately, perhaps, these days, since I gave up smoking tobacco, I
> don't inhale either, and, since my children were born, my use of mind
> altering substances has been the occassional cold beer, but, fortunately,
> perhaps, I still remain turned on, tuned in, and almost at the point of
> dropping out.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard
> protect you.