Indeed - This is why it is my living ontological theory or ontological 
living theory, based on classic 1950s humanistic/Existential and 
William Jamesian Phenomenological thinking and psychologies, and not 
your's. Alon

Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Brian and all,
>
> Just to emphasize that I do not share Alon's bleak vision of the self as
> singularity, and indeed see this vision as inconsistent with his many
> 'alternative' expressions of gushing, flowing, poetic, artistic, dynamic
> individuality, ontology and heuristics.
>
> The loving receptivity of 'space' ('darkness') that I speak of in
> inclusional and electrogravitational terms is I think deeply akin to agape.
> The fear of this loving receptivity is akin to the salt crystal desperately
> seeking solution but scared of water, and so unable to open up to the
> possibility of transformation - thereby self-immunizing from its
> neighbourhood in a desperate attempt to sustain its ontological security
> which is seemingly (but only seemingly) threatened with annihilation by
> opening up trustingly to others in (dare I put it this way) holey
> communion. This holey communion or 'common spiritedness' is identical in my
> mind with what Jack has spoken of as 'conviviality'. Interestingly,
> 'convivial' was the way that my term as President of the British
> Mycological Society was described by some members of its 'Council'. As
> convivial beings we can recognize convivial expression in others as an
> aspect of ourselves. We can also 'choose' through mental abstraction to
> ignore it and sentence ourselves to a life alone (All One).
>
> With regard to the 'Achilles Syndrome' that I mentioned in another message,
> I think the problem lies not with the Heel but in the egotistic attempt to
> cover it up in the vain pursuit of individual (All One) perfection (which
> is INCOMPATIBLE with an evolutionary process of Natural Inclusion, where
> evolutionary perfection is a property of all in dynamic relationship, not
> one in isolation). The Heel is vital, to be loved and valued, not covered
> up in protective armour. The meek, who admit their vulnerability and work
> convivially and complementarily through this admission, are the generative
> source of evolutionary creativity. The strong-minded who deny their
> vulnerability are the degenerative source of evolutionary totalitarianism,
> the March of the Cybermen.
>
> Of course in a community of desiccated salt crystals all objectively
> wrapped up in themselves, the opening up (admission) of inclusional
> possibility does indeed feel like a very dangerous and foolhardy
> enterprise. More often than not it may meet with autoimmune rejection. But
> it is vital to sustainable, co-creative, lovingly receptive-responsive
> neighbourhood.
>
>
> Warmest
>
>
> Alan
>
>
> --On 14 December 2006 18:05 +0000 Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Alon, Alan, Jack and All,
>>
>> Thanks for the correction folks.........
>>
>> but after forty years in education with my values
>> tested in the practical realities of life with
>> children, parents and colleagues......I still feel I
>> am inter-related with others...mutually dependent on
>> each other.....like parts of the body that are a
>> diversity but unity.....functioning for the greater
>> good by being committed to each other....appreciating
>> each other...rather than competing, aggressive, self
>> dominated....it comes at a cost of course ...being
>> hurt...feeling let down.....seeing the 'entropy', the
>> capacity of things to fall apart at work in
>> relationships and institutions...but that's the
>> sacrifice of a grander vision of human beings.......
>> beyond individualism....imperfectly expressed in the
>> 'agape' of my local community.
>>
>>
>> I guess part of the problem is my limited
>> understanding of  the vision that you are intimating
>> in your second sentence, Alon.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> --- Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> For once in my life I was not ironic.
>>>
>>> Since childhood, I have constructed a life
>>> philosophy and later a
>>> heuristic living ontological theory that is all
>>> about direct
>>> self-accountability within an autopietic
>>> transformation.  One can blame
>>> no one but himself/herself.
>>>
>>> I am not sure I rely on the mechanic or surgeon: I
>>> think I choose to go
>>> to them when something is wrong with my car or body
>>> and to hire them to
>>> help me help myself: more like giving a hook rather
>>> than fish.
>>>
>>> Human existence belongs to the person who embodies
>>> it and to him/her
>>> alone.  Others can assis if they wish.  But they
>>> cannot live another
>>> person's life.  This is the reason for my
>>> construction of a wholly
>>> embodied and embodied psychology/heristics of human
>>> exidstence.
>>>
>>> I am somewhat critical of the ideas of
>>> neighbourhood:  I think we are
>>> neibourhoods of individuals in the world
>>> interrelating for the
>>> construction of best neighbourhood we can construct
>>> in the taxes/deeds
>>> that we pay.
>>>
>>> Alan asked us to forward his email and then when we
>>> did not did it
>>> himself.  This prompted my reply.
>>>
>>> I think this is enough for now.  I am in the process
>>> of putting
>>> together and completing a play and an academic book
>>> and perhaps proze
>>> fiction/novel on it, mostly using transforming,
>>> living and unfolding
>>> blogs thayt stretch over and within time and space.
>>> Alon
>>>
>>> Quoting Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> > Dear Colleagues,
>>> >
>>> > Sorry I can't let this one go without raising a
>>> query.
>>> >
>>> > Is this right in your experience?
>>> >
>>> > "Never ever rely on others"
>>> >
>>> > Part of the risk in living is "relying on others".
>>> > We are all fallible, and perhaps have been hurt
>>> and
>>> > let down by relying on others......
>>> >
>>> > but...... I have to rely on others e.g. in loving
>>> > relationships; for technical help beyond my
>>> skills:
>>> >
>>> >  - my motor mechanic when I can't change a clutch
>>> >  - my surgeon when I agree to an anaesthetic
>>> >
>>> > I know they may let me down, I may be
>>> disappointed, or
>>> > even be angry......but I have needed to invest
>>> trust
>>> > in people.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I guess it depends on what Alon means by "rely
>>> on".
>>> >
>>> > Were you being 'ironic' Alon, perhaps?
>>> >
>>> > I note that Alon has relied on Jack or Marie to
>>> > forward his e-mail.  What's going on here?
>>> >
>>> > Have I missed the point?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > Brian
>>> >
>>> > --- Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Re- > I'm responding from my home computer, which
>>> >> the BERA server rejects, so
>>> >> > perhaps you or Jack or Marie could forward this
>>> on
>>> >> to the others?
>>> >>
>>> >> Alan - I let you fulfill the most important idea
>>> in
>>> >> my heuristics of
>>> >> human existence.  Never, ever, rely on others.
>>> >> Always rely on yourself
>>> >> and yourself alone. And do it.  Thank you for
>>> >> forwarding this.
>>> >>
>>> >> Am I learning to become an educator or am I
>>> not???
>>> >> Alon
>>> >>
>>> >> Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> >>
>>> >> > ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
>>> >> > Date: 14 December 2006 09:01 +0000
>>> >> > From: "A.D.M.Rayner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> > To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>>> >> > <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> > Cc: Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>, Jack
>>> >> Whitehead
>>> >> > <[log in to unmask]>, "A.D.M.Rayner"
>>> >> <[log in to unmask]>, Marie
>>> >> > Huxtable <[log in to unmask]>, Ted
>>> Lumley
>>> >> <[log in to unmask]>,
>>> >> > [log in to unmask]
>>> >> > Subject: Re: Educational
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Dear Alon,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm responding from my home computer, which the
>>> >> BERA server rejects, so
>>> >> > perhaps you or Jack or Marie could forward this
>>> on
>>> >> to the others?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Yes, I like 'ings' too.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Flows are 'dynamic relational', always with
>>> >> reciprocal inner (concave) and
>>> >> > outer (convex) distinguished and coupled
>>> through
>>> >> intermediary aspects (e.g.
>>> >> > when 'I walk across a room', there is a
>>> reciprocal
>>> >> reconfiguration of the
>>> >> > inner space that my skin outlines with outer
>>> space
>>> >> that my skin inlines',
>>> >> > just as there is a flow of water around a boat
>>> >> that reciprocates its forward
>>> >> > passage). They do not involve the movement of a
>>> >> spatially dislocated object
>>> >> > from A to B as a linear progression in a
>>> Euclidean
>>> >> 3-dimensional framework
>>> >> > (this being a dimensionally collapsed view of
>>> >> Nature, with space and time
>>> >> > abstracted as empty outsiders). They involve
>>> the
>>> >> reciprocal coupling of
>>> >> > concave and convex domains in non-linear
>>> (curved)
>>> >> energy-space.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Insofar as flows have 'purpose', this is to
>>> >> sustain dynamic equilibrium, via
>>> >> > a continual 'living' process of 'attunement' or
>>> >> 'harmonization' (in physics,
>>> >> > called 'resonance'), as when a hurricane
>>> transfers
>>> >> heat from tropical to
>>> >> > temperate latitudes (note that a hurricane
>>> cannot
>>> >> be considered as an
>>> >> > 'object' independent from the atmosphere of
>>> which
>>> >> it is a dynamic inclusion,
>>> >> > anymore than a human body can be considered as
>>> an
>>> >> object independent from
>>> >> > Nature). So, the Severn Bore, for example, is
>>> >> quite different from the
>>> >> > Kiekergaardian bore; it is a flow form that
>>> >> sustains dynamic equilibrium.
>>> >> > And so are you and I.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Below I am pasting in some writing from Chapter
>>> 9
>>> >> of 'Natural Inclusion',
>>> >> > which develops some of these themes in relation
>>> to
>>> >> management and
>>> >> > educational practice.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Incidentally, I have just come across a book by
>>> >> Petruska Clarkson called
>>> >> > 'The Achilles Syndrome: Overcoming the Secret
>>> Fear
>>>
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
>> Brian E. Wakeman
>> Education adviser
>> Dunstable
>> Beds
>>
>