Dear All,
The following (edited) thread may be of interest regarding issues of
sovereignty, totalitarianism, singularity, perfectionism and sources of
human distress.
Thank God/Nature for our Achilles Heels. Maybe we should offer them some
Tender Loving Care as the very source of our evolutionary vitality, rather
than keep treading on them.
Warmest
Alan
------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: 18 December 2006 01:45 -0800
From: ted lumley <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'A.D.M.Rayner'" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Cc: 'paul murray' <[log in to unmask]>, 'Jack Whitehead'
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
dear alan and all,
alan, i find myself resonating with your comments as usual.
the achilles heel syndrome, i also see as 'not a problem', but rather an
'unsettling awareness' of our inclusion in the evolutionary dynamic, and
the 'artificiality' of cultivating our 'self-standing' status.
as tony blair goes to baghdad, and the new american generals in afghanistan
go out there to rally the troops in order to 're-establish control', ...
what they say is rhetoric constructed to serve the purpose of
're-establishing order. the sovereigntist politicians feel that order
must be 'established' and they feel that they have a noblesse oblige duty
to re-establish order, to re-establish 'peace' based on sovereigntist
control. their personal history of 'success' in an educational system that
puts what you call 'pseudo-competence' at the top of the value hierarchy,
is foundational to this cult of noblesse-oblige, peace-and-order imposing
sovereigntists.
england's historical consciousness credits its sovereigns with much, but
how could sovereigns do anything without the coordinated dynamics of their
'loyal subjects'. just how loyal were/are the subjects? whatever
happens, it is always possible to do some analytical backfill and to
explain the 'theatre' or articulation the world dynamic in
temporal-historical narrative in the 'sovereigntist' mode, and many people
will go along with it (whether we are speaking about kings/queens,
prime-ministers or CEOs). but is the 'sovereign' really the
nation/kingdom's 'center of internal purpose, drive and direction'?, ... or
would the dynamics be better represented by the center being nonlocal
inference, like the center of a whorl that is inferred by the water in the
filled bathtub swirling round and 'pointing' (by the orthogonal to the
swirl, i.e. the 90 degree phase-shifted or 'multiplied by 'i'' dimensional
axis). the 'right hand rule' in physics informs us that the field-flow
follows the curl of the fingers on our right hand while the orthogonal
signalled by the line of our extending thumb gives the virtual axis along
which we used to purport that the moving electrons were 'the cause of the
field-flow', but which faraday and maxwell corrected so that we now know
that the field-flow is primary and the movement of charged material
particles is a secondary effect; i.e. a collapsing field, as when one turns
off the forced flow of current in a coil, which induces electrons to flow,
is the more fundamental natural phenomena.).
the hole in the crown may be more important than the 'head' in the crown,
by comparison to natures dynamics, since the 'hole' infers the nonlocal
sourcing of the dynamic, visually, a 'local dynamic' that is being 'whipped
into shape' by the nonlocal peripheral dynamics. the trouble comes when
the 'king', 'prime minister' or 'ceo' actually start believing, due to
surrounding themselves with the obsequious, that they truly are the source
of the dynamical whorl that they sit at the center of. blair and bush
believe that with sufficient 'persuasion', of a very bloody kind, they can
restore this center-driven reality, which in fact never was a 'reality' but
simply egotistical fantasy mistaken for reality by those brought up on a
diet of pseudo-competence and who believed the advertisements (the wheaties
of pseudo-competence is the breakfast of champions) and who inspired the
obsequious support and adulation of other pseudo-competence-champion
wannabees, ... instilling in them not only the belief in their special gift
of pseudo-competence-taken-to-be-real-cause-producing-results-competence,
but also, and as a result, the noblesse duty to rally the crony forces of
pseudo-competence to re-store and sustain (by imposition) peace and order.
no general ever ordered his men to 'lose a battle', but lose battles the
men often did, so whose orders were they operating under in those
instances, since it is the general that takes credit for it when his men
win!? having worked in a corporate environment, i know how this paradox
is resolved. the general maintains that his plan is a wise one, but that
it was not given the quality of execution that it deserved, and thus his
men lost the battle not for want of expert advise but for lack of
resolution. in the wake of unsuccessful initiatives, it is likely that
he will then dismiss or execute his 'middle management' and get new people
in there that are more competent in the operationalizing of his wise plans.
meanwhile, the men on the battlefield who are fighting for whatever reason
may make their generals look good.
as martine maintains;
'Sovereignty', moreover, in this view, means the right to be who you are,
and is not seen as legally (abstract, statist) derived 'power' based on
'ownership' of a territory to do with as one sees fit no matter the
consequences, but just as 'nationhood', is about 'being' "Being is who you
are, and a sense of who you are is arrived at through your relationships
with other people - your people. So who we are is tied with what we are: a
nation [the Western concept of it] - the authority to exercise power over
life, affairs, territory - this is not inherited. It's not part of being a
thing that can be given and thus can be taken away. It is clearly a foreign
concept, because it occurs through an exercise of power - power over
another." (Ibid:65,66) As already pointed out, the Indian concept of power
differs markedly from the Western view of it as 'power over Gharajedaghi,
1999:57) where he discusses both his and Ackoff's distinction between power
over (which is coercive domination through abstract authority); and power
to, which is equated in social systems terms, with competence, strength of
character, responsibility and personal integrity.
The Western concept of power as 'authority over others', by whatever means,
is not consistent with current 'global citizens' views on human rights
concerning one's right to be who you are, or the American Indian view.
(Again, we have come full circle - the only people who do not recognize
this, are the 'leadership' of the world.) Thus the redundancy of the
cybernetic model of governance also in this regard. If democracy is only
taken to mean 'right to vote for those who then acquire power over you' -
it will not have a long future. Small wonder elections are not even
respected in a lot of African countries, for e.g., who also have a history
of natural chieftainship and shared authority in kinship groups. The 'right
to vote' does NOT constitute, in any practically equatable terms, the
'right to self-determination' or autonomy. It is the 'right' , instead, to
abrogate those rights, and second them to 'politicians' who act and decide
on your behalf, in terms of criteria that you had no hand in formulating -
which makes a mockery of the notion of 'democracy' as 'freedom of the
individual'.
and as d'errico maintains;
"Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is
at issue in "indigenous sovereignty" struggles. To know that "sovereignty"
is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these struggles as
spiritual projects, involving questions about who "we" are as beings among
beings, peoples among peoples. Sovereignty arises from within a people as
their unique expression of themselves as a people. It is not produced by
court decrees or government grants, but by the actual ability of a people
to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination. "
"We are talking about the clarification of the path toward
self-determination. What can we say about "American Indian sovereignty"
that might help us imagine a way out of the political confusion of this
post-modern age? For starters, we could be clear that there is a problem in
working with a concept of "absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a
single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original." Why
should indigenous peoples choose a model of thinking, organization, and
development that was used to destroy non-state societies?
it is one thing to slip back and away from the most fluid flow of the
dance, but it is quite another to proclaim that non-dancing is the
foundations of dynamics and that what self-standing individualists do is
what 'really' determines what happens; i.e. .... back to the one-sided
masculine-assertive authorship view of dynamics. but if we apply the
right hand rule, what moves out and back on the axis of the extended thumb
is secondary to the circular 'field-flow' in the sphinctal torus of the
fingers of the right hand. the assertive directives of the CEO makes the
grunts run around in circles, ... but no, ... that would be
'action-at-a-distance', ... instead, the grunts running around in circles
(if it is convenient to them to do so), infer that there is a central
authority directing traffic because it is convenient for them to so (and
only so long as it is convenient for them to do so), the collapse of this
convenience suddenly dissolving the potency of 'the central authority' that
we have purported to be the causal author of some assertively coordinated
behaviour (pseudocompetence).
like you say, it is 'bullshit', and i would add that there is no 'male' OR
'female' dynamic in nature, these two poles are simply our mental modeling
split, rather than real aspects of a natural fluid energy
dynamics.
love,
ted.
__________________________________________________
From: A.D.M.Rayner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:30 AM
To: ted lumley; [log in to unmask]
Cc: paul murray; Jack Whitehead; A.D.M.Rayner
Subject: Re: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
Dear Ted and all,
Yes, this departure from the paradox of the singularity is what I think is
a very important aspect of inclusionality.
All this links in also with my personal obsession concerning the nature of
perfection and my 'Achilles Heel Syndrome'. Whereas Petruska Clarkson sees
this Syndrome as a 'problem', a 'pseudocompetence' arising in individuals
through gaps in their competitive education, I see it also as a sign of
awareness of the imperfectibility of the individual, whereby no One can
stand All One. In other words our current rationalistic world view and
predominant educational practice, with its fixed curricula and hierarchical
standards of judgement, generates pseudocompetence (also known as bullshit)
everywhere, but some of us are more aware of our vulnerability than others
and this leads to great fear of exposure in what we know to be an
unforgiving culture. We know we have been educationally and academically
exposed to expectations that have forced us to avoid learning experiences
that would have delayed our ascent to peak performance according to imposed
reference frames. We know that we can be OK and contribute enormously with
the support of others but are denied that support in a go-getting culture
that we ourselves have appeared to 'succeed' in.
If we regard nature or any of ourselves as imperfect in comparison with
others, then perhaps we need to question our understanding of perfection.
Nature works with all in dynamic relation, not one in isolation. There can
be no such thing as individual perfection and any form of eliminative
selection represents a potentially catastrophic reduction of evolutionary
possibility, a collapse from dynamic form to fixed form, just as Euclidean
geometry represents a catastrophic reduction of dimensionality in which
space and time are externalized.
In these terms I think it might also be worth exploring further the
relation between 'latent' and 'expressive' forms of inclusionality, as
epitomized by crystal and fluid, seed and plant, spore and fungus, egg and
chicken. Here the 'latent' forms are dynamic inclusions of energy-space,
distinguished by coherent, relatively static and impermeable inner-outer
boundaries. They are 'melted' or 'dissolved' into life through the
inclusion of space via 'loopholes' (Achilles Heels) in these boundaries. By
contrast the 'idealized' forms of Euclidean geometry are denied/deny access
of transformational possibility.
Love
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: ted lumley
To: 'A.D.M.Rayner' ; [log in to unmask]
Sent: 15 December 2006 20:26
Subject: RE: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
dear alan and cherryl,
i resonate with yaakub's comment;
"Liberal theories of justice attempt to harmonize individual interests in
the private sphere. But as Daniel Bensaid points out, correctly in > my
view, you can't allocate the collective productivity of social labour
individually."
This is one sense in which in my living theory project I seek to educate
to warn students of the dangers inherent to Western liberal theories of
the self. Liberal theories of the self are inherently conservative. Like
McLaren, I follow this path in my educational practice and my research
account of that practice,
alon's comment, on the other hand, very much captured the 'conservative'
(sovereigntist) view;
"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."
for my part, the judgemental God-like sternnness of the conservative
'sovereigntist' (of the individual thing) view seems more and more like
silliness.
newton left out the three body problem because of practical considerations
of mathematical tractability (there are no 'exact' solutions in terms of
what each participant does when three or more bodies move under one
another's simultaneous mutual influence.
it is very simple to construct demonstrations of this that give us a sense
of what we mean by the individuality we feel in the 'I' that does not
depend on 'sovereignty' (possessing an internal center of executive
creativity and drive). take the easily do-able exercise of three people
pressing back-to-back while sitting on the floor with outstretched legs
lying flat on the floor (120 degrees apart with the space between their
backs implying a vertical pole or axis that they are going to slide upwards
'on'. as they rise from sitting to standing position, they must mutually
sustain a dynamical balance between the three bidirectional 'vectors' (at
least that's how a physicist would try to describe what's going on). each
person is accommodating the pushing of the others and is himself pushing,
at the same time so that the pushing and accommodating is sustaining a
dynamical balance, ... not 'perfectly' of course, but in a kind of 'small
scale resonance' (i can say 'oscillation' here because it lacks
dimensionality, being a 'back-and-forth' or 'up-and-down thing, as a sine
wave on an oscilloscope. of course, the vectors will be shifting and
rotating (there will be shear as well as convergence/divergence) and all in
all, this simple exercise turns out to be very complex, as far as a
physical-mathematical description of it is concerned. newtonian physics is
not up to the job, as newton openly conceded. now, of course, we can
REDUCE THE REALITY in order to get it to fit our physics/mathematics
formulations, and if we took video of it, we could approximate the motion
by assuming the temporal-historical actions of three center-driven machines
or sovereign organisms, ... but such a 'description' would not reveal to us
anything about the source of the resilience or dynamical-balance-sustaining
properties of the system; i.e. the most important feature. this
observation was similarly made by kepler in his 'harmonies of the world';
i.e. that the description of movement in terms of dynamics of individual
planets or pairs of planets (sun + planet pairs) in no way revealed the
source of the overall unified system harmony, the most beautiful and
profound feature of the solar system dynamic.
well, the answers come with the notion that 'the universe is energy' and
the planets are dynamical inclusions (concentrations of energy) within a
transformational energy flow (where invisible potential energies trade out
with visible material-kinetic energies).
in this simple example of three people rising up back to back, we cannot
say 'which individual causally contributed what'; i.e. you can't allocate
the collective productivity of social labour individually."
we can, however, think of ourselves as an 'individual' participating in
this dynamic, in which case, we realize full well that it is not the case
that our behaviour is internally driven and directed, but that we are
capable of letting our behaviour serve the sustaining of inner-outer
dynamical balance. that is, we have the capability of letting a complex
dynamic that cannot be reduced to something that can be causally
constructed by deliberate individuals with internally driven and directed
behaviours. this 'capability' is the capability of an individual 'I' and
it is clear from our experience that we are each uniquely situationally
included in a shared, common dynamical space (the evolving space of the
continuing present).
we are not 'responsible for causal assertive results', but we are
co-responsible for the sustaining of dynamical balance and
spatial-relational harmony.
it is egotism that has us suffer under the illusion that 'we are endowed
with independent existence, internally driven and directed behaviour, and
causal responsibility for productive accomplishments.
i am not being 'pejorative' here, i am backwards-defining egotism.
now, as poincaré has said, we reduce our modeling of reality by imposing
simplifying conventions such as euclidian space-framing that allows us to
conceive of independent objects that 'occupy' empty space in the euclidian
container. from there we go to re-rendering reality in terms of
'theatre', as something constructed by a cast of causal agents and
delivered to ourselves in terms of a temporal-historical narrative.
this is not 'reality', it is simply a simplified mental model,
corresponding to the visual aspect and not the inclusional-acoustic
(simultaneous inner-outer dynamical balancing) aspect, that gives us
traction for making some machine-like simplifications that have
machine-like utility. but there is no reason to believe, just because this
tool of mechanical simplification has utility, that our reality is
mechanical. this would be to let the mechanical tool run away with the
workman.
anyhow, i think the self-deluding notion of individual causal power, or
individual nation causal power is 'silly' and we need to deflate the
sternness of the conservatism that supports it, not to mock it in a
head-to-head manner but to deflate in in a sideways manner, as when a group
of people look sideways together at posters on the wall, rather than
glaring at each other from across the table (even a 'round table' where no
one is 'in charge' but many are seeking to dominate) [native learning
circles do not seek to have the ideas of any individual 'dominate', all
ideas are to bring into a coherent connective confluence in the mind, so as
to deliver holodynamical 'imagery' and 'understanding']. too often, i
find myself being invited into a stern debate as in; 'what!?, you do not
support the troops, your brothers that are out there risking and giving
their lives for you in Afghanistan' etc. this invites a yes/no split, as
in 'yes, i am disrespectful' or 'no, i am respectful', ... that seeks to
compel me to comply by saluting the flag, singing the anthem, and to accept
the duties and obligations of majority rule sovereign power, ... 'sovereign
power' is always at the heart of this 'silliness';
'sovereignty' is a religious belief bundled into imaginary-line-bounded
'independent nations' and actualized by 'absolute central governing
authority'. This is Euro-American imposed abstraction. Legal inquiry into
the origins of 'sovereignty' such as that of Peter D'Errico, law professor
emeritus at the Univ. of Massachusetts reveals; "The notion of "absolute,
unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable,
indivisible, and original" is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
God. This "God died around the time of Machiavelli.... Sovereignty was ...
His earthly replacement." [Walker, R.B.J. "Space/Time/Sovereignty."]
my interest is in sustaining dynamical balance and harmony in our shared,
common living space, and in having my behaviour (and discursive
engagements) serve this (which is ongoing in the continuing now) rather
than lock myself onto to some fixed objective wherein i purport that some
desired state of space will be achieved at some future time (ignoring the
fact that millions of others are trying to construct their desired states
at some futures time, all in the same space using the same materials), i
consider all men my brothers including 'the evil ones' and I want no one to
risk their life in a mission to 'eliminate evil' on 'my behalf' since
operating on such a motivation is the antithesis of a dynamical
balance-sustaining behaviour. furthermore i do not choose to value the
tragedy of maiming or death of a 'compatriot' in battle more highly than
the tragedy of maiming or death of any other brother in our innately
interrelated social dynamic.
i understand 'community' in the native terms of locally seeking dynamical
balance with the land we are included in, and it does not require any
notions of 'sovereignty' and loyalty to those 'brothers' under a sovereign
flag who carry the same-coloured legal documents. of course there is bond
between mutually supporting brothers in a locally sustaining dynamical
balancing act with the land (naturally evolved community) and it exists
whether or not we believe, for example, that 'canada and the US are the
artefacts of europeans that fought over how to divide up what they stole'.
'community' does not depend on notions of sovereignty.
as yaakub observes; you can't allocate the collective productivity of
social labour individually."
we are all included in a common space and, to paraphrase Mach's principle;
'the dynamical material inclusions of our shared dynamical space condition
space at the same time as space conditions its dynamical material
inclusions". to synthetically create (fantasize) and believe in the
sovereignty of an imaginary-line-bounded 'kingdom' that purports that it
has a fully responsible internally driven and directed behaviour, (the
composite of the purported fully responsible internally driven and directed
behaviours of its 'independent individual constituents') is rank
'silliness' that entirely occludes the natural primacy of the living space
we are all included in.
we need to turn away from 'stern face-to-face arguments' and share a 90
degree shifted view (a 90 degree shift corresponds to multiplication by 'i'
in complex arithmetic) that has us 'be like Eagle' rather than 'Hawk'.
love,
ted
-----Original Message-----
From: A.D.M.Rayner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:56 AM
To: Ted Lumley; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Murray <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 December 2006 11:51
Subject: Re: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
> Dear Alan and all
>
> Alon's bleak vision of the self as singularity (as Alan describes Alon's
> work, and perhaps incorrectly) could indeed be severely bleak given the
> danger of singularity that I understand Peter McLaren to be warning
against
> here, "Liberal theories of justice attempt to harmonize individual
interests
> in the private sphere. But as Daniel Bensaid points out, correctly in my
> view, you can't allocate the collective productivity of social labour
> individually."
>
> This is one sense in which in my living theory project I seek to educate
to
> warn students of the dangers inherent to Western liberal theories of the
> self. Liberal theories of the self are inherently conservative. Like
> McLaren, I follow this path in my educational practice and my research
> account of that practice,
>
> "As a critical educator, I follow Glen Rikowski's work and encourage
> students to ask themselves the following question: What is the maximum
> damage we can do to the rule of capital, to the dominance of capital's
> form?"
>
> I ask this question because the political world of advanced/globalizing
> capitalism throws up a structural reality I occupy - as distinct though
not
> discrete from the privatized and imaginal spaces of a loving and intimate
> life as both elements are lived within in the same flow - is not
convivial,
> and neither is it particularly loving. Where is the love in Israel's
> state
> terrorism of the Lebanese people? What is convivial about Sunni killing
> Shi'a in the name of freedom and justice? What kind of love inhabits
> neoliberal politics? Where have loving educational relationships for
social
> purpose receded to in the face of a violently 'consumerist' higher
> education? These are the ways in which the dominance of capital's form
> militates against public conviviality and love. This is why I am very
> concerned by the tyranny of the priapic Western liberal 'I' and self that
> seems to dominate a lot of action research living theory. For every bit
> of
> the private good it achieves (and I can see that it does) a very high
public
> price has to be paid in the form of losing political purpose for the
> achievement of public conviviality.
>
> The dominance of the self and 'I' in contemporary Western life seems, in
so
> many ways, anathema to the quality of conviviality and loving relational
> accountability that I'm sustaining in both private and public
> interrelated
> arenas of my life. It is certainly anathema to a way of life in Ubuntu. I
> value the take of Taylor, Steele and Barr (2002, For a Radical Higher
> Education: After Postmodernism) for extending this excitingly (almost)
> political new strand of conversation opening up here and now in the list,
>
> "There is an ideological juxtaposition of huge, global forces beyond the
> control, even the full comprehension, of both individuals and any
> explanatory framework, and an insistence that the only politics possible
> (and desirable) in postmodernity is focused on local, micro concerns. At
its
> worst, this concentration upon the intensely local and the particular is
> a
> symptom of withdrawal, escapism, and alienation."
>
> These 'huge, global forces' are not very convivial nor yet loving.
>
> So how can this BERA list find ways to do research, craft theory and
sustain
> political 'action' that connects what I believe to be vitally convivial
and
> loving in our lives as eloquently expressed by Eleanor and what I also
know
> to be the dirty, messy, ugly truth of huge global forces beyond the
control
> - and comprehension - of individuals? Until living theory finds
inclusional
> room for sociological accounts of 'out there' structural reality in ways
> that show, clearly, how individual accounts can 'change' this external
world
> then living theory runs the risk of remaining an 'interior theory' held
> together by a unity of imagination seemingly out of touch with the
violence
> of global capitalism and its victims.
>
> In public hope
> Yaakub Murray
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan
> Rayner
> Sent: 15 December 2006 11:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "relying on others to forward an e-mail"
>
> 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
> >
>
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
