This so affirms the endless problem I have when people ask me "what do you
do?" over and above the issues with "action research" being so unknown, even
when I try to explain it, the eyes glaze over unless I ,make it sound
technical... The hidden root metaphor for life in the west is so
disabling...On a positive note though, have just reviewed some abstracts for
BERA - and it seems these questions of ontology are gathering a marvellous
flock of birds around them!


On 8/2/07 1:05 AM, "Alan Rayner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Ray,
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> 'Coincidentally' I have just responded to another correspondent on much the
> same theme. This is also a very important question for educational
> 'practitioner researchers', a list of whom I'm copying this response to.
> 
> 
> An important implication of inclusionality is awareness that to provide a
> definitive answer to questions of the kind 'What do I/we do?' is actually
> to stall the ongoing process of evolutionary enquiry ('learning') along the
> lines of 'how may I attune (respond receptively) with my/our
> ever-transforming situation so as to sustain the possibility for ongoing
> evolution ('learning')?'. This is because the rationalistic dislocation of
> 'material cause' (local 'I' self) from contextual space (non-local
> 'everywhere' that includes 'I') is implicit in asking 'what do "I" "do"?'
> Both the definitive question and the definitive answer closes down
> possibility and so collapses the flow-form, converting space-including
> 'receptive responsiveness' ('male'; 'yang'; assertion) and 'responsive
> receptivity' ('female'; 'yin'; 'induction') into purely assertive,
> independent, Newtonian, 'action' and 'reaction'.
> 
> So, I can't, inclusionally, give a definitive answer to the question 'what
> do I do?', because to do so would violate my understanding of evolutionary
> flow-form. I can only suggest to 'respond receptively, through 'feeling
> watchfulness', in your situation so as to sustain evolutionary possibility
> via the dynamic balancing of inner world with outer world'. This is the
> difference between 'living educational standards', which evolve with
> circumstances, and 'prescriptive educational standards', which 'fix for all
> time'. This 'feeling watchfulness' may be how 'to be and not to be', as a
> dynamic flow-form, expresses itself co-creatively.
> 
> Meanwhile, I hope this message may also help those educational
> practitioners wondering what on Earth all this philosophical meandering has
> to do with 'classroom experience' appreciate that the latter experience,
> for both teachers and learners, depends utterly on the 'attitude of mind'
> (openness to possibility cf concrete mindset) that each brings to the
> space.
> 
> 
> Whether with respect to 'climate change' or 'medical practice' or whatever,
> the approach is to help the context in which distress arises to transform,
> not to 'take arms against the distress' ('sea of troubles'), mindful of
> Pasteur's death bed confession: 'The microbe is nothing; the terrain is
> all'.
> 
> This is the true 'art' and 'craft' of inclusional practice, developed BOTH
> through the acquisition of knowledge and the 'wisdom' that comes with
> experience. There is a big difference between 'painting by numbers' and
> 'cooking according to recipe' and the art of sensitive, knowledgeable
> inclusion of the flow - the art in science and the science in art.
> 
> 
> 
> Warmest
> 
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> --On 07 February 2007 11:16 +0000 ray sheath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear Alan
>> 
>> That's very helpful.
>> 
>> I am beginning to think around the practical strategies (especially in
>> the social, cultural, political and economic world) that would stem from
>> an inclusional understanding of the world - and I must say it is very
>> difficult inculcated as we are with causality and objectivity and solid
>> organisational boundaries and the social structures and processes that
>> have been established around that.
>> And so picking up on your "dynamic synthesis of reductionism and holism"
>> below - what does that mean for the practice (in this case) of medicine.
>> 
>> In the case of climate change - what are the practical implications of
>> inclusionality - what do we actually do?
>> 
>> Thus the question recurring for me is:
>> 
>> How does  "To Be and Not To Be"? express itself
>> 
>> 
>> Ray
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A.D.M.Rayner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 05 February 2007 12:35
>> To: ray sheath
>> Subject: Re: Is Man the cause of climate change etc?
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Ray,
>> 
>> Many thanks.
>> 
>> Actually I think the 'includes space' is implicit in this particular
>> message from Ted. It is not that Ted forgoes 'includes space' generally,
>> but that his form of his expression typically tends to focus more on the
>> 'included in' aspect (and of course if you stretch the meaning of
>> 'included in' it implies 'includes' - don't you just love definitive
>> language games!).
>> The Chapter 12 is indeed of interest. But note the 'exclusion' in the
>> last line! Inclusionality is about 'seeing with feeling'.
>> Likewise the inaugural lecture is calling for a shift from reductionism
>> to holism, not a dynamic synthesis of both, as per inclusionality.
>> Relevant here are the attached paintings and poem, prepared for my friend
>> Je Kan, a British soldier become Buddhis priest in Japan. The paintings
>> are based on the botanical distinction between European Larch and
>> Japanese Larch trees, which so happens to coincide with the philosophical
>> distinction of 'Eastern' and 'Western' views of reality.
>> 
>> Warmest
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> PS, For me the lyrical language of 'pooled togetherness' work well...
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ray sheath
>> To: 'A.D.M.Rayner'
>> Cc: Ray Sheath
>> Sent: 05 February 2007 10:17
>> Subject: RE: Is Man the cause of climate change etc?
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Alan
>> 
>> This really is an elegant piece as you say.
>> 
>> How is this for  "synchronicity" - I read a chapter from the Tao Te Ching
>> every morning (rotating the 81 chapters 4 times a year) and this morning
>> was chapter 12 which I am attaching and focuses on feeling not on what
>> you see!
>> In our last conversation I think you rephrased "All form is a dynamic
>> inclusion of space" - to "All form is dynamically included in space and
>> includes space" so as to give the " dual" meaning of  inclusion and give
>> greater depth to the concept of the host space.  Also I think you said
>> that Ted only implies the one meaning of "included in space" and foregoes
>> "includes space".  If I have remembered this correctly - how does this
>> show in this piece of his?
>> Also Ted uses the language of "Connectedness" which for me comes with the
>> baggage of objects and causality.  What  language is better?
>> Finally I thought you might be interested in the subject of  the attached
>> inaugural lecture at Imperial College - are academics "edging towards"
>> inclusionality or just getting to the cliff edge of objectivity where
>> they will have to jump off?
>> Ray
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: A.D.M.Rayner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 04 February 2007 10:56
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Here is what I think you may find to be an elegant summary from Ted
>> Lumley concerning how inclusional awareness affects our evolutionary
>> understanding of our natural, dynamic human neighbourhood, especially
>> with regard to notions of causality and responsibility.
>> 'Man' is no more the cause of climate change than a thrown stone is the
>> cause of a ripple in a pond.
>> As Louis Pasteur confessed on his death bed: 'the microbe is nothing; the
>> terrain is all'
>> 
>> Warmest
>> 
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>