Dear Alan,

                Thank you for your critical comments on the FoW website. I
am genuinely very grateful to you for the points you make, because I think
you make explicit a number of issues which have been simmering away beneath
the surface.

                 I will try and respond to the points you make. At least I
will make a beginning. Further emails will follow.

                You say the website "lacks a sense of co-creative input from
all who have contributed to our discussions, it lacks a sense of real
inspiration, excitement and adventure, and it lacks a sense of openness to
evolutionary possibility". What I hoped the website would do would spell
out, in as clear, succinct and convincing a way as possible, the urgent need
to transform academia so that it becomes rationally devoted to helping
humanity learn how to create better world. The project the website
indicates seems to me so immense, so profoundly important, so challenging,
that that in itself seems to me to be inspiring, exciting and adventurous.
Does your comment concern style or content?

               As for your point that the website "lacks a sense of
co-creative input from all who have contributed to our discussions" - that
is certainly true. Actually, I have been hoping for discussion which would
result in improvements to the website - but it has not been forthcoming.
Much - not all - of the discussion on the "D" list has seemed to me, and to
others too, to be more or less unrelated to what FoW was set up to do in the
first place. It is because of this that I created the two interlinked lists
in the first place. Before I did, a number of members of FoW who did see
the FoW very much in the terms spelled out on the website, left because of
the discussion. Others complained that the discussion seemed to have little
to do with what FoW was formed to do. It is almost as if - alas - there are
two wings to FoW, which might be called "the rationalists" and "the
romantics". I say "alas" because wisdom-inquiry, in my view, heals the gulf
between rationalism and romanticism. But it does not seem to have worked
for FoW. "The rationalists", very roughly, want to develop and communicate
the basic message of FoW, as set out on the website - even though there may
be all sorts of disagreements about how this message should be formulated,
and how we should set about trying to communicate it. "The romantics" are
not particularly interested in what the website spells out: it lacks "real
inspiration, excitement and adventure". Instead, they want to share
insights and enthusiasms about all manner of things broadly related to
wisdom, dreams, education, spirituality, values, inclusivity. A certain
tension has arisen between these two, ill-defined groups. I say ill-defined
because some may feel they belong to both groups.

              Somehow, if we are to stay together, and not split apart into
two groups, we have to recognize and accommodate the somewhat different,
even if overlapping, interests of these two groups. The "rationalists" do
not want to see their programme for change lost in what they will see as a
democratic cacophony of voices. The "romantics" do not want to see their
views sidelined as irrelevant to what FoW is all about.

              I don't want this email to become impossibly long, so let me
conclude by responding to your point 1 - highly relevant to what I have just
said.

              You say there is:-

" 1. A concern about what 'rational means' really means. Some of us have
 expressed the view that 'objective rationality' is deeply problematic in
its
 underlying assumptions and definitions, but I feel you have given no clear
 indication of your own position on this, and I suspect you don't really see
 'our problem'."

              It is not just the "romantic" wing that is concerned about
'rationality'; this, I hope, is true of the "rationalist" wing as well. It
is of course central to the argument for the need to transform academia, so
that it implements wisdom-inquiry, that what tends at present to be taken as
"rational" is a characteristic kind of irrationality masquerading as
rationality.

               As it happens, in my email of the 21st March with as subject
"Restatement of the Aims of FoW", I did say what, in my view, we should take
"rationality" to mean. I said:-

"The notion of rationality that is being used here appeals to the idea that
there is some (no doubt somewhat ill-defined) set of methods, strategies or
rules which, if implemented in solving problems, pursuing aims, give one
one's best chances of success. They do not determine what is to be done,
and do not guarantee success. Nor is rationality, in this sense, to be
thought of as excluding feelings, desires or values - or as being merely
about means and not about ends."

                "Aim-oriented rationality" is perhaps the key notion of
wisdom-inquiry. The basic idea is that, whenever our aims are problematic,
as they often are, it is essential to rational action that we try to improve
our aims as we act. Aim-oriented rationality is designed to help us do
that - in science, and in life. Furthermore, we cannot hope to discover
what is genuinely of value if we don't attend to our feelings and desires,
although not everything that feels good is good, and not everything we
desire is desirable. As I put it in my first book "What's Wrong With
Science?" (1976) "we need to interconnect mind and heart so that we may
develop mindful hearts and heartfelt minds". Aim-oriented rationality
requires that we synthesize traditional rationalist ideas of integrity -
attention to fact, logic, criticism, refutation - and traditional romantic
ideas of integrity - emotional and motivational honesty, honesty concerning
aims and ideals. It is this, in part, which makes aim-oriented rationality
and wisdom-inquiry a synthesis of, and improvement of, traditional
rationalism and romanticism.

                  Chapter 5 of "From Knowledge to Wisdom" is devoted to
expounding aim-oriented rationality. It saddens me that some members of the
"romantic" wing have not bothered to have a look at this chapter - or
"What's Wrong With Science?" or "Is Science Neurotic?". I feel it is this
failure to appreciate what FoW really stands for which leads some members of
the "romantic" group to foist onto the "rationalist" group very traditional
conceptions of rationality, which is very far from what the "rationalists"
actually hold.

                  I hope to respond to the rest of the important points you
raise in a further email. I am, to repeat, extremely grateful to you for
raising these key points.

                                Best wishes,

                                        Nick
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------


> Dear Nick and all,
>
> Although I see much I can relate to and don't see anything specifically
> 'wrong' with what the website (interesting though; I tried to write 'our
> website', but couldn't, suggesting that I at least have some lack of
> affinity with what is said, perhaps associated with a feeling of not
having
> participated in what is said), my feeling is that it is too restrictive
and
> prescriptive. To put this very starkly, it lacks a sense of co-creative
> input from all who have contributed to our discussions, it lacks a sense
of
> real inspiration, excitement and adventure, and it lacks a sense of
openness
> to evolutionary possibility. Now seems like a very apt phase in the
> evolution of FOW to see how what is said on the site can benefit from all
> the sometimes fiery discussions we have been having.
>
> First, I think it's important to be clear about what for many contributors
> have been significant fears and 'sticking points' in the discussions. Here
> are some thoughts:
>
> 1. A concern about what 'rational means' really means. Some of us have
> expressed the view that 'objective rationality' is deeply problematic in
its
> underlying assumptions and definitions, but I feel you have given no clear
> indication of your own position on this, and I suspect you don't really
see
> 'our problem'.
>
> 2. A concern about 'comparison of values', aimed at deciding 'which/whose
> value is best'.
>
> 3. A fear of authoritarianism/totalitarianism/paternalism/oppression, in
> various guises.
>
> 4. An associated fear about lack of true democracy (participatory
governance
> of all for all)
>
> 5. A sense of a lack of 'real world' practicability, and lack of
> connectedness with other, like-minded endeavours
>
> 6. A concern about whose benefit this endeavour is really 'for'.
>
> 7. Concerns about the logical assumptions concerning the nature of nature
> and human nature, and how these assumptions influence the manner of
enquiry.
>
> 8. A recognition that questioning the manner of enquiry needs to be
included
> in the manner of enquiry
>
> 9. A fear of prejudicial definition
>
> 10. A fear of intolerance and lack of diversity
>
> 11. A lack of true uniqueness or distinctiveness in FOW's approach, whilst
> appearing to claim this.
>
>
> Consistently, you have been tying the 'inspiration' for FOW (perhaps a
> 'better' word than 'dream'), i.e. the yearning for deeper, wiser ways of
> relating with one another and the world based on 'wisdom enquiry' to a
> particular form of enquiry that you call 'Aim-oriented Rationality' -
which
> you ask us all to read about, understand, inwardly digest and perhaps even
> accept as a condition of membership. As you indicate below, it is that
> linkage, which is creating difficulties. Whilst not excluding the
> possibility of 'aim-oriented rationality' being a valuable contributor to
> wisdom enquiry, my feeling is that there is no need to make that specific
> linkage at this stage, and indeed that the utility and meaning of AOR can
be
> an important inclusion in our discussions - something we can have a
> conversation about rather than feel obliged to sign up to a priori. In
other
> words, you have made 'AOR' a 'Hostage to Fortune'.
> (Sorry about my directness here - I suspect this sense of obligation isn't
> your intention at all, but it does come across that way to some of us).
>
>
> Here are some thoughts and possible kinds of wordings to describe how
FOW
> might evolve into a truly creative, distinctive enterprise in terms of its
> 'inspirations', 'aspirations' and 'manner'....
>
>
> 'Inspiration' : to encourage deeper, more creative and open ways of
> understanding and enquiring into nature and human nature.
>
>
>
> 'Aspirations':
>
> To recognise modes of thought and governance that restrict human creative
> potential and understanding, obstruct loving and respectful relationship,
> and so aggravate psychological, social and environmental distress
>
> To recognise and question the perceptions and logical assumptions
underlying
> such restrictive theory and practice
>
> To recognise and develop new understandings and approaches to reasoned
> enquiry that can help release a deeper spirit of natural communion and
human
> creativity
>
> To introduce these new understandings and approaches more wirdely into the
> academic and educational communities and beyond
>
>
>
> 'Manner':
>
> To sustain a creative and critical openness to possibility in all forms of
> enquiry and learning
>
> To be receptive to diverse views and approaches and appreciative of their
> potential complementarity
>
> To explore potential linkages with diverse groups and organizations with
> common interests and concerns
>
> To support one another creatively, critically and practically in our
> enquiries and their application
>
> To find suitable outlets and venues for one another's work and expression
>
>
>
>
> I hope this may be helpful.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nicholas Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 28 March 2007 12:47
> Subject: Responses to what our Website Says
>
>
> > At the level of dreaming, we do probably mostly agree. It is when we
come
> > down to the slightly more specific questions - the concern of FoW -
about
> > what kind of academic inquiry can best help us realize (apprehend and
make
> > real) what is genuinely of value in life, for ourselves and others, that
> > disagreements may arise. I still sense that some members of FoW do not
> see
> > the problem before us in quite the same terms as those set out on our
> > website. But why not? What exactly is wrong with what our website
says?
> > What exactly is wrong with the arguments in support of the claim that
> > academia needs to be restructured in the ways specified if it is to be
> > devoted rationally to helping humanity realize what is of value in life?
> > How might what our website says be improved?
> >
> > If, on the other hand, most of us agree with what our website says, then
> > perhaps we should take up the tasks of developing further our message,
and
> > working out how to get it across to academics, students, fund-giving
> bodies,
> > the media, and the public.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nick
> > www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
> >
>
>