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
>