Dear Nick,

Many thanks. I am relieved that you found my comments helpful, and glad also
to have some indications concerning your real feelings about the original
intention of the FoW project and the discussions that have unfolded.

I was especially interested to hear about your sadness concerning what you
perceive as the 'rationalist-romanticist split'. Healing this apparent gulf
has also very much my own life project, perhaps not least because of
witnessing it between my own parents (rationalist father - romanticist
mother). I never saw any real need for it, and have spent much of my life
trying to show - in my artwork and lyrical writing as well as in my
scientific research - why there is no need for it, and why indeed the two
are complementary, not in opposition. I sometimes talk about the need to
'dissolve the clot between head and heart', which is very close to your own
1976 expression. My recognition of this need led me to develop, with a few
others, my ideas about 'inclusionality' and 'natural inclusion', in much the
same way that you developed 'aim-oriented rationality'. I have suspected
from the outset that there could be much in common between our respective
approaches, and that there could be much scope for mutual strengthening,
coming from our very different backgrounds and those of others on the list.
I also feel there is much in common between AOR and Jack Whitehead's 'action
research' and 'living educational theory', and hope that this commonality
could be explored.

So, why hasn't FOW worked thus far in healing the gulf - and why indeed do
some of the discussions seem to have accentuated it? Partly I think this has
much to do with the 'Catch 22' that Ian speaks about. I suspect that much
also has to do with language. As I have admitted on several occasions, I
really do struggle to find a form of words that avoids 'closure by the steel
trap mind'. I do think that part of the problem with the website is that
your effort to provide succinct expression actually does elicit such
closure - or the appearance that you yourself are expressing such closure.
The fact that you seem to exclude some kinds of discussion - and regard
these as 'not relevant to FOW' - also does on occasion seem inconsistent
with your own values - what Jack Whitehead refers to as a 'living
contradiction' (from which he himself has learned much).

Perhaps the most succinct way I can express this is to suggest that somehow
the website does need to be 'warmed up'.

And there I'd better stop, for now, hoping that this also is helpful.


Warmest


Alan






----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 30 March 2007 12:47
Subject: Re: Responses to what our Website Says


> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>