Dear Pete,
Yes, all together! We have to loosen (not entirely lose) our oppressively
singular rationalization!
Your emerging understanding of inclusionality as expressed here appears to
me to be 'thick' [in the sense of 'not stupid, but incorporating the
'thickness' of the 'included middle', whereby each is RECIPROCALLY AND
COMPLEMENTARILY within other and neither is independent; where 'positive'
('responsive, informational) is a dynamic inclusion of 'negative'
(receptive, spatial), not an decontextualized alternative to negative - as
per 'false positivism'].
It is this 'dimensional thickness' that is paradoxically excluded by both
propositional and dialectic logic, and by Euclidean and non-Euclidean
geometries set respectively UPON depthless flat or curved surfaces. It is
such exclusion that removes the spatial possibility (receptive influence)
that is vital for 'flow', and brings analytical logic and enquiry to a 'full
stop' or discontinuous 'singularity' (dimensionless 'point').
My friend Lere Shakunle has developed a 'transfigural mathematics' in which
the continuity of the 'point' is 'redeemed' as a receptive-responsive
spatial 'loophole' or 'zeroid', like the 'eye' of a hurricane, much as our
local human identities are 'redeemed' through opening our informational,
'I' self to our 'natural neighbourhood', i.e. receptive loving influence
(non-local space, everywhere). Such 'opening' may be regarded as 'the
resurrection of love' through the 'death of deterministic prophecy'.
In other words, neither propositional nor dialectic can reach
'inclusionality', due to the inherent discontinuity (discreteness -
exclusion of space from matter) in their underpinning logic, which treats
'space' as an 'absence' or 'gap', not a vital, receptive presence. On the
other hand, inclusionality can readily derive and incorporate propositional
and dialectic logic and enquiry as helpful 'tools' - so long as they don't
run away with the workman. Discontinuity cannot reach continuity, but
continuity can always differentiate discontinuity. Along with Newton and
Liebnitz's calculus, objective rationality has it all back to front, to our
great human dismay.
Currently Lere, Ted Lumley, myself and Jack are working on a text along
these lines, provisionally entitled 'From Concrete Block Age to Natural
Inclusion - Four Short stories of evolutionary and philosophical
transformation'.... We are thinking of a short book, which can eventually
be expanded with others' contributions (e.g. from some of the people on this
list) into a large book.
Love
Alan
Love
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Mellett <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 05 June 2007 09:53
Subject: Re: 18 December 2002
Alan -
The attachment to your posting begins with an abstract that starts with the
phrase "Deep in the heart of much human psychological, social and
environmental distress is an oppressively singular rationalization of the
individual ‘self’ ..." My grasp of your ideas about 'inclusionality' is
slim, but I sense that it is perhaps our non-inclusional ways of being that
are causing us to have such trouble in this e-seminar of talking
meaningfully about standards of judgment. I spend my holidays walking in
southern Spain, I have 'done' the Al-Hambra and have read many books about
the time of the Moors. The Jews, Christians and Muslims of 8th to 15th
Century Andalus lived together in relative harmony; one of my books claims
that they lived by a logic that allowed for ‘yes and no’, despite wholly
different sets of core values. The expulsion took place in 1492, as a more-
deterministic logic of ‘yes or no’ came down from the north and displaced
the existing form. Now, it seems to me that dialectical discourse can admit
insights based on propositional forms (but not the contrary); inclusional
forms integrate the dialectical (yes and no) and the propositional (yes or
no) within a lived reality – [(yes AND no) AND (yes OR no)]. If we are to
reveal and understand the standards of judgment that allow us to claim that
we have knowledge (that is educational) then do we need to lose
our 'opressively singular rationalization'?
- Peter
|