Dear Alan, Jack and All - 

The following extracted from our past exchanges in this thread strike me as 
significant:

Pete (04 June)
...need for receptive responsiveness if dialogue is to be truly educational 
enter into that dynamic equilibrium with each other and with that sense of 
resonance … we sing with the other’s voice and know their meaning … (and) …
the emerging aesthetic … carries its own standard of judgment
...such a gathering is itself a work of art, in that it is able to lift up -
 educate - at both emotional and intellectual levels … a shared form of 
expression in which the sense of self becomes subsumed

Alan (05 June) 
... how our quality of life can be enhanced and transformed by a receptive-
responsive form of mutual understanding and involved enquiry that 
transcends (whilst incorporating) objective rationality

Jack (05 June)
... those of you who were not present … are most significant in seeing if 
Alan is right in … believing that you will be able to relate to what lies 
behind the outwardly observable scene in a series of continuous natural 
inclusion in co-creative togetherness

I like Alan’s phrase on the natural inclusion of co-created togetherness
The questions I’d like to explore with you at present are focused on 
enhancing our understanding of the logic which is the mode of thought 
appropriate for comprehending the real as rational, as understood within 
the perspective we are working in.

Pete (05 June)
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 have to 
lose our “oppressively singular rationalisation”? (Alan) – Yes, all 
together!

---------------------

These points leave me focusing on thoughts about ‘self’ and ‘other’ within 
Alan’s ‘co-created(ive?) togetherness’ and ‘receptive responsiveness’  plus 
Jack’s suggestion we explore “…enhancing our understanding of the logic 
which is … appropriate”. 

Holding the flavour of this mixture up against the concept of ‘standards of 
judgment’ makes me wonder if we are ever going to meet the aims of this 
seminar by using the established categories and vocabulary while we look 
for alternative ‘rules of engagement’ (logics) for them to relate within. 
Alan: when discussing inclusionality, you use language in a way that 
strives admirably to make new meanings but which I find ‘knotty’ and 
problematic because I have not been with you from the start and I lack an 
appropriate glossary to make your meaning fully comprehen-dable/sible to 
me. That is why I have to try to explain myself in my own words in terms 
of ‘resonance’ and ‘equilibrium’.  

However, whatever our vocabulary, I suspect we are all very much in the 
same neck of the woods. What we have said to each other so far makes me 
suspect that the appropriate logic we are seeking to understand might not 
actually allow for the separate existence of ostensive concepts 
called ‘standards of judgment’ (which we’ve spent the past three years 
trying to reveal in our own ways). My grasp of the idea of an inclusional 
logic suggests that, if we relate in ways that are educational, within an 
inclusional gathering whose members are receptively responsive (so that we 
each ‘sing with the voice of the other and know the meaning’), then the 
standards of judgment should be implicit within this process. We do not 
have to name them as separate entities: they are not content, but process. 
It is the quality of the relationships that carries the claim to having 
knowledge and of being educational. It’s not so much the ‘what’ of 
standards of judgment as their ‘how’. Good-quality interaction (within the 
logic of our shared humanity) includes and communicates its own standards 
of judgment. 

Well - supposing you can find your way through this fog of words, please 
let me know if you can locate a glowing ember somewhere at its centre! (but 
then, perhaps someone’s said it already somewhere else and I’ve missed or 
misunderstood it).

- Pete