Dear Dianne,
Many thanks.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I am anxious about 'saying too much' in this
list, which is one of the reasons that I am pleased now to be able to offer
www.inclusional-research.org as a space for anyone interested in following
up in depth what lies behind the contributions I try to make here. But I do
also want to respond receptively to any questions or issues people raise
directly with me on this list. So here goes.
To take your last paragraph:
"What then intrigues me about your contribution is the thought, and the
challenge, that I then need to, while seeking clarity, work at finding out
what the lived phenomenon might be that is bigger than both our current
conceptualising and terminology, and which is inclusive, without becoming
meaningless by encapsulating all of creation."
This reminds me of the kind of enquiry that was present in my mind when I
set out 'in search of inclusionality' shortly after my book 'Degrees of
Freedom - Living in Dynamic Boundaries' was eventually published ten years
ago. But I note there is an interesting 'twist in the tail' of your
sentence:
"without becoming meaningless by encapsulating all of creation."
Why should 'encapsulating all of creation' be meaningless?'
In truth, I think the meaninglessness - and worse, oppression - comes in the
attempt to ENCAPSULATE all of creation by localizing/defining/objectifying
'it' as a singular WHOLE. This is the futile effort to gain dominion over
nature through definition, which has wittingly or unwittingly been at the
heart of objective rationality since the Fall, not to mention the so-called
'Enlightenment'. It is the attempt of the 'local somewhere' to gain
sovereignty over 'non-local everywhere' by making an exception of 'itself'
from '(M)other' via the dislocation of matter from space. Only when this
aspiration to sovereignty is relinquished is it possible to gain access to
inclusionality and the loving, respectful, protective sense of 'self as
neighbourhood', a dynamic inclusion of one in all and all in one, where
neither one nor all are definable in their independent right. Somewhere is a
dynamic inclusion of, not an exception from, everywhere. Natural logic is
local-non-local, not solely local. We are freed from the dimensional
collapse, from infinity to three, within the box-cage constructed abstractly
around reality by Euclidean geometry. We no longer see ourselves as
competitive 'performing objects' struggling for existence, but see-feel
ourselves as complementary dynamic relational flow-forms drawing pleasure
and sustenance from our community in diversity. Here is where I think and
feel that the 'Principle', 'Value' and 'Practice' of reflexivity all find
their meaningful place in the common receptive space of all creation. Here
is where 'Living Theory' is understood not as a propositional or dialectic
'stance' in opposition to or co-existing with a fractured plurality of
independent 'others', but an expression of acceptance of inclusion in the
fluid flow of 'All' as a fluid dynamic inclusion of 'all', without
contradiction. Here is where the oppressive, bipolar totalitarianism of
both 'individualistic' and 'collectivistic' paradigms melts into
complementarity. But not without pain.
To seek clarity need not mean to seek definition. Definition gets in the way
of our natural communion as spatial inclusions of All.
You may find the attached poem evocative of these meanings.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dianne Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: A question of values?
> Alan,
>
> Thank you for your input. I have found it both challenging and
> intriguing.
> I was excited to see Christine's use of 'reflexivity' being identified in
> some way with teaching, the balancing of different activities within a
> role and a person, and reflective practice.
> I was hoping that Christine's view and mine might coincide sufficiently
> for a further exchange of views wherein we would both grow in our
> understanding of what lived phenomenon we might be describing by using
> these terms.
> I was also seeking to manage the risk of misunderstanding, and talking at
> cross-purposes, especially in a list like this. That has happened to me
> before, and most immediately live in some discussions about collaborative
> activity. Nothing disastrous, but a warning to seek as far as possible
> for clarity.
> My comment about my needing to be alert to Christine's difference from me,
> in how she uses this term, was a warning to myself about that risk.
> Others on the list might be similarly warned. In no way did I intend
> exclusion, though I recognise from other interactions here, and elsewhere,
> that such might be the way some people take this striving for clarity, in
> the ever-fluxing soup of language which we need and with which we
> endeavour to communicate with one another.
>
> What then intrigues me about your contribution is the thought, and the
> challenge, that I then need to, while seeking clarity, work at finding out
> what the lived phenomenon might be that is bigger than both our current
> conceptualising and terminology, and which is inclusive, without becoming
> meaningless by encapsulating all of creation.
>
> Dianne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: A question of values?
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Well, it seems to me that Dianne may be speaking of the practice of
>> viewing/feeling simultaneously from outside in and inside out, and
>> Christine is speaking of the value associated with this practice, both of
>> which arise implicitly from an underlying appreciation of the dynamic
>> relationality and complex local-non-local identity of 'self as
>> neighbourhood'. This may be related to what has been called the
>> 'Inclusional Principle and Logic':
>>
>
|