Hello Alan,

Thanks for the links to the work of Lewis Hyde. I've come across his 
ideas about the Trickster before from reading a bit about magical 
realism, from an interest in the mythologies of South Africa, but never 
made the explicit links to epistemological issues, so thanks very much 
for opening up new and exciting possibilities.

Best wishes,

Jean

On 19 Apr 2008, at 15:55, Alan Rayner (BU) wrote:

> Dear Christine and all,
>  
> Sorry for the delayed response!  My plate suddenly overflowed....
>  
> There certainly are some very strong resonances with you here, and it 
> feels good - though perhaps not paradoxical - to arrive in the same 
> place from very different paths. I think this kind of confluence is 
> becoming more and more evident, even as the cruelty of rationalistic 
> thought seems to gain ever more ascendence, so there is a sense that 
> 'we just can't carry on this way'.
>  
> Regarding ‘whoever would gain his life must lose it’, below is a poem 
> I wrote on the Auschwitz anniversary a while ago.
>  
> Meanwhile, here are a couple of sentences from the 'Introduction' to 
> 'The Gift - How The Creative Spirit Transforms The World' by Lewis 
> Hyde, which I have just started reading:
>  
> 'Usually, in fact, the artist does not find himself engaged or 
> exhilarated by the work, nor does it seem authentic, until this 
> gratuitous element has appeared, so that along with any true creation 
> comes the uncanny sense that 'I', the artist did not make the work. 
> 'Not I, not I, but the wind that blows through me' says D.H. 
> Lawrence''
>  
> 'If I am right to say that where there is no gift there is no art, 
> then it may be possible to destroy a work of art by converting it into 
> a pure commodity'
>  
>  
> Warmest
>  
> Alan
>  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Space - Your Final Dissolution
>  
>  
> I am your final dissolution
> The nurturer of your nature
> That soothes and softens
> As we live and breathe together
>  
> No gas-tight chamber doors
> Designed to wall in
> Or wall out your fears of devastation
> Can exterminate me
>  
> You cannot live without me
> You cannot die without me
> I cannot find expression without you
> You live in the breath of my inspiration
> You die in the breath of my expiration
> You die as you live
> You live as you die
> With me
> Within and without
>  
> So, if you try to close me in
> Or close me out
> In your Manly human quest for Godly immortality
> I cannot love you as you stir within my womb
>  
> I cannot assist you
> I can only watch, impassively by
> As you use me to destroy
> Yourself
> Or suffocate in the stasis
> Of a never-ending, never-opening
> Paralysis
> That’s no life for any one of us
> Alone
>  
> So, please, bear with me
> As I am alongside and within you
> Take me in as I take you out
> Certain only of the uncertainty
> That recreates a rich and vibrant world
> I am what life and death is all about
>  
> Rising and subsiding
> In ever-flowing form
> Living Light and Loving Darkness
> Together
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: STANDING, Christine
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>>
>> Dear Alan, and anyone who's following this:
>>
>>  I do agree about the difference between being 'tied together' and 
>> 'true communion'.  I've sent you a picture of my painting 
>> 'Rock-Climbers', who incidentally are not tied together, in it there 
>> is communion.  (I have a problem using my OCMS.ac.uk mail as it 
>> doesn't take large emails.  I should change it if possible.)
>>  
>>
>> Cross-Purposes - The Trinity of the Complex Self
>> Alan, I found this piece of writing amazing.  I came to Christianity 
>> late in life.  I was about to say ‘without the baggage’, but of 
>> course I DO have baggage, having been raised in a Christian society.  
>> And I came late because of my perceived criticisms of the Christian 
>> society that harboured wrongdoers, and even let them thrive in their 
>> midst.  I am talking about abuses within the church, power imbalances 
>> and abuse of power.  One of my case studies relates how a woman whose 
>> child was sexually abused within the church was herself made the 
>> outcast, the rejected one.  While the perpetrator thrived with his 
>> reputation intact.
>>
>> I too, (and especially as a woman) suffered from the dominance of 
>> someone else’s interpretations, foisted onto me by rote, and your 
>> example of the victim’s double-bind, with its ‘forgive – only 
>> forgive’, without the true reconcilation is a good example.  Thank 
>> you for sharing your experience of being confronted with the 
>> Self-denying symbolism of ‘I’ crossed out.  It is well put.  It marks 
>> that important dynamic, of ‘trying to be good’, often at great 
>> personal cost; it is about control.   It isn’t meant to be like 
>> that!  (Not that I've got it all worked out, you understand.)
>>
>>
>> You ask, “What if the symbolic implication of the Cross is not the 
>> altruistic annihilation of the ‘I’ Self? What if it represents the 
>> compassionate inclusion by and of the ‘I’ Self, through its holey 
>> centre and interfacial bodily boundaries, of complementary dynamic 
>> potentials? Would that make a difference to the way we relate to one 
>> another, other life forms and our living space?’
>>
>> Yes, I guess so, if I understand you correctly, but what of the, 
>> ‘whoever would gain his life must lose it’?  This too transfigures.  
>> I can’t pretend to fully understand it, but I don’t think it refers 
>> to giving in to bullies.  But I do think it has something to do with 
>> a loving attitude towards those who despitefully use us.  There is a 
>> strange ‘something’ that happens at a time like that.  Not that I 
>> always practice it, nor that I feel that I get anywhere with it 
>> always, yet this attitude a) transforms me and b) may transform them!
>>
>> Your idea of ‘mutually shaping and reciprocally transforming inner 
>> and outer through intermediary spatial domains’ reminds me of a 
>> gestalt; which makes me think of seeing both sides of an argument at 
>> one and the same time.  I’ve done a painting of ‘Crib Goch’, an arete 
>> on one of the mountains leading to Snowdon.  This footpath that 
>> traces the very top of the line of the mountain is hazardous; one has 
>> to keep one’s balance and see both sides at the same time.  Or else!
>>
>> ‘Many too have been the political and academic careers stalled by 
>> orthodoxy when they have sought to bring the iniquities of the law of 
>> the excluded middle to light. ‘ and so did Polanyi when he thought 
>> his elders and betters, colleagues and others asserted that they were 
>> being objective in their scientific decision-making.
>>
>> ‘What is it, then, that orthodoxy finds so unpalatable about this 
>> view of Self as Neighbourhood - dynamic relational place rather than 
>> dislocated individual subject or object? Does it necessarily end in 
>> catastrophe, or is it a means of avoiding catastrophe? Does it 
>> inspire love or hate? Is it healing or damaging? Does it bring us 
>> together or force us apart’  Why is it either/or; why not both/and?  
>> Because, instead of the comparing and measuring, there is legitimate 
>> difference.  I think some Christian places work like this and don't 
>> disrespect 'self as neighbourhood'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I too have feared the discovery that I am the ‘source of sin, 
>> weakness and vulnerability’ indeed I own up to that, yet am also 
>> reconciled to it in some curious, paradoxical way that gives me added 
>> creativity.  I remember realising that when I did a painting of 
>> Medusa with Pegasus.  Here the reconcilation between hatred and 
>> death, with love and compassion, through creativity.  So here again I 
>> echo you,  ‘it can actually be the wellspring of loving and 
>> respectful compassion.’  Isn’t it paradoxical that we both find 
>> ourselves at this place through different means?
>>
>> Your paintings didn’t appear in my document unfortunately.
>>  
>> Best wishes,
>> Christine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:10:28 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>>> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>>>
>>> Dear Christine and all,
>>>  
>>> Yes, in many ways there is very close correspondence. But I also 
>>> would point to what I think is a very important distinction between 
>>> the material connectedness or 'contiguity' of being 'tied together', 
>>> and the dynamic continuity or true communion of being pooled 
>>> together, gravitationally, 'in common space'.
>>>  
>>> I'm attaching a chapter from 'Inclusional Nature' concerning this 
>>> question.
>>>  
>>> Let me clarify this before going any further. I couldn't honestly 
>>> call myself Christian and I don't ascribe to any particular orthodox 
>>> belief system that is not grounded in evidence or
>>> sound reason (and that includes objectivist science!).  But I do 
>>> recognise what I take to be a dynamic inclusional (i.e 
>>> 'spiritual/spatial/immaterial/non-local/omnipresent') core in the 
>>> origination of many faiths. This is associated with values of love, 
>>> compassion and respect for natural neighbourhood that are expressed 
>>> in various versions of 'the golden rule' yet often denied in the 
>>> 'living contradiction of orthodox practice.
>>>  
>>> Warmest
>>>  
>>> Alan
>>>  
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: STANDING, Christine
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:56 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>>>> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  This was of interest to me because in a recent seminar I've just 
>>>> discussed a drawing of mine called 'Rock-Climbers'.  A mass of 
>>>> people are climbing crags; they are all attached to one another in 
>>>> some way or other.  They all relate.  So your essay chimes well 
>>>> with my ideas.
>>>>  
>>>> What is 'transfigurality'?
>>>>  
>>>> I guess your explanations are what I'd define as humanist?  One of 
>>>> my explanations of ‘Rock-climbers’ is that it demonstrates  a 
>>>> system, the 'body of  Christ' as Christians call it, seen as a 
>>>> system.  A system of interrelating, in the picture each person is 
>>>> in physical contact with another. ie
>>>>
>>>>  4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these 
>>>> members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are 
>>>> many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.’ 
>>>> Romans 12:3-5 (New International Version.Copyright © 1973, 1978, 
>>>> 1984 by International Bible Society Zondervan)
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this begins with the statement, ‘3 Do not think of 
>>>> yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself 
>>>> with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God 
>>>> has given you’.  This drawing, I think in retrospect, is in 
>>>> accordance with this; this is my theological reflection on it.  Not 
>>>> all can, as one of the figures is doing, support several at once 
>>>> (as does our Dean!)  The child, the infirm, the deformed, cannot 
>>>> physically support others; yet they also have their place ‘in the 
>>>> team’.  During the seminar two people mentioned ‘Arthur’.  I don't 
>>>> know whether you saw it, about the value of the disabled.  Popular 
>>>> television might name and categorise some in the team as ‘the 
>>>> weakest link’, yet this quote asserts value for all human souls.
>>>> Are these views in keeping with yours?
>>>>  
>>>> Best,
>>>> Christine
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:34 +0100
>>>>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>>>>> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>>>>>
>>>>> Following up on this, I have written the attached short essay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmest
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Alan Rayner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:30 AM
>>>>> Subject: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>>>>> Produces 'Junk'
>>>>> (fwd)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I have just sent the following (now slightly revised) message to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> > inclusional research discussion group.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I feel it may have much relevance to how really to understand the
>>>>> > difference between natural educational inclusion and unnatural 
>>>>> selection.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Perhaps we need to let go of the junk thinking that lures us into
>>>>> > rubbishing ourselves and one another!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Warmest
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Alan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
>>>>> > Date: 10 April 2008 08:38 +0100
>>>>> > From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> > Subject: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
>>>>> Produces 'Junk'
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ted Lumley's impassioned missive regarding the relation between 
>>>>> the notion
>>>>> > of 'Junk DNA' and prevalent ideas about 'junk people' draws 
>>>>> attention to
>>>>> > what I think is the most fundamental social, psychological and
>>>>> > environmental implication of inclusionality:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In a continually evolving energy flow, there is no such thing as 
>>>>> 'junk'.
>>>>> > Neither is there any such thing as individual 'perfection' in 
>>>>> isolation
>>>>> > from others.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The very idea of 'junk' arises from the kind of favouritism 
>>>>> evident in
>>>>> > Darwin's description of 'natural selection' as 'the preservation 
>>>>> of
>>>>> > favoured races in the struggle for life'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Such favouritism is the product of rationalistic exclusion, most
>>>>> > fundamentally of all the exclusion of 'space' from 'matter', 
>>>>> such that
>>>>> > only
>>>>> > the latter 'counts', as in the discreteness/discontinuity 
>>>>> embedded in the
>>>>> > simplistic foundations of classical and modern mathematics and 
>>>>> objectivist
>>>>> > science. It produces a very partial, postscriptive and 
>>>>> prescriptive view
>>>>> > of
>>>>> > history and evolution in which only the 'big hitters' count and 
>>>>> there is
>>>>> > no
>>>>> > play in the system for improvisational co-creativity. It leads 
>>>>> inexorably
>>>>> > to eugenics and the motivations for fascism. It alienates the 
>>>>> loving
>>>>> > influence of receptive spatial context that makes evolution 
>>>>> possible in
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > first place. It negates negativity in a misogynistic 'false 
>>>>> positivism'
>>>>> > that denies our natural source.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is why it is so crucial for us to develop and communicate 
>>>>> the kinds
>>>>> > of
>>>>> > mathematics and physics based on transfigurality, and 
>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>> > understanding based on natural inclusion, that can help us out 
>>>>> of the fix
>>>>> > of producing more and more junk by objective definition.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Everest isn't the only mountain in the Himalayas. The Great 
>>>>> White isn't
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > only fish in the sea. The solute isn't alone in the solution. 
>>>>> Alone, stuck
>>>>> > on top of the pyramidal adaptive peaks of their ascendent 
>>>>> architecture,
>>>>> > they are going nowhere fast.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The simplisticity of favouritism not only produces junk, it is 
>>>>> junk! And
>>>>> > our rationalistic modern human culture of perversely 
>>>>> discontinuous flow is
>>>>> > full of it!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Warmest
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>> Google Groups
>>>>> > "Inclusional Research" group.  To post to this group, send email 
>>>>> to
>>>>> > [log in to unmask]  To unsubscribe from this 
>>>>> group,
>>>>> > send
>>>>> > email to [log in to unmask]  For 
>>>>> more
>>>>> > options, visit this group at
>>>>> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/inclusional-research?hl=en
>>>>> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________
>>>>
>>>> The information in this message and any files attached to it are 
>>>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended 
>>>> solely for the addressee. Access to this message by any other 
>>>> person is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any 
>>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to 
>>>> be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. 
>>>> Please immediately contact the sender should this message have been 
>>>> incorrectly transmitted. The views expressed in this electronic 
>>>> transmission do not necessarily reflect those of Oxford Centre for 
>>>> Mission Studies. Transmission is virus-free and we will not be 
>>>> liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Thank 
>>>> you.
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> The information in this message and any files attached to it are 
>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended 
>> solely for the addressee. Access to this message by any other person 
>> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, 
>> copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in 
>> reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately 
>> contact the sender should this message have been incorrectly 
>> transmitted. The views expressed in this electronic transmission do 
>> not necessarily reflect those of Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. 
>> Transmission is virus-free and we will not be liable for any damages 
>> resulting from any virus transmitted. Thank you.