----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
'Junk' (fwd)


> Dear All,
>
> I've just prepared the short piece attached....
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Timo Jarvilehto" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:02 AM
> Subject: RE: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It 
> Produces
> 'Junk' (fwd)
>
>
>
> Thanks Ted; I completely agree with your formulation.
>
> Furthermore, when you wrote that "for our 'natural selves' as dynamical
> forms that, like the convection cells that emerge in clusters in high 
> energy
> regions of our fluid-dynamical natural continuum, we do not need to think 
> in
> terms of local psychological processes such as (internally-sourced)
> 'purpose-that-motivates'' but can think instead in terms of
> (mutual)'encouragement'" it reminds me of another funny distinction, 
> common
> especially in psychology of learning (and educational practice), namely
> 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' motivation. I have myself criticized the 
> concept
> of 'motivation', because its use implies that a human being is originally
> passive, and needs some special force to do something (stimulus or inner
> drive). If we think that inclusional activity is the basic form of 
> existence
> of all organisms then the concept of motivation isn't needed in psychology
> at all, or it may be formulated only as a question of the direction of the
> flow of activity.
>
> Kind regards,
> Timo
>
> ===========================================
> Timo Jarvilehto, PhD
> Professor of Psychology
> Faculty of Education and Kajaani University Consortium,
> University of Oulu, PB 51
> 87101 Kajaani, Finland
> Homepages
> Laboratory:
> http://www.kajaaninyliopistokeskus.oulu.fi/is-center/en-main.html
> Personal: http://cc.oulu.fi/~tjarvile/indexe.htm
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Gsm +358-40-5563794
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:inclusional-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of emile
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:34 AM
>> To: Inclusional Research
>> Subject: Re: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It
>> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>>
>> dear timo and alan,
>>
>> timo, as alan may also be saying, i believe this 'strange situation in
>> most psychological theories' that you note, is an embodiment of the
>> archetypeal barrier, in our meaning-giving architecture that prevents
>> a needed and natural deepening of understanding of ourselves and the
>> world; i.e. the 'strange situation' you speak of is;
>>
>> "in most psychological  theories (especially the mainstream cognitive
>> science) that 'behavior' is linked exclusively to the organism/human
>> body as if 'behavior' could occur in a void. From this it follows that
>> psychological concepts (perception,memory, consciousness etc.) are
>> related to 'inner processes' the 'owner' of which is the organism/
>> human body, or in the worst case only its brain."
>>
>> this 'archetype', the archetype of 'the absolute inside', for me,
>> crops up in the notion of 'property ownership' and in the sovereignty
>> of nations.  do we 'own or 'possess' ourselves' or our nation?  does
>> 'possessing our own self' not imply 'self-obsession'?.  do we fully
>> and solely own our behaviour and thus our 'productive accomplishments
>> as individuals and nations as the law insists?   do we fully and
>> uniquely own the words we utter as the copyright laws insist?
>>
>> this notion of 'ownership' of 'local being' and 'local behaving' which
>> implies or a 'local, absolute inside realm' removes 'relativity' from
>> the world dynamic and synthetically re-renders it in terms of 'local
>> objects' by imputing local origination from out of an 'absolute
>> inside' ruled over by a 'supreme local, internal authority' which, as
>> you say in the case of the human organism, we take to be the
>> organism's physical body, "or in the worst case only its brain".
>>
>> accepting the archetype of the 'local absolute inside', then, implies
>> the existence of local, absolute "inner processes" (e.g.
>> 'consciousness' as an absolute inner process) in order to explain the
>> absolute first cause origination or 'ownership' of behaviour by the
>> individual organism (or individual nation or cell).
>>
>> but where in our experience have we ever discovered an 'absolute
>> inside'?  we know that if/when we toss toxic wastes 'outside' into our
>> neighbour's yard, we are at the same time throwing it 'inside' of his
>> space.  as the contents of the honey bucket go over the fence, there
>> is no sign of any 'boundary' that marks its crossing from 'inside' to
>> 'outside'.
>>
>> in other words, as far as the 'space' of our real-life world is
>> concerned, movement from inside to outside is, at the same time,
>> movement from outside to inside.  e.g. you: 'i am throwing these
>> wastes out', ... your neighbour; 'no you're not, you are throwing them
>> in.'
>>
>> non-euclidian spherical space captures this notion (albeit in abstract
>> terms of a space that is infinitesimally thin) wherein divergence is
>> always, at the same time, convergence.   it is not that 'space REALLY
>> IS spherical/curved', it is that a spherical geometry of space is more
>> suggestive of the space of our real-life experience, than is the
>> straight-line space of euclid.  in nature, fountains that disperse and
>> fountain basins that collect are two simultaneous aspects of the same
>> circular dynamic
>>
>> why shouldn't we think of ourselves as 'dynamical forms' within the
>> continual flow of nature where, like honey-bee cells or convection
>> cells, insides-and-outsides form 'relatively' as in the growth of
>> bubbles in a cluster or convection cells in a cluster, which commonly
>> emerge in those regions of flow where energy is tending to
>> concentrate?   in understanding 'dynamical forms' in this manner, the
>> notion of 'absolute inside' disappears and 'euclidian space', the
>> abstract foundation for 'absolute outside' disappears at the same
>> time.   our representation of dynamics insofar as we conceive of them
>> as 'the dynamics of things', can only be so in a snap-shotting way
>> where the snap-shotting that 'absolutizes' dynamical forms as 'local,
>> independently existing, absolute-inside-driven organisms' is
>> subjectively imposed by the observer.
>>
>> what property is there where the inside originating fountaining of
>> toxic wastes to the outside is not at the same time associated with an
>> outside-inward material collection flow?  what sovereign nation
>> property is there where the inside originating fountaining of products
>> is not at the same time associated with an outside-inward material
>> collection flow?   can outgoing foodcrop production claim
>> 'independence' from the atmospheric winds and moisture?
>>
>> in nature and in our natural experience, there is no inside outward
>> dispersing dynamic that is not, at the same time associated with an
>> outside-inward collecting dynamic. to credit any local 'property',
>> 'object', 'organism' or 'nation' with local first-cause origination of
>> anything is falsehood.
>>
>> the mental image capturing 'mind-camera' we use to localize dynamical
>> forms 'out there' and endow them with 'absolute insides', insofar as
>> we believe in its power to localize, we also 'use on ourselves'.  we
>> may argue with Mayans and Chiapan Zapatistas who do not 'see' the
>> imaginary line borders that marks where the absolute inside of mexico
>> gives way 'suddenly' to the absolute inside of Guatemala on the basis
>> of the 'utility' of the imaginary concept of space that is 'local' and
>> capable of having an absolute inside and therefore 'owned' and ruled
>> over by an internally resident 'supreme central authority', but it is
>> an argument that our 'real, natural selves' will never accept, just
>> like the winds and waters, flora and fauna do not and cannot accept
>> it.  of course we can put 'electric dog collars' on ourselves and bury
>> electric cables along the imaginary borders so that we respect the
>> imaginary property ownership lines, but then, they are no longer
>> 'imaginary' any more than the great wall of china is imaginary.  but
>> snakes still burrow beneath it and birds fly over it.
>>
>> let's face it, the archetype of the absolute inside is alien to our
>> natural real-life experience.  it is nothing other than idealization
>> that is affirmed only by a common agreement to 'believe in it'.
>> 'consciousness', 'instinct', and 'purpose' insofar as they are said to
>> reside in an 'absolute inside'; i.e. in a 'local, independently
>> existing object space' where they are responsible for local, internal
>> originating of 'individual behaviour'
>>
>> for our 'natural selves' as dynamical forms that, like the convection
>> cells that emerge in clusters in high energy regions of our fluid-
>> dynamical natural continuum, we do not need to think in terms of local
>> psychological processes such as (internally-sourced) 'purpose-that-
>> motivates'' but can think instead in terms of (mutual)
>> 'encouragement'.  we do not have to think in terms of ourselves
>> 'having the power to make things happen', but can think instead of
>> energy-sharing in the manner that our relative efforts help to 'fill
>> one another's sails' (seeing ourselves as whirls or gyres that 'pur
>> our own spin' on the dynamics of a common flowspace continuum but who
>> do not 'originate' in the sense of 'local absolute inside' based
>> origination).  we do not have to think of in terms of 'peace' as the
>> pursuit of the 'absence of conflict' which can turn us all into
>> 'johnny one-notes' but can think instead in terms of 'harmony' wherein
>> a dynamical diversity participants in a confluence that sustains
>> continuing dynamical balancing.  and we do not have to think in terms
>> of 'good doers' and 'evil doers' but can instead think in terms of
>> 'inducing nurturance/resonance' or 'inducing destruction/discord' in
>> the dynamic of the common living space we share inclusion in.
>>
>> the point is that we are not constrained to understanding the nature
>> of the 'processes' that shape the world dynamic (social and
>> ecological) in terms of 'local origination' of behaviour as emanates
>> from an 'absolute inside'.  we are aware of 'other ways' of
>> understanding 'psychological processes' that are not dependent on the
>> archetype of the 'absolute inside' (e.g. the farmer does not create
>> crops, crops create the farmer or. as mcluhan might say; ' it is not
>> what the locally rising forms do that matters, it is how the locally
>> rising forms induce transformation in our relationships with one
>> another and with ourselves'.   we are the inductively collecting flow
>> that associates with the inside-outwards fountaining product.  there
>> is no 'fountainhead' or 'absolute inside' wherein 'first cause' of
>> behaviour resides, even if our 'ego' would have it that way.  while
>> Ayn Rand said in 'the fountainhead' "man's ego is the fountainhead of
>> human progress', we have to question 'progress' that is pure one-sided
>> positivism, a 'refining of what we can do', out of the context of how
>> our 'fountain of doing' inductively transforms the ('health and
>> harmony' of the) common living space dynamic that we all share
>> inclusion in.'.
>>
>> our consciousness informs us that we not simply a local object with an
>> 'absolute inside' that can be rated on-its-own as a superior or
>> inferior performer.   as alan has put it, (our consciousness informs
>> us that we are) "a gift of natural inclusion in co-creative energy
>> flow, to be held and passed on with love and care, not a possession or
>> trophy to be competed for."
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> ted
>>
>>
>> On 21 Apr, 02:47, Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Dear Timo, Ted and All,
>> >
>> > Yes, indeed.
>> >
>> > Further to this, I now feel that I/we may now be positioned to
>> explain
>> > my/our living practice in terms of receptively and responsively
>> > communicating the evolutionary understanding of life as:
>> >
>> > a gift of natural inclusion in co-creative energy flow, to be held
>> and
>> > passed on with love and care, not a possession or trophy to be
>> competed for.
>> >
>> > Warmest
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > --On 21 April 2008 10:28 +0300 Timo Jarvilehto
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Dear Alan and others,
>> >
>> > > I would also like point to the strange situation in most
>> psychological
>> > > theories (especially the mainstream cognitive science) that
>> 'behavior' is
>> > > linked exclusively to the organism/human body as if 'behavior'
>> could occur
>> > > in a void. From this it follows that psychological concepts
>> (perception,
>> > > memory, consciousness etc.) are related to 'inner processes' the
>> 'owner'
>> > > of which is the organism/human body, or in the worst case only its
>> brain.
>> >
>> > > Warm regards,
>> > > Timo
>> >
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:inclusional-
>> > >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner (BU)
>> > >> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:41 AM
>> > >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> > >> Subject: Re: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It
>> > >> Produces 'Junk' (fwd)
>> >
>> > >> Dear All,
>> >
>> > >> I feel this message from Ted, points to something very
>> significant:
>> >
>> > >> The difference between viewing life as a 'gift' of natural
>> inclusion in
>> > >> energy flow to be held and 'passed on' with love and care
>> >
>> > >> and
>> >
>> > >> viewing life as a possession, which leads to the objective
>> comparison
>> > >> of its
>> > >> 'owners'' 'worth' as commodities in terms of their individual
>> > >> desirability,
>> > >> accompanied by 'selecting the best and rubbishing the rest', which
>> > >> blocks
>> > >> the gift flow.
>> >
>> > >> Warmest
>> >
>> > >> Alan
>> >
>> > >> ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> From: "emile" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > >> To: "Inclusional Research" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > >> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:39 PM
>> > >> Subject: Re: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It
>> > >> Produces
>> > >> 'Junk' (fwd)
>> >
>> > >> dear christine and alan,
>> >
>> > >> i strongly relate to what you say, christine; e.g;
>> >
>> > >> "On the face of it we are getting away from the subject of the
>> > >> simplistic nature of junk and favouritism, yet it is this harmony
>> > >> (that we perceive in the painting) that is inherently 'wholesome'
>> and
>> > >> is not junk. If I am to make my research 'art-based research' I
>> would
>> > >> assert that every part of a painting feeds the overall experience
>> of
>> > >> looking at a painting. Every part matters. If we transfer that
>> > >> notion to society what do we find? Workers who have aided an
>> economy
>> > >> and are then dismissed arbitrarily as if they don't matter?
>> Workers
>> > >> who die because of the lack of safeguards, or more strictly
>> speaking,
>> > >> where health and safety, while admitted as part of the safety
>> climate,
>> > >> is dismissed as part of the safety culture? "
>> >
>> > >> ... and also to your 'spate attack' alan,
>> >
>> > >> in the metaphors that come spontaneously to my mind, the weather
>> cells
>> > >> in the atmosphere give me this same impression of simultaneous
>> spatial-
>> > >> relational meaning that wraps around into itself to 'complete
>> itself
>> > >> in an unending flow'. it is impossible to get to this meaning 'by
>> > >> ascribing meaning to parts'.
>> >
>> > >> when individuals are 'full of grace' or 'in harmony with the
>> world,
>> > >> they are like this, like convection cells in the cluster that
>> forms
>> > >> from the energy of flow, each one giving sense to every other and
>> to
>> > >> the emerging dynamical form, the unfolding contextual
>> > >> transformation.
>> >
>> > >> if life is continuing contextual transformation, the unfolding
>> > >> dynamical form, like the weather cell or whirl in the fluid
>> continuum,
>> > >> embodies its dynamical medium, at the same time as it gives
>> embodiment
>> > >> to it.
>> >
>> > >> there is no way to take apart embodied and embodying; i.e. to take
>> > >> apart 'being' and 'becoming'.
>> >
>> > >> to me, there is parallel understanding in the parallel thread on
>> > >> 'evolutionary hotspots'.
>> >
>> > >> 'natural selection' is an abstraction that endows the 'embodied
>> being'
>> > >> with a 'locally originating survival purpose' and the 'embodying
>> fluid
>> > >> medium' with the power to set up an obstacle course to test and
>> judge
>> > >> the 'performance' of the 'embodied being' in its (notional)
>> purposeful
>> > >> pursuit of survival and thus to 'separate the wheat from the
>> chaff';
>> > >> i.e. the 'favourites' from the 'junk' as if some of the
>> brushstrokes
>> > >> in nature's fluid-dynamical continuum ('chaff') are of lesser
>> value to
>> > >> nature's continuum.
>> >
>> > >> education, when it lines up our children in a variety of 'obstacle
>> > >> courses' in which those stronger at surviving the full course are
>> > >> regarded as 'favourites' or 'winners'' and the weaker at surviving
>> who
>> > >> fall out of the course are regarded as 'junk' or 'losers', is an
>> > >> exercise that encourages the children to strengthen their 'locally
>> > >> originating survival purpose'; i.e. it gives a lesson for life
>> that
>> > >> encourages children to fall out of harmony with the contextual
>> > >> transformation in which they are included and to instead, as local
>> > >> embodied parts, 'drive the contextual transformation' (have the
>> > >> 'embodied' become the embodying drive' (control the unfolding of
>> the
>> > >> living space dynamic)). we teach the children that it is up to
>> the
>> > >> 'favourites' to take a leadership role of the independent drivers
>> in
>> > >> this process and it is up to the 'junk' to accept their role as
>> the
>> > >> smaller dependent cogs that contribute by letting themselves be
>> driven
>> > >> by the bigger wheels, and thus contribute to the 'whole'
>> positivist
>> > >> machinery. alliances of the favourites contribute to this
>> process by
>> > >> consolidating the leadership drive.
>> >
>> > >> education, done in this manner, would appear to constitute a self-
>> > >> inflicted 'falling from grace'.
>> >
>> > >> ted
>> >
>> > >> On 20 Apr, 02:32, "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > >> > This 'thread' involving the British Educational Research
>> Association,
>> > >> > following my initial sending to this group, may be of interest.
>> >
>> > >> > Warmest
>> >
>> > >> > Alan
>> >
>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> > From: Alan Rayner (BU)
>> > >> > To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>> >
>> > >> > Cc: Wendy Ellyatt
>> > >> > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:30 AM
>> > >> > Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It
>> > >> Produces
>> > >> > 'Junk' (fwd)
>> >
>> > >> > Dear Christine,
>> >
>> > >> > Yes, all forms of deep creativity entail the transfiguration or
>> > >> loving
>> > >> > opening of the 'I' self to flow, so as to become a channel, not
>> a
>> > >> knot.
>> > >> > And I experience this sense of opening to the flow when
>> painting,
>> > >> when
>> > >> > writing, when lecturing, when in conversation - in other words
>> > >> whenever
>> > >> > corresponding within the communion of what I experience as my
>> natural
>> > >> > neighbourhood. That is, whenever I have the sense of receiving
>> and
>> > >> > offering gifts as a source both of inspiration and expiration,
>> where
>> > >> my
>> > >> > expiration is the inspiration of other as other's expiration is
>> my
>> > >> > inspiration. A flow in which acceptance of death ultimately
>> feeds
>> > >> life.
>> > >> > This flow is stifled whenever there is a lack of receptivity
>> between
>> > >> my
>> > >> > inner and my outer self. Our modern rationalistic culture lacks
>> > >> > receptivity by definition and so stifles creativity. When our
>> gifts
>> > >> are
>> > >> > not acknowledged, one way or another, the flow builds up until
>> we
>> > >> feel fit
>> > >> > to burst with frustration, as I express in the following poem:
>> >
>> > >> > Spate Attack
>> >
>> > >> > I am a river damned to bursting point
>> >
>> > >> > Required by your close confinement
>> >
>> > >> > To down regulate my outflow
>> >
>> > >> > To a pitiful trickle
>> >
>> > >> > When I long to flood
>> >
>> > >> > And see you flailing in my excesses
>> >
>> > >> > Not because I want to drown you
>> >
>> > >> > But because I want to drown the din
>> >
>> > >> > Of your inconsideration
>> >
>> > >> > For what I can bring
>> >
>> > >> > To bear down upon your pallid protestations
>> >
>> > >> > Of exception from circumstance
>> >
>> > >> > That cruelly deny my loving influence
>> >
>> > >> > So that you can take one another apart
>> >
>> > >> > In death-defying leaps of soulless mentality
>> >
>> > >> > Into the hard ground of your unreality
>> >
>> > >> > Where life feeds the pungent corpse of your annihilation
>> >
>> > >> > No, I don't want to drown you
>> >
>> > >> > But how I yearn to see you swim
>> >
>> > >> > What a fine splash you'd make!
>> >
>> > >> > Pooled together in my liquidity
>> >
>> > >> > Taken up in common spirit
>> >
>> > >> > Where all resolve to solve is gone
>> >
>> > >> > Rendered needless by your oblivion
>> >
>> > >> > Of all that you have placed to stand in the way
>> >
>> > >> > Of your dearest, loving Mother
>> >
>> > >> > --------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > >> > Since openness is the key, any totalization of 'whole' or 'part'
>> as a
>> > >> > discrete, self-possessive entity blocks the flow, like a knot in
>> a
>> > >> string
>> > >> > or clot in a channel. The 'gift' must continually move on in a
>> more
>> > >> than
>> > >> > two-body dynamic, as Lewis Hyde makes clear very early on in his
>> > >> book,
>> > >> > referring to the Kula Ring in the South Sea Islands. Here
>> > >> inclusionality
>> > >> > departs from holism and the 'gestalt' in the conventional sense,
>> > >> because
>> > >> > the very idea of 'wholes' and 'parts' COMPLETELY rationalizes
>> what is
>> > >> > naturally a CO-CREATIVE, RECEPTIVE-RESPONSIVE dynamic continuum
>> and
>> > >> blocks
>> > >> > its flow. Of course, it is this occlusion into wholes and parts,
>> > >> through
>> > >> > the exclusion of the space of zero and infinity, which lies at
>> the
>> > >> core of
>> > >> > the discontinuity of objective rationality and the foundations
>> of
>> > >> > classical and modern mathematics. This is why mathematics often
>> seems
>> > >> so
>> > >> > alien to empathic people, who may feel so disempowered by its
>> > >> oppressively
>> > >> > discontinuous, space-excluding figures as to describe themselves
>> as
>> > >> > 'stupid' or 'number-blind' (when it's
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> 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
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>