Dear Christine and all,
I'm attaching Chapter 5 of 'Natural Inclusion' which shows how a move from
regarding death as annihilation/extinction/ending of the purely material
'self' as a definable object, to viewing death as an opening for
reconfiguration of evolutionary possibility - literally a 'passing on', not
a capitulation to other, can transform the fundamental nature of our
evolutionary understanding as indicated in attached Chapter 6.
Unlike those who currently perpetuate the myth of 'natural selection',
Darwin lived in a Victorian context in which Science was stuck with
Newtonian mechanics and hadn't been through the upheavals of relativity and
quantum mechanics, let alone the development of non-linear dynamical
systems theory. It was therefore kind of 'natural' in an artefactual way
that he interpreted his observation in the way that he did. Even so, it is
not an observable truth that [some]finches die [whilst] others adapt and
survive. It is an observable truth that all finches die and that the
material contents of their bodies are recycled and re-configured into the
living bodies of others who die in turn in an endless process of
evolutionary and ecological transformation, whereby 'death feeds life'. The
very notion of 'survival of the fittest' or indeed, dare I say,
'resurrection of exactly the same identity' manifests a desire for
immortality that refuses to 'pass on to other' and so blocks the
evolutionary gift flow in a horrible way that can lead the flow to backfire
and 'feed death with life', as in wartime and cancer.
More prosaically, I was reflecting this morning how the notion of
'adaptation' as a one-way demand upon the organism to fit a prescribed
niche (or get lost!) relates to current notions of employment whereby
employees are required to fit the job description, not for the job
description to be suited to them (as in the inclusional concept of
'attunement', based on two-way resonance). This I am sure is a prime source
of distress in employment where no account is taken of our personal context
and the panoply of skills that we can bring to our work situation. Instead,
we find our unique creative potential rendered down to assessment by tick
box, and dismissed if we can't supply all that is prescribed - regardless
of all the giftedness we might be able to offer otherwise. The same
applies, of course, in a standard educational curriculum. Another example
of how a competitive Darwinian selection mentality is grinding us down...
Warmest
Alan
--On 25 April 2008 07:40 +0100 "STANDING, Christine" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> The piece has huge areas of resonance for me. That play is a necessary
> part of learning and healing takes a central position in art therapy.
> That play is a necessary part of growing, developing, transforming; that
> 'recreation' is dependent on play, forms my epistemology. In my
> not-so-distant past, a person in a teaching situatiion watched my
> attempts on a computer to formulate a poster. He raised his voice,
> ?that?s not how to be creative!? As I tried to explain, he interrupted
> me by raising his voice further. Had I not been so shocked I would have
> told him, ??nor is yelling at someone a way to force them into being
> creative.? I might also have told him that his behaviour had the same
> dynamics as rape, forcing me to comply with his own ideas.
>
> So I like the ideas of inclusionality with its co-creative, fluid
> dynamics.?rather like those 1960s fluid lamps?.what were they called?
> that formed blobs, and united with other blobs, only to rise and fall,
> break up and reconvene. Can you imagine one of the blobs suddenly moving
> in a different way, amoeba-like, striking out at another!
>
> I love the idea of ?life as a gift of natural inclusion in co-creative
> energy flow, to be held openly and passed on with love and care, not a
> possession or trophy to be competed for.? I love it, but I have a
> problem with it too. How do you explain the observation that led Darwin
> to formulate the concept of ?survival of the fittest? as part of
> evolution? Darwin was observing and formulating what we would now call
> an explanatory model. Finches do die; others adapt and survive. This is
> an observable truth. I was part of the educational system that modelled
> survival of the fittest; I did not thrive but merely survived!
>
>
> As I say that I am reminded that part of my thesis will grapple with a
> theology of creation-fall-redemption-restoration of which transformation
> (and thriving) is a part. Is your idea of the gift also that which I
> call creation? Is death part of what I call ?the fall?. What does the
> fall, and death, look like in your world of ever-creative fluid dynamics?
>
> It is said that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. What WAS he
> thinking!
>
> Best wishes,
> Christine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:17:26 +0100
> Subject: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces
> 'Junk' (fwd)
>
>
> ----- 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
> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________
>
> 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.
|
