----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
'ethics'.
> PS. I don't see-feel inclusionality as a half-way house to 'endarkenment'.
> I feel-see endarkenment as a more than half way house to inclusionality.
> Whereas endarkenment may indeed cut us adrift in meditative repose on a
> sea of nothingness, blissfully oblivious, in the moment, of our human
> companionship, vulnerability and needs, inclusionality can indeed bring
> anguish, through the awareness of suffering brought by the desire for
> definition and a longing to help bring about release from this addiction.
> That is why I feel a few of us have been working so hard to to try to help
> bring about inclusional understanding, to get us out of the 'whole',
> closed geometry trap of rationalistic thought. Inclusionality involves
> both differentiation and integration, not one or the other, in the
> recognition of the distinctness of every somewhere local as a dynamic
> inclusion of everywhere non-local. We recognise and cherish both our
> uniqueness and commonality, simultaneously. Compassion and empathy -
> fellow-feeling - come naturally, and with full intellectual justification
> (i.e. not just because we've gone 'soft'). We get out of the box of
> cruelty and opposition imposed by thoughts of competition and unnatural
> selection and into the pool of warmth of natural inclusion and communion.
> This doesn't remove pain or natural aggression etc, but it does avoid
> aggravating them unnecessarily.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
> 'ethics'.
>
>
>
> Dear Ted,
>
> Yes, I am sure we are, in principle, in full accord on this and that we
> simply have different ways of expressing, in language, the same insight.
> But
> maybe the different expressions we are using relate to some important
> underlying issues to do with the communication and intellectual
> implications
> of inclusionality in a human context.
>
> As someone who, by dint of my position as a "University Reader in
> Biology",
> is all too readily labelled as 'an academic' or even 'a boffin' who is
> bound
> to talk over the heads of the common people in esoteric language, I am all
> too aware of widespread anti-intellectualism stemming from a sense of
> alienation that develops in a competitive educational system. I only have
> to
> mention the word 'geometry', let alone 'natural inclusion' or 'dynamic
> relational flow-form', to see fear and glaze in people's eyes. Perversely,
> this anti-intellectualism is also creeping into academia itself, as it
> seeks
> to 'gratify the consumer' and simplistify its language and constructs - as
> is all too evident in 'popular science'. I am aware of great pressure to
> conform with this tendency if I am to make my inclusional understanding
> more
> accessible. But of course, I can't conform with it if I am to remain true
> to
> what is revealed when the desire for simplistic definition and 'concrete
> example' is suspended.
>
> I think this anti-intellectualism is dangerous in that it actually hands
> power over to objective rationalists, so that they can operate safely as a
> cloth-eared crony group within the walls of their own constructs and
> dismiss
> any objections as 'irrational', 'mystical', 'new-agey', 'emotional',
> 'superstitious', 'religious' etc. They rarely or never get seriously
> challenged on the grounds of the inadequacy of the intellectual
> foundations
> upon which their rationalistic conceptualizations (i.e. rationalizations)
> are built. This is why I think it is so important to develop inclusional
> conceptualizations, based on the insight that we and all other
> local-non-local flow-forms are dynamic inclusions of an open space
> geometry.
> There is a need both to undermine the rigid abstract constructs that are
> built upon a desire for definition (which sustains the illusion of
> certainty
> and individual freedom) and to develop more fluid intellectual foundations
> that are not at odds with our human feelings and life experience.
>
> So, to my mind, our challenge is two-fold.
>
> Firstly we need to enable the suspension of the desire for discrete
> definition that underpins rationalistic thought and produces all kinds of
> conceptual artefacts that are accepted as 'logical' by Mr Spock types,
> neo-Darwinists and Cybermen, even though they may conflict with the
> 'emotional frailties' and 'error-proneness' of fleshy human mortals, not
> to
> mention the natural world. To accomplish this, and so allow the
> inclusional
> insight to flower instead of being trapped in bud by an artificially
> imposed
> closed space geometry, there is a need to demonstrate the intellectual
> fallacy upon which rationalism is based and the logical inconsistencies
> and
> iniquities that it leads to.
>
> Secondly, there is a need to show the enriched and deepened intellectual
> landscape that opens up when our thinking is attuned with our feeling and
> experience of life, based on the inclusional insight that may indeed come
> naturally to other life forms without their even having consciously to
> 'think about it'. Being human, we do seem to need to think about it, so
> the
> provision of thinking tools - conceptualizations but not
> rationalizations -
> that liberate from instead of imposing discrete definition is important.
>
> None of this is possible when the heart is at war with the head.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "emile" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Inclusional Research" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
> 'ethics'.
>
>
>
> dear alan,
>
> i believe that we are ‘together’ but our preference for what words we
> use differs.
>
> while i ‘can see the case for’ referring to ‘intuition’ (inclusional
> understanding) as a form of ‘intellection’, i try to avoid this
> because, to me, intuition (inclusional understanding) is more like
> being informed by ‘direct experiential awareness’ that is available to
> us when ‘intellection shuts down’. to me, it is a mode of
> understanding that permeates the universe and that crystals, frogs and
> trees can tap into as well as humans. ‘rationality’ is the ‘odd man
> out’, and i agree that eckhart tolle and others tend to equate ‘mind’
> with ‘rational mind’ and that inclusionality is somehow giving us
> ‘intermediate traction’ that stands between ‘rationality’ and the
> ‘enlightenment’ that tolle and others refer to (and i like their work,
> too, but i believe ‘inclusionality’ offers something different that is
> very much helpful to understanding, that we can get to without having
> to get all the way to ‘enlightenment’ as in tolle’s terms.
>
> ‘inclusionality’ is a different way of understanding, but my
> preference is to avoid calling it ‘intellection-of-another-type’ or a
> ‘conceptualizing-of-another-type’ because that, to me, gives it an
> ‘anthropocentrism’ which i think is inappropriate. i think that
> ‘inclusionality’ is available to ‘the planets’ for example, but i
> hesitate to attribute ‘intellection’ and ‘conceptualization’ to the
> planets. kepler actually struggled with this one too, as he pondered
> how all manner of creatures and works of nature were immediately and
> continuously informed of the ‘harmonies of the world’; i.e. they
> didn’t have to study astronomy and go through all its time-consuming,
> complicated ‘ratiocinative intellections’ in order to ‘live within the
> harmonies of the world’.
>
> meanwhile, i agree with you that we are talking about some form of
> understanding, of ‘open space geometry’, that pops up when we ‘suspend
> the dominance of rational intellection’, or rather, ‘rational
> intellection is suspended when it pops up’.
>
> what comes to my mind is that what we are talking about is what bleeds
> through when we ‘break’ rational concepts. for example, poincaré
> posed the question ‘does the earth turn’ to illustrate the fact that
> the concepts that this proposition depends upon, the axiomatic
> existence or persisting identity of ‘local objects’ (the earth) and
> ‘their local behaviour’, which depends upon us imposing the convention
> of absolute space. i would say that an understanding comes to us
> when we demolish (suspend) a prescriptive concept such as ‘the earth
> turns’. the understanding that comes from this is that we cannot
> isolate and localize dynamical form and dynamical behaviour, ... that
> such dynamical forms and behaviours, while we like to talk about them
> as ‘local’, are never local.
>
> to me, this inclusional understanding is not really ‘intellection’ or
> ‘conceptualization’, it is a reminder that our intellection, our
> powers of conceptualizing, have created these localized concepts and
> their local dynamics, and when we ‘withdraw’ or ‘suspend’ them, we are
> back in the realm of the nameless dynamical continuum (flow) which we
> cannot really talk about. that is, we back out of our desire to
> ‘grasp’ what a local dynamical form is in itself and we become
> ‘desireless’ by accepting the oneness of the nonlocal fluid-dynamical
> continuum of nature. i feel that this inclusional understanding that
> comes to us as we collapse concepts such as ‘the earth turns’ is what
> is being described by lao tsu in the following;.
>
> "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
> The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
> The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
> The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
> Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
> Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
> These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
> this appears as darkness.
> Darkness within darkness
> The gate to all mystery
> --- Lao Tsu, 'Tao Te Ching'
>
> ok, while i believe that frogs and planets are ‘in touch with
> inclusionality’, i acknowledge that frogs and planets are not going to
> ponder and reflect on zeroids and superchannels, which might be taken
> to mean that zeroids are concepts and the pondering of zeroids is
> ‘intellection’ and while that me be true, per se, the usual result of
> intellection is to grasp something, the parmenidian ‘what is’ that is
> intended by the concepts, but as in the example of ‘does the earth
> turn’, the role played by the conceptualization and intellection is to
> prepare you for having the rug (or floor) whipped out from beneath
> your feet, so that the feeling based understanding you get as you
> start to free-fall is where the meat of the understanding is, this
> sort of understanding permeates the space we are included in.
>
> inclusionality is thus a kind of language game that employs
> intellection and conceptualization for the purpose of deconstructing/
> collapsing rational intellection and conceptualization. what is
> ‘left’ when the intellection and conceptualization is ‘collapsed’ is
> no longer ‘intellection’ and ‘conceptualization’, but faintly coloured
> pee-holes in the flow where they formerly resided.
>
> in this view, the metaphors and anecdotes of inclusionality, and the
> ‘transfigural mathematics’ of inclusionality do not deliver to us an
> understanding of ‘the way the world is’, they are a device for
> deconstructing the intellectualizations and conceptualizations of the
> way the world is that reside in our minds, ... so as to open the door
> that allows us to get into a direct understanding of the ineffable
> flow/world we live in, that precedes (transcends) words and concepts
> and intellections based thereon.
>
> when ‘it comes to me’ what poincare intends when he says that it is
> nonsense to say that ‘the earth turns’, the intellectually imposed
> limits dissolve and i am included in what i am looking out at. ok,
> this is not ‘enlightenment’ but it is insight that associates with the
> collapse of intellectual concepts and imagery. unlike enlightenment
> (which millions read about but almost no-one is able to get to), the
> insights that come from ‘inclusionality’ are available to all those
> that can ‘let go’ of their desire to make sense of a bunch of
> interference patterns on a printed page, and by becoming desireless,
> image a three-dimensional form [hologram]encoded in the interference
> patterns.
> ok, you could call these insights ‘intellectual insights’ but i think
> of them as faintly coloured pee-holes in the intellectual ‘snow-
> cover’.
>
> whatever we call them, we need them.
>
> inresonance,
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> 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
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
|