> Dear Cathie,
>
> Many thanks. I will endeavour to follow this up, and also point it out to 
> others. To be honest, I knew nothing about Deleuzian philosophy when you 
> last wrote, and had to look it up on the web. I was a little tickled also 
> by the sound-alike of 'Delusion'.
>
> Do please feel free to expand on your own thoughts about the possible 
> relationship between Deleuzian philosophy and the communication and 
> meaning of inclusionality (perhaps by joining the inclusional-research 
> discussion group). Likewise anyone else on this list.
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Cathie Pearce" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>; "BERA 
> Practitioner-Researcher" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundationsof 
> 'ethics'.
>
>
>> HI
>>
>> sorry to go on about Deleuze again but I think Deleuzian philosophy is 
>> really helpful to these kinds of discussion and
>> conceptualisations  and for the kinds of tasks that Ted feels are so 
>> important from text below(and with which I have to agree
>> with). A couple of things occurred to me  in reading your exchanges:
>>
>> Deleuze refers to 'intensities'  and I think this helps to remind? 
>> refocus? in ways that closed systems, definitions and
>> rationalities exhaust ideas rather than generate them...
>>
>> what would an 'ethics of discord' (rather than say, a politics of 
>> concensus)  enable us to think  and do?   and  how can
>> differences be productively generative without appealing to their 
>> visible, measurable and defineable qualities or indeed  any
>> reifying tendencies?
>>
>> how do we negotiate between  beliefs and desire; conviction and 
>> persuasion?  on the one hand if we are taken over by one we never
>> experience the tension  and is it not in the tension of their 
>> irreconcilability that we can literally sense?  and sense in all its
>> variations as well?  to lose this space or move to a more transcendental 
>> level (ie an appeal to a higher communion?)  surely
>> covers   up or covers over differences....
>> .... ought the question be how do we respond?  if not in our usual, 
>> habitual and already known ways?  or is it a question of the
>> question... just one that has to emerge from such exchanges?
>>
>> Cathie
>>
>>
>>>>> "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]> 29/08/2008 12:15 >>>
>> ----- 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
>>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Dr Cathie Pearce
>> Research Fellow
>> ESRI
>> MMU
>>
>> tel: 0161 247 2074
>>
>> Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read 
>> the
>> Manchester Metropolitan University's email disclaimer available on its 
>> website
>> http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer
>>
>>
>