Dear All,
fypi.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
