Dear All,
FYPI
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Inverting the unnatural 'content-over-context' primacy
Dear Ted, Harvey and all,
'Coincidentally', I have just written the following to a correspondent,
regarding my 'fear of wholeness'.
"My 'one reservation' is the focus on 'wholeness', because, to my mind, the
latter doesn't correspond with 'openness' and can indeed be experienced as
'suffocating'. Indeed I did recently experience a sense of suffocation when
looking at some mandalas in the Museum of East Asian Art in Bath, which was
only relieved by the idea of these eventually being 'washed out' from their
abstract construction within a closed circle! I prefer to speak
inclusionally about Nature as 'holeyness' or 'allness', which combines the
non-locality (everywhereness) of receptive space within and throughout the
'dynamic locality' of electromagnetic informational interfacing - as a
'breathing
[dynamic configuration of] space'. I fear the suppression of inclusional
dynamic locality (and hence unique self-identity) within a 'devouring
Mother' of 'wholeness', as distinct from a 'nurturing Mother' of
'holeyness'.
This is why I feel so strongly the need to distinguish the dynamic
local-in-non-locality (all-in-one and one-in-all, 'nested holeyness') of
'inclusionality' from the all-consuming, 'all-as-one' 'nested wholeness' of
'holism'."
----- Original Message -----
From: "emile" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Inclusional Research" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Inverting the unnatural 'content-over-context' primacy
dear harvey, alan, timo, et al,
as things go, i am back into the internet cafe due to a flight delay
of three hours (three days would have been nice!)
harvey, i do not personally see any problem with 'inclusionality' as
regards the retaining of the notion of self, though i know that in my
manner of expressing it, alan often feels that i unintentionally give
the impression that in 'inclusionality' all is one and there is no
place for 'individuality'.
but to me, as i tried to bring out in my last note, when we start
talking about the 'self' in terms of 'what we do' we very often leave
out and take for granted things like sun-shine, air, water earth, as
if it were possible for us to do what we do 'by our own self'. as
kepler pointed out, the harmonies are in the world already, man does
not make them. in his primary work 'harmonies of the world' he
pointed out how the planets 'would sing' (tenor, alto, bass) if they
could sing or if we could hear them. modern astronomers point out
that earth and all 'spheres' are natural cavity resonators and the
earth has a natural cavity resonance frequency of 7.5 hertz and this
is in phase-lock with harmonies that are in phase-lock between jupiter
and its moons and the earth's moon. none of this is visible in the
simple physics of 'what things do' as if they are local, discrete and
independent material bodies acted upon by external or internal
forces.
so, if what you or bach plays is pleasing, why is it pleasing? why
are 'octaves' and thirds and fifths, majors and minors distinguished
by us? does it have anything to do with our all coming from the same
resonant dynamics? when you play, are you not sort of invited to
play by the environment you are in?, ... by the wind that has always
been there, as the natives say? if the soprano sings in a helium
atmosphere, she sounds like hell. if you play the violin in a helium
atmosphere, no doubt it will sound like hell also. so who is making
the sound? ... you or the dynamical space you are included in?
apparently, you tease the sweet sounds out of the space you are
situated in, and without natural air, you would have to devise a new
technique that complemented the dynamical character of the space you
were included in.
ok, one side of understanding the self must be to understand the
nature of its apparent 'independence' or 'interdependence'. in my
mind, i see such things in terms of fluid-dynamics. when a sand-bar
develops or the ocean level overtakes the subsiding rocks on the
shoreline, we get 'reefs' where the circulating currents form and set
up high and low energy zones (turbulences) that open up new spatial
possibilities for dynamical forms to emerge. uniquenesses emerge and
play together ecologically and when the water deepens or the rocks
subside, the eco-play ceases. the dynamics of things condition the
dynamics of the space they are included in at the same time as the
dynamics of space condition the dynamics of the included things, the
'selfs' as unique, situationally included dynamical forms, in the flow
of nature.
it seems to me there are two steps to understanding the 'self' in
inclusional terms, and the first step is to suspend our habit of
taking the dynamics of the space we are included in 'for granted' and
the second is then to acknowledge how there is freedom of a different
kind in the manner in which we HELP TO condition the dynamics of the
space we are in which in turn is conditioning our dynamics. when
you play notes, the fluid-dynamics of air reflect back what you are
doing in a characteristic way, the same as when an ocean-going vessel
intrudes into the hydrodynamics of the ocean, ... and there is a
meeting of the two things whether we like it or not, there is not two
dynamics but one which is a simultaneous reciprocal complement in the
manner of the tree-bough splaying in the transforming airflow.
my thoughts on the interdependent freedom of the self, anyhow.
regards,
ted
On 10 Nov, 12:52, Harvey Sarles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear ted, alan, timo et al,
>
> On the issue of paradoxes. I am somewhat jealous that you were in
> Puerto Vallarta - it is 20 degrees F. here. But having lived for two
> years in S. Mexico, (and one year in Brighton), I have much of the
> world (and universe!) in "mind." - all the birds who have gone south,
> as well as those remaining here (including some geese who live on
> local lakes and on the Mississippi River near downtown Mpls.
>
> I continue to "struggle" in dealing with the human (nature),
> concerning who and how we are. I have no(!) doubt that we are in the
> world with others, are derived from, interact with others as a basic
> aspect of our being. This does not mean (to me, at any rate) that we
> are only existent with respect to others. We are "selves" as well -
> and have some sense of being and continuity as our-selves. We are
> both continuous and changing/with respect to/in the contexts of others.
>
> Paradox - means, so far, that we are duple/multi - and the
> relationships do not cancel or obliterate our sense of self, sorts of
> in-dependence, more than inter-dependence.
>
> How it happens, how all this "works" in our being, knowing is what's
> mostly in my thinking. Life and/or death, male and female, awake or
> asleep, change and/or permanence - I think we are in the midst of
> some very deep/fundamental discussions of what is the real - in the
> larger senses, and in our own being and thinking. To think of
> ourselves in the contexts of inclusionality does not seem (to me, at
> least) to deny our being, knowing. Etc. Mind, knowing::body, knowing
> - I do play the violin fairly regularly, and pretty well, and reflect
> on what I know (in the fastest/slowest senses), and what I can do.
> Every day, before I practice (actually, I don't practice every day),
> I wonder deeply if I really can perform, if theses hands, fingers,
> shoulders can do what they have to, what they will...do - to play
> Bach, as he would be played. (or typing...)
>
> Be well,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Harvey
> On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:54 PM, emile wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > dear harvey,
>
> > my view: paradoxes lose their polar opposition when we begin our
> > comprehension of the world space-first. i am saying the same thing as
> > alan here, in slightly different words.
>
> > here in puerta vallarta, before coming to this internet cafe, i was
> > looking out at the sun rising over the richly forested sierra madres,
> > the lush growth descending to surf swept golden sands bordering the
> > blue of banderas bay.
>
> > i am included in this vista. i feel the warmth of the sun and its
> > life-giving juices, i am an inclusion in this creatively unfolding
> > continuum.
>
> > if i were to build a hut here, i would be carving a hole into this
> > living space, not creating a free-standing structure. no-one would
> > come to me with a monthly bill for sunshine, fresh sea-breeze, the
> > right to forest access etc. my simple hut would be equipped with all
> > of these, therefore my hut cannot be ´mine. unless i choose to define
> > it as not including the sun'shine, air and forest it is situationally
> > included in.
>
> > when i return to pender island in british columbia, tomorrow, i will
> > be back seeking to soften the paradox that divides people there as to
> > whether ´place´ as defined by the natural space we carve our home-
> > holes in, over ´people´as defined by the sovereign-nation granted
> > ´right´to own land and to do with it what one wants. there is no
> > paradox here if we think of our land as a hole carved into the
> > continuum of our natural living space. people are included in place.
>
> > but those who put ´´people´ first and their owned structures, take the
> > sun, water and air for granted, as commodities to be exploited and
> > consumed in our anthropocentric needs satisfaction.
>
> > this difference in view, we have built into our enculturated western
> > social dynamic.
>
> > it is abstraction based and does not reconcile with our experience.
>
> > there is no people place paradox if we acknowledge our inclusionality.
>
> > regards,
>
> > ted
>
> > On 5 Nov, 09:44, Harvey Sarles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> ted,
>
> >> One more issue (for now). The question - not only/merely of
> >> inclusionality, context, etc., but how is it that we live paradoxical
> >> lives?
>
> >> How is it that change and permanence co-exist in our being? Is life
> >> (and/thence the world) deeply or essentially paradoxical, in what I
> >> have been referring to as "Life Paradoxes?" How important is paradox:
> >> change/permanence, life/death, male/female, sleep/wakefulness (a
> >> favorite of Heraclitus), and perhaps some dozen or so others?
>
> >> One important global issue of different "traditions" is that some of
> >> them seem to want to make paradoxes "complementary" (Confucian,
> >> perhaps especially), while Western thought (and, interestingly)
> >> Amerindian thought seem to want to "resolve" them (reality is either
> >> change or permanence, not one or the other, while Confucian thought
> >> has us living both, perhaps in different life-moments - i.e, the I
> >> Ching.)
>
> >> Perhaps interesting? - central to some current issues between Western
> >> religion and naturalism!?
>
> >> harvey
> >> On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:15 PM, emile wrote:
>
> >>> dear harvey,
>
> >>> i found your 'context' essay at; http://harveysarles.com/the-
> >>> foundations-project-context/
>
> >>> i look forward to reading it.
>
> >>> meanwhile, a quick scan suggests that we are talking about the same
> >>> things, or close to the same things.
>
> >>> for example, we can observe the flapping of the wing of a
> >>> wildgoose as
> >>> if it were a content-driven action (the wing moves and pushes air
> >>> out
> >>> of its way).
>
> >>> but we can alternatively observe the flapping of the wing in
> >>> terms of
> >>> its 'taking direction from the dynamical context it is included in';
> >>> i.e. it is engaging in a manner wherein its potentiality for
> >>> moving is
> >>> in conjugation with the opening of spatial possibility to move.
>
> >>> this 'taking direction from context' is like a child taking
> >>> direction
> >>> from its mother, its mother in this case being the dynamical
> >>> space it
> >>> is included in which includes the dynamics of its peers. were
> >>> it to
> >>> deny 'taking direction from its mother', it might simply mimic its
> >>> peers in which case the context would end up being the sum of the
> >>> content.
>
> >>> in your context essay, you say something similar in regard to
> >>> 'content' in language;
>
> >>> "It means, also, that any observed `word’ not only is that word
> >>> (i.e.,
> >>> contains within its duration information specifying that it is that
> >>> word and not any others), but that within its duration there is also
> >>> information about where it is in the sentence. Thus, every
> >>> linguistic
> >>> `event’ (e.g., a `word’) is both event and context for itself and
> >>> what
> >>> surrounds it, or it is somehow `about’ the structure within which it
> >>> is embedded.
>
> >>> What this could mean, to generalize, is that many/most events we
> >>> note
> >>> or observe are not only or merely those events (i.e., what we think,
> >>> for whatever reasons, is that event), but they also carry
> >>> information
> >>> about structures and context.
>
> >>> Why I think this is complicated: in contexts that we already operate
> >>> within, the fact that, e.g., words vary according to location in a
> >>> sentence, was not before noted. So we are (we must be!) the kinds of
> >>> observers who accommodate at least some sorts of contexts already in
> >>> our observations. That is, we do not self-consciously note the
> >>> dynamics but somehow act as if they are not there while
> >>> simultaneously
> >>> taking them into account in our own familiar worlds. In others’
> >>> worlds
> >>> we do not take them into account, but act as if we can observe
> >>> clearly; i.e. outside of context. (Our tendency is to apologize for
> >>> this by assuming whomever or whatever we observe is simpler than we
> >>> are.) So the problem is in `knowing’ what we see, `learning’ how to
> >>> see/observe as if we are within the proper context and structure,
> >>> etc."
>
> >>> * * *
>
> >>> it seems to me that we do this same thing to the geese, assume that
> >>> they are simpler than we are and thus that the flapping of their
> >>> wing
> >>> is just that, the flapping of their wing.
>
> >>> we should have to impute to the goose, our own sort of inclusional
> >>> experience of being buffeted in the turbulence and since buffetting
> >>> has certain cyclicities to it, letting our flapping attune to those
> >>> cyclicities since it is easier to flap with the subsiding of the
> >>> pressure (to push forwards as the crest of the wave of pressure
> >>> passes) rather than to 'beat against it'). and of course, this
> >>> 'conjugates' our flapping action with the mediating of the dynamical
> >>> medium we share inclusion in. if we used some lighting scheme
> >>> that
> >>> showed pressure in the turbulent air, we could see this, but it is
> >>> easier just to see and describe the flapping of the wing, and to
> >>> make
> >>> a diagrame showing force vectors and venturi effect etc which serves
> >>> to 'localize' the phenomenon.
>
> >>> so, just how far does this thing we are calling 'context' go? from
> >>> language to the flight of wildgeese?
>
> >>> charles kahn, in 'the art and thought of heraclitus' noted that
> >>> heraclitus made use of 'intentional ambiguity' of the same word (by
> >>> using it in differing 'contexts') and bringing home its meaning
> >>> through 'linguistic resonance'(the way the word brings things into
> >>> coherent connection) which tended to convey meaning without
> >>> dependency
> >>> on explicit content. the content meaning was merely a temporary
> >>> device to 'bootstrap' the conveying of
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
