Dear Jack,

I think this resonates with my life's work as a scientist-poet-artist, 
which has been and continues to be an endeavour to keep 'left brain and 
right brain' world views together through the dynamic intermediation of 
both. I do not seek to pit one of these against the other and question 
'which is best', but to understand how each dynamically includes and is 
vital to the other.

A short while ago, a former student on my 'Life, Environment and People' 
course sent the message and video link pasted below to me.

I think it movingly illustrates both the dangers and attractions of what I 
might identify as 'three modes of exclusion', listed below, and the need 
for these to open up inclusionally to one another:



1.     Positivistic exclusion. This is the basis for a dichotomous, 
'propositional’, ‘true or false’ logic, which effectively excludes 'space' 
from the definition of purely material form as a condensation of light. It 
lies at the root of all kinds of absolute categorization, which assume that 
an object can either ‘be’ or ‘not be’. The individual self is hence 
regarded as an absolute, internally driven free agency that is nonetheless 
subject to the imposition of external force. This agency hence either 
imposes control upon others or has control imposed on itself by others.



2.     Bilateral exclusion. This is the basis for a dichotomous, 'dialectic 
logic', which effectively treats 'space' as a 'gap between' two discrete, 
contradictory, but equally acceptable alternatives. It lies at the root of 
all kinds of enquiry and paradoxical explanations that seek to critique one 
proposition (the ‘thesis’) by expressing its alternative (the 
‘antithesis’), whilst holding that each is valid in its own terms. Amongst 
other implications of this approach, the individual self becomes caught in 
a ‘one-or-many’ conflict between its own assumed autonomy (as one of many) 
and that of the ‘group’ (the many as one) in which it is included.



3.     Negativistic exclusion.  This is the basis for a rejection of 
dichotomous logic (whether positivistic or dialectic) through a kind of 
absolute 'no logic', which effectively excludes ‘light’, by way of any kind 
of informational distinction, from ‘space’. Nature hence becomes regarded 
as an undifferentiated non-local continuum or 'All is oneness' in which any 
apparent distinction is regarded merely as a ‘visual illusion’ or 
'convenient idea/concept' imposed by the observer. Any kind of individual 
agency is effectively obliterated as the ‘self’ is merged into or ‘made one 
with’ the non-local continuum.



I suggest that the 'poetic imagination', which expresses language 
artistically, provides the corpus callosum-like channel, as distinct from 
dialectic dichotomy, between (1) and (3) so that they are brought out of 
paradoxical opposition into the dynamic reciprocal relationship of each in 
the other.


Warmest

Alan

PS I tried this out on some tutees the other morning and it affected them 
deeply.

------------------------------

Hi Alan,



I just watched this video and I really felt that it could be an interesting 
addition to the concept of inclusionality.



http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_i
nsight.html



I hope you are very well and that through your teaching you are still 
braking all these virtual boundaries that we impose on ourselves.



Antoine



--On 05 March 2009 11:37 +0000 Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Having just read Swaroop Rawal's delightful contribution to the latest
> issue of Reflective Practice I'm wondering about the validity of a way of
> thinking about ethics for educational action research that includes
> accounting for the lives we are living as practitioner-researchers in
> terms of the ethical principles we use to give our lives their meaning
> and purpose.
>
>
> What evoked this thought was Swaroop's poem at the beginning of her paper
> where she expresses her values of love, tenderness, empathy and
> compassion. See:
>
>
>
>
> Rawal, Swaroop (2009)''? as I engaged in reflection: a play in three
> acts'', Reflective Practice,10:1, 27 -32
>
>
> (for our research purposes only you can access the paper from
> http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/swarooprpfeb09.pdf - you can also
> access Swaroop's doctorate from her work at the University of Worcester
> on 'The Role Of Drama In Enhancing Life Skills In Children With Specific
> Learning Difficulties In A Mumbai School: My Reflective Account', from
> http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/rawal.shtml).
>
> What I'm taking to be ethical principles are formed from the ontological
> values we use to give our lives their meaning and purpose. In Swaroop's
> paper I see the evidence of her living these values and clarifying their
> meanings in the course of their emergence through her practice so that
> they are communicated as ethical principles.  In other words I'm seeing
> the meanings of embodied ontological values that are clarified and made
> public as the ethical principles we use to explain why it is that we do
> what we do in our educational practices and educational action research.
>
>
> The implication of what I'm saying for educational action researchers is
> that we 'should' be making public (as Swaroop has done) our explanations
> of our educational influences in our own learning and in the learning of
> our students, in ways that show both the meanings of our ethical
> principles and our explanations for how we are holding ourselves to
> account for living these principles as fully as we can. I'm wondering
> what you think of this idea of ethical principles for action research?
>
>
> Love Jack.