Print

---

Karl, Alan, Ted, Bob et al,
Sadly, I don't have much time/energy since teaching began a month  
ago. I have been trying to follow all the arguments, and find it a  
"lot."

My major issue, I think, is that we are having some sort of argument  
(at the least) about human nature and morality. My "take" on this is  
to return to my notion (a G.H. Meadian "inversion" - the actuality of  
human survival as persons) is that we are "moral" because we were all  
raised by m/others with whom we were "attached" (Mead and Lorenz and  
Bowlby - what Child Development is exploring and claiming these days.)

We are not individuals merely "continuous" with our physically-born  
bodies - but "emergent" from very deep and extended relationships  
with our m/others without whom we do not survive. The morality (See:  
my attachment" on "The Genesis of Morality" occurs as we emerge from  
being attached with our m/others and develop a "self" or an "I" -  
when we become "dangerous" (moving, jumping, running...) our m/others  
have to work hard to convince the child to take care of itself "as  
she would." Morality - good and bad - is thus an aspect of our being  
human, and continuing to develop. (There's a theory of how we come to  
have language here, as well - later.)

Thus good and bad, making judgments is already an aspect of our  
continuing being. (This is, of course, a most important argument here  
with the continuing rise and power of the strong religious who claim  
that only the deity "makes" us moral.
Harvey


On Oct 6, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Karl Rogers wrote:

> Dear Alan,
>
> When I have time, I shall have a look at your book chapter.  
> Perhaps, you would care to have another look at my post on the  
> nature of dialectical reason and respond to that because I think  
> that it may well clarify some of our differences in perspective if  
> you did.
>
> You say
> "I suspect we humans are predisposed to such confrontational  
> thinking through our increasing reliance on our visual and tactile  
> senses, whilst disregarding or taking for granted our gravitational  
> senses."
>
> But, why did human beings increasingly rely on their visual and  
> tactile senses, rather than their gravitational senses? If this is  
> an error and "anti-natural" then how did it happen and from whence  
> did human beings obtain the capacity to do this?
>
> "Given the position you are adopting, I don't think that I alone  
> can ever convince you about the full significance of inclusional  
> awareness, however much philosophical work I do."
>
> Given that you have not done the philosophical work, then I do not  
> know whether you would convince me or not. But, the crucial  
> difference is that YOU have been claiming that I SHOULD adopt  
> inclusional thinking and, good manners, if nothing else, would  
> suggest that the onus is on YOU to explain why.
>
> "I can only invite you to try it and see if it makes sense or if  
> you can make sense of 'it'. And I can try to respond to your  
> queries and criticisms along the way."
>
> Fair enough. But, in fact, you have not responded to many of my  
> criticisms, nor have you addressed any of my criticisms of your  
> claims that any attempt to define poverty or human rights is an  
> error. I would like to understand why you think that it is an error  
> to do so, given that, as both the 1948 UN Declaration of Universal  
> Human Rights and the recent Declaration European Court of Human  
> Rights shows, human beings clearly can define such things. What I  
> want to understand is why you think that we should refrain from  
> doing so.
>
> "All I can say is that currently inclusionality makes enormous  
> sense to me in view of my personal experiences and scientific  
> knowledge."
>
> Again, fair enough. But I have not had your personal experiences  
> and, as far as I understand it, you are attempting to extend your  
> theory of biological dynamics to encompass human relations. In view  
> of my personal experiences, scientific knowledge, and studies of  
> social theories, while your theory has merits as a theory of  
> biological dynamics, it is inadequate as a basis of a social theory  
> because it cannot explain many aspects of human relations or  
> structures, without simply considering them to be an error, which  
> is a judgement not an explanation, and it cannot adequately account  
> for the way that human beings are able to publicly develop and  
> differentiate goals, goods, and purposes as a causal factor in  
> human action and further development and differentiation.
>
> "For anyone who deeply comprehends it, inclusionality provides a  
> way of understanding evolutionary processes in terms of natural  
> flow-form as a dynamic inclusion of space, not an occupier of space."
>
> Yeah, that's the part I seemed to have understood. What I am  
> questioning is its application to human relations.
>
> "This could be enormous news for the scientific community as a  
> dynamic inclusion of the human community as a dynamic inclusion of  
> nature, relevant to all aspects of our lives together."
>
> It is relevant to many aspects, sure, but is it relevant to ALL  
> aspects. I am not so sure. It seems reductive to me but I suspect  
> that this has occured because you do not recognise the qualitative  
> developments and differences between the structures of human  
> society and biological dynamics. One needs to recognise these  
> development and differences in order to understand how, as Douglas  
> Adams put it, human beings move from the questions of what do we  
> eat? and how do we eat? to where shall we have lunch?
>
> Given that you seem to have some conceptual problems in  
> understanding how goals and purposes can be emergent from human  
> relations, then this possibly explains why you have been unable to  
> adequately distinguish between human history and human evolution.  
> Without such a distinction then it will be nigh on impossible for  
> you to develop inclusionality from being a theory of biological  
> dynamics to being an adequate social theory.
>
> As you seem to want other people to find your theory plausible,  
> then I suggest that the onus is on you to do the work to make it  
> so. Otherwise you'll only be preaching to the converted.
>
> "...there are opportunities for radical new approaches to education  
> and all kinds of human enquiry."
>
> Indeed there are. More than one can shake a proverbial stick at.  
> The question is why should we consider these radical new  
> approaches. What do they hope to achieve and will it be good for  
> human beings to develop them?
>
> "None of these precludes anything, least of all critical  
> consideration of goals and ends."
>
> You say that. Which is fine by me. But our disagreement began when  
> you excluded my suggestion that a critical examination of goals and  
> ends was an important characteristic of wisdom enquiry. If you had  
> included this from the onset, then we would not be disagreeing  
> about it. I refer you to your own words on the Ten Characteristics  
> of Wisdom-Enquiry thread, if your memory has failed you.
>
> "That 'Catch 22', the idea that inclusionality excludes  
> exclusionality comes from an exclusional perspective, not an  
> inclusional situation."
>
> I think that the "Catch-22" situation comes from your repeated  
> appeal to subjective defintions and meanings, in order to claim  
> that others have misunderstood your meaning or intentions, as if  
> your meanings or intentions are fixed and definitive, while denying  
> others the right to make any explicit defintions and meanings at  
> all. You seem to have a defintion of "defintion", as something  
> fixed and absolute, and it is upon this definition that you make a  
> judgement against defintions, while, on the other hand, you reject  
> other peoples' right to make such defintions for anything else  
> because, by your defintion, such defintions are abstractions that  
> have poor applicability to the dynamics of nature.
>
> As I tried to explain at length, defintions are open to critical  
> examination, revision, modification, refinement, and rejection.  
> They are emergent from a structured historical continuum of prior  
> efforts and choices.
>
> If you were to consistently apply the principle of the inclusional  
> middle to inclusional thinking then you would not be able to claim  
> that you have some fixed and privileged understanding of what  
> inclusionality means, nor would you have any basis for criticising  
> others for making defintions, given that they would be as  
> transitive as your own understanding of inclusionality.
>
> Hence, the reason why I am critical of your claims. I suspect that  
> you do not understand your own theory as well as you think you do.  
> And, if you take it upon yourself to play the role of a referee of  
> discourse, then you should expect to be challenged by others who do  
> not accept your rules of discourse.
>
> best regards,
> Karl.
>
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all  
> new Yahoo! Security Centre.