Yes: I suspect that ecologists and biologists would feel strongly this
way; And hopefully act and protest which means that I/we will not melt
or taken to hell by turnedos/horricanes as we let Bush and the
neoliberals screw the planet for us. Alon
Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:
> PS
>
> It occurs further to me to suggest that ontological security (comfort) is
> to be found in RECEPTIVITY - the inductive (loving/maternal) influence to
> which all flow-forms gravitate and fall into place with one-another in
> natural dynamic neighbourhood. When this receptivity is absented from our
> cultural pararadigms, we seek security instead by reinforcing our
> individual and collective boundaries, thereby both walling ourselves in and
> walling ourselves out of natural correspondence. It is this absence of the
> presence of absence that I wish to re-present in our educational
> re-evolution.
>
> --On 20 December 2006 12:29 +0000 Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Alan,
>>
>> Yes, I devoded past research and its scope to the Gibsons' ecological
>> psychology affordance, very similar, within cognitive psychology
>> (vision), to what you are saying here. And am still susbscribing to this
>> idea.
>>
>> For my present scope and project, I should like very much to correct, as
>> far as my interests and scope are concerned, your 'objective' entity' to
>> a 'subjective' being/becoming self/auto-transforming in the world. I
>> have a personal humanistic dislike to 'objective' and objective entities
>> as far daseins, human subjects, are concerned. I just cannot see human
>> as anything to do with object and objective. I see this, ironicaly, as
>> wholly biased. That is why my scope now is to show a different
>> perspective and more unbiased that is subjective and dealing with
>> subjects.
>>
>> I am focusing, for what else can I do as one person but focus my scope,
>> on embodiment as a non demagogical and more humanistic and dignifying
>> heuristic approach to human existence.Alon
>>
>> Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Dear Alon,
>>>
>>> I think what you say here illustrates all too clearly how invasive
>>> totalitarianism engenders defensive totalitarianism through the breakdown
>>> of trust. The abused is seemingly left with little option but to try
>>> autopoietically to construct, reconstruct and protect their local
>>> self-identity through a semi-permeable facade that isolates them one-way
>>> from their neighbourhood and precludes two-way (mutual)
>>> receptive-responsiveness. The Vampire Archetype reproduces itself in its
>>> victims. Likewise, Vampiric conventional educational practices reproduce
>>> themselves in learners, who become additional Bricks in the Wall of
>>> exclusional practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is why I think an 'Educational Re-evolution' based on 'Natural
>>> Inclusion' (cf objective comparison and selection) is necessary, at the
>>> heart of which is a move from regarding the individual self as an
>>> objective 'entity', embodied 'in the world' (an occupier of living
>>> space) to appreciating the self as OF THE WORLD, a fluid dynamic,
>>> COMPLEX IDENTITY with both local and non-local dimensions. We need to
>>> move from a system that instructs purely how to discriminate, to one
>>> that equips with the ability both to integrate and differentiate in an
>>> evolutionarily co-creative natural neighbourhood where One can never
>>> consistently Stand Alone.
>>>
>>> I think you can play a vitally important role in this re-evolution if you
>>> allow your defensive barriers to relax (they don't have to be removed
>>> ENTIRELY!), softening and hardening as appropriate to circumstance rather
>>> than being absolutely defined.
>>>
>>>
>>> Warmest
>>>
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> --On 19 December 2006 16:40 +0000 Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Alan,
>>>>
>>>> As I am writing this, I am listening via the web to a very disturbing
>>>> Israeli radio programme that tells the story of the Polish Jewish
>>>> holocaust survivors who were murdered after the war and their liberation
>>>> from Auschwitz. This explains and embodied my idea on trusting no one
>>>> but yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure there is a contradiction between what you are saying and
>>>> what I saying. I am not sure that I have ever written that I, and the
>>>> individual, is/am isolated from the world. On the contrary, I always
>>>> said that the 'I' is embodied in the world. And responding to,
>>>> interelating and engaging with the world for his/her auto-poietic
>>>> progress. Still, I also talked about the need for self-education as the
>>>> most productive education. This is why I sanf Pink Floyd (Another Brick
>>>> in the Wall, verse 2) to my teachers. Alon
>>>> Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alon,
>>>>>
>>>>> Great!
>>>>>
>>>>> As I'll be going off-line shortly, I thought I'd let you have a very
>>>>> preliminary response (and also to your second message which came in as
>>>>> I was composing this one).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm intrigued by your feeling that moving to 'we' is a 'betrayal' of
>>>>> 'I'. I do indeed accept that the 'I' needs to love and care for itself,
>>>>> but as part of that loving and caring I see the receptive-responsive
>>>>> opening up, in appropriate circumstances, of communication channels
>>>>> with its neighbourhood - like a hedgehog uncurling, a seed
>>>>> germinating, an egg hatching, a tree forming mycorrhizal partnerships
>>>>> with fungi etc - as vital to its well-becoming (dynamic ontology)as an
>>>>> expressive, space-embodying, flow-form.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that real life cycles (or, better, 'spirals') are all about the
>>>>> transitions between latent and expressive forms of spatial inclusion.
>>>>> The HUGE mistake, as I see it, of objective rationality, through the
>>>>> exclusion of space ('boundless fifth dimension'), has been to try
>>>>> externally to FORCE (rather than inclusionally dissolve or melt) latent
>>>>> form into expressive form (motion).
>>>>>
>>>>> It is this contrast with objective rationality that I hoped to draw
>>>>> attention to in my invention (yes, it was me who thought of this term)
>>>>> of the term 'inclusionality' (Contrasting 'including all' with
>>>>> 'rationing' or 'rationalizing' reality into discrete factions and
>>>>> fractions through collapsing its dimensionality down to three, plus
>>>>> time). Whatever term one uses is rarely likely to please everybody.
>>>>> Having put it out there I have to stay with it. Correspondingly, I do
>>>>> appreciate your sense of obligation to stay with your presently
>>>>> constructed heuristics, and I recognise that it is valuable and
>>>>> courageous for you to show in public how you have struggled (with what
>>>>> I see as the paradox) to apply this in living your own life. I also
>>>>> suspect you may not find the ontological crisis (transformation) of
>>>>> opening up (relaxing) this construction as unpleasant as you fear. In
>>>>> fact, you might find it rejuvenating and revitalizing! Who the Hell is
>>>>> Telling You You are too Old?! Perhaps that's the strain of the
>>>>> heuristics telling upon you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmest
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On 19 December 2006 15:26 +0000 Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan - Thank you very muchfor this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will take time to reflect and internalise your very fair and
>>>>>> productive constructive criticism and will unfold a single chunk
>>>>>> reflection over time and space, in the way that as a trained
>>>>>> phenomenologist, I was, myself, taught and tught others to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd commence with my main training as a personality, clinical
>>>>>> psychologist and therapist who believs that a therapist role is to
>>>>>> help one to help herself: The self namely the 'I' is an ever cimplex
>>>>>> matter, constructed of some vicious self-self struggles. Shouldn't
>>>>>> it be wise to deal with it before moving to the we? Isn't moving to
>>>>>> the we a betrayal of the 'I'. Doesn't the 'I' has an obligation for
>>>>>> itself to take care of itself in a loving and productive fashion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More reflections and questions will unfold soon and during course. I
>>>>>> just want to pick up on your claim that I'd be offended. On the
>>>>>> contrary I welcome your challenge very much and am veruy prompt to
>>>>>> respond constructively to show that I have nothing but respect for you
>>>>>> for this entry. Alon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was going to post a response to Sarah's description of
>>>>>>> 'fluffy-bunniness' and reference to Alon's bone-chilling honesty
>>>>>>> yesterday, but was forestalled by her personal critique of Jack,
>>>>>>> which I can neither entirely accept nor entirely reject, though I
>>>>>>> can sense and acknowledge the pain that must underlie it and hope
>>>>>>> that this can be allowed the space to ease.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For myself, I just want to see the amazing creative conversation
>>>>>>> space that has been opened up via the B.E.R.A. list sustained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, just to reassure you all, if reassurance is the appropriate
>>>>>>> word, inclusionality is no 'fluffy-bunny philosophy'; it includes
>>>>>>> foxes! And for myself, born as I was under the sign of Leo in the
>>>>>>> year of the Tiger, I have some quite sharp canine teeth that for
>>>>>>> better or worse have been known to
>>>>>>> play a role in consuming fluffy bunnies (though not as yet Vampire
>>>>>>> Bats,Imperial Rats or Concrete Blockheads) through opening up their
>>>>>>> bodily boundaries for dissolution by my digestive enzymes!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By its very dynamic nature, inclusionality can neither ENTIRELY
>>>>>>> accept nor ENTIRELY reject the exclusional practice of any form of
>>>>>>> totalitarianism (orthodoxy, objective rationality), the latter being
>>>>>>> dependent on faith in the COMPLETE (absolute) definability of self
>>>>>>> and other as autonomous Whole Objects (paradoxical singularities
>>>>>>> that make axiomatic nonsense of real life dynamics). This does not
>>>>>>> mean that inclusionality is oblivious of such practice and faith.
>>>>>>> Nor does it mean that it is good inclusional practice directly to
>>>>>>> confront such practice or faith, for confrontation simply amplifies
>>>>>>> the opposition upon which such practice and faith is founded. Good
>>>>>>> inclusional practice works lovingly to transform the cultural
>>>>>>> context in which totalitarian hostility is empowered, whilst artfully
>>>>>>> circumventing,and where necessary resisting and puncturing its
>>>>>>> potentially domineering (hegemonic/impositional/bullying) influence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some forms of totalitarianism are primarily defensive, forming
>>>>>>> 'benign tumours and cysts', others are invasive and malignant
>>>>>>> (imperialism). Much as I greatly value and have benefited from his
>>>>>>> contributions, I see the form of totalitarian orthodoxy that in all
>>>>>>> honesty I think Alon sometimes expresses as being primarily
>>>>>>> defensive, a response to deep hurt and/or fear that cries out 'Leave
>>>>>>> Me All One', like a hedgehog rolling itself up into a ball covered
>>>>>>> in prickles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed all kinds of survival structures produced naturally in the
>>>>>>> face of energy limitation or threat - seeds, spores, cysts, eggs,
>>>>>>> crystals - etc are of this ilk - protective packages of creative
>>>>>>> potential in suspended animation. But such suspended animation is of
>>>>>>> a purely LATENT form; for real life EXPRESSION it has to open up and
>>>>>>> become receptively responsive to its neighbourhood, of which it is
>>>>>>> inescapably a dynamic inclusion. As an inclusional fox, I am inclined
>>>>>>> to leave Alon to himself, as he TELLS me to stick to myself and speak
>>>>>>> in terms of 'I', not 'we'. I feel this is quite an unpalatable
>>>>>>> proposition of personal sovereignty and it succeeds well in deterring
>>>>>>> my inclusional interest. My difficulty arises when such
>>>>>>> totalitarianism is expressed in my neighbourhood, in terms that I
>>>>>>> find nonsensical (if scholarly)and self-defeating. This arouses in
>>>>>>> me both a compassionate concern for the hedgehog, that he is
>>>>>>> suppressing his own creative potential and intellectual acuity in a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> self-disabling way, and a concern for others (including me) who get
>>>>>>> hurt, stifled and misled in the process. From time to time I
>>>>>>> therefore find myself
>>>>>>> receptively-responsively impelled - as here - to take some risk in
>>>>>>> inviting Alon (as yet unsuccessfully) to loosen up in a way that will
>>>>>>> be productive and creative both for him and his evolutionary
>>>>>>> educational neighbourhood. But so long as he remains profoundly
>>>>>>> attached to the notion of his absolute singularity (autonomy) as a
>>>>>>> self-contained object, dislocated like the 'number 1' from his
>>>>>>> neighbourhood, the most I feel he can accomplish is to epitomize
>>>>>>> rather brilliantly and artistically what such attachment implies for
>>>>>>> a life all one, talking to oneself. And, yes, as a singular exception
>>>>>>> that illuminates the complex reality, that would in some ways be a
>>>>>>> most valuable contribution to our understanding of natural
>>>>>>> neighbourhood as neither one nor many in isolation, but all,
>>>>>>> everywhere, in dynamic relationship. But I suspect it would not be
>>>>>>> the most happy outcome for Alon, remaining stuck within his
>>>>>>> brilliantly constructed facade, immune to what is being offered and
>>>>>>> unable to offer his scholarship and insights in a way that can be
>>>>>>> hole-heartedly recognised and acknowledged by others. I just wish
>>>>>>> the hedgehog would open up a bit more and relax, but I know also the
>>>>>>> danger that he will regard my critical prodding as provocation and
>>>>>>> curl up even more extremely, if not launch a few spines in my
>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There we are then. I hope these unfluffy comments won't have got any
>>>>>>> of you or myself into a stew, but will serve to open up some helpful
>>>>>>> possibilities for creative cuisine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warmest Growls
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
