Print

---

Dear Je Kan, Jack and all,

I think you raise a deeply important issue, here, Je Kan, one that I touched
on in my response to Chris Macrae that I circulated to this list, and one
that is very dear to many poets and artists in regard to the educational
(awareness-inducing) value of their work.

Chris Macrae had in fact pretty much reprimanded me for responding to a
communication on one of his lists by sending some poetry and chapters 8 and
9 from 'Natural Inclusion' (which he regarded as self-publicizing semi-spam)
that I felt was in support of what one of the correspondents was saying. He
feared that this would offend some of the 'star (most connected hub)
networkers' on his list and that they would withdraw their interest. He
implied that poetry would not move and would indeed put off the 'top dog
movers and shakers' who needed to be appeased if they were going to add
their weight to 'save the world' movements. Well. .. Talk about celebrity
culture! My own feeling increasingly is that sycophancy is no route to
cultural transformation, when it is the top dogs who have often got where
they are by bullying and hoarding. It's one of those perversities of our
culture of discontent that those most empowered by money and fame are in
many ways the last people to turn to for help with transformation - for
them, 'seeing' the loophole in the security box is more difficult than
passing a camel (thick cord) through the eye of a needle.

The issue is that there are forms of communication whose value lies in their
invitation to reflection without the support of a verbal narrative - indeed
where the latter may be intrusive and misleading. The invitation is for the
observer, listener or experiencer to tap into to their own 'unconscious
awareness' and find whatever they will find there. There is no requirement
for the communication - if it is to be 'successful' - to reproduce in the
'receiver' what was in the mind of the 'transmitter' (contrary to the
notions of Shannon - Weiner's rationalistic information theory, but in line
with Gabor's [of holography fame] inclusional communication theory). Indeed,
exact reproduction of the communicator's intention is often regarded as a
non-creative 'failure'. Note how this relates to the distinction between a
training instructor and a mindful educator.

In my own use of artwork, I have trodden a tricky tightrope between allowing
my imagery to 'speak for itself', evoking whatever it will (I often use a
painting in a seminar by asking what people 'see' in it, which gives rise to
many different perspectives, often some I haven't appreciated myself), and
providing some 'cryptic clues' or 'guidelinings', by way of poetic or
lyrical narrative. In some cases, these 'clues' or 'guidelinings' can assist
deeper enquiry, in the same way that a swimmer can help a non-swimmer
immerse in water. The art of the communicator is to judge (in the sense of
discern) just how much 'guidelining' it is appropriate to provide - and it
is this question of judgement that is not only pertinent in my mind to this
BERA enquiry, but also to the Jack - Je Kan conversation. Jack's judgement
is that there needs to be more guidelining, Je Kan's is that the imagery
alone is sufficient. Here is where the question of judgment needs to bring
in the context of the audience and the diversity of perspectives it may
contain, as well as what opportunity there is for sharing of view within
this audience. In an 'ideal world' we would all be placed in a 'sharing
circle' around Je Kan's imagery, each able to 'speak from the heart' about
what the imagery invokes in us, and through hearing each other's diverse
perspectives arrive at a richer understanding than might have been possible
individually. But placed as we are at the busyness ends of a global computer
network, such open sharing is not so easy. Hence each of us may have formed
our own impression of Je Kan's imagery (if we have found the space in our
schedules to observe it), but the group context may not have been conducing
to sharing this [thoughts like 'what am I supposed to say?'; 'I don't want
to fill up everyone else's mail box with my subjective impressions' etc may
have crossed our minds].

For myself, any analytical explanation by Je Kan would have intruded upon
the deep, engaging mystery of the imagery. I felt drawn in by the
expressions on faces, the sense of deep personal commitment, the spirit of
caring and sharing in a practice that objective onlookers might regard as
'mumbo jumbo' but which for that very 'reason' can take us 'beyond
objectification'. The actions in themselves are meaningless; what these
actions express is meaningful. The paint on a canvas in itself is
meaningless - what this paint expresses...

So, Je Kan, far from being a 'waste of time', I think your posting and its
significance merely took 'some while' for its creative influence to emerge.
The most creative is rarely appreciated immediately, for the immediate
'surface impression' is what the most creative seeks to question, especially
in a materialist culture.

So I keep telling myself as I face what feels like the general resounding
rejection of my most heartfelt expressions as they bounce of 'the wall' of
objective rationality. Should I 'sugar the pill' to make it more acceptable
to the majority? Should Je Kan 'say what he means?' What kind of judgement
is truly alive to its dynamic context?

Doubt is doubtless creative, as is Achilles Heal.




Warmest


Alan






----- Original Message -----
From: Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 12 January 2007 01:08
Subject: Re: insight to practice


"Without such an  understanding I doubt if many
viewers of the video-clip would  understand your values and commitment
from just watching
the video.  But I may be mistaken and my doubt could be inappropriate."

Your response was not unexpected and in a way I am glad that you did
respond as you have. It leads me to the issues that I am worried about
concerning how we see and what we see.  When I worked in my healing
research with indigenous healers of different countries ( South
America, Mexico, the first nation peoples, ) I did not know the history
or the language other than what my culture had fed me.  I had no terms
of reference and no pre conceived ideas about what I would or should
see/feel spiritually. The shaman, healers, priest and medicine men do
not give formal teachings as they expect your spirit to teach you. In
this way your questions, actions and insights, give a good indication
to the teacher of you understandings and awareness.  It is the same in
Japan. In traditional Buddhist teachings very little formal teaching is
given as it is for the individual to find there way towards,
enlightenment. Each different sect of Buddhism has its own philosophy
and thinking from which it builds it traditions and rituals. Over time
these become formalized and the meanings of the original thinking that
gave rise to the rituals are lost in the dogmatic teaching of the
knowledge in the box.

My concern with western forms of understand is the idea of immediacy
and one where there is a knowledge giver and a knowledge receiver and
that knowledge has to be within a set of pre set conditions and the
context has to be known. This I feel is the main and crucial difference
between the analytical, lets understand the box , what the box is made
of, how to use the box and what is in the box thinking and that of;
well,  lets see the space that the box has created in space and see
what the box brings to both its internal and external space.

I deliberately did not include a textual narrative as the idea was to
give and insight to practice. I had hoped that such questions and
observations would be evolve of the nature: what do I feel as I look?
what do I hear as I listen? I wanted the visuals to be virgin as it
were and then the questions that arise form engagement by inclusion
would be the meeting ground to understand .For me I believe that you
have set out the conditions you need in order to understand.

I am different to you, with my understandings, I need no words as I
give space to the space. In the ideas of  Alan's excluded middle I am
comfortable with having no terms of reference other than thinkable and
unthinkable.  Brian talks of esoteric words and thinking and how to
hold on to them. If you preset your viewing by context in the claim
that it is the only way to understand  Then from the very beginning you
are not allowing your self to engage in a form of inclusional
communication offered. If I use my understandings of my senses, with
the idea that the only truth that has any relevance is that; I know
there is much I do not know, I can expand the boundaries of my
ignorance because they are fluid in their dynamics of conscious open
enquiry.  Often I have to unlearn how I have been taught to see and the
blindness of expectations is shown for what it is, that of cultural
conditioning.

I took a risk in offering insights to my practice as a mountain
Buddhist monk, knowing that many would have no terms of reference to
understand its context. I had hoped that some would be able to identify
the values even if they did not know the context. I am intrigued to
know if love and compassion can communicate non textually across
cultures. It seems so far that I have failed in that endeavor. smile.
I hoped that it would stimulate some questions that would indicate a
willingness to explore rather than set conditions under which the
communication can take place. What interests me as I know through our
friendship that we have on occasions been in different worlds, is that
your ground breaking work will lead you to having to become more
comfortable with having less control over your boundaries of learning
within a space and allow the space to teach you by reflecting back to
you.

The most positive part of your response was that related to the
technology, which is used to create the box in cyberspace. Rather than
any engagement with what you felt about what you saw or did not see.
Interesting stuff other peoples' worlds.. smile. If I was the sensitive
type of individual the silence to the posting could stop me trying
again as the time and effort to create, edit, post the clip is
considerable and the responses negligible. However I believe that it is
part of my learning to understand myself through the reflections of
others that continues and will continue to fuel my passion to
communicate. What our dialogue is showing is the difficulty and
complexity of forms and conditions of knowing. That is an exciting
challenge..

Love and respect, grasshopper
Je Kan

Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
Associate Professor of Nursing
Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
Tagawa City
Fukuoka Prefecture
Japan