 |
 |
Dear Pete and all, Sounds good to me, and I can also relate to your comment about 'standards of judgement' where these can all too readily appear to derive from and conform with the singular 'concrete mindset of objective rationality'. If, however, the phrase is prefixed - or rather pre-unfixed - by a word or phrase like 'living', 'fluid', 'evolutionary', then the meaning transforms into something more inclusional and process-oriented. On the same lines, I can well appreciate why you find my language 'knotty', though I'd prefer that you found it 'loopy'! Trying to find a language that holds the reader/listener in an 'open framing of mind' and does not precipitate 'closure' has been part of my endeavour. Here is a passage from the attached chapter 7 of my book 'Natural Inclusion', concerning this knotty problem: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Linguistic Definition and Beyond - From Literal to Lyrical “I think its true that one gains a certain hold on sausage and haddock by writing them down” - Virginia Woolf, A Writer’s Diary, March 8, 1941 As may already be evident, one of my great difficulties and frustrations in writing this book has been a nagging question: ‘how can I express inclusional understanding verbally without re-setting the trap that precludes this understanding?’ At the heart of my difficulty is the ‘fact’ that the English language is by its very nature and origins definitive in its structure: it consists primarily of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Such structure reinforces the idea that nature can be defined and described unambiguously and that we can be sure of our meaning by referring to an authoritative dictionary. We fix our understanding of nature by fixing the meaning of words and insist that we all agree to abide by the same objective usage as if we were all viewing the same standard world from the same standard standpoint. We expect others’ usage of language to conform to our own, and when it doesn’t many of us are inclined to lose patience and become unreceptive if not hostile. The trouble is that such conformity isn’t possible in an unfixed nature where heterogeneity abounds and all perspectives are unique. To try to impose such conformity not only removes the opportunity to enrich our understanding through the sharing of complementary viewpoints but is also ironically a barrier to communication and source of profound conflict and incoherence. In trying to communicate through the language barrier I have myself been walking a tightrope balanced between striving for clarity and accessibility on the one hand, and avoiding the danger of conforming to others’ fixed preconceptions on the other. I have gone to great lengths (which will naturally be invisible to the reader) to avoid language that allows the mind to default to definitive thought patterns, which isolate ‘things’ in discrete boxes of space and time. For example, I avoid words like ‘cause’, ‘effect’, ‘does’, ‘consequence’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘select’, ‘object’, ‘thing’, ‘definite’, ‘unit’, ‘solid’, ‘fact’, ‘competition’, ‘co-operation’ etc except where I am querying their application. I often resort to expressing the same idea in more than one way, because I recognize that every person’s use and understanding of language is unique. I use metaphor, nuance and double entendre to help induce the reader to read ‘between the lines’ and not take what I am saying absolutely literally. I am aware that for some readers, prepared to relax into the flow and listen out for my underlying intention without getting hung up on my inevitable idiosyncrasies, this is fine. I have the same approach when listening to or reading others’ words as they endeavour to share their meaning with what can only be verbal outlines. I recognize the difficulty and do not get angry when they don’t use language as I do - though I may point out how I think particular language can be subject to varied interpretations, sometimes far-removed from what the speaker or writer intends. The same verbal language in different contexts can have radically different meanings, and this applies especially to the difference between speaking from a fixed objective perspective or an inclusional awareness of situation. All the while, however, I am aware of an impatient voice saying something like ‘keep it simple, stupid’ and ‘why can’t you use plain language that everyone can understand?’ I am dismayed by this voice, and even more dismayed by witnessing the extraordinary intolerance that many people seem to have for one another’s expressions. I view this intolerance as a symptom of our cultural lack of receptivity, our unwillingness to see beyond the superficial to deeper meaning. I don’t want to ‘keep it simple, stupid’ (KISS), if this means ‘keep it simplistic and stupid’ (KISAS). I’d like to ‘keep it naturally simple’ (KINS), but I’m aware that what comes naturally can seem very unfamiliar in a culture habituated to the short, sharp shock of objective expression and sound-byte. Nowhere is the objective desire for conformity more evident than in ‘scientific language’. Here is how biology students at the University of Bath are instructed to develop their skills in this form of communication, prior to writing up their final year projects. ‘Scientific writing should be precise, clear, concise and straightforward. Few write naturally in this way, but most can train themselves to do so. It is difficult to write well scientifically so do not be alarmed if drafts of your report are much altered and improved by your supervisor… The ‘Complete Plain Words’ (HMSO) is invaluable and should be compulsory reading for all scientists. It contains much good, sensible advice. Some that applies especially to scientific writing is given below: 1. In choice of word prefer the familiar to the far-fetched, the concrete to the abstract, the simple to the circumlocution, the short to the long and, less firmly, the Saxon to the Romance. 2. Avoid superfluous words: “in fact” is usually unnecessary. Suspect terms such as ‘with reference to’ and ‘in the case of’. They are often replaceable with single words. Phrases, which are all too common in American writing, such as ‘visual unattractiveness’ for ‘ugly’, should be cut down to size. 3. Scientists tend to use jargon; replace it if possible by plain words. Foreign phrases can be useful but use them only when there is not an acceptable equivalent in English. Letters and words in language other than English should be underlined (= italics in print). 4. Construction of sentences is a large subject that can only be referred to briefly in these notes. For a scientist, the main objective must be precision and clarity, and this usually means short, simple sentences or clauses. Also, use the active rather than the passive form and the direct rather than the indirect expression. Oh dear, I think I’ve just failed my biology course, by following my inclination to the lyrical as a far more natural expression of dynamic inclusional neighbourhood than the literal! I want to use language to help open up meaning, not to close it down within fixed definitions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ I would be happy to send you and anybody on this list free CD copies of either of my books (as yet not formally published and probably never will be) , 'Natural Inclusion' and 'Inclusional Nature'. Just let me know if you would like one or both of them and where to send to. They hopefully introduce you to inclusionality more gently than my 'in at the deep end' contributions to these e mail list discussions. As also I hope may our forthcoming effort on 'From Concrete Block Age to Natural Inclusion'. Love Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Mellett <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 06 June 2007 15:47 Subject: Re: 18 December 2002 Dear Alan, Jack and All - The following extracted from our past exchanges in this thread strike me as significant: Pete (04 June) ...need for receptive responsiveness if dialogue is to be truly educational enter into that dynamic equilibrium with each other and with that sense of resonance … we sing with the other’s voice and know their meaning … (and) … the emerging aesthetic … carries its own standard of judgment ...such a gathering is itself a work of art, in that it is able to lift up - educate - at both emotional and intellectual levels … a shared form of expression in which the sense of self becomes subsumed Alan (05 June) ... how our quality of life can be enhanced and transformed by a receptive- responsive form of mutual understanding and involved enquiry that transcends (whilst incorporating) objective rationality Jack (05 June) ... those of you who were not present … are most significant in seeing if Alan is right in … believing that you will be able to relate to what lies behind the outwardly observable scene in a series of continuous natural inclusion in co-creative togetherness I like Alan’s phrase on the natural inclusion of co-created togetherness The questions I’d like to explore with you at present are focused on enhancing our understanding of the logic which is the mode of thought appropriate for comprehending the real as rational, as understood within the perspective we are working in. Pete (05 June) If we are to reveal and understand the standards of judgment that allow us to claim that we have knowledge (that is educational) then do we have to lose our “oppressively singular rationalisation”? (Alan) – Yes, all together! --------------------- These points leave me focusing on thoughts about ‘self’ and ‘other’ within Alan’s ‘co-created(ive?) togetherness’ and ‘receptive responsiveness’ plus Jack’s suggestion we explore “…enhancing our understanding of the logic which is … appropriate”. Holding the flavour of this mixture up against the concept of ‘standards of judgment’ makes me wonder if we are ever going to meet the aims of this seminar by using the established categories and vocabulary while we look for alternative ‘rules of engagement’ (logics) for them to relate within. Alan: when discussing inclusionality, you use language in a way that strives admirably to make new meanings but which I find ‘knotty’ and problematic because I have not been with you from the start and I lack an appropriate glossary to make your meaning fully comprehen-dable/sible to me. That is why I have to try to explain myself in my own words in terms of ‘resonance’ and ‘equilibrium’. However, whatever our vocabulary, I suspect we are all very much in the same neck of the woods. What we have said to each other so far makes me suspect that the appropriate logic we are seeking to understand might not actually allow for the separate existence of ostensive concepts called ‘standards of judgment’ (which we’ve spent the past three years trying to reveal in our own ways). My grasp of the idea of an inclusional logic suggests that, if we relate in ways that are educational, within an inclusional gathering whose members are receptively responsive (so that we each ‘sing with the voice of the other and know the meaning’), then the standards of judgment should be implicit within this process. We do not have to name them as separate entities: they are not content, but process. It is the quality of the relationships that carries the claim to having knowledge and of being educational. It’s not so much the ‘what’ of standards of judgment as their ‘how’. Good-quality interaction (within the logic of our shared humanity) includes and communicates its own standards of judgment. Well - supposing you can find your way through this fog of words, please let me know if you can locate a glowing ember somewhere at its centre! (but then, perhaps someone’s said it already somewhere else and I’ve missed or misunderstood it). - Pete