 |
 |
Dear Alan, Your postings inspire me - and puzzle ... in an 'educational' sense! As I engage with highly complex representations of your knowledge I experience a drawing out hence -e-ducere of my philosophical stances roted in my values while simultaneously and consciously opening my reflexive logic to learning. I sense that I understand what you are intending. Your own explanation of inclusional is communicating in a form that, though embedded culturally and linguistically in your world view, enables me to engage with-in/out mine. Thank you for that opportunity. I want to test my understanding in practice I am going to start here... and I would be grateful for your personal help: (while I appreciate others' responses, my question is specifically to you). 'We only have to relax our obsessive compulsion to make exceptions by defining things categorically...' On this list we are invited to join another one that you convene devoted to inclusional logic. We have to conform to certain filters - satisfy certain critera in order to do so, as far as I can see... First we have to apply to join - this is not an open discussion list - we need to be 'approved' and second the conversation is to be 'friendly' - who defines 'friendliness'? Third, from what I can gather from others who have already joined this elite there is a paradigmatic stance being promoted - relating to Living Theories' I gently and respectfully suggest the very existence of the list with its filters is not inclusional within your own definition. Do I misunderstand? Warm regards, Sarah PS I am sensing a 'living contradiction' in the existence of your new list