 |
 |
Hello Alan, I'm puzzled by your comment: As educators, do we think of ourselves as 'Responsive Receptacles' and/or as 'Executive Obstacles' as we enter the 'classroom'? How do these perceptions influence our way of being with students? I've retired from teaching young people, and now work with PGCE trainees both in their classrooms, and in seminars. I'm also working with two adult watercolourists groups................... but ............I don't recall feeling a "responsive receptacle", nor do I think of myself as "executive obstacle". What prompted you to characterize these two metaphors? Advent greetings Brian <font face="comic sans ms">Brian E. Wakeman</font> <font face="Comic Sans MS">Education adviser</font> <font face="Comic Sans MS">Dunstable</font> <font face="Comic Sans MS">Beds</font> ----- Original Message ---- From: Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, 16 December, 2007 4:40:07 PM Subject: Re: AA Thread 2 07-08 How do i~we explain our educational influences in learning to improve our educational influences as practitioner-researchers within the social and other formations that dynamically include us? Dear Jack and All, Here is a thought that I shared with our 'inclusional discussion group' yesterday, but seems to me to be relevant to how as educators we understand and enhance our influence. As educators, do we think of ourselves as 'Responsive Receptacles' and/or as 'Executive Obstacles' as we enter the 'classroom'? How do these perceptions influence our way of being with students? Warmest Alan -------------------------------------- Dear All, This morning I woke up with a couple of phrases resounding around, relating to the conversations about the nature of genes as non-objects, hierarchy and lowerarchy, sailboat and powerboat management, and an article Timo and I are currently preparing regarding 'A Copernican Revolution in the Psychological, Environmental and Evolutionary Meaning of Self' (see attached summary, which also doubles up as summary for my forthcoming 'ICE melting' talk. The phrases relate to the distinction between inclusional and rationalistic perceptions of 'Self' (whereby the inclusional can accommodate and transform [through spatial inclusion], but the rationalistic cannot recognise the inclusional). The phrases also relate to a question, which is being used in a current advertising campaign in the UK: Where Do They Get Their Energy From? To my mind this is perhaps the most fundamental question to be asked in the development of a truly 'inclusional ecology'. The rationalistic self-portrait will derive energy from somewhere locally internalized or externalized - an 'internal or external executive FORCE'. The inclusional self-imagination will channel energy from everywhere (i.e. non-locally) through a local focus or 'receptive space'. Whereas the rationalistic self portrait therefore imposes discontinuity between organism and world, blocking off material content from spatial context, the inclusional imagination will accept spatial continuity throughout. From here we can recognise that inclusionally, 'self' is, like all other locally appearing forms in the cosmos, a dynamically informed responsive receptacle of inductive space, whereas, rationalistically the 'self' is regarded as a whole, material object that does things to other things, i.e. an executive obstacle. Sadly, we seem rationalistically to have unreasonably (i.e. there is no sound reason or evidential basis for it) populated the world with executive obstacles, not responsive receptacles, and whilst that situation obtains, cruelty and conflict will tend to preclude compassion and care in spite of ourselves and our planetary home. We cannot find the holey grail when looking for definite objects and trying to do things about and to them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:32 AM Subject: Re: AA Thread 2 07-08 How do i~we explain our educational influences in learning to improve our educational influences as practitioner-researchers within the social and other formations that dynamically include us? Here are a couple of thoughts for our second thread of December 07. The first thought is that some of the practitioner-researchers on this list have taken to calling our explanations of our educational influences in learning, our living educational theories. We have established an Educational Journal of Living Theories with a statement of commitment and scope at: http://www.ejolts.net/ Moira Laidlaw is Chair of the Editorial Board and the first issue is in preparation. You can see the format we are using at the above url and you may wish to submit your more extensive writings around our second thread to JOLTS. The second thought is that if you enter: http://www.inclusional-research.org/ you can participate in the Inclusional Research Forum and Learning Space: "Evolving Co-creatively, Beyond Conflict. A space to encourage our understanding of space in the fluid flow of nature. Is it possible to understand what gets in the way of human understanding? That is the question we are asking ourselves as we invite you to participate in the development and communication of a natural awareness that we call 'inclusionality'. We think that inclusional understanding , a natural capability that can be 're-awakened' in all of us, can radically transform the way we think, feel and behave, enabling us to live more harmoniously in sustainable dynamic relationship with our living space and one another." When asked recently in another e-forum how he would describe inclusionality to a friend, Alan responded: "For me, inclusionality means knowing how wonderful it feels to be aware of receptive, loving influence everywhere, and how terrible it is to deny this." Love Jack.