Dear All
I've read this thread
with a great deal of humility and pain for it
speaks quite a lot to my
experience at the moment - both positive and
negative. I had hoped
at several points to contirbute but hesitated too
long... and life
inserted itself over the last few days, as it does! I
just wanted
to say though that I've learned an enormous amount from
these exchanges
and they have been an affective experience for me too,
not least in
listening to how aspects of experience are being connected,
disconnected
and reconnected! Thank you - its been the best bit of
elearning I
have done and the most worthwhile struggle with IT phobias
that I have
had!
all the best
Cathie
Dr Cathie Pearce
Research Fellow
ESRI
MMU
tel: 0161 247 2074
Before
acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read
the
Manchester Metropolitan University's email disclaimer available on its
website
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer >>> Alan Rayner
<
[log in to unmask]> 04/21/08 10:43 AM >>>
Dear All,
Further to this, I now feel that I/we may now be positioned to explain
my/our living educational practice in terms of receptively and
responsively
communicating the evolutionary understanding of life
as:
a gift of natural inclusion in co-creative energy flow, to
be held and
passed on with love and care, not a possession or trophy to
be competed
for.
Warmest
Alan
--On 21 April 2008 07:33 +0100 "Alan Rayner (BU)"
<
[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I feel this message from Ted Lumley, via the inclusional
discussion
> group, points to something very significant:
>
> The difference between viewing life as a 'gift' of natural
inclusion
in
> energy flow to be 'passed on'
>
>
and
>
> viewing life as a possession, which leads to the
objective comparison
of
> its 'owners'' 'worth' as commodities in
terms of their individual
> desirability, accompanied by 'selecting
the best and rubbishing the
> rest', which blocks the gift flow.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Rayner (BU)"
>
<
[log in to unmask]> To:
>
<
[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday,
April 21, 2008 7:20 AM
> Subject: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of
Favouritism - and How It
Produces
> 'Junk' (fwd)
>
>
>> dear christine and alan,
>>
>> i
strongly relate to what you say, christine; e.g;
>>
>>
"On the face of it we are getting away from the subject of the
>>
simplistic nature of junk and favouritism, yet it is this harmony
>> (that we perceive in the painting) that is inherently 'wholesome'
and
>> is not junk. If I am to make my research 'art-based
research' I
would
>> assert that every part of a painting
feeds the overall experience of
>> looking at a painting.
Every part matters. If we transfer that
>> notion to
society what do we find? Workers who have aided an economy
>> and are then dismissed arbitrarily as if they don't matter?
Workers
>> who die because of the lack of safeguards, or
more strictly speaking,
>> where health and safety, while admitted
as part of the safety
climate,
>> is dismissed as part of the
safety culture? "
>>
>> ... and also to your 'spate
attack' alan,
>>
>> in the metaphors that come
spontaneously to my mind, the weather
cells
>> in the
atmosphere give me this same impression of simultaneous
spatial-
>> relational meaning that wraps around into itself to 'complete
itself
>> in an unending flow'. it is impossible to get to
this meaning 'by
>> ascribing meaning to parts'.
>>
>> when individuals are 'full of grace' or 'in harmony with the
world,
>> they are like this, like convection cells in the cluster
that forms
>> from the energy of flow, each one giving sense to
every other and to
>> the emerging dynamical form, the unfolding
contextual
>> transformation.
>>
>> if life is
continuing contextual transformation, the unfolding
>> dynamical
form, like the weather cell or whirl in the fluid
continuum,
>> embodies its dynamical medium, at the same time as it gives
embodiment
>> to it.
>>
>> there is no way to
take apart embodied and embodying; i.e. to take
>> apart 'being'
and 'becoming'.
>>
>> to me, there is parallel
understanding in the parallel thread on
>> 'evolutionary
hotspots'.
>>
>> 'natural selection' is an abstraction
that endows the 'embodied
being'
>> with a 'locally
originating survival purpose' and the 'embodying
fluid
>>
medium' with the power to set up an obstacle course to test and judge
>> the 'performance' of the 'embodied being' in its (notional)
purposeful
>> pursuit of survival and thus to 'separate the wheat
from the chaff';
>> i.e. the 'favourites' from the 'junk' as if
some of the brushstrokes
>> in nature's fluid-dynamical continuum
('chaff') are of lesser value
to
>> nature's continuum.
>>
>> education, when it lines up our children in a variety
of 'obstacle
>> courses' in which those stronger at surviving the
full course are
>> regarded as 'favourites' or 'winners'' and the
weaker at surviving
who
>> fall out of the course are regarded
as 'junk' or 'losers', is an
>> exercise that encourages the
children to strengthen their 'locally
>> originating survival
purpose'; i.e. it gives a lesson for life that
>> encourages
children to fall out of harmony with the contextual
>>
transformation in which they are included and to instead, as local
>> embodied parts, 'drive the contextual transformation' (have the
>> 'embodied' become the embodying drive' (control the unfolding of
the
>> living space dynamic)). we teach the children that it
is up to the
>> 'favourites' to take a leadership role of the
independent drivers in
>> this process and it is up to the 'junk'
to accept their role as the
>> smaller dependent cogs that
contribute by letting themselves be
driven
>> by the bigger
wheels, and thus contribute to the 'whole' positivist
>>
machinery. alliances of the favourites contribute to this process
by
>> consolidating the leadership drive.
>>
>> education, done in this manner, would appear to constitute a
self-
>> inflicted 'falling from grace'.
>>
>>
ted
>>