Alan, my replying spontaneously and in haste may
mean I have missed something and will not fully explore this (I'm off
to work in a mo) but here goes. My impression is that the two
things 'I as a living contradiction' (being the nucleus of
contradiction in this instant) is speaking about something
different to 'I as the nucleus of reciprocity'. Fo me both
of these things are true at the same time. I as a living
contradiction describes the complexity of my values as I live
them. My most strongly held values may not serve me well in
every situation when another value needs to come to the fore.
For example, I hold alongsideness, which for me includes
connectedness, respect, acceptance of difference, self determination,
life as process of becoming, encouragement, to all be important in how
I act. These spell out reciprocity but in practice it is not
always enough and I found another value I now call responsive
responsibility to also need to be in place - implies professional
distance/power in some ways. Here lies me as a living
contradiction. Reciprocity is a core for me but within
reciprocity I need to balance aspects of it to continue holding
together (be true to) the inevitable tensions for me living in
community. Must go late for work!
From: Alan Rayner
(BU) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Explaining our
educational influences in learn...
To:
[log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, April 1,
2009, 8:18 AM
Great to
see that my comments have helped.
Could I
just suggest that it would be better to cite Rayner & Jarvilehto
(2008) instead of Rayner (2009) for that description of I as 'a
unique confluence of dynamic
relationships'?
The
reference is as follows:
Rayner,
A. & Jarvilehto, T (2008). From Dichotomy to Inclusionality: A
Transformational Understanding of Organism-Environment Relationships
and the Evolution of Human Consciousness. Transfigural Mathematics
1 (2),
67-82.
Incidentally,
I do find it fascinating how in dialectics the 'I' is a 'nucleus of
contradiction' whereas in transfigural inclusionality it is the
nucleus of reciprocity (i.e. reciprocal influence of each in the
other). In other words, in dialectics the 'I' is the 'excluded
middle', whereas in inclusionality the 'I' is the 'included middle'.
This is rather beautifully illustrated by the transfigural symmetry
of desmids (which corresponds closely with that of the human brain),
where the 'nucleus' is literally in the 'isthmus' connecting two
'semi-cells', i.e. a 'nucleus of reciprocity'. Do have a look at
Lere's piece on Transfigural Biology in the most recent issue of
Transfigural Mathematics (downloadable from www.inclusional-research.org).
I think
it might be great for you/us to bring out this distinction and
relationship between dialectics and inclusionality one of these
days, which arises from the dichotomous definition of one and other
in dialectics. In many ways, TI represents dialectics' very own
'dynamic synthesis'. If dialectitions could only 'get this' instead
of regarding inclusionality as 'opposition', it might help us make
very considerable philosophical inroads.
Maybe we
could write a piece together actually entitled 'From Dialectics to
Inclusionality - transfiguring the 'nucleus of contradiction' into
the 'nucleus of reciprocity'. ?
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:49 AM
Subject:
Explaining our educational influences in
learn...
Date:
31
March 2009 09:37:37 BST
Subject:
Self
and self-study
I
thought I'd just follow up on the comment I made to the list
yesterday regarding your s-step paper.
The
more I think about it, the more key to the epistemological
transformation it is to have an adequate perception of the
nature of 'the self being studied'. It is the inadequate,
narrowed down, perception of self as an independent
subject/object that is at the root of the mistake made by the
predominant disciplines approach. It is this narrowing down of
'self' that leads to neglect of the source of its values in the
receptive space of natural energy flow. By the same token, it is
the opening up ('transfiguration') of self to its dynamic
inclusion of and in its natural neighbourhood that enables the
development of receptive-reflective-responsive educational
practice.
I
feel that something along the lines of what I have just written
could strengthen what is already a very strong
presentation.
I'm
attaching the paper with Timo, published in 'Transfigural
Mathematics', which, in addition to
the 'Vertex-vortex' I circulated yesterday, might
provide some helpful supporting quotes. e.g.:
1.
"The self/I cannot therefore be solely or soulfully located in
any local parts of the individual, in his head or hemispheres of
the brain, as proposed by mainstream cognitive science (see e.g.
Baars, 2002). The idea of the localization of the self in the
brain or parts of the brain, is based on the objective
misconception of a definitive subject/agent of conscious action.
The self is not the body, brain or a neuron, but a person, who
cannot be defined on the basis of the structure of his or her
brain, but can only be recognized locally as a pivotal place in
a communion of social and spatial relations. The ‘I’ is both
somewhere locally embodied and everywhere non-locally around.
The I/self is not a discrete body; it is a unique confluence of
dynamic relationships. The thinking and conscious subject is not
purely a piece of flesh, but a set of relations and processes
distinct but not discrete from all other personalities in his or
her specific co-creative role."
2.
"When we allow our
selves to be local-non-local dynamic expressions of, not
locally definable exceptions from All Nature, we can at
last relax our fearful sense of sole responsibility for our
actions and participate co-creatively to sustain harmonious
evolutionary flow. ‘Self-identity’ is transfigured from that of
an autonomous ‘I alone’, an independent, discretely bounded
individual, to a complex inner-outer, local-non-local dynamic
neighbourhood of one including all and all including one, like a
river stream that both shapes and is shaped by its catchment.
The ‘ghost in the machine’ cruelly imprisoned by objective
definition expands everywhere. Receptive influence permeates
All."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When
Martin Dobson, a colleague, died in 2002 the last thing he said to
me
was
'Give my Love to the Department'. In the 20 years I'd worked
with
Martin
it was his loving warmth of humanity that I recall with great
life
affirming
pleasure and I'm hoping that in Love Jack we can share
this
value
of common humanity.
Jack
Whitehead Tel: + 44 1225 826826
extn 5571
Department
of Education Fax: + 44 1225
826113
|