Dear Jack,
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'. ?
Love
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Whitehead
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:49 AM
Subject: Explaining our educational influences in learn...
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 31 March 2009 09:37:37 BST
To: "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Self and self-study
Dear Jack,
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."
I hope this helps.
Love
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
University of Bath
Bath BA2 7AY UK Email: [log in to unmask]
Action Research Homepage
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
