Dear Alan
There is nothing in your email below that I disagree with - so perhaps again
it's all a matter of communication and mis-interpretation. And I too would
not accept Aga's contention that nature is not qualitative, so would accept
your challenge of that- but I thought the main focus of your email was in
challenging his contention as to the nature of design in humans / the planet
etc sometimes having inbuilt (measurable) limits.
Thanks for taking the time to respond - Joan
On 9 April 2010 16:14, Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Joan,
>
> Well indeed, you are welcome, as ever, to take on as much or as little as
> you like of what I offer. I can only describe what makes sense and doesn't
> make sense to me, and try to help clarify my meanings if you enquire
> further, as you did. My aim is to help you in your quest, not to oppose
> (though I will point out what is in opposition to your quest).
> Inclusionality is not based upon the logic of opposition, it endeavours to
> move on from the latter.
>
> I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said about the possible limitations
> of your brain in relation to transfigural mathematics.
>
> By the same token, I did not say that the way traditional mathematics is
> taught is the main root of all problems. But I do think that the
> intransigent logic underlying this and all kinds of divisive political and
> religious views, *if not seen through, *and kept as you say in check and
> balance, can reinforce ways of thinking that lead to conflict and
> opposition. The problem here is when a partial view is represented as *the
> only view, *which came through loud and clear from Aga's pronouncement
> that 'Nature is not qualitative', in support of his contention that
> 'Absolute creativity does exist'.
>
> I have talked at length about the need to respect both analytical and
> intuitive views, without giving preference to one or the other.
> Inclusionality is about the dynmaic balance of the included middle.
>
> Conventional mathematics is indeed elegant. That doesn't put it in a
> position to claim to represent 'the whole truth'. Moreover, there is a
> fundamental problem in its foundations that needs to be addressed if it is
> to be more naturally representative, especially within an evolutionary
> context.
>
> The spiritual hunger (and I might also speak of the soulful hunger) of
> which you speak is not well served by a logic that imposes definitive
> closure upon self-identity, and that is reinforced in the many ways that I
> have tried to address, including mathematical abstraction.
>
> I think I have said enough.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 3:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Loving Neighbourhood As Self
>
> Dear Alan
>
> Thank you very much for your response - it is indeed interesting, and helps
> me further understand your perspective. However, somewhat predictably of
> course, I do not necessarily agree with it all - though we are clearly both
> committed to the notion of 'loving neighbour(hood) as self' - and as long as
> we both appreciate that in the other, then that (in my view) should help to
> keep us connected rather than separate in our communication.
>
> There are a number of points in your email that I would perhaps like to
> challenge, or perhaps just further discuss - but I will just stay with one
> at the moment - the one that hit me most strongly when I read it (which may
> of course mean it is touching a raw nerve which I need to explore more..).
> And that is, your apparent assumption that my earlier response to you was
> generated by a fear of mathematics. In fact, that is not the case. I have
> naturally a very logical mind (which in may ways I can see might be
> interpreted as part of the problem!) - and I actually had a natural
> gravitation and attraction to maths at school (and for a short time at
> university). I have often thought that in my final 'retirement', I might do
> a mathematics degree as a contrast to other interests, and an alternative to
> an extended chain of cryptic crosswords!! I really cannot understand the
> point of view that the way traditional maths is taught is the main root of
> all problems, its methodology leading to conflict, etc. I have had far more
> difficulty with divisiveness created through different religious/political
> views,etc. I do understand that being too logical can be a difficulty (I
> was accused of being too logical when I was younger, and have spent a
> lifetime trying to ensure that I at least counterbalance it with other more
> empathic qualities). But that is how I perceive it - something to be kept a
> check on, kept in balance - rather than being seen as a 'sin' in itself, and
> possibly the root of all other sins. I have heard a Professor of
> Mathematics talk about maths as 'elegant' and I really can understand that
> point of view.
>
> Similarly, I couldn't see what the problem was with Aga's email - I realise
> that it only represents one perspective and an incomplete one at that - but
> I really cannot see how it can be viewed as part of the mindset that is
> responsible for making it difficult to 'loving neighbourhood as self'. Our
> rational powers are an important dimension of our 'all' - I believe - as are
> our emotional, spiritual etc etc ..... The challenge for me is how to
> enable them all to work in partnership with each other, to the benefit of
> the infinite whole, rather than vilifying any one more than another . ......
>
> Oddly enough, shortly before receiving your email, I was searching Google
> for a conference held some time ago that was based on the notion of
> 'addiction as a sympton of spiritual hunger' - an idea that seemed to ring
> true to me as soon as I read it, and which I have reflected on at some
> length since - so perhaps I would offer that as an alternative possible
> reason for addiction/attachment/mental illness.....
>
> I'm sorry, Alan - I realise our perspectives are very diverse, and you
> think that I am failing to understand something that is critically
> important.... And perhaps I am, I acknowledge that ..... But if I am to
> stay true to my own principle of 'being true to self', I have to say that
> try as I do, I accept fundemental aspects of your thinking (and as I have
> said before, I think at some level, we have much in common) - but I do
> struggle with some of the conclusions you draw.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joan
>
>
> On 9 April 2010 08:55, Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joan,
>>
>> Thank you (and Vicente) for this important and very relevant enquiry.
>>
>> Your question of 'why is it so difficult to put the principle of 'loving
>> neighbour (which I extend inclusionally to neighbourhood) as self' is
>> precisely what my work on natural inclusionality over the last 10 years has
>> been about.
>>
>> It is a question that I have reflected on in some depth in the attached
>> draft paper prepared in anticipation of my keynote address to ALARA in
>> Australia later this year. (I hope the file is not too big for some of you -
>> apologies if it is).
>>
>> In the paper, I recognise four kinds of barrier to 'loving neighbourhood
>> as self', all of which are powerfully re-inforced by current education
>> systems throughout the world: mathematical, cognitive, fearful and
>> linguistic. In other words we predominantly teach the antithesis of 'loving
>> neighbour(hood) as self' as the very basis of objective rationality. In
>> effect, we teach children that we are born selfish, that compassion is
>> irrational and that they must compete with one another to be successful, at
>> the same time as telling them them they will be punished for their
>> wickedness if they are selfish. This double bind is a source of profound
>> confusion, conflict, guilt and shame - from which many try to escape through
>> various kinds of addiction/attachment/mental illness.
>>
>> The mathematical barrier is especially problematic, because of the
>> oppressive and uncreative way in which mathematics is predominantly taught
>> to children, which leaves them with no room for question or doubt - they are
>> marked 'right' or 'wrong' and told not to ask 'why'. If they don't
>> understand (often because they can see through the inbuilt paradox that
>> arises from treating 1 as a singular whole number or lifeless point) they
>> get marked down and made to feel stupid (to have 'learning difficulties').
>> They are never or rarely introduced to Godel's theorem, which ended the
>> search by mathematicians for a complete and self-consistent system (a system
>> of 'wholeness') and sparked Lere's development of transfigural mathematics.
>>
>> As your response affirms, the very mention of mathematics sparks fear in
>> the minds of many, which allows it to continue to divide and rule as the
>> tool of an oppressive culture caught in the rationalistic trap of trying to
>> discriminate between individual and group (One and Many). When not 'seen
>> through' ('transfigured'), mathematics becomes the tool of the bully and the
>> means to a totalitarian end (most recently enshrined in 'selfish gene
>> theory, game theory and sociobiology) that blocks natural evolutionary
>> creativity, love and compassion. I think there is a great educationAL need
>> to dispel the fear of mathematics and understand both its limitations and
>> utility in a more sensible way. This is why I think Lere's work is so
>> important. At a fundamental level it is very easy to understand - *
>> childsplay* in fact - but what is needed here is not 'cleverness' or
>> 'higher consciousness' or 'grand theory', but *'insight'* (of the kind
>> that underlies the principle of 'loving neighbour(hood) as self and can
>> stand up to the bully of prejudicial theory by calling its bluff).
>>
>> Numbers games are perhaps an even greater instrument of tyranny and
>> confusion than language games.... Those of us who are keen on spreading the
>> influence living educational theory need to get to grips with it (or at
>> least understand its source of power) - which takes some intellectual
>> courage.
>>
>>
>> *“The attempt to impose definition on indeterminacy and degree and
>> exception is about the straightest road to mischief I know of - very deeply
>> worn, very well travelled” **Marilynne Robinson**, **The Death of Adam:
>> Essays on Modern Thought*
>>
>>
>> I do hope this helps.
>>
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> NB I am copying this to Lere as he is not a member of the list (he asked
>> me to forward his response to Aga's message after I had shown the latter to
>> him and Roy Reynolds).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:28 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Fw: Design as Research / Absolute Creativity
>>
>> Dear Aga, Alan and Lere,
>>
>> I have found most of this dialogue fascinating, informing and enriching -
>> and in the main I understand and resonate with what has been said. But I
>> have to say I have read the past 3 emails, and I am not sure where they are
>> taking us. For a start, I don't understand much of them. I am not a
>> scientist, so it is difficult for me to comment on the accuracy or even the
>> relevance of what Aga wrote - except I do know, for example, that I cannot
>> run 100 mph, however much I would wish to, and so accept that there are
>> limits to what our 'design' allows us to do. Indeed, I have often thought
>> that actually our brains are far too limited to understand 'all that is' -
>> and that it is a sign of the complete arrogance of the human ego to think
>> that somehow we have the capacity to develop a 'theory of everything'. I
>> suspect that we have not even entered primary level in terms of having a
>> true rational understanding of 'all that is' (which for me would include
>> dimensions beyond what we experience with our five senses). Perhaps as we
>> continue with an 'evolution of consiousness' we will over time develop our
>> capacity to rationally understand (if that is indeed desirable), but I would
>> think we have a considerable way to go yet. Which is why I am so committed
>> to action research and living theory - because they are about making a
>> difference in our lives on a day to day level, without neceesarily having to
>> locate them within a 'grand theory' (athough I know that I am also always
>> interested in exploring what we do in as wide a context as possible).
>>
>> In this context, not wanting to disrespect what you are doing at all,
>> Lere, because I am quite sure that intellectually you are involved in work
>> that has great significance - but I am not sure what transfigural
>> mathematics has to offer us in our current state of global crisis. Even if
>> it has the potential to create understanding that would help us all, I am
>> not sure that I have the intellectual capacity to take it in given the
>> limitations of my brain. And if I experience that problem, then I think it
>> is perhaps too much to hope that the wider population will in time to avert
>> any crisis.
>>
>> In terms of action that would make so much difference - The new testament
>> states, and it is reflected very similarly in most/all the worlds
>> religious/spiritual traditions, 'love your neighbour as yourself'', and ''do
>> unto others as you would have them do unto you'. These are not difficult
>> words to understand - yet there appears to be so much difficulty in putting
>> them into practice (and if this is so difficult, how much more difficutl
>> would it be to put into practice the principles of transfigural
>> mathematics?). You yourself talk about the importance of love throughout
>> your email. I have been challenged all my life as to why these apparently
>> simple principles, with apparently mutually beneficial outcomes for
>> everyone, are so difficult to put into practice.
>>
>> I have recently written down my vision for the world - and it came out as
>> follows: "My vision for the world is for no child on the planet to
>> experience distress and suffering as a result of poverty, neglect, abuse or
>> exploitation; and for every child on the planet to be given the
>> opportunity and support that enables their unique gifts and talents to
>> blossom and flourish". My question is - why is this so difficult to
>> achieve? My 'idealistic' response it - let's influence every living being
>> to develop their own 'living educational theory' - that will surely address
>> these challanges - but I do accept that this is not currently realistic
>> ...... But I can see how it would have a positive outcome if it were to
>> happen.....
>>
>> Of course, there are many explanations as as to why it is so difficult for
>> people to adopt and live out any value base which is founded on mutual
>> respect, love, care, etc. - including psychological theories on 'will to
>> power' and the overwhelming desire of the individual ego to impose its
>> thoughts and wishes on others. However, if you can explain to me
>> transfigural mathematics in a way that will enable me to understand how it
>> can realistically influence people to 'do unto others....' , and how it will
>> transform their approach to children, etc, in a way that no other
>> methodology can, and can overcome the well-demonstrated psychological blocks
>> to engaging in appropriate behaviour, then I might be in a position to
>> respond more positively to your and Alan's response to Aga's email.
>>
>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On 8 April 2010 19:23, Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Aga,
>>>
>>> I have read Alan's reply to your letter. Oh, I have to hold my heart as I
>>> read what you wrote. It is the parotting of the old tune that lacks rhythm
>>> and sense. But wait! Tarry with patience.
>>>
>>> Well, maybe what one can say is that even in law, the facts win the case
>>> and these facts that mostly win have nothing to do with the truth. There was
>>> also a biblical example of such a case that I shall not go into now but what
>>> is true is that the numbers you are reeling out have nothing to do with the
>>> true identity of things. This is not to say that these numbers havent their
>>> uses but the reality is that they and the science that is built on them have
>>> nothing to do with Nature.
>>>
>>> It is QUALITY, first and foremost, that holds all together and NOT
>>> QUANTITY. It is love in life and life in love that ensure that we are still
>>> here, that we can live harmoniously with one another, with animals, birds,
>>> do not pollute nature, take care of the weak, feel with the disabled and
>>> being in them and them in us, feel all of Nauture in us to the Divine. You
>>> cant quantify love nor what it means to be life as the person lives and
>>> experiences it. You cant quantify the smile of the child that is flashed on
>>> the mother-hen coo-cooing with the chicks. You cant even quantify human
>>> suffering which only love can alleviate. And so what is this inanity about
>>> quantity to which million lives matter than a single life which is the
>>> carrier of all of humanity. Quality mathematics which is transfigural
>>> mathematics with minimal quantity would say take care of one and you have
>>> taken care of all because one is in all and all is in one. Quantity is
>>> concerned with how many. Quality is about how much, how deep, and because
>>> the one is in many, to abuse one is to abuse the entire humanity, nature
>>> inclusive. Can you see the difference?
>>>
>>> Well, let the history of human suffering and hope put quantity in the
>>> dock as we wait for the verdict. But we cannot do that because to wait would
>>> be to surrender this world that is yours, mine and everybody to what we know
>>> holds no hope, no future. And so, we say, give us the numbers that can
>>> suffer as we do, that can hope as we do, that have capacity for love, that
>>> shows the beauty of diversity, indeed give us the mathematics of such
>>> numbers, such logic, such geometry, such philosophy and through it, such a
>>> science, indeed such body of knowledge and spiritual awareness. The answer
>>> we got is transfigural mathematics. The link which Alan gives is inviting
>>> you.
>>>
>>> With Warm Regards,
>>> Lere
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr Joan Walton
> Faculty of Education
> Liverpool Hope University
> Hope Park
> Liverpool
> L16 9JD
>
> Phone: 0151 291 2115
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
