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: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Joan Walton

To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[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: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Joan Walton

To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[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]