 |
 |
Hello Alan and everyone I am reflecting on your quote ... And thank you for getting back about it. I am circling around the matters of ethics, standpoint, activist engagement in order to stretch ontology (the ³what is to be known² questions) - My experience is that I am frequently presented with group behaviour which implies unstated assumptions of power and control which impact very badly indeed on people. Status rather than integrity seems to speak into participatory opportunities. My practice is to ask questions to find out what is going on so that these hidden and often externally driven powers are made explicit and answerable to those who are giving their life experience and resources to an initiative. In opening such new spaces I am familiar with being seen as confronting, but to not make such things explicit is to collude with a politic that seeds ongoing oppression within initiatives. Does this make me ³against²? Not in my heart but when such powers are so accepted by others, when others have actively colluded, anyone who speaks of them becomes ³the other² for many reasons, and is framed as ³against². The practice of being seen as the oppositional other, framed and isolated for it is I suspect not uncommon in our network. So I see what you are presenting here as very demanding stuff indeed. Still circling Susan On 24/05/10 2:44 AM, "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > PS Hmm. I don't think I put that very well, but I hope you got the gist. The > question of how openness deals non-confrontationally with closure is tricky to > put into language. Basically by not slamming the door absolutely shut, I > guess. But not by rolling over without protest, either. > > Warmest > > Alan > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Alan Rayner (BU) <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:20 AM >> >> Subject: Re: To be inclusional >> >> >> >> Dear Susan, >> >> >> >> Natural inclusional thinking is not without discernment. It does seek to >> reveal and protect from the oppressive influence of 'intransigent' thought, >> but does not directly oppose, alienate and so preclude the possibility of >> transforming intransigent thought into something more open to others' >> energetic influence. As Osho put it: 'A man of peace is not against war, for >> to be against anything is to be at war'. >> >> >> >> Warmest >> >> >> >> Alan >> >> >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: Susan Goff <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:39 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: To be inclusional >>> >>> >>> Hello Alan >>> I am interested to understand how critical practice fits within your >>> embracing of all things. Does natural inclusion make the outing of hidden >>> and powerful powers of oppression a stance that you do not hold? I am open >>> to encountering how this is thought of by you >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On 22/05/10 7:07 PM, "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> In a parallel correspondence list, I was delighted to receive the >>>> following comment: >>>> >>>> "This simplicity is for me the great thing about "inclusional thinking". >>>> What does it mean to be inclusional after all? To be open and receptive to >>>> embrace all things, to open ones eyes and mind's eye, that is all. Does >>>> this not in itself inspire joy, diversity and inner wealth?" >>>> >>>> I couldn't agree more! >>>> >>>> The difficulty I perceive is that this natural inclusional way of being >>>> and seeing is inconsistent with the intransigent logic of definitive >>>> exclusion from 'other' that most of us have become accustomed to, and >>>> which reaches deep and divisively into purely objective science, >>>> mathematics, theology, governance, economics, language and education. >>>> >>>> This is why I have been trying to co-develop and explicate a different >>>> kind of logic of 'the including middle', which to my mind corresponds with >>>> 'living educational theory', that acknowledges the continuity of >>>> 'transfigural' space across 'figural' boundaries. Without this underlying >>>> logic, the inclusional way of being (and of educating) lacks the >>>> foundation of what rationalists might call 'intellectual justification': >>>> it might even be dismissed as the product of well-meaning but wishful >>>> thinking, out of touch with harsh reality. With this underlying logic, it >>>> can be shown that abstract objectivity [and the harsh reality of human >>>> social organization that has arisen from it] lacks intellectual >>>> justification, because it is founded on an unrealistic premise of >>>> independence of space from form that is inconsistent with evidence and >>>> cannot make consistent (i.e. non-paradoxical) sense. >>>> >>>> I know that this 'intellectual' aspect of 'natural inclusionality', and >>>> the way I try to express it, is what many find 'difficult', 'off-putting' >>>> and 'bewildering'. It is certainly difficult to express and sustain in an >>>> adversarial culture antithetical to its understanding. I may be mistaken >>>> in thinking it is necessary if the 'space for all viewpoints' that some >>>> members of this list (and who paradoxically appear to regard natural >>>> inclusionality as an antithetical denial of such openness) have called for >>>> is to be sustained, and even more necessary if our educational practice is >>>> to be truly thoughtful - considerate of our natural neighbourhood. >>>> >>>> The comment quoted above arose from a discussion about 'silence and >>>> inclusionality'. Here is how I tried to respond to it, both intellectually >>>> and feelingly: >>>> >>>> "Correspondingly, in real life, sound and silence are mutually inclusive, >>>> just as energy and space, light and darkness, 'figural' and 'transfigural' >>>> are mutually inclusive. Space/silence alone would be lifeless - the >>>> unnatural, formless 'death' that you describe. Energy/sound alone - >>>> without space/silence within, without and throughout - is unthinkable. >>>> Silence is in the receptive heart of your 'soul', which 'loves the noise >>>> of life'. >>>> >>>> At heart, as you say, and as your descriptions affirm, this is terribly >>>> simple. Our human problem is that this simplicity can get overlaid with >>>> layer upon layer of complication, which can take an age of complicated >>>> unravelling to bring back into the deep focus of our mind's eye - >>>> especially an intellectual mind's eye! But having produced all that >>>> intellectual complication - built on the flawed logic that isolates >>>> silence from sound and can even claim to have created artificial life by >>>> inserting a computer-synthesized copy of a bacterial genome into a living >>>> bacterium - that task of unravelling becomes necessary. Meanwhile, those >>>> who know simply what it means to 'be an inhabitant' - to be open and >>>> receptive to embrace all things - can live in the woods and wonder." >>>> >>>> In another, related, piece of correspondence I wrote: >>>> >>>> "'Breakdown' occurs when the 'figural' is mentally dislocated by >>>> intransigent definition from 'transfigural', and 'mind' strives to serve >>>> its own possessive purpose instead of fulfilling its 'heart's desire'. >>>> 'Breakthrough' comes with acknowledgement of the continuity of transSpace >>>> through the complex veil of figural boundaries." >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess I'd better practice some silence now, and get around to reading >>>> nearly 160 student essays submitted, along with nearly 80 pieces of >>>> extremely varied creative writing and artwork, for my final year >>>> undergraduate course on 'life, environment and people'. >>>> >>>> Warmest >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >