I am really appreciating the physiological accounts in this reflection...
How our mind /bodies are creating that inclusional space in some ways and
yet we need to be so deeply caring for our beating hearts and churning
stomachs to let that inclusional openness and authenticity form...
Susan
On 24/05/10 6:36 PM, "Marian Naidoo" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Alan, Susan, Ernie and Others,
>
> I am very interested in this thread of conversation. I meet resistance and
> opposition on a regular basis in the work that I do - as I am sure you can
> imagine!.. In my experience resistance is an important part of the process of
> what Alan calls natural inclusionality and of course an important part of any
> creative process. As a creative practitioner I regularly find myself learning
> in the moment - to work with this resistance and my own resistance. In this
> creative space the process of natural inclusionality becomes grounded in the
> creative practice and therefore becomes less abstract. I find this time, this
> part of the process almost dance like, truly inclusional. Ones instinct faced
> with opposition is to challenge - in my experience staying in the moment,
> staying open and being authentic - in the way an actor lives in the moment in
> an improvisation - enables emergence. For me this is much easier to practice
> than to write about and yes of course some opposition continues to resist but
> in my experience that happens rarely. Wish I had more time to write more!
>
> Love
>
> Marian
>
>
> Dr Marian Naidoo FRSA
> Naidoo & Associates
>
> Visiting Research Fellow
> University of Bath
> Mob: 07810822820
> Tel: 01666 840991
> Fax: 01666 841463
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2010, at 08:27, Alan Rayner (BU) wrote:
>
>> Dear Susan,
>>
>> Yes, the 'Catch 22' problem is that to anyone who automatically thinks in
>> terms of intransigent opposition ('either you are with me/us or against
>> me/us'), non-oppositional thinking and practice constitutes opposition. In
>> trying to bring my inclusional understandings of non-opposition (i.e. where
>> 'difference' can be seen as a basis for co-creative complementation, not
>> conflict) to others, I have indeed experienced being seen as the oppositional
>> other and estranged for it. Indeed I experience this every day, working in a
>> biology department populated by enthusiastic neo-Darwinists and mechanistic
>> thinkers with an eye on where the next funding and/or publishing,
>> kudos-bringing opportunity is coming from. More disturbingly, I have also
>> experienced it in trying to bring my understandings to the attention of a
>> group of thinkers who describe themselves as 'friends of wisdom'. I have as
>> yet found no way through this impermeable barricade. The best I have managed
>> is to keep going alongside those who impose it, whilst introducing my
>> understandings to students and others who don't have so much already invested
>> in oppositional logic - and indeed are looking for a way out from it. As I
>> say in my 'keynote paper':
>>
>> "I have simply to admit that I can only explicate my perceptions and
>> reasoning for opening the door into natural inclusionality in my
>> personally unique way, using whatever means I have available to me, and
>> invite others across the threshold if they wish, where I will be pleased to
>> welcome, help and engage with their enquiries as best I can. Whenever I
>> forget to say or admit this, and engage instead with a perceived requirement
>> or actual demand to convince others, I sense resentment and resistance rising
>> within my listeners, and can all too easily become defensive and resentful
>> myself."
>>
>> This approach - along with the kind of questioning and careful reading of the
>> situation you and Ernie describe - seems to work very well, when, as Ernie
>> describes, the willingness to listen and sense of need is present in both
>> directions (as per recent 'coalition' talks in the UK, perhaps?), but not
>> when it isn't. When it isn't, my only recourse has been to walk away or stand
>> my ground, depending on circumstance. Where I am obliged to stand my ground
>> (as when my 'life, environment and people' course was threatened with
>> closure), the need for a clear, cool head and awareness of the encouragement
>> of people like Jack and yourself (and especially of the students themselves,
>> in the case of my course) has been paramount in 'protesting' and 'resisting'
>> attempts to expel or confine me/my understandings, stating my case as clearly
>> and reasonably as possible, and showing where I think common ground is still
>> present, whilst avoiding resorting to outright opposition. This can indeed be
>> very demanding, especially when one's viscera are performing cartwheels,
>> self-doubt is darting in from all angles and the language you need isn't easy
>> to find! But then, perhaps, that is where the humility and creativity that
>> self-doubt brings can, in a strange way, come to one's aid as long as it does
>> not overwhelm completely. Natural inclusional thinking is, after all, all
>> about recognising the limits and limitiations of complete certainty in a
>> space-including, variably fluid world that cannot be defined absolutely by
>> hard lines. Real Art is expressed in creative attunement with uncertainty,
>> not formulaic painting by numbers.
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Susan Goff <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:05 AM
>>> Subject: Re: To be inclusional
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
