Yes, I welcome your sincere enquiry, but I think there are some
misunderstandings and inappropriate assumptions evident in what you write
below, which I hope would be resolved by a perusal of the actual contents
of our new website.
I haven't defined inclusionality. You can't define openness axiomatically
without making non-sense. To make an exception of oneself or other through
the imposition of definition upon dynamic relational flow form is
non-inclusional. Those whose standard practice is to impose such definition
simply cannot gain access to inclusionality - it is not a question of being
'rejected' - any more than an ice crystal can melt below its freezing
point. To gain access, it is necessary to relax definition through opening
to warmth and vulnerability (indefinable friendliness)- which is difficult
in a competitive, controlling, unreceptive culture, Hell-bent on
definition. To proudly insist on freezing oneself out of context prevents
one's inclusion: thermal energy doesn't flow readily from cold to warm, but
coldness can freeze the heart out of warmth. Exclusionality makes itself
incompatible with inclusionality, just as a self-excepting cancer cell that
seeks immortality is incompatible with the host space of a healthy body,
not vice versa. Inclusionality can transform exclusionality as soon as
exclusionality stops defining itself - but not before if the exclusionality
is not to spread itself-destructively through the host space.
I haven't invited members of the B.E.R.A list to join the Inclusional
Research Forum and Learning Space (IRFALS). I have simply advertised its
availability to those who may find some warmth of inspiration and learning
relevant to their Practitioner Research therein. And there are no conveners
of IRFALS, only an administrator (Karen Tesson).
The discussion list at IRFALS hasn't stirred into life yet. It is something
we wanted to make available for anyone who SINCERELY wishes to share in its
warmth, and we hope to get it under way, along with some participatory
possibilities, soon. Sincerity is the key. Sincerity brings trust and
friendliness. There is no elitism or filter - those are devices of
exclusionality, which impede access to inclusionality.
Yesterday I was stung by a wasp whilst out looking for fungi to show
lovingly to my students. Removing the wasp from my neck was not, in my
view, exclusional: rather, I was inclusionally protecting my host space
from damaging influence. And I have been badly stung before now by people
(not you, I hasten to add) intent on critiquing and misrepresenting my/our
intention through selective inattention and games of dialectic tit-for-tat
played oh so cleverly from a definitive stance. They're no more welcome
into my/our non-local locality than the wasp unless they give me/us good
reason to trust their sincerity. I think anyone who has thrown a party in
their home space can understand that.
I hope that may help. But I am already feeling that in bringing IRFALS to
attention, I have outstayed my welcome on this B.E.R.A. list, and so intend
now to withdraw, at least for a while.
--On 03 October 2007 13:28 +0100 Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> Your postings inspire me - and puzzle ... in an 'educational' sense! As I
> engage with highly complex representations of your knowledge I experience
> a drawing out hence -e-ducere of my philosophical stances roted in my
> values while simultaneously and consciously opening my reflexive logic to
> I sense that I understand what you are intending. Your own explanation of
> inclusional is communicating in a form that, though embedded culturally
> and linguistically in your world view, enables me to engage with-in/out
> mine. Thank you for that opportunity. I want to test my understanding in
> I am going to start here... and I would be grateful for your personal
> help: (while I appreciate others' responses, my question is specifically
> to you).
> 'We only have to relax our obsessive compulsion to make exceptions by
> defining things categorically...'
> On this list we are invited to join another one that you convene devoted
> to inclusional logic. We have to conform to certain filters - satisfy
> certain critera in order to do so, as far as I can see... First we have
> to apply to join - this is not an open discussion list - we need to be
> 'approved' and second the conversation is to be 'friendly' - who defines
> 'friendliness'? Third, from what I can gather from others who have
> already joined this elite there is a paradigmatic stance being promoted -
> relating to Living Theories'
> I gently and respectfully suggest the very existence of the list with its
> filters is not inclusional within your own definition. Do I misunderstand?
> Warm regards,
> PS I am sensing a 'living contradiction' in the existence of your new list