Quoting Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]>:
I thought not to intervene but I have to.
I am a humanistic constructing critical psychologist of the human
subject who infuriated beyond belief by the abstraction of the human
subject into disembodied propositional theories has decided to
construct a psychology that is embodied within my own, embodied,
well-being - something that I critically live, embody and engage with
every second of my existence.
I have been called and referred to by all kinds of different names and
complements by my kind former and present colleagues who wonder about
my project and claime it an egocentric one, a piece of poetry, a piece
of insanity and auto-genic work of a clinician.
Still, I should like to say the following back at them. This is when I
feel at engaging with them or needing to engage with them for my own
economic and ontological security.
As you might have suspected, this heuristic practice of self-conveyance
and self-conceptualisation that I am telling you about is not naïve and
disembodied from my own ontological and ethical needs, aspirations,
intentions and self-constructing endeavours of and for myself. How can
this be? I am myself not merely a psychologist of human existence who
is endeavouring to conceptualise the human subject and human existence.
I am a human being/subject myself who should very like to benefit
from this practice and work myself and who is having an obligation for
myself to do so. One of the fundamental mistakes that I see in my
field, empirical psychology, is the bizarre need to distance oneself
from one’s work into conceptualising and approaching the human subject
and human existence. A need that is deriving from the traditional
underpinning of the social science and empirical psychology to be
objective, impersonal and unbiased in their research practices. This
is in order to count as scientific, rigorous, disciplined and
structured. Yet, this is ludicrous, those research endeavours are
practiced by human beings for human beings and their well-being. And
who is more important to me than me? Who is more important to you than
you? Why is this charades of cutting ourselves from our research? Why
playing it in the first place? It does not do any good to our
authenticity and credibility as sincere researchers. I have my own
agenda that I wish to promote and act within. My actions, practices
and intentions are wholly embodied within this issue of my advocating
and fulfilling this agenda of mine in the most coherent, convincing,
suitable and valid manner that I can. Like in what I take to be a
worthwhile, productive and trustworthy relationship and
interrelationship between two parties of the type Buber and Rogers talk
about, I am trying and seeking to be honest, genuine, sincere and
authentic with you and to establish these values of genuineness,
sincerity, trust and authenticity to be the ground rules of our
presenter/engager-engaging/reader relationship. This is within an
intention to establish the element of trust and an accepting
environment that would get rid of the elements suspense, self-defence
and hostility that I have suffered from in my past desire to challenge
the traditional, historical, established and conventional modes of
practice and engagement of my field as a practitioner within and of
this field. I take it that my research account would be far more
convincing once it is subscribing to these values.
I am therefore saying to you as clearly as I can: my loyalty is to this
agenda of mine, its development and promotion and to this intention
alone. This is what gives the most meaning, gratification and
productivity to my life, myself and my practices and as such I am
obligating to it as someone, a human-all-too-human someone, who is
striving to lead a gratifying existence and to enjoy the greatest
well-being, ontological security and aesthetic, ethical and authentic
quality of living in the world that I am capable of. The latter is my
passion, my personal obligation to myself. Why deny it?
In the name of authenticity and a personal self-obligation of myself to
myself, I'd rather be perceived by others a lunatic than by myself as
someone who does not fulfil his obligation to himself - that is to lead
a meaningful and productive existence with integrity and dignity.
> On 25 May 2006, at 08:52, A.D.M.Rayner wrote:
>> 1. The logical premise of inclusional enquiry is that natural form is
>> primarily fluid dynamic (space-including) and hence non-linear,
>> continually transforming (simultaneously and reciprocally receptive
>> and responsive), and not completely definable at any scale.
>> 2. The logical premise of rationalistic enquiry is that natural form is
>> primarily fixed (space-excluding) and hence linear and completely
>> definable at any scale, so that change (action and reaction in
>> sequential time) is dependent on the imposition
>> of external force.
>> So the question is: which logical premise and mode of enquiry makes sense
>> of our full human experience and is actually supported by
>> contemporary scientific
>> evidence? And which ultimately makes nonsense and is supported only
>> by belief in a
>> visual illusion, self-sustained by technological development? And
>> which includes space for emotional response in a dynamic (living)
> For me, having experiencing the flow-forms of inclusional enquiries
> in all our lives and research I'm doing what I can, largely through
> supporting the flow of your writings through web-space, to embody our
> ideas in the cultural influences within which we live and work. We
> are all working and researching in our different ways and in our
> different contexts. What surprised me as I pressed the reply-all
> button to Alan's e-mail was the e-list in the Cc box. Good to see you
> all there! We've all engaged in Monday evening conversations in
> Bath, the masters programme and/or a doctoral programme in the
> University. The majority of us already have our living theories of
> our educational influences in learning flowing through web-space from
> Having answered Alan's questions in favour of inclusionality, I'm
> looking forward to sharing insights into what we are doing and might
> do, individually and collectively, to enhance understandings of the
> educational influences of inclusional enquiries.
> Love Jack.