Dear Je Kan, Sarah and all,

Well, I do hope that this glimmering of 'loving receptivity' may prosper!

For myslef, I must say that this correspondence has been raising some of 
the deepest issues not only for educational practitioners in particular but 
also for our sense of common humanity in general.

It has concerned the fundamental question of how 'trust can be broken, 
sustained and restored'.

I am increasingly thinking that 'we' have been trapped for millennia in a 
form of philosophy that is ultimately based on the denial of love through 
the imposition of discrete boundaries around 'things', including 'the 
self', as individual sovereign 'objects' with 'their own' behaviour, for 
which they are supposedly fully responsible whilst paradoxically being 
pushed and pulled around by external force; 'free agents', capable of 
'freely associating' in 'pluralistic assemblies' whilst locked in a power 
struggle between inner and outer.

On another discussion list I feel I have seen epitomized extremely well the 
philosophy of expert denial (which could also be regarded as the philosophy 
of conflict/opposition/deprivation/hate/fear/power) and the impossibility 
of transforming this philosophy in terms that it will accept as valid, 
having excluded what is vital to this transformation from its own 
self-definition. Ironically, there is nothing this philosophy hates more 
than love than itself, whose abusive qualities it projects willy-nilly onto 
those offering the possibility of loving transformation. And I have been 
well and truly on the receiving end of such projection; very painful it is 
too.

How on Earth are we supposed to be honest, and thereby to trust one 
another, in a culture dominated by the philosophy of denial and its 
precipitate of hateful rivalry? As far as I can see, the only way - 'there 
is no alternative' - is through the loving transformation of this 
philosophy. But this is very difficult to accomplish because those 
practiced in the art of denial simply take it in turns to deny whatever is 
presented to them and accuse the other of denial. And so it goes on.

So what is 'it' that self-serves the art of denial? I have no doubt that it 
is the purely 'mental' (it is not actually possible in a natural, fluid 
dynamic reality) capacity to remove doubt by means of absolute definitions 
(fixed standards) that isolate 'one' from 'other' in order to give 'one' 
'ownership' of all to which they may claim 'sovereignty'. And once 'one' 
has declared 'sovereignty' as a universal 'human right', boy, doesn't it 
give offence to question it? But within this walled in, possessive 
sovereignty, the possibility of loving transformation is painfully and 
brutally excluded.

We therefore need to 'relax our definitions' so as to be able to evolve 
co-creatively in fluid dynamic neighbourhood, as a river changes its 
boundaries with its inseparable catchment as it flows. Isn't that what 
'living standards' are all about? Isn't that what distinguishes 'living 
theory' as 'world leading' in the art of craftsmanship, loosening up the 
concrete structures of obstructive totalitarianism, allowing the 
transformation from 'artificial selection' to 'natural inclusion'?

Living theory, as I see 'it', is endeavouring to dissolve the concrete 
somewhat, to release its capacity to flow. But living theory is being 
developed in the very midst of transition, where the established concrete 
paradigm remains powerful and resistive and has to be acknowledged in the 
process of gaining acceptance in the Halls of its Guardians. Those 
currently presenting 'LETs' have to be exceptional artists to navigate the 
turbulence betwixt concrete and flow. I ask you neither to belittle 
yourselves or those who are trying to support you in this endeavour. 
Especially, I ask you to relax your definitions, lick your wounds and allow 
space for loving receptivity.

Otherwise, the adage 'once bitten twice shy' will reinforce itself in 
ever-increasing vicious circles in the cancerous culture of mistrust.


Hope this helps.


Warmest


Alan







--On 16 February 2007 09:30 +0000 Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Sarah, Thank you for your reply and clearing the issues up once and
> for I publicly and unreservedly apologize if I responded in any way that
> was miss informed and hurtful to you. As you know I would never set out
> to deliberately hurt or wound.  l. I agree that to move forward will
> focus our creative energies in what excites us both. I have always said
> that words are such poor communicators and at times they get in the way.
> Now I understand that the main objection has been removed your question
> as to standards of judgement is highly relevant to education in Japan. I
> bring yours and others attention to the url of a recent paper written
> about foreign educators in Japan.
> http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=pygwSdRCXpp8rdzPgjhswxNVTnWgzy4N
>
> I never thought that any one would ever be honest enough to tell I as it
> is. It seems this is a day for me being corrected. Smile.I have to yet to
> submit my complete thesis for internal reading as it has yet to be
> approved by my supervisor. The draft first copy is available at
> http://living-action-research.org/PhD_index.htm    yes I am very nervous
> .I guess that is par for the course.
>
> So Hugs to you too
> Love and respect Je Kan
>
> Quoting Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Je Kan,
>>
>> Where you write 'I do not mean to hurt'  I hear you
>> but you've hurt me. Let's move on shall we? With my
>> unsquashable sense of humour and creativity I'll
>> recover!  Besides It's Friday - and lots to look
>> forward to!
>>
>> Hug!
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> PS There is no case under formal investigation
>> relating to my PhD!  You have misunderstood ... all
>> that was settled a long, long time ago now.
>> Let's have some more of the 'great exchanges' about
>> research in Japan?
>>
>> --- Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> re. I do  feel that it could be approached in such a
>> manner that a case which is under formal investigation
>> is not prejudge in a public forum.
>>
>> re. I do not mean to hurt  but I can not just be
>> silent as others are hurt.
>>
>> Sarah Fletcher
>> http://www.TeacherResearch.net
>>
>
>
>
> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
> Assistant Professor of Nursing
> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
> Tagawa City
> Fukuoka Prefecture
> Japan