----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Ojectivity etc.....
> Dear Tim,
>
> Just to clarify. Inclusional logic doesn't deny either inner or outer
> reality but understands these as dynamic relational, not fully fixed, via
> spatial inclusion. Your friend couldn't have his operation if his skin was
> an impermeable barrier between his objective inside and his objective
> outside.
>
> The problem with objective logic is that it unnaturally and non-sensically
> hardens distinction into definition, in effect by denying the implicit
> presence of non-local space and focusing solely on explicit local material
> presence as 'all that counts'. As William Wordsworth recognised, even
> without the aid of contemporary science, 'in nature everything is
> distinct, yet nothing defined into absolute, independent singleness'. If
> your friend was an absolute independent singleness (a fully definable
> object), he couldn't have his operation. His skin is his dynamic bodily
> lining, which respectively outlines and inlines his inner space and outer
> space whilst both distinguishing and allowing communion between them (cf
> the video clip of the 'paper dance' Jack often refers to). As James Bond
> may recall, if you seal skin with gold paint, it doesn't do you much good.
>
> The fatal flaw in objective logic is its dependence upon independence,
> through the absolute exclusion of outside from inside that effectively
> treats skin as a discrete material limit and space as 'the nothing that
> puts distance between us - keeps us apart'. This flaw is built in to an
> enormous variety of human endeavours and is continually being inculcated
> through the 'distancing' of 'self' from 'other' in our 'educational'
> systems.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "BERA Practitioner-Researcher"
> <[log in to unmask]>; "Alan Rayner (BU)"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Ojectivity etc.....
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Thank you for your subjective/objective postings, which have moved my
>> thinking on lots. This what I currently understand:
>>
>> 1. Objectivity can be described increasing the distance between myself
>> and
>> the other. There can't be total objectivity but there can be greater or
>> less objectivity. In some situations, attempts to increase objectivity
>> can
>> be helpful for increasing impartiality (e.g. when assessing students) or
>> validity (e.g. in practitioner research). Such attempts can also help
>> better decision-making by removing 'fight or flight' emotions from a
>> situation.
>> 2. Objectivity can be increased by means such as marking criteria and
>> blind
>> double marking. In research it might be increased by clear data trails,
>> maybe blind double analysing and other means. (What other means are
>> effective?)
>> 3. There are also spurious and damaging appeals to objectivity.
>> 4. Many means for increasing objectivity are actually about achieving
>> inter-subjectivity, i.e. involving more than one person. (I also believe
>> it
>> is possible to be more objective without involving others, e.g. by
>> returning
>> to the same situation on two or more occasions.)
>>
>> I am intrigued by Alan's inclusional logic but don't understand it. I
>> have a
>> friend who is waiting for a heart by-pass; at some point the surgeons
>> will
>> cut him open and replace some arteries. Alan's posting, 'there is no
>> scientific evidence for the localized existence of objective outsides and
>> insides in a fluid dynamical cosmos' seems to deny that he has an inside,
>> to reach which it is necessary to cut through what is on the outside,
>> i.e.
>> his skin. I guess I am misunderstanding something.
>>
>> Thanks again and best wishes,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|