Dear all,

Sometimes I think Wittgenstein hit the nail on the head - to paraphrase:

...we should try to prevent of the bewitchment of our intelligence by language

and secondly - language is a game - we need to know the rules of the game
in order to participate. If part of the values of a living theory approach
to action research is sharing meaning, and creating and sharing meaning while
in relationship - with others, with local or non local space - whatever you
want to call it - is this not splitting hairs a little. 

In Zen, vedanta etc take your pick - it is the act of labeling, the game
of language that is considered part of the problem, so most of them bypassed
this local non local, or subject / object divide by using stories, in plain
language - to spark thinking or action rather than go for full on explanation.
I am not sure that inclusional logic can be fully expressed through language,
and I think in a way attempts to explain subject / object as dynamic flows,
local non local etc is really changing one set of labels for another more
refined set, but still labels none the less. 

Thats why I kept silent and didnt write this - grin!!!! Maybe plain English
that suggests something rather than tries to fully explain it - stories or
poetry is the only form of expression that allows us to convey meaning, without
reification.

best wishes......bewitched by language.
Darragh


>-- Original Message --
>Date:         Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:08:30 -0000
>Reply-To:     BERA Practitioner-Researcher              <[log in to unmask]>
>From:         "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Ojectivity etc.....
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>
>Dear Tim,
>
>Yes, I think you may be on the way to inclusionally extending the concept
>of 
>purely local 'individual self' to local-non-local spatial 'neighbourhood'
>or 
>'natural communion', but your focus still appears to be on the human 
>'figures' and their 'connection', not the limitless receptive spatial pool
>
>that all are dynamic inclusions of. So, from what is to many a profoundly
>
>unfamiliar inclusional perspective, I'd be inclined to re-phrase your 
>opening sentence as follows:
>
>Inner is spatially continuous with outer through dynamically distinct local
>
>interfacings; local form dynamically configures non-local space.
>
>Here is where the difficulty with familiar definitive language arises. You
>
>and others may think that I am being deliberately abstruse in my 
>reformulation of your simple, easy-to-follow, 'plain english' sentence.
But
>
>as it is phrased, without giving room for dynamic non-local spatial 
>inclusion, your sentence can still seem objectively to localize 'inside'
>and 
>'outside' respectively as 'part' that is materially included in and 
>connected to 'the other part of the whole'.
>
>From an inclusional perspective, your friend's 'well-becoming' (for which
>
>all good wishes) cannot be dislocated from his unique bodily situation as
>a 
>dynamic locally receptive-responsive inclusion of everywhere, which includes
>
>friends, family, biosphere and cosmos. As you recognise, his healing depends
>
>on his inclusional treatment as more - enormously more - than a 
>dysfunctional object-machine.
>
>By the same token, no student's 'performance' can be dislocated from his
>or 
>her contextual situation AS IF he or she was an independent machine-object
>
>that can be judged in competition with others on a level playing field.
To
>
>distance the observer from the observed, paying heed only to that which
can
>
>be quantitatively reduced by those concerned to a lowest common denominator,
>
>and so be 'blind' to the quality of a student's context and their unique
>
>local-non-local self-identity, as in double-blind assessment, amounts to
>
>deliberate ignorance of context for the sake of examiners' convenience and
>
>so is utterly partial and deeply unfair. It provides a convenient basis
for
>
>ranking artificially in league tables, but not for educationally developing
>
>students' unique potentials in ways that can enrich human communities in
>
>diverse ways and bring a sense of belonging and co-creative participation
>
>for all.
>
>What can seem objectively to be so fair and impartial actually arises from
>
>and reinforces C.S. Lewis' Screwtape's 'philosophy of Hell': one thing 
>cannot be another thing and, specifically, one self cannot be another 
>self...to be means to be in competition.
>
>
>Warmest
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Cain T." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Ojectivity etc.....
>
>
>Dear all,
>I think I understand some of what Alan is saying:
>
>The inside is connected to the outside; one is part of the other. My
>friend's heart is linked with his emotional/psychological well being. He
>is also connected to the rest of his world - family & friends etc. So
>fixing his heart isn't the same as fixing him.
>
>I think the medics understand this: after his op, he will go to someone
>who will discuss his lifestyle with him. He might even get a course of
>counselling if his emotional wellbeing needs this.
>
>I guess that formerly they might have fixed his heart without attending
>to any of the issues which might have caused the problem to emerge.
>Thus, even after the op, the problems might have re-emerged.
>
>Does this show an aspect of inclusional logic?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>
>Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan
>Rayner (BU)
>Sent: 19 March 2008 13:23
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Ojectivity etc.....
>
>----- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>