Dear All,

I feel this message from Ted Lumley, via the inclusional discussion group, 
points to something very significant:

The difference between viewing life as a 'gift' of natural inclusion in 
energy flow to be 'passed on'

and

viewing life as a possession, which leads to the objective comparison of its 
'owners'' 'worth' as commodities in terms of their individual desirability, 
accompanied by 'selecting the best and rubbishing the rest', which blocks 
the gift flow.


Warmest

Alan



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:20 AM
Subject: Fw: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
'Junk' (fwd)


> dear christine and alan,
>
> i strongly relate to what you say, christine; e.g;
>
> "On the face of it we are getting away from the subject of the
> simplistic nature of junk and favouritism, yet it is this harmony
> (that we perceive in the painting) that is inherently 'wholesome' and
> is not junk.  If I am to make my research 'art-based research' I would
> assert that every part of a painting feeds the overall experience of
> looking at a painting.  Every part matters.  If we transfer that
> notion to society what do we find?  Workers who have aided an economy
> and are then dismissed arbitrarily as if they don't matter?  Workers
> who die because of the lack of safeguards, or more strictly speaking,
> where health and safety, while admitted as part of the safety climate,
> is dismissed as part of the safety culture? "
>
> ... and also to your 'spate attack' alan,
>
> in the metaphors that come spontaneously to my mind, the weather cells
> in the atmosphere give me this same impression of simultaneous spatial-
> relational meaning that wraps around into itself to 'complete itself
> in an unending flow'.  it is impossible to get to this meaning 'by
> ascribing meaning to parts'.
>
> when individuals are 'full of grace' or 'in harmony with the world,
> they are like this, like convection cells in the cluster that forms
> from the energy of flow, each one giving sense to every other and to
> the emerging dynamical form, the unfolding contextual
> transformation.
>
> if life is continuing contextual transformation, the unfolding
> dynamical form, like the weather cell or whirl in the fluid continuum,
> embodies its dynamical medium, at the same time as it gives embodiment
> to it.
>
> there is no way to take apart embodied and embodying; i.e. to take
> apart 'being' and 'becoming'.
>
> to me, there is parallel understanding in the parallel thread on
> 'evolutionary hotspots'.
>
> 'natural selection' is an abstraction that endows the 'embodied being'
> with a 'locally originating survival purpose' and the 'embodying fluid
> medium' with the power to set up an obstacle course to test and judge
> the 'performance' of the 'embodied being' in its (notional) purposeful
> pursuit of survival and thus to 'separate the wheat from the chaff';
> i.e. the 'favourites' from the 'junk' as if some of the brushstrokes
> in nature's fluid-dynamical continuum ('chaff') are of lesser value to
> nature's continuum.
>
> education, when it lines up our children in a variety of 'obstacle
> courses' in which those stronger at surviving the full course are
> regarded as 'favourites' or 'winners'' and the weaker at surviving who
> fall out of the course are regarded as 'junk' or 'losers', is an
> exercise that encourages the children to strengthen their 'locally
> originating survival purpose'; i.e. it gives a lesson for life that
> encourages children to fall out of harmony with the contextual
> transformation in which they are included and to instead, as local
> embodied parts, 'drive the contextual transformation' (have the
> 'embodied' become the embodying drive' (control the unfolding of the
> living space dynamic)).  we teach the children that it is up to the
> 'favourites' to take a leadership role of the independent drivers in
> this process and it is up to the 'junk' to accept their role as the
> smaller dependent cogs that contribute by letting themselves be driven
> by the bigger wheels, and thus contribute to the 'whole' positivist
> machinery.   alliances of the favourites contribute to this process by
> consolidating the leadership drive.
>
> education, done in this manner, would appear to constitute a self-
> inflicted 'falling from grace'.
>
> ted
>
> On 20 Apr, 02:32, "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This 'thread' involving the British Educational Research Association, 
>> following my initial sending to this group, may be of interest.
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Alan Rayner (BU)
>> To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>>
>> Cc: Wendy Ellyatt
>> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Dear Christine,
>>
>> Yes, all forms of deep creativity entail the transfiguration or loving 
>> opening of the 'I' self to flow, so as to become a channel, not a knot. 
>> And I experience this sense of opening to the flow when painting, when 
>> writing, when lecturing, when in conversation - in other words whenever 
>> corresponding within the communion of what I experience as my natural 
>> neighbourhood. That is, whenever I have the sense of receiving and 
>> offering gifts as a source both of inspiration and expiration, where my 
>> expiration is the inspiration of other as other's expiration is my 
>> inspiration. A flow in which acceptance of death ultimately feeds life. 
>> This flow is stifled whenever there is a lack of receptivity between my 
>> inner and my outer self. Our modern rationalistic culture lacks 
>> receptivity by definition and so stifles creativity. When our gifts are 
>> not acknowledged, one way or another, the flow builds up until we feel 
>> fit to burst with frustration, as I express in the following poem:
>>
>> Spate Attack
>>
>> I am a river damned to bursting point
>>
>> Required by your close confinement
>>
>> To down regulate my outflow
>>
>> To a pitiful trickle
>>
>> When I long to flood
>>
>> And see you flailing in my excesses
>>
>> Not because I want to drown you
>>
>> But because I want to drown the din
>>
>> Of your inconsideration
>>
>> For what I can bring
>>
>> To bear down upon your pallid protestations
>>
>> Of exception from circumstance
>>
>> That cruelly deny my loving influence
>>
>> So that you can take one another apart
>>
>> In death-defying leaps of soulless mentality
>>
>> Into the hard ground of your unreality
>>
>> Where life feeds the pungent corpse of your annihilation
>>
>> No, I don't want to drown you
>>
>> But how I yearn to see you swim
>>
>> What a fine splash you'd make!
>>
>> Pooled together in my liquidity
>>
>> Taken up in common spirit
>>
>> Where all resolve to solve is gone
>>
>> Rendered needless by your oblivion
>>
>> Of all that you have placed to stand in the way
>>
>> Of your dearest, loving Mother
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Since openness is the key, any totalization of 'whole' or 'part' as a 
>> discrete, self-possessive entity blocks the flow, like a knot in a string 
>> or clot in a channel. The 'gift' must continually move on in a more than 
>> two-body dynamic, as Lewis Hyde makes clear very early on in his book, 
>> referring to the Kula Ring in the South Sea Islands. Here inclusionality 
>> departs from holism and the 'gestalt' in the conventional sense, because 
>> the very idea of 'wholes' and 'parts' COMPLETELY rationalizes what is 
>> naturally a CO-CREATIVE, RECEPTIVE-RESPONSIVE dynamic continuum and 
>> blocks its flow. Of course, it is this occlusion into wholes and parts, 
>> through the exclusion of the space of zero and infinity, which lies at 
>> the core of the discontinuity of objective rationality and the 
>> foundations of classical and modern mathematics. This is why mathematics 
>> often seems so alien to empathic people, who may feel so disempowered by 
>> its oppressively discontinuous, space-excluding figures as to describe 
>> themselves as 'stupid' or 'number-blind' (when it's really the 
>> mathematical foundations that are stupid and blind). But that is why also 
>> there is a need for the transfigural mathematics that opens itself to the 
>> loving influence of everywhere, as symbolized in the 'superchannel' of 
>> the attached painting, which also has affinities with the inflows and 
>> outflows practised ceremonially in the Kula Ring and is also evident in 
>> vortex trails. A caption for the painting would read:
>>
>> "Overlapping spheres of non-local influence recoil into and out from one
>> another to form a double helical superchannel of light as a dynamic
>> inclusion of darkness, and darkness as a dynamic inclusion of light,
>> recalling the inspirational spirals of all forms of organic life as an
>> embodied water flow, reciprocating each others' movement"
>>
>> Yes, I am familiar with Ehrenzweig's book, which also speaks of the 
>> 'syncretism' of the (in my terms) 'included middle' that holds both sides 
>> together at once....
>>
>> It's so very urgent for us to re-move the rationalistic clot in the 
>> channel that ties a knot in the string, if there is to be any hope of 
>> holesome healing!!
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: STANDING, Christine
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Dear Alan and others,
>>
>> I suppose, as you are an artist, this sense that 'you did not make the 
>> work' is a common phenomenon? Mind you, I hear non-artists (non-visual 
>> artists at least) saying the same about their essays. Does this 
>> phenomenon happen to you when you write? If not, what is happening?Is it 
>> that the visual art is taken in 'at a glance'? and so the impact is 
>> greater?
>>
>> Are you familiar with the work of Ehrenzweig, who writes on the artistic 
>> imagination? (Ehrenzweig. Anton. (1967) The Hidden Order of Art. 
>> Weidenfeld.) He describes how a painting is produced in a non-linear way 
>> of 'thinking' - if I can call it thinking. And when we look at a painting 
>> analysis is not made in linear progression. Leonardo da Vinci was 
>> comparing poetry and paintings when he made the remark:
>>
>> "Do you not know that our soul is composed of harmony? He regarded 
>> painting as the higher art because by painting one can describe 'harmony' 
>> instantaneously so that it is immediately perceived by just 'watching' 
>> the painting, while writing poems, and music, need a step-like logic that 
>> one needs to 'hear' in sequence." Noble Denis (2006:143) The Music of 
>> Life. OUP
>>
>> On the face of it we are getting away from the subject of the simplistic 
>> nature of junk and favouritism, yet it is this harmony (that we perceive 
>> in the painting) that is inherently 'wholesome' and is not junk. If I am 
>> to make my research 'art-based research' I would assert that every part 
>> of a painting feeds the overall experience of looking at a painting. 
>> Every part matters. If we transfer that notion to society what do we 
>> find? Workers who have aided an economy and are then dismissed 
>> arbitrarily as if they don't matter? Workers who die because of the lack 
>> of safeguards, or more strictly speaking, where health and safety, while 
>> admitted as part of the safety climate, is dismissed as part of the 
>> safety culture?
>>
>> I recently received an email that stated,
>>
>> 'the fatality figures for the construction industry constitute a total 
>> number of deaths that even the most hard-bitten of Fleet Street hacks 
>> would find difficult to ignore. Last year, 77 people lost their lives 
>> working in construction. If this appalling figure on its own is not 
>> enough, last year also saw an increase of 28% over the previous year, 
>> making 2006/2007 the most lethal year in construction for five years.'
>>
>> Who determines where the junk lies? Those with the power; the 
>> self-defined 'not-junk'?
>>
>> Those of us who think holistically know that when one person suffers we 
>> all suffer. You said earlier in our correspondence, ' This is why it is 
>> so crucial for us to develop and communicate the kinds of mathematics and 
>> physics based on transfigurality, and evolutionary understanding based on 
>> natural inclusion, that can help us out of the fix of producing more and 
>> more junk by objective definition.' I am number-blind, for me the way to 
>> transform is through art-based research, but I'm still figuring the 'how' 
>> of it.
>>
>> I like the confluence, and in particular your poem, 'Space--your final 
>> dissolution' because it resonates with the gestalt theme, where the 
>> living light and loving darkness not only complement one another, but 
>> work together to produce more than the sum of their parts.
>>
>> best wishes,
>> Christine
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:55:56 +0100
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Dear Christine and all,
>>
>> Sorry for the delayed response! My plate suddenly overflowed....
>>
>> There certainly are some very strong resonances with you here, and it 
>> feels good - though perhaps not paradoxical - to arrive in the same place 
>> from very different paths. I think this kind of confluence is becoming 
>> more and more evident, even as the cruelty of rationalistic thought seems 
>> to gain ever more ascendence, so there is a sense that 'we just can't 
>> carry on this way'.
>>
>> Regarding 'whoever would gain his life must lose it', below is a poem I 
>> wrote on the Auschwitz anniversary a while ago.
>>
>> Meanwhile, here are a couple of sentences from the 'Introduction' to 'The 
>> Gift - How The Creative Spirit Transforms The World' by Lewis Hyde, which 
>> I have just started reading:
>>
>> 'Usually, in fact, the artist does not find himself engaged or 
>> exhilarated by the work, nor does it seem authentic, until this 
>> gratuitous element has appeared, so that along with any true creation 
>> comes the uncanny sense that 'I', the artist did not make the work. 'Not 
>> I, not I, but the wind that blows through me' says D.H. Lawrence''
>>
>> 'If I am right to say that where there is no gift there is no art, then 
>> it may be possible to destroy a work of art by converting it into a pure 
>> commodity'
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Space - Your Final Dissolution
>> I am your final dissolution
>> The nurturer of your nature
>> That soothes and softens
>> As we live and breathe together
>> No gas-tight chamber doors
>> Designed to wall in
>> Or wall out your fears of devastation
>> Can exterminate me
>> You cannot live without me
>> You cannot die without me
>> I cannot find expression without you
>> You live in the breath of my inspiration
>> You die in the breath of my expiration
>> You die as you live
>> You live as you die
>> With me
>> Within and without
>> So, if you try to close me in
>> Or close me out
>> In your Manly human quest for Godly immortality
>> I cannot love you as you stir within my womb
>> I cannot assist you
>> I can only watch, impassively by
>> As you use me to destroy
>> Yourself
>> Or suffocate in the stasis
>> Of a never-ending, never-opening
>> Paralysis
>> That's no life for any one of us
>> Alone
>> So, please, bear with me
>> As I am alongside and within you
>> Take me in as I take you out
>> Certain only of the uncertainty
>> That recreates a rich and vibrant world
>> I am what life and death is all about
>> Rising and subsiding
>> In ever-flowing form
>> Living Light and Loving Darkness
>> Together
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: STANDING, Christine
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Dear Alan, and anyone who's following this:
>>
>> I do agree about the difference between being 'tied together' and 'true 
>> communion'. I've sent you a picture of my painting 'Rock-Climbers', who 
>> incidentally are not tied together, in it there is communion. (I have a 
>> problem using my OCMS.ac.uk mail as it doesn't take large emails. I 
>> should change it if possible.)
>>
>> Cross-Purposes - The Trinity of the Complex Self
>> Alan, I found this piece of writing amazing. I came to Christianity late 
>> in life. I was about to say 'without the baggage', but of course I DO 
>> have baggage, having been raised in a Christian society. And I came late 
>> because of my perceived criticisms of the Christian society that 
>> harboured wrongdoers, and even let them thrive in their midst. I am 
>> talking about abuses within the church, power imbalances and abuse of 
>> power. One of my case studies relates how a woman whose child was 
>> sexually abused within the church was herself made the outcast, the 
>> rejected one. While the perpetrator thrived with his reputation intact.
>>
>> I too, (and especially as a woman) suffered from the dominance of someone 
>> else's interpretations, foisted onto me by rote, and your example of the 
>> victim's double-bind, with its 'forgive - only forgive', without the true 
>> reconcilation is a good example. Thank you for sharing your experience of 
>> being confronted with the Self-denying symbolism of 'I' crossed out. It 
>> is well put. It marks that important dynamic, of 'trying to be good', 
>> often at great personal cost; it is about control. It isn't meant to be 
>> like that! (Not that I've got it all worked out, you understand.)
>>
>> You ask, "What if the symbolic implication of the Cross is not the 
>> altruistic annihilation of the 'I' Self? What if it represents the 
>> compassionate inclusion by and of the 'I' Self, through its holey centre 
>> and interfacial bodily boundaries, of complementary dynamic potentials? 
>> Would that make a difference to the way we relate to one another, other 
>> life forms and our living space?'
>>
>> Yes, I guess so, if I understand you correctly, but what of the, 'whoever 
>> would gain his life must lose it'? This too transfigures. I can't pretend 
>> to fully understand it, but I don't think it refers to giving in to 
>> bullies. But I do think it has something to do with a loving attitude 
>> towards those who despitefully use us. There is a strange 'something' 
>> that happens at a time like that. Not that I always practice it, nor that 
>> I feel that I get anywhere with it always, yet this attitude a) 
>> transforms me and b) may transform them!
>>
>> Your idea of 'mutually shaping and reciprocally transforming inner and 
>> outer through intermediary spatial domains' reminds me of a gestalt; 
>> which makes me think of seeing both sides of an argument at one and the 
>> same time. I've done a painting of 'Crib Goch', an arete on one of the 
>> mountains leading to Snowdon. This footpath that traces the very top of 
>> the line of the mountain is hazardous; one has to keep one's balance and 
>> see both sides at the same time. Or else!
>>
>> 'Many too have been the political and academic careers stalled by 
>> orthodoxy when they have sought to bring the iniquities of the law of the 
>> excluded middle to light. ' and so did Polanyi when he thought his elders 
>> and betters, colleagues and others asserted that they were being 
>> objective in their scientific decision-making.
>>
>> 'What is it, then, that orthodoxy finds so unpalatable about this view of 
>> Self as Neighbourhood - dynamic relational place rather than dislocated 
>> individual subject or object? Does it necessarily end in catastrophe, or 
>> is it a means of avoiding catastrophe? Does it inspire love or hate? Is 
>> it healing or damaging? Does it bring us together or force us apart' Why 
>> is it either/or; why not both/and? Because, instead of the comparing and 
>> measuring, there is legitimate difference. I think some Christian places 
>> work like this and don't disrespect 'self as neighbourhood'.
>>
>> I too have feared the discovery that I am the 'source of sin, weakness 
>> and vulnerability' indeed I own up to that, yet am also reconciled to it 
>> in some curious, paradoxical way that gives me added creativity. I 
>> remember realising that when I did a painting of Medusa with Pegasus. 
>> Here the reconcilation between hatred and death, with love and 
>> compassion, through creativity. So here again I echo you, 'it can 
>> actually be the wellspring of loving and respectful compassion.' Isn't it 
>> paradoxical that we both find ourselves at this place through different 
>> means?
>>
>> Your paintings didn't appear in my document unfortunately.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Christine
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:10:28 +0100
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Dear Christine and all,
>>
>> Yes, in many ways there is very close correspondence. But I also would 
>> point to what I think is a very important distinction between the 
>> material connectedness or 'contiguity' of being 'tied together', and the 
>> dynamic continuity or true communion of being pooled together, 
>> gravitationally, 'in common space'.
>>
>> I'm attaching a chapter from 'Inclusional Nature' concerning this 
>> question.
>>
>> Let me clarify this before going any further. I couldn't honestly call 
>> myself Christian and I don't ascribe to any particular orthodox belief 
>> system that is not grounded in evidence or
>> sound reason (and that includes objectivist science!). But I do recognise 
>> what I take to be a dynamic inclusional (i.e 
>> 'spiritual/spatial/immaterial/non-local/omnipresent') core in the 
>> origination of many faiths. This is associated with values of love, 
>> compassion and respect for natural neighbourhood that are expressed in 
>> various versions of 'the golden rule' yet often denied in the 'living 
>> contradiction of orthodox practice.
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: STANDING, Christine
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> This was of interest to me because in a recent seminar I've just 
>> discussed a drawing of mine called 'Rock-Climbers'. A mass of people are 
>> climbing crags; they are all attached to one another in some way or 
>> other. They all relate. So your essay chimes well with my ideas.
>>
>> What is 'transfigurality'?
>>
>> I guess your explanations are what I'd define as humanist? One of my 
>> explanations of 'Rock-climbers' is that it demonstrates a system, the 
>> 'body of Christ' as Christians call it, seen as a system. A system of 
>> interrelating, in the picture each person is in physical contact with 
>> another. ie
>>
>> 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do 
>> not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one 
>> body, and each member belongs to all the others.' Romans 12:3-5 (New 
>> International Version.Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International 
>> Bible Society Zondervan)
>>
>> Of course, this begins with the statement, '3 Do not think of yourself 
>> more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober 
>> judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you'. 
>> This drawing, I think in retrospect, is in accordance with this; this is 
>> my theological reflection on it. Not all can, as one of the figures is 
>> doing, support several at once (as does our Dean!) The child, the infirm, 
>> the deformed, cannot physically support others; yet they also have their 
>> place 'in the team'. During the seminar two people mentioned 'Arthur'. I 
>> don't know whether you saw it, about the value of the disabled. Popular 
>> television might name and categorise some in the team as 'the weakest 
>> link', yet this quote asserts value for all human souls.
>>
>> Are these views in keeping with yours?
>>
>> Best,
>> Christine
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:34 +0100
>> Subject: Re: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk' (fwd)
>>
>> Following up on this, I have written the attached short essay.
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alan Rayner" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:30 AM
>> Subject: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> 'Junk'
>> (fwd)
>>
>> > Dear All,
>>
>> > I have just sent the following (now slightly revised) message to the
>> > inclusional research discussion group.
>>
>> > I feel it may have much relevance to how really to understand the
>> > difference between natural educational inclusion and unnatural 
>> > selection.
>>
>> > Perhaps we need to let go of the junk thinking that lures us into
>> > rubbishing ourselves and one another!
>>
>> > Warmest
>>
>> > Alan
>>
>> > ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
>> > Date: 10 April 2008 08:38 +0100
>> > From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: The Simplistic Nature of Favouritism - and How It Produces 
>> > 'Junk'
>>
>> > Dear All,
>>
>> > Ted Lumley's impassioned missive regarding the relation between the 
>> > notion
>> > of 'Junk DNA' and prevalent ideas about 'junk people' draws attention 
>> > to
>> > what I think is the most fundamental social, psychological and
>> > environmental implication of inclusionality:
>>
>> > In a continually evolving energy flow, there is no such thing as 
>> > 'junk'.
>> > Neither is there any such thing as individual 'perfection' in isolation
>> > from others.
>>
>> > The very idea of 'junk' arises from the kind of favouritism evident in
>> > Darwin's description of 'natural selection' as 'the preservation of
>> > favoured races in the struggle for life'.
>>
>> > Such favouritism is the product of rationalistic exclusion, most
>> > fundamentally of all the exclusion of 'space' from 'matter', such that
>> > only
>> > the latter 'counts', as in the discreteness/discontinuity embedded in 
>> > the
>> > simplistic foundations of classical and modern mathematics and 
>> > objectivist
>> > science. It produces a very partial, postscriptive and prescriptive 
>> > view
>> > of
>> > history and evolution in which only the 'big hitters' count and there 
>> > is
>> > no
>> > play in the system for improvisational co-creativity. It leads 
>> > inexorably
>> > to eugenics and the motivations for fascism. It alienates the loving
>> > influence of receptive spatial context that makes evolution possible in
>> > the
>> > first place. It negates negativity in a misogynistic 'false positivism'
>> > that denies our natural source.
>>
>> > This is why it is so crucial for us to develop and communicate the 
>> > kinds
>> > of
>> > mathematics and physics based on transfigurality, and evolutionary
>> > understanding based on natural inclusion, that can help us out of the 
>> > fix
>> > of producing more and more junk by objective definition.
>>
>> > Everest isn't the only mountain in the Himalayas. The Great White isn't
>> > the
>> > only fish in the sea. The solute isn't alone in the solution. Alone, 
>> > stuck
>> > on top of the pyramidal adaptive peaks of their ascendent architecture,
>> > they are going nowhere fast.
>>
>> > The simplisticity of favouritism not only produces junk, it is junk! 
>> > And
>> > our rationalistic modern human culture of perversely discontinuous flow 
>> > is
>> > full of it!
>>
>> > Warmest
>>
>> > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> The information in this message and any files attached to it are strictly 
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
>> addressee. Access to this message by any other person is prohibited. If 
>> you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
>> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is 
>> prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender 
>> should this message have been incorrectly transmitted. The views 
>> expressed in this electronic transmission do not necessarily reflect 
>> those of Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. Transmission is virus-free 
>> and we will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus 
>> transmitted. Thank you.
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> The information in this message and any files attached to it are strictly 
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
>> addressee. Access to this message by any other person is prohibited. If 
>> you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
>> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is 
>> prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender 
>> should this message have been incorrectly transmitted. The views 
>> expressed in this electronic transmission do not necessarily reflect 
>> those of Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. Transmission is virus-free 
>> and we will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus 
>> transmitted. Thank you.
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> The information in this message and any files attached to it are strictly 
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
>> addressee. Access to this message by any other person is prohibited. If 
>> you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
>> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is 
>> prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender 
>> should this message have been incorrectly transmitted. The views 
>> expressed in this electronic transmission do not necessarily reflect 
>> those of Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. Transmission is virus-free 
>> and we will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus 
>> transmitted. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> spheres.JPG
>> 88KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Inclusional Research" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [log in to unmask]
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/inclusional-research?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>