Dear All,

For your possible further interest or trash bin, via the inclusional 
discussion group.

Warmest

Alan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Wendy Ellyatt" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: WAR / Tired of Waiting


> Dear Howard,
>
> Yes, I think you identify here a very pivotal question for discussion and
> reflection - and by no means an easy one, along the lines of:
>
> 'What are the implications of an inclusional understanding of the nature 
> of
> reality for the way we live our lives, especially in a culture that seems
> mostly not to share this understanding?'
>
> Here, the question of 'cultural conditioning' is very significant, both
> because it is very difficult to escape the way we have each personally 
> been
> accustomed to think, and because we have somehow to attune with a culture
> that isn't thinking inclusionally - which can entail 'compromise' and 
> being
> prepared for the 'living contradiction' that some might label 'hypocrisy'.
> For example, I am about to go through the painful process of categorically
> grading students' work in a system of objective assessment that I don't
> agree with, but am obliged to abide by if I am not to be ejected from my
> University.
>
> This is why I see 'objective rationality' as an 'addiction', which makes 
> it
> difficult and confusing to attune inclusionally with current cultural
> reality. To attune with natural processes of energy flow requires breaking
> step with the obsessive-compulsively driven culture in which we are
> immersed, and such breaking of step (dislocation) is in itself
> 'non-inclusional' and 'alienating'. The way forward then seems to be to
> participate as best we can in a transformational process, which can 'bring
> human culture around' into an inclusional awareness. This can be very 
> trying
> and frustrating, as my 'Tired of Waiting' gave vent to.
>
> A very tricky issue that arises here is the question of trust. I think 
> this
> is beautifully expressed in the attached draft essays by one of the
> 'Business Management' students attending my 'Life, Environment and People'
> course. As I discussed with her subsequently, I think there is a 
> difference
> between the influence of 'parasitism' in natural communities - where it is
> an inclusion of ongoing cycling - and in human cultures, where it has 
> grown
> cancerously...
>
> Which introduces another element of the difficulty of 'treating objective
> rationality' in a way that doesn't destroy the organisation in which it is
> included and/or simply allow it to 'grow back even more aggressively than
> before', but actually transforms it into an acceptance of its inclusional
> situation by way of opening communication channels. In this sense, to 
> oppose
> and 'fight' objective rationalists is by no means an inclusional solution,
> and is likely to be counter-productive. Personally, I might hate their
> attitude, but I can't hate or blame them for having it, and need to find a
> way of living alongside them and opening possibilities for communication.
> The more an inclusional community can develop alongside me, the more
> sustainable my efforts and those of the community can become. I have 
> already
> experienced the strengthening coming from the support of others when my
> biology colleagues tried to terminate my 'Life Environment and People'
> course several years ago for what they viewed as its 'anti-scientific,
> anti-Darwinian, free fall philosophy stance' .
>
> Meanwhile, I think there is some danger in assuming that we already have
> 'the inclusional answer', and have had it for many years. I think there 
> is,
> for example, more to inclusionality than 'a lack of separateness' - indeed
> that phrasing itself can be a source of confusion, potentially implying 'a
> lack of distinction' or 'no boundary' (cf. 'dynamic distinction'/'dynamic
> boundaries'). At the core of inclusionality is, I think, the need to 
> develop
> a new understanding of and mathematical approach to the fluid geometry of
> nature, of which our human bodies are, like other 'bodies', locally
> evanescent inclusions ('local appearances'). This has to include a
> 'non-local' dimension (the 'infinite fifth', if you like). Also attached 
> in
> this respect is an article by myself and Lere, published in the current
> issue of 'Transfigural Mathematics'.
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Howard Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>;
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: WAR / Tired of Waiting
>
>
>>
>> Hello Alan -
>>
>>
>>>But underneath these feelings, and the perceptions from which they 
>>>emerge,
>>>is the 'framing of mind' through which 'what is going on' is being
>>>interpreted. What are the core beliefs and logical assumptions affecting
>>>interpretation of 'what is going on', and the attitudes and behaviour 
>>>that
>>>may stem therefrom? And what is and how valid is the evidence and
>>>reasoning
>>>underlying these beliefs and assumptions? To ask these kinds of questions
>>>is
>>>rather equivalent to a kind of philosophical 'cognitive behavioural
>>>therapy'. We are asking not so much 'what could be wrong or right with 
>>>the
>>>world as it is', but 'what could be wrong or right about our perception 
>>>of
>>>what is wrong or right with the world as it is?'
>>
>> **That's essentially the approach that became the norm in my life after
>> encountering the teachings of J. Krishnamurti back around 1985.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If, through our enquiry into the framing of mind that is guiding our
>>>perceptions and emergent feelings about what is right or wrong with the
>>>way
>>>things seem to be, we reveal a fundamental misconception or downright
>>>falsehood, then a sense of urgency will develop to amend this to a more
>>>truthful framing. This sense of urgency will arise especially strongly -
>>>at
>>>least it does so in my mind - where we recognise how this misconception 
>>>or
>>>falsehood can aggravate our own and others' distress.
>>
>> **Yep. That rings true.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What I have found to be the problem is not 'holes' but 'wholes' - the
>>>notion
>>>that a complete, fully definable, space-excluding boundary can exist
>>>anywhere at any scale in an evolving biosphere and cosmos. There is no
>>>evidence, and can be no evidence [i.e. we could not be aware of it even 
>>>if
>>>it existed] of a discrete limit anywhere and it does not make sound sense
>>>[i.e. it produces paradoxes, of the Cretan Liar and Zeno type] to assume
>>>that there is one. And yet the whole of definitive - and thereby
>>>oppositional and discriminatory - logic depends on it.
>>
>>>
>>>Hence the development with Ted, Lere, Jack and others of an inclusional
>>>logic, based not on the static mutual exclusion, but on the dynamic 
>>>mutual
>>>inclusion of 'space' and 'matter' in natural energy flow. From this
>>>rounded
>>>(panoramic, self-including) viewing,  what 'appears to be wrong' 
>>>('nature'
>>>and 'human nature' as imperfect or 'fallen' enterprises) in a rectilinear
>>>(binocular, self-excluding) 'perspective'and needs to be ruled back into
>>>order, is actually a vital inclusion of our creative evolutionary
>>>potential.
>>>Hence what is deeply wrong is the way we can interpret 'appearances' in a
>>>very partial (rationalistic) way, leading us to try to excise what is
>>>vital
>>>to our humanity and evolutionary sustainability (in a word, 'love').
>>
>>
>> **In that context, my own question takes on this form: Is the way I'm
>> interpreting appearances attuned to the inclusional understanding that's
>> present? Maybe it is?  Maybe the inclusional understanding isn't fully
>> attuned to the inclusional actuality, even though the inclusionality
>> question seems to have been answered many years ago?
>>
>>
>> Thanks & regards - Howard
>>
>> >
>>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> 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
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>