PS
I could add:
>From the space-occluding paradigm of force to the space-including paradigm
of influence...
--On 16 June 2009 10:23 +0100 "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> At last night's educational conversation with Jack, the discussion
> focussed around Jack trying to draw out my meaning in describing 'space'
> as the 'prime' or 'unmoved mover' of Nature, a vital receptive presence
> without which no energetic form or flow would be possible.
> In the process, the word 'occlusion' emerged as possibly more apt than
> 'exclusion' as a way of describing the implication of the definitive
> logic of objective rationality and contrasting this with the fluid logic
> of transfigural inclusionality. To 'occlude' literally means to block
> out or block in the continuity of receptive (non-resistive) space that
> makes flow possible. To 'occlude completely' is the basis for absolute
> definition, the imposition of discontinuity between 'form' and 'space' as
> 'material' and 'immaterial' that is embedded in the foundations of
> objectivist logic and orthodox mathematics. But it is actually impossible
> to accomplish without partially or wholly freezing the dynamics of the
> cosmos in a fixed frame or dimensionless point for eternity.
> What emerged from this is that according to 'the definitive logic of
> spatial occlusion', upon which objective rationality is founded, things
> can only move or be moved by means of the imposition of local force (i.e.
> by action and reaction), whereas according to 'the fluid logic of spatial
> inclusion', upon which transfigural inclusionality is founded, movement
> arises from the local response of 'form' to receptive influence
> everywhere (i.e. via reception, reflection and response). Hence, when we
> move from the logic of spatial occlusion to the logic of spatial
> inclusion, we move from the rationalistic paradigm of stasis (stuckness)
> to the inclusional paradigm of flow as a dynamic local configuration of
> non-local space.
> We went on to talk about what this paradigmatic transformation might
> imply for a 'Soulful Spirituality', which cares BOTH for the 'local
> dynamic neighbourhood of self' AND 'the non-local omnipresence of
> receptive space everywhere' as vital inclusions of one another in the
> manifestation of universal gravitational (soul-full) and levitational
> (spirit-full) identity as flow-form. We discussed the dangers and
> potential abuses of regarding these rationalistically in one way or the
> other in terms of mutually exclusive and 'Master-Slave' relationships. We
> also discussed the difficulties and dangers of language - especially the
> need to avoid 'off-putting' religious and technical-sounding terms - in
> introducing this understanding to a wider community. What other words
> could convey the meaning of 'soulful', 'spiritual', 'gravitational',
> 'levitational', 'inner infinity', 'outer infinity' etc? 'Passion',
> 'Empathy' and Roy's 'the love (receptive influence) within' and 'the love
> without' came to mind. It became very clear that none of these is
> possible without acknowledgement of the vulnerable and impermanent
> influence of the 'dynamic locality of self' as a vital inclusion of
> natural energy flow everywhere.
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
|