Dear Je Kan and Susan,
Yes, whatever language helps to evoke the inclusional mental imagery is
fine by me. I can well see that 'edges' can work better for some than
'boundaries' and vice versa, depending on background.
The difficulty is that it is very easy to use language that evokes or
re-inforces the intransigent non-inclusional imagery of local discrete
objects surrounded by/occupying/distanced by/travelling through space. This
is what I work so very hard to try to avoid, if not always successfully.
I realized a couple of years ago that one of the key distinctions (but not
definitions/dichotomies)it is necessary to make is between 'contiguity' and
'continuity', and correspondingly between 'informational connectivity' and
'spatial communion'. Space in my mental imagery doesn't 'connect' things:
space pools all simultaneously together in limitless (infinite)
non-resistant (receptive) depth. Since space is a presence, not an absence,
and is continuous throughout all (i.e. doesn't stop at discrete
limits/edges/boundaries), no thing can be singled out from its spatial
neighbourhood as an isolated object. This doesn't mean to say that
everything is in IMMEDIATE informational contact/connected/contiguous with
everything else, whether visibly or invisibly. The degree of resistive
informational connectivity is variable and reconfigurable in a fluid
evolutionary cosmos.
This is explained further in the attached paper, where what is involved in
'attuning to the same flow-length' is 'touched upon'.
The problem of using 'logic' to explain this is where the 'logic' itself
intransigently shuts down (and/or arises from shut down)mental imagery of
reality. That is, the problem arises where the logic is conventionally
definitive (dialectic or propositional) based on the implicit or explicit
premise that space stops and starts at discrete limits. This does not apply
to the fluid logic of 'natural inclusion', where each dynamically includes
the other's influence in the natural communion of receptive space.
What I am saying is that I think you might find it works better to find a
way of distinguishing between 'connectivity'/'contiguity' and
'communion'/'continuity' in your explications [as I did after some years of
inadvertently conflating the two].
Warmest
Alan
--On 08 October 2009 09:24 +0900 Dr Je Kan Adler-Collins
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sue, I found that trying to use logic is problematic as so often we
> are shut down by what we think reality is. However, it is often useful to
> use the analogy of the mobile phone, television and radio all items we
> think are real and can use in our daily lives. All pass signals through
> space and are connected to each other and the space through which the
> signals pass. The telephone has a set frequency, we cannot see it, but it
> connects , the television has channels, which send pictures, we cannot
> see but they connect with specific receivers. The radio is the same ,
> long wave, medium wave and short wave, all different frequencies with
> millions of sub frequencies. We are connected to all these waves as they
> feel the space around us. Sometimes this helps others understand that
> the barrier to connection is the ability of our receiving the frequency.
> Should we choose to tune in? There are no barriers to connectivity
> through, in and across space. The solvent I would suggest is that of
> conscious enquiry combined focused receptive listening..smile. Trees do
> talk...smile Love to all, Je Kan
>
>
>
>
> From: Practitioner-Researcher
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan Goff
> Sent: 08 October 2009 09:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Would you mind suggesting?
>
>
>
> In my circles even the word "boundaries" is a complex concept for people
> to understand -- what about "edges"? - which can be conceptual as well as
> physical... When I talk about Alan's work to people, my first step is to
> say: "there is no separation between anything -- so when we look around
> us here -- and see the space between you and me, we shift our thinking
> from seeing this space as separation -- to an invisible connective space
> between living and inanimate things." That's usually enough for the first
> step. The reaction is one of disbelief and profound dissonance. Rarely
> do I have a opportunity to take it further as the sheer logic of the idea
> cannot be integrated into the person's thinking an the usual social
> settings. And I too lack the articulation, or practice opportunities for
> articulation to develop, to be much more effective, socially that simply
> to posit the idea....
>
> I would love us to move into praxis of this essential emergent threshold
> on this network and to set up praxis opportunities at events -- such as
> our World Congress in Australia next year....
>
> Susan
>
>
> On 7/10/09 11:21 PM, "Dr Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> I just loved the phrase...beginners,; is there anything else I wonder??
> Smile Love Je Kan
>
> From: Practitioner-Researcher
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner
> (BU) Sent: 07 October 2009 16:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Would you mind suggesting?
>
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>
> Yes, I woke up this morning with the thought that the simplest possible
> description of inclusionality 'for beginners' is that it is a way of
> understanding Nature based on the recognition that SPACE DOES NOT STOP AT
> BOUNDARIES. (you can find this statement on the 'what is inclusionality'
> page at www.inclusionality.org <http://www.inclusionality.org> ).
>
>
>
> Correspondingly EVERYTHING IN NATURE IS AN EXAMPLE OF INCLUSIONALITY. All
> form is flow-form, [a variably viscous dynamic (electromagnetic)
> configuration of space]. Or, as the poetic imagination of William
> Wordsworth put it: 'In nature everything is DISTINCT, yet nothing DEFINED
> into absolute independent singleness. Fungal mycelia and wound healing
> are especially evocative illustrations of the natural flow form, but to
> single them out is liable to give people the impression that
> 'inclusionality is a special case'. To my mind, this is not so.
> Inclusionality is the general case (whereas RATION-ALITY can only deal
> with PART-TRUTH [one-sided truth]).
>
>
>
> Any theory that is predicated on DEFINITION (the INTRANSIGENT assumption
> that space stops and starts at discrete limits) will hence be profoundly
> UNREALISTIC. It will impose false discontinuity (false dichotomy) on
> Nature, leading to a pluralistic proliferation of mutually inconsistent
> concepts or 'part-truths', ALL of which are ARTEFACTS. We may be able to
> SIMULATE or COMPUTE THE COURSE of some natural processes using these
> concepts - and their discontinuous mathematical foundations - but we will
> not DEEPLY UNDERSTAND any of them. And through this lack of
> understanding, we generate the grounds for PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL AND
> ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. We set the stage for evolutionarily and
> environmentally unsustainable ways of life that involve terrible human
> conflict and waste of our creative and loving potential, not least as
> alluded to in the attached piece.
>
>
>
> Please don't fall into the trap of trying to explain or argue the case
> for inclusionality rationalistically (in definitive terms) - that isn't
> possible. To 'get' inclusionality and its implications requires a leap of
> the poetic imagination, founded in a deep appreciation of the dynamics of
> natural flow-form.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps. I also hope you won't mind my sharing this
> correspondence with the practitioner-researcher list, because I think it
> might help people recognise the ENORMITY of what I think is at stake
> here. Inclusionality isn't an academic language game for me. I think we
> URGENTLY need to STOP teaching ourselves intransigence, which is the
> breeding ground for hatred of the kind that was evident in a film I was
> watching last night about the Blitz of Coventry and its repercussions:
> what on Earth could make anyone want to inflict such suffering on their
> human companions, and derive gratification from doing so?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Warmest
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: John Huang <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: Alan Rayner (BU) <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:31 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Would you mind suggesting?
>
>
> Dear Alan,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your comments on the
> importance of continuity of space and content. Let us think how I propose
> this concept into my cases of two inventions, Bio-chip and Vitro
> repairation materia.
>
>
>
> I wonder if there any items or any more content I could add into my
> comparisons on Darwin's and Inclusionality Evolutionary Theory?
>
>
>
> I have illustrated two examples of Inclusionality, such as the growth of
> Mycelia and the healing process of wounds. If there is something else I
> may mention to enrich my literature review?
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your kind help again.
>
>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> John Huang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/10/6 Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>
> I think what you are trying to do here is important, and there is some
> useful gathering together of relevant literature.
>
>
>
> However, I don't think you have quite got to the key point, which is that
> organism and environment are continuous, not discontinuous. Both
> competition and co-operation assume that the organism can be treated as
> if it is a discrete (isolated) entity, separable from its neighbourhood.
>
>
>
> I'm attaching two more relevant pieces of writhing (they can both be
> found in 'From Emptiness to Openness).
>
>
>
> I have just been given the go-ahead to share the following links,
> containing excerpts from my presentation in the Lecture Room of the
> Linnaean Society, Burlington House, Piccadily, London (where Darwin and
> Wallace's paper on the 'Origin of Species' was first presented in 1858),
> on 30 June this summer.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to circulate if appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wORIPFa2sEk
>
> 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db8OeyveFUY
>
>
>
> 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXiopcw88Vk
>
>
> Warmest
> Alan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: John Huang <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: Alan Rayner (BU) <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:30 AM
>
> Subject: Would you mind suggesting?
>
>
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> How are you? Thank you for your reply last time. It is very helpful.
>
> I have reviewed the Darwin Evolutionary and Inclsuionality perspecties
> on Biology and their muation form in Economic Innovation theories.
>
> Here I enclsoed with the draft. Would you mind giving me some suggestions
> as I am not sure if I got your perspective right? I used some comparisons
> in tables at the bottom of the file which I would like to inviting you to
> suggest and comment. I will work on the descrition later on, but I would
> like to asking your opinions firstly.
>
> Your inputs are most appreciatd!
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.69/2176 - Release Date:
> 06/14/09 17:54:00
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.69/2176 - Release Date:
> 06/14/09 17:54:00
|
