The Inclusional Worldview – [Take n+1]

From: ted lumley [mailto:emiliano@goodshare.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:50 PM
To: ‘inclusional-research@googlegroups.com’
Subject: The Inclusional World View [take n+1]

The Inclusional World View  [take n+1]

We experience inclusion in a ceaselessly innovative spatial-relational unfolding that we refer to as Nature aka ‘the World’, aka ‘Life’.  We compare it to a fire because while fire is relentless transformation, patterns form in it that persist in the manner that the teardrop form of a candle flame persists even though it is ‘pure transformation’ that sits between fuel and exhaust giving meaning to them both (energy precedes matter).  This billowing that is continuously unfolding and enfolding into itself, that we are included in, as one of those transient out-blossomings that we know will, like the tongue from the dark cloud that briefly becomes a tornado, withdraw back into its parenting medium.   This dynamic space, the mother-father of all things, invites our speculation as to its most basic nature, and our relationship thereto or therein.

One ‘reality’ that gives clues to our speculation as to ‘the dynamic worldspace and our relationship thereto’ has been expressed as follows by John Lennon;

“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Another ‘ reality’ that can be seen is far more popular than the one expressed by Lennon. It appears in various articulations of the following sort;

“You can create the future of your dreams. This may seem far fetched for most people, but what they do not seem to realize is that their present is the future they created by their past actions or inaction. You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.”

These are also termed the ‘oriental’ view and the ‘occidental’ view, in that order.

The two different ‘realities’ depend on whether one conceives of the world dynamic as being ‘nonlocal’ or ‘local’ in origin.

NONLOCAL (oriental) VIEW

In the ‘nonlocal’ sourcing view (oriental), the view of motion is of spatial transformation sourced by the flow in the manner of earthquakes and avalanches and hurricanes where imbalances in thermal and pressure fields spontaneously induce spatial reorganization.  In this ‘flow’ view, the  PRIMARY source of dynamics is the building of spatial-relational tensions which spontaneously engenders spatial reorganization, as in the three phenomena mentioned.  In this flow view, the (potential) energy-charging and (kinetic) energy-discharging spatial medium is the ‘first-cause’ source of apparently ‘local’ forms and their dynamics.  Like multiple hurricanes in the common flow of the atmosphere, the individual ‘forms’ appear to be local and independent though on the deeper level of energy-charging-and-discharging space they are ‘interdependent’ in both their ‘being’ and in their dynamics.  Given that we relate to the unfolding flow like the hurricane, if we temporarily start thinking as we are ‘local’ systems with our own locally originating behaviour, then we get periodic ‘wake-up calls’ that  remind us that; “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

* * *

LOCAL (occidental) VIEW

In the ‘local’ sourcing view (occidental), the view of motion is in terms of ‘things moving’ as in a movie film where the dynamics are in terms of multiple characters and their interactions.  This view is in terms of notional ‘local material systems’, notionally equipped with their own locally-originating (internal-process-driven and internal-purpose-directed) behaviour.   In the movie film, the focus is on “You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.” Western science supports this view by approximating dynamics using the assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’, and by the Aristotelian concept of ‘telos’ or ‘final cause’ wherein the ‘local system’ is infused with ‘purpose’; e.g. the acorn is conceived of as a ‘local system’ that is infused with knowledge of what it is to become (an oak tree) and with the driven and direction to get there.   As Nietzsche has pointed out, the causal model of western science is ‘anthropomorphism’ because the concept of ‘cause’ stands or falls with the concept of ‘intention’ (telos, purpose, ‘final cause’), something that we feel we have inside us, but not something that over-rides the unfolding we are included in.

* * *

Western science, faced with the problem of explaining complex dynamics (e.g. earthquakes, avalanches, self-organized criticality, the ‘butterfly effect’) has historically gone with ‘choosing not that which is most true but that which is most easy’, and what’s most easy, in trying to describe transformative spatial unfolding, is to assume that the source of these dynamics is ‘LOCAL’ so that, in the case of an earthquake or avalanche, science starts with the rocks and their movements and bypasses the difficult-to-work-with issue of the NONLOCALITY of the source, the continual building of tensions to the point of a threshold being reached where imbalance is partly resolved and tensions relieved by the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy sometimes suddenly and violently and sometimes playing out more slowly; e.g. when imbalance in thermal field (and its complementing ‘pressure’ field) in the atmosphere (between equatorial and polar regions) spontaneously induces spatial reorganisation that we call ‘convection cells’, these ‘cells’ when they become very violent, being personified and assigned names; e.g. ‘hurricane Katrina’.  Though they are created and orchestrated by the parenting medium of the atmospheric flow, science approximates them as ‘local systems’, notionally equipped with their own locally originating behaviour or ‘causal agency’.  This underscores Nietzsche’s claim that science is ‘anthropomorphism’;

““Attraction” and “repulsion” in a purely mechanistic sense are complete fictions: a word.  We cannot think of an attraction divorced from an ‘intention.’ — The will to take possession of a thing or defend oneself against it and repel it—that, we “understand”: that would be an interpretation of which we could make use.

In short: the psychological necessity for a belief in causality lies in the inconceivability of an event divorced from intent; by which naturally nothing is said concerning truth or untruth (the justification of such a belief)!  The believe in ‘causae’ falls with the belief in ‘télè’ (against Spinoza and his causalism).” – Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’

The point is that if we are going to explain the world dynamic starting from LOCAL points and LOCAL material systems, as if the transient forms that come and go in the flow are competent foundations for building our view of dynamics on, then we have to impute to the acorn some inner knowledge and purpose that will explain its out-blossoming into an oak tree.  A tree as a ‘fountain’ is a popular image wherein the circular flow of water from earth to atmosphere to earth provides a kind of high energy inter-tidal zone in which cells form and thrive in an ecosystem, mutually supportive manner, so that the ‘tree’ need not be understood as a ‘local system’ or ‘thing-in-itself’ but can instead be understood as being spatial reorganization induced in the resolving of energy imbalances.  The image of forests as ‘lungs of the planet’ also emerges when we suspend our insisting that ‘the tree’ is a ‘local system’ with ‘its own locally originating behaviour’.

Aristotle’s ‘telos’ or ‘intention’ that is infused into local material systems certainly fills a great gap in a theory of nature’s dynamics THAT STARTS FROM AND BUILDS ON the notion of LOCAL SYSTEMS WITH THEIR OWN LOCAL AGENCY.

It seems that Aristotle liked to start with an idea and leave it till later to back it up with evidence from the real world of our experience;

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths. –Bertrand Russell, , Impact of Science on Society

By the same token, Aristotle’s claim that material bodies fell to earth with a speed proportional to their weight persisted for a thousand years, … why?

“Students coming out of ‘the academies’ (Aristotelian education was all there was) continued to propagate this for one thousand years until Galileo reasoned that, if it were true, a body of one pound weight would fall to earth ten times more slowly than a body of ten pounds weight, therefore, one could fasten a rope between the two bodies so that the lighter body could slow the fall of the heavier body (i.e. it ‘didn’t make sense’ to Galileo but hundreds of thousands of graduates of ‘the academies’ over 1000 years, accepted it and regurgitated it as ’the truth’).”  — http://goodshare.org/wp/calculus-takes-us-on-a-mad-joyride/

Our ego and our anthropocentrism puts us at the centre of our own dynamics and makes us into ‘local causal agents’, an approximative sort of model wherein we tell ourselves;

“You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.”

Western science (classical mechanics) has followed up on thus by applying it to dynamic material forms in general, bypassing the energy-charging-and-discharging primacy of ‘field’, and assuming that the present condition of ‘local material systems’ depends only on the immediate past.  This, of course, is innately inadequate for explaining earthquakes, avalanches, convection cells and turbulence, but it has its utility as a crude way of rendering the world dynamic that lends itself to sharing by way of language.

That is, if the occidental warns the oriental that; ‘a tornado is coming’, the oriental is not going to come back with a philosophical rant that rejects the presenting of the nonlocal flow by reifying visual features within it, … the oriental is going to appreciate the conciseness of reducing a turbulent eruption in the flow to a ‘word’, a notional ‘local system’ that attaches to a lookup table with the entry; ‘This is a violent local system that moves through space as a compact unit and can do extreme damage to anything in its path’.

Problems begin when ‘words’ are ‘confused for reality’ rather than being accepted as ‘idealizations’ that describe flow features that are the ‘shadows’ of the deeper (flow-) reality.  Such confusion permeates the occidental (LOCAL) view, increasingly so with each new crop of university graduates who buy into Aristotle’s ‘telos’ and regard it as ‘real’ rather than as a descriptive tool that should not be confused for reality.  As the students of Lao Tsu put it;.

“the words are fingers pointing at the moon; if you watch the finger you can’t see the moon”; this was expressed very eloquently by Arthur Waley, one of the outstanding translators of Chinese literature and poetry whose commentaries are invariably fascinating and perceptive: “Not only are books the mere discarded husk or shell of wisdom, but words themselves… are irrelevant to the deeper experience of Tao, the ‘wordless doctrine’. If the Taoist speaks and still more if he writes, he does so merely to arouse interest in his doctrines, and not in any hope of communicating what another cannot be made to feel, any more than you can feel the pain in my finger”

‘Inclusionality’, then, can be seen as a world view that understands both the inherent primacy of the NONLOCAL flow in the continual engendering of the unfolding world dynamic, which we experience as;

“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

and, at the same time, the utility of giving synthetic primacy to a notional LOCAL sourcing of the world dynamic by way of transient emergent features that can be encapsulated in language as ‘local beings’ (nouns), notionally equipped with their own ‘locally originating behaviour’ (verbs).  Of course, splitting the world dynamic up into local sources of dynamic behaviour requires some ‘analytical backfill’ to explain what is in the interior of these local systems that drives and directs their behaviour from the inside, and here’s where thanks go to Aristotle for his notions of encoded information (‘knowledge’) and ‘telos’ (final cause or purpose/intention) without which, we could never make this ‘local sourcing’ simplified pseudo-reality ‘hang together’ and give us the sense that;

“You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.”

Equipped with the ‘inclusional world view’ which puts both these views into meaningful context, we would suspend our view of ‘self’ as a local system and instead understand ourselves in the same sort of ‘topological context’ as the four contemporaneous and co-spatial forms; ‘Charley, Francis, Ivan and Jeanne’ in the photo in the Joy-Ride essay; i.e. as Ernst Mach’s principle describes it; ‘The behaviour of the habitat conditions the behaviour of the inhabitants at the same time as the behaviour of the inhabitants conditions the behaviour of the habitat.’  This is a virtual layover to the Amerindian traditional worldview.

When we move, we move relative to the universe in the manner of an inertial element in an inertial field; i.e. we are the universe at the same time as we move within it.  Though this is something well known and accepted, it tends to be forgotten when we are in our ‘ego’ mode and imagining ourselves to be ‘local systems’ with ‘our own locally originating behaviour’ that is notional powered by internal biochemical processes and directed by knowledge-informed purpose.

When we confuse this latter ‘local systems’ view of self for ‘reality’ we get ourselves in a lot of trouble.

Can you imagine what would happen if we unleashed six billion of these ‘local systems’ that all believed that they were ‘local, independently existing system’ with their own ‘locally originating behaviours’ that acted/interacted in a notional absolute space so that it made sense for them to be internal motivated by the pursuit of their own self-interests?  What would likely happen as these ‘local systems’ started bumping into one another would be for ‘common interest groups’ to coagulate and to use their greater power to pursue their collective self-interests.  This would diminish the head-butting within the common interest collective but it would make the head-butting between the common interest groups horrendous.  If they stayed with the ‘local systems model’, they would have to conclude that ‘the way out of this mess’ was to ‘complete the coagulation’ to the point that everyone was included in a single ‘common interest group’.  This would logically be undertaken by the most powerful common interest groups and/or alliances amongst the most powerful common interest groups, so that even if it were impossible to achieve a total coagulation, the balance of power would be such that the not-included common interest groups could be made to dance to the tune of the dominant power alliance.

If the ‘inclusional’ worldview were ever to permeate the collective consciousness, however, the confusing of ‘local systems with embedded Aristotelian telos’ with ‘reality’ would be suspended and what would subsume it would  understanding as in  Mach’s principle or the topology of contemporaneous hurricanes wherein ‘the dynamics of habitat condition the dynamics of inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat’, or in other words, we are not only all in this together, but together we are this.

* * *

3 comments

Leave a Reply

Go to Top