Inclusional Research Google Group

Re: What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-06T19:27:12Z

Dear Alan and Ted,

Here I have to disagree with how most persons account for the
differences between pre-literate or native peoples and the ("more")
rational modern folks.

I think the native peoples of the world could/can think pretty well.
The major "shift" in thinking came - I suggest at about the time

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-06T14:29:49Z

Dear Emile,

I'm not certain or clear on how to respond to your questions about my
claims of how we "know" and have/seem to have "infinite" knowledge.
But, I shall attempt to clarify what I am claiming is the human
"condition."

First (I think), it is crucial to point out that our notions of the

Re: What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-03T08:07:12Z

Dear Ted,

I concur very strongly with what you say here, and it echoes the way our
introductory conversation actually went with final year 'Bioethics' students
yesterday. It also relates to a lovely letter I've just received from a lady
who has been writing a series of theological/philosophical books called

Re: What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-03T00:27:42Z

dear alan,

i could put this comment either into the 'morality thread' in response
to your and lere's superchannel comment on 'mystery', or here in
response to your and howard's exchange re 'what we need to know to
understand what we know'.

the 'view' that i would put forth here might be called 'the limits to

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-02T14:55:33Z

Dear Ted,

By 'co-incidence', just on the subject of 'mystery', here is a paragraph
from the next paper with Lere on the 'superchannel':

"Now, we can at last understand our dynamic natural situation, which
transcends the three-dimensional spatial limitations of hard-line symmetry
and objective definition and satisfies the spiritual yearning that many are

Re: What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-02T12:31:18Z

Dear Howard,
Thanks!
Yes, the question 'Left Behind What?' occurs.
I actually found the thought immediately useful this morning, as a way of
introducing students to a final year 'Bioethics' course I co-teach. There
was immediate recognition amongst the students of how little of their
education thus far had engaged them in 'thoughtful enquiry' into 'what we

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-02T07:56:02Z

dear harvey,

you say;

“I think it's important to raise the question of how it is that
humans are (or can think) in "infinite" senses or ways. ... My idea
and observation is that infants/children do not observe the world
directly, but that they "join" or "become" their m/others from birth

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-01T21:34:44Z

Dear Ted and all,

I'm not certain that this directly responds to you, but I think it's
important to raise the question of how it is that humans are (or can
think) in "infinite" senses or ways. I (of course!) propose a
resolution or a how this happens to the apparently finite body sense

Re: What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-01T20:21:24Z

Alan - Excellent point. Over here in 'dumbing down-land' (USA), we have the fabulous Orwellian-labelled program - "No Child Left Behind."I suspect you'd have to search far and wide to find a better example of "departing from educational objectives."Regards - Howard-----Original Message-----
Sent: Oct 1, 2008 7:23 AM

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-01T19:48:50Z

dear alan and harvey,

thank you for this conversation.

‘inclusionality’, to me does not take away all the veils and leave ‘no
mystery’. to me, the mystery, call it ‘god’ or ‘love’ or 'the logos',
persists in the dynamical quality of nature-space that invites us to
join in the dance of ‘ceaselessly unfolding innovation’. we are, in

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-01T16:10:30Z

Alan and Ted,

I appreciate Alan's comments very much. My questions and orientation
are like somewhat different or skewed from yours, focusing as much as
the political, religious, historical questions of what is the human,
as on the relations between self and the world.

In the Genesis of Morality, I was responding - particularly - to

What we need to know and what we need to understand what we know

2008-10-01T11:23:28Z

Dear All,
Just a thought that's just crossed my mind and I wanted to record:
Whereas 'training' teaches 'what we need to know', 'education' also enquires into 'what we need to understand what we know'.
This thought has always been implicitly, if not explicitly, at the heart of my aspiratiomns as an educator.

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-10-01T07:38:07Z

Dear Ted,

My feeling is that here we are seeing your true and deep originality and
creativity coming to the fore, where we recognise what has been motivating
your enquiries all along, unencumbered by attachment to conventional
analytical theory and methodology, whilst grounded in your work on

Re: The Geometry of Morality

2008-09-30T23:18:25Z

p.s. The ‘fatal flaw’ in Haidt’s rational modeling of morality is that
‘truth’ eludes ‘rational narrative’ of the form ‘what has happened and
what should we do about it’.

That is, the problem is not just that we polarise into ‘for’ and
‘against’ factions in regard to the actions we wish to take in

The Geometry of Morality

2008-09-30T21:00:56Z

The Geometry of Morality

Morality, our sense of ‘what is right’, which differs within and
across culture, is a powerful shaper of individual and collective
behaviour.

In order to understand our social dynamic, it seems like a good place
(though not the only place) to start our inquiry, and to put our