Welcome to the Internet Pages of Goodshare!
Follow the easy-writer path in blue to get the general idea and 'go for more' in the itsy bitsy writing when/if you care to, ...
... and/or 'click here' for a brief, simplified overview of this site or to hear about how Big Brother is Watching;
Links to other research areas that embody close to the same worldview as on these Goodshare website; (i.e. 'inclusionality' );
For a transdisciplinary coming-together of 'inclusionality' ideas as are embodied in this website involving parallel work in mathematics and biology/ecology, see the tripartite essay at the 'Matran School of Transfigural Mathematics' (Berlin) Website (www.matran.de)
Some physicists, SpaceLife Institute ( www.directscientificexperience.com ) are also giving new meaning to the ancient 'inclusional' worldview wherein space sets up its own rhythms (space is androgynous and a-temporal) without the need for any hard dependency on the psychologically invented abstraction of 'time'.
Notice in Regard to Content:
This page employs cognitive concepts to address systems of management and governance which are deeper than normally utilized. Some initial difficulty or disorientation may be experienced by adult readers though experience suggests that it is less likely for youthful readers. To 'test your vision' in the context of the cognitive concepts presented herein, see 'Testing Your Vision - In the Other Direction'.
The deeper cognitive concepts are necessary to perceive the functioning of systems at the level of 'opportunity management' (management of system evolution) rather than in the standard cognitive terms of 'action management' (managing material-kinetic transaction activity).
This difference in depth can be visualized via Marshall McLuhan's observation that; "In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs." That is, induced 'containing system - constituent system' relational transformation changes the 'ground' to which the included system must reference.
Opportunity management, the direct management of system evolution, inverts the normal management perspective, putting the induced transformation of outer-inner constituent relationships into the primacy over the 'machine' or 'production' aspect (i.e. the knowledge and action management aspects).
This inversion in 'architectural perspective is needed to achieve/sustain coresonance in the overall 'container-constituent' or 'habitat-inhabitant' system. Sustained coresonance lowers the system's inductive-assertive impedance (opportunity-action impedance), bolstering production, stabilizing the supply-demand codynamic and inducing environment-tailored design aesthetics.
The concepts and methods follow from the study of natural ecologies and may be of particular interest to those engaged in community redevelopment.
Also, this architectural inversion represents a 'return of the feminine principle' in the domain of scientific thought, which has for a long while been constrained solely to the 'masculine principle' of assertive behaviour of material agents and may be of interest to those studying 'gender bias' in scientific models. Similarly, the architectural inversion speaks to the alternative views of health and healing; the Hygiean view which sees health in terms of harmony and balance and 'letting nature do its thing', and the Aesculpian view which sees health in terms of 'the correct functioning of the constituents of the system'.
As of March 12, 2001, I have uploaded an account of how the ideas on health and healing mentioned in the preceding paragraph have been 'woven into' my life over the past few months, in connection with an illness in the family. This essay, in the form of an open letter to a medical researcher, is more 'personal' than the typical fare on this website in its detailed medical description of my mother's illness (gastric dysmotility and pancreatic cancer) and I am sharing it for it's possible utility to others who are currently navigating the difficult passage from illness to healing with its Hygiean and Aesculapian alternatives.
In nature, 'life persists after death' and the persisting influence of the constituent is essential to the sustained 'health' of the containing constituency. It does so since the inductive space of the biosphere both shapes and is given shape by its constituents and their actions. This reciprocity, the geometric principle underlying relativity theory, gives value to the constituent beyond that coming from its 'actions' in the form of transformation simultaneously (with every action) imprinted in the geometry of space (the classical scientific model considers only actions and ignores the geometrical transformation of space). As in the example of the game of pool which is used frequently on this website, and as in life in general, the constituents of space co-create, with their codynamics, the shape of opportunity which determines the patterns (and degree of harmony or dissonance) of the continuing codynamics which co-create, etc. etc..
Index of Essays
Essay on Healing:
Towards More Balanced Inquiry and Response in Psychological Health Victoria, May 3, 2002
Essay from Joint Presentation (Ted Lumley & Jacques Rainville) at the Subtle Technologies Conference in Toronto (May 17 - 20, 2001)
'Inclusionality: An Immersive Philosophy of Environmental Relationships
Commemorative Essay: 'Politically Incorrect Humanism': The Works of Martine Dodds-Taljaard Dallas, July 4, 2001
(A tribute to Martine, who died on June 4th, 2001, and to her committed efforts to 're-opportunize the disopportunized')
9'th Latest Essay: 'From the Boston Tea-Party to the World Trade Center Massacre' White Rock, September 30, 2001
8'th Latest Essay: 'Breakdown and Renewal in the Western World' Pender Island B.C. / Dallas, November 28, 2001
7'th Latest Essay: 'Psyched-Out by our own Logic: Finding a Remedy' Dallas, January 6, 2002
6'th Latest Essay: 'Resonance and Mysticism' Victoria, March 28, 2002
5'th Latest Essay: 'The Relativity of Community-Constituent Behaviors' Victoria, April 10, 2002
(Submitted in response to a spring forum on issues of 'Peace & Justice')
4'th Latest Essay: 'The Origins of Insanity' Pender Island, August 15, 2003
3'rd Latest Essay: 'Restoring the Natural Role of the Imagined Landscape in Understanding' Pender Island, December 20, 2003
2'nd Latest Essay: 'Bogie and the Gipper' Pender Island, June 12, 2004
Latest Essay: 'Thanks for Nothing!' Pender Island, October 11, 2004
Overview of the Goodshare Page and Purpose:
Good$hare International is 'not-for-profit' with a staff of one (moi) dedicated to the 'holo-disciplinary' sharing of experience to induce greater habitat - inhabitant harmony (eco-ego-coresonance). Goodshare's website, which emerged in 1996, has a concentric, 'geologically layered' informational structure with the ideas in today's layer 'deepened' by the legacy of prior 'sharing-circle' deposits. The year 2001 layer you are now entering gives guideposts to a descent into earlier epochs.
The primary motivation for establishing Goodshare and this website was the belief that the freedom enjoyed by incoming generations of youth, to live lives in natural consonance with their environment, was diminishing, ... that the 'global economy' was 'imposing itself' on the individual with increasing force and doing so earlier on in life, selectively closing down opportunity for the 'less performant' (in the competitive terms of the economy) as well as those who resist marching to its drumbeat. Many amongst the 'succumbing majority' are experiencing a growing decoherence instead of consonance between their working and community lives, the former making increasing demands on mechanical compliance to remote directives at the expense of conscious, coresonant engagement with their local 'habitat'. At the same time, many among the 'resisting minority' are finding that resistance comes at the price of being increasingly disopportunized in accessing the natural resources and derivative goods and services of our shared 'commons' of the earth, the 'sacred space' in which one has a unique 'opportunity of a lifetime' to become one's authentic self. Both those succumbing and those resisting are encountering a rising exposure to 'affective disorders' (e.g. depression, psychosis, schizophrenia etc.).
The ideas flowing through these Goodshare pages, while uttered primarily through the voice of our staff of one, originate from sharing going on through a number of interweaving sharing circles, largely internet based, and hyperlinks to these sources are given where possible. In particular, the 'current ontogenic phase' of Goodshare entwines with an internet 'sharing-circle' which is developing a 'philosophy of inclusionality', an activity consistent with the aims and initializing motivation of Goodshare which you will hear more about further along on this page.
So, ... please do 'come on in', ... to Goodshare's inclusionary wardrobe of 'holo-disciplinary' ideas, the produce of our interweaving web of 'sharing circles', and if you find an inclusion that 'fits', ... please take it home with you, ... that's what it's for, and that includes the attributed drawings and paintings from the artistically gifted 'inclusionalists' among us.
... Namaste, ...
Goodshare and 'Inclusionality': Inclusionary Sharing to Induce Social Harmony
Goodshare's purpose is to cultivate inclusive sharing of experience and the 'inducing' of social-environmental harmony as an alternative to the debating of theory and the imposing of 'what's right' by those with a majority of power.
Inducing rather than imposing follows from the assumption that we, and all constituents of space, are not simply 'assertive agents' transacting in empty space, but we are instead inductive-assertive agents who induce transformation in our containing environment. Our perception and management must therefore be oriented to the shape of the environment.
Goodshare was conceived (1995) as a meeting ground or 'sharing circle' in which those desiring to become more active influencers (instead of victims!) of ongoing social evolution, could share their heartfelt experiences in a respectful environment and stoke the co-resonances of 'inductive', rather than 'assertive' social transformation. It was recognized that managing on the basis of 'assertive actions' ignored their induced effects on the containing environment which modulated the continuing patterns of assertive action, and that precedence had to be given to the 'inductive'.
As in the Native American sharing circle, one can develop a worldview or view of the shape of the the environment by including everyone's story, rather than by debating what to selectively include and what to exclude. In fact, one is obliged to do so if one wants to go beyond assertive transactions and visualize inductive influences.
As in the tradition of Native American 'healing circles', the idea here is not single-mindedly debating 'the current state of the world' or 'what's really happening out there' since everyone's experience is unique, but to visualize 'the transforming dynamic of the world' by bringing everyone's experiences 'into connection in the mind'. This 'relational' view of the world is a natural one which includes the unique experiencing of the diverse individuals in a community, rather than selecting the most popular perspective and excluding minority views in quest of 'the correct' view, ... 'the' view of 'the way the world 'really' is'. Through the sharing circle process, one begins to see the world not just in terms of 'assertive transactions' but also how the assertive actions of individual constituents induce transformation in the patterns of assertive action, inductive effects which have an overriding influence on evolution.
Usually, we think of the world and how to manage it in terms of 'what things do', but the bigger view, which we tend to ignore, includes the effect of the relationship between the 'thing' and its environment; i.e. a particular environment opens up particular opportunity for a particular constituent. This 'relativity', where constituent must be understood in terms of container and container in terms of constituent follows from Einstein's 'relativity' principle for space and matter ('container- constituent- codefinition'). In relativity, 'space-matter-codefinition' is accommodated by 'field theory' which is fully independent of the concept of 'matter' and 'material kinetics' and where the 'kinetic agent' is purely 'relative' in the manner that the moving 'eye' of a vortex is a purely relative 'kinetic agent' in fluid flow.
See 'Including the Tools of our Inquiry in our Inquiry' which shows how our scientific assumptions exclude an accounting of 'container-constituent-coresonance' and, consequently, induce 'cognitive delusions' of 'phantom causal agents'.
The relativistic 'field' model includes yet subsumes our 'rational' worldview of structural arrangements of discrete material components with an inclusional view of nesting centers of coherency in the manner of vortices within vortices wherein the individual 'constituent' is at the same time the 'container' and coordination is 'simultaneous' rather than 'sequential'.
'Free will' or 'choice' for a vortex 'running around' 'asserting himself' within a containing system of vortices is exposed for what it is, a cognitive illusion. The vortex is not just an 'assertive agent' but is instead an inductive-assertive agent whose movement is 'transform-motional' rather than 'kinetic'. As soon as the vortex or 'vortical system' 'sees himself' in this manner, as a 'relativistic inclusion' of the transforming Unum, his alienation from his containing world dissipates and he may assume his natural role in co-creating the future through container- constituent- codynamics, a view which cognitively transcends his prior 'little story' view of evolution in terms of 'choices' --- 'assertive transactions' which seemed to be discrete in space and time but which failed to take account of their induced transformative repercussions.
We all know that the world 'really is' very different for each of us, and as individuals, we selectively focus on those issues which are important to us, which are impacting our opportunity relative to our purpose, ... purpose-and-opportunity which is differentiated by a wide variety of factors; ... whether we have children or not, are male or female, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor, black or yellow, red or white, ... so the 'sharing circle' of the native tradition makes a great deal of sense by 'including' rather than 'selectively excluding' our multi-minded experience-based understanding of the dynamic 'shape' of our common containing space. The inadequacy of mainstream science in the social domain is that it 'non-relativistic' and describes the 'assertive behaviours of independent causal agents' ignoring the relative 'shape' of the containing space into which it is 'asserting'. But we know from experience that if we positioned a man, a woman, a cockroach, an electron and a proton at the same position in space and then again at another position, their responses could not be explained solely by 'assertive behaviour theory' because their responses would be relative to the geometry of their containing space; i.e. their behaviours would be a function of the inductive-assertive dipolar influence associated with their 'container-constituent' geometrical situation. In the terms of social systems, the behaviour of the man, woman, roach, electron and proton would be codetermined by their 'agent-based purpose' relative to the 'container-based opportunity' in which they were themselves immersed participating constituents. While the 'rationality' of mainstream science builds theoretical explanation solely on the 'assertive behaviours of the independent constituents' and ignores the relativistic 'coupling' between a constituent and its containing environment, upgrading to the 'relativistic view' leads to 'inclusionality' wherein one accounts for the container-constituent geometry; i.e. the fact that the 'assertive purpose' of the constituent is inextricably bound up in the 'inductive opportunity' presented by the geometry of its containing environment. In the 'inclusional' view, 'choice' and 'free will', concepts based on the 'transactions' of the 'individual' seen as 'independent agent', are seen in the transcending context of 'opportunity to co-creatively participate in evolution'.
A small group of us are drafting a description of the 'natural philosophy' of 'inclusionality' which emerges from the transformed modes of perception, inquiry and management when container-constituent codefinition is accounted for. A Métis artist amongst us (Jacques Rainville), has created drawings which help illustrate the different ways of viewing, responding and managing which are implied by 'inclusionality'.
The difference between perceiving things in the relativistic terms of 'inclusionality' (multi-minded holographic visualization of the enveloping environmental dynamic in which you are immersed) versus in the non-relativistic terms of 'rationality' (a self-excluding, 'single-minded' view or 'divine plan-view') optimized by selective exclusion of the 'less relevant' features (but less relevant to whom?) as are developed in the 'meeting place' is pictured graphically, in the drawings of Jacques Rainville, a Métis Montréalais of Abenaki - Québecois-French extraction, as follows; (** n.b. the little circles are peoples heads as we look down on them, as indicated by their eye lashes).
These pictures compare 'the debate' (selective exclusion of minority views as in 'rationality') and 'the sharing circle' ('imaging' by inclusively bringing multiple views into connection in the mind) as a means for developing a worldview.
... on the left is the typical 'rational debate' to determine 'what the world is 'really like'', ... i.e. where the group argues over which 'pieces' of their selectively-excluding personal reality they can impose on the rest of the group, producing a discordant patchworks view which nobody agrees with. Ultimately, by this 'rational' approach, as La Fontaine satirically says; 'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure' (The reasoning of the most powerful is 'the best').
On the right is the inclusional 'sharing circle' where each member listens respectfully, not to contrived argument to win a debate, but to the heartfelt sharing of unique personal experience, without comment from the others, as the talking stick is passed from person to person, and the 'holographic' imagery of the way the world really 'really is' takes form.
'Inclusionality' gives us a chance to hear all views including minority views and to be guided in our actions by an implicit 'holographic' understanding rather than have us act on the basis of an explicit 'rationality' which excludes minority views.
Now, this is not to say that discussions and debates do not take place to complement the sharing circle, but the important difference is that the inclusional view is recognized as the broader view which is naturally 'in the primacy' over the 'rational view' in the same manner that the evolving landscape (relational view) is in the primacy over its explicit physical features (rational view). The 'bigger story' is the inclusional one, ... where you develop a feeling of how you and your containing landscape (social and natural) are 'co-transforming', while the 'little story' is the rational one, ... where you develop a view of all the explicit 'goings on out there' (the former includes the latter plus much more!)
In a dynamic sense, 'inclusionality' relates to 'rationality' in the same way that 'playing shape' relates to 'playing shots' in the game of pool. That is, one can focus on 'managing the configuration' so that all the constituents have opportunity to move towards their goal (pocket), putting one's 'shots' in service of 'shape' ('inclusionality'), or one can focus on 'making good shots' and ignore how the configuration is being transformed by one's shooting ('rationality').
To elaborate on this relationship in a dynamical sense, the 'inclusional' view of the sharing circle and the 'rational' view of the debating forum relate in the same manner that 'shape' (of the ball configuration) and 'shots' (kinetic transactions) relate in the game of pool. The wise pool player learns that he must play 'shape over shots', putting his 'rational' shot-making into the service of cultivating the opening up of opportunity (i.e. 'shape') for all members of his community of balls. Thus, when he starts from the inclusional view, rather than 'acting rationally', he uses his rational skills in support of 'opportunity management', since when he starts from the 'rational' view he infuses dissonance into the 'shape of opportunity' of the system, and when he tries to correct dissonance with 'more of the same' ('shots over shape' rationality), he further aggravates the dissonance. Playing 'shape over shots'; i.e. putting the 'inclusional view' into the primacy over the 'rational view' is the only reasonable way to go in pool, and similarly, putting 'inclusionality over rationality' is the only reasonable way to go in our managing of social systems, ... to do the reverse is 'incoherent' since, by relativity, every action induces a simultaneous, reciprocal transformation in the 'shape of space' and it is the 'shape of space' which governs our opportunity for action.
'Good$hare' is intended as a tool for collaboratively rethinking how we perceive and manage systems utilizing the inclusional view of 'Good'; i.e. 'Good container-constituent relationships' ('harmony') and the inclusional view of '$Money'; i.e. 'opportunity'. That is, 'Good$hare' implies a 'relativistic upgrading' of the notion of 'Good' as a valuation of explicit things to a valuation of relationships amongst things and an 'upgrading' of the notion of '$Money as an opportunizer of material-causal transactions to an opportunizer of container-constituent transformation. This, in turn, upgrades the approach for managing 'community evolution' from 'good investment' to 'harmonious opportunity cultivation'.
So this 'natural' geometry in the social codynamic and the fact that it is being increasingly ignored in our society, was the impetus behind the conceiving of 'Good$hare'. And because our current social evolution is being 'driven' by global economic forces (i.e. the unnaturally inverted 'action management' over 'opportunity management' geometry), the idea was that these pages would host a 'sharing circle' for the rehabilitation of the notions of 'Good' and '$ Money'. In agreement with the above described 'inclusionality' view, the notion of 'Good' reciprocally broadens into the notion of 'harmony' and the notion of '$ Money' reciprocally broadens into the notion of 'opportunity', a reciprocal broadening which the 'sharing circle' approach naturally cultivates.
Hypernote 1: The implicit 'geometrical flip' here is a perceptual one, ... , Hypernote 2: In the modern era where the recycling of wealth is by means of fast-moving global currency there is a 'modulator effect' ...
The consistent intuitive embracing of 'inclusional philosophy and management approach' by exceptional teams and its consistent superlative influence on productivity and social harmony motivated this Goodshare sharing initiative.
Inclusionality envisages going beyond the practice of 'doing good things with money' (observer-dependent approach) to the broader practice of 'cultivating harmony with opportunity' (observer-independent approach), ... and this is indeed the 'way' of exceptional teams which I had the good fortune to observe and study in the mid-nineties, ... studies which were a major stimulus underpinning the engendering of Good$hare.
As indicated in the comment above, the geometrical relationships between 'inclusionality' and 'rationality' are supported scientifically, by 'relativity', and that is much discussed within the essays which lie beneath this page, deposited like geological layers in the continuing ontogeny of Good$hare.
Goodshare was originally intended to be 'operationalized' as a self-informing consumer/investment advisory circle but the essential information on the movement of companies from rational towards inclusional management, or vice versa, was not readily accessible. Thus Goodshare found itself in a situation similar to the rainforest which creates its own climate which creates the rainforest; i.e. the needed auto-evolutionary process can't be 'constructed' but must 'suck itself into existence'.
It was initially anticipated that Good$hare would be 'rendered' in the form of a 'sharing circle' to guide collaboratively developed investment advisory information, so that people could put their investing into the service of harmonious opportunity cultivation, by collaboratively learning how the money which flowed through their hands and through the companies whose products and shares they supported, induced transformation in the 'shape of opportunity' in their enveloping community (i.e. 'shape of opportunity' not just in the sense of people but also with respect to our fellow minerals, plants and animals). Meanwhile, the information necessary to 'get started' was not readily available, and the operational aspect of Good$hare is challenged by the geometry that 'the rainforest creates its own climate' (or vice versa). The more there is an attuning to the very different influences on social and environmental evolution of the two polarities of management ('opportunity management over action management' versus 'action management over opportunity management'), the more the climate may come into being to engender an 'economic rain forest', an economic system that leads NOT to selection, exclusion and survival of a few dominating economic forms, but instead, to a healthy ecology amongst a diversity of forms which put their economic powers in the service of cultivating and sustaining opportunity for a diverse constituency. This inclusional 'way', which puts rationality into a supporting role rather than a dominating role, is the way of nature, ecology and exceptional teams.
The emerging 'organism is its environment' theory of a minority of evolutionary biologists is a particular example of accounting for container-constituent-codefinition but such 'bigger story' inclusional views of things, which include but transcend rational views, are still 'heresy' in mainstream science and in the mainstream of our culture (even though they follow from relativity).
Hypernote 3.: 'Darwinism' and the notion of 'natural selection' ignore relativity and the primacy of space-over-matter
The suggested 'upgrading' to relativistic perception being proposed here, while it is in harmony with complexity, quantum and relativity theory, is 'cultural heresy', and one 'feels it' every time one engages mainstream opinion with concepts such as 'the organism is the environment' or 'the individual is the community'. The heretical implication is, for example, that instead of seeing a group of children at play as being a multiplicity of independent-of-space 'constructions' from molecules up into cells up into organs, and their blossoming rosy-cheeked smiles as being solely 'bottom-up' assertive dynamics, originating in an 'independent consciousness' and neuronal triggering of a sequence of biochemical reactions, ... one sees the group and the child as nested 'inclusional features' of the containing environment whose organs and cells are nested inclusional features within the human organisms, all of which codynamically participate in the manner that whirlpools within whirlpools participate in the space-time fluid-flow which contains them. Note that this does not 'discard' the assertive-kinetic 'biochemical view' but simply transcends it with a 'bigger story' based on 'inclusion' within an 'inductive opportunity space' (i.e. 'field theory' transcends 'particle theory' in that it can speak to volumetric, convergent-divergent resonances of nested constituents or 'container-constituent-coresonance'.)
'Inclusionality' includes 'rationality' but goes beyond it by accounting for 'container-constituent-codefinition' so there's nothing lost in embracing 'inclusionality' as one can always downgrade from the 'bigger' view to the 'smaller' view.
There is really nothing to 'lose' in embracing this curved-space inclusional view, since it includes and reduces to the rectangular space rational view in the degenerate case where the curvature of space goes to zero and container-constituent-coresonance vanishes. In relativity terms, the inclusional view is one wherein 'motion' equates with space-time co-transformation of container-constituent and the rational view is one wherein 'motion' equates with kinetic transactions of absolute, detached constituents, as the following drawings illustrate;
These two drawings illustrate the difference in the geometries of rational space (left) and inclusional space (right).
On the left, the usual rectangular space wherein we depict physical phenomena in terms of 'the assertive behaviours of independent causal agents (kinetic transactions)
On the right, a depiction of curved space as on the surface of the earth where a vortical storm system is, at the same time, its containing space, and as the storm system 'moves', simultaneous, reciprocally, the whole spherical space transforms. In this view, the transformation of space time is the 'bigger story' and the kinetic motion of the 'eye' of the story is the 'little story' (a 'cognitive illusion').
Inclusionality gives a view of a 'storm' as being a simultaneous, reciprocal feature of its own containing space and motion as 'transformation', while 'rationality' gives a view of a 'storm' as an 'independent assertive agent' and sees its motion as 'kinetic'.
In the relativistic curved space view, we are like the storm, an 'included feature' of the curved, self-referential space of the atmosphere-biosphere, and our motion simultaneously, reciprocally transforms our containing space. An example at 'street level' is freeway driving where everyone is referencing to, and 'co-creating' the holes in the flow; ... a car's motion simultaneously, reciprocally transforms the shape of the 'dynamic opportunity space' which the drivers are 'referencing to' and 'co-creating.'. Of course, as the radius of coresonance (interference radius) of the system increases towards infinity, the surface of curved space 'flattens out' into the flatspace of Euclid, and the strength of the self-referentiality of the local dynamic drops to zero (i.e. the storm's 'kinetic motion' will not reciprocally induce its own 'evolution' nearly as strongly as if the storm wrapped around the earth and was 'touching itself'. Similarly for the freeway driving situation, if it was taking place on salt flats without lane markers instead of a constrained 'ribbon' through the hills.)
Hypernote 4.: Since the storm and its curved containing space change simultaneously (they are simply different aspects of the same thing), space and time are an inseparable continuum, .....
When things get crowded, one has to account for how one's movements transform the shape of the containing space which modulates one's movements; i.e. the constituents must jointly manage the opportunity holes they co-create by moving.
The general 'management' principle involved is, that when things get crowded and complicated, instead of referencing our individual behaviour to rational rule structures and 'asserting ourselves as independent causal agents' (which can induce dissonance and 'gridlock'), we would be wise to instead reference our individual actions to 'opportunity' and if we do this, as exceptional team members do, we become aware of our simultaneous inductive-assertive influence wherein our actions are in the service of transforming the shape of the dynamic opportunity space in which we and our team-members are immersed. We then move into the mode of 'the rainforest creating its own climate'. This is the mode where 'action management' is put into the service of 'opportunity management', the natural codynamical geometry within a curved space biosphere.
It 'feels good' when you get in the 'zone' of co-creation of opportunity space, or 'participation in evolution', that's how you know you're 'in the zone', but 'outsiders' may interpret your 'inclusionality' mode in the 'little story' terms of 'rationality'.
The 'feeling' of resonant inclusion in a nested evolutionary codynamic is very different from being a component in a 'finely tuned machine', since referencing to 'the shape of space' puts one into an unbounded coresonance (with one's fellow workers, suppliers, customers, families, and fellow constituents in nature). As one participant (an hourly paid union leader) in an exceptional team enthusiastically asserted, ... 'for twenty years I was employed from the shoulders down, ... and our new team approach has put my head back on my shoulders, for which I am exceedingly grateful'. The 'joy' of an unbounded participation in tuning in to the shape of dynamic opportunity space is commonly remarked upon in exception team situations and one can find oneself in an exceptional team, even on the freeway, where a group of vehicles co-operates codynamically on the basis of opening up opportunity space for each other. Unfortunately, all of the exceptional teams I studied emerged, blossomed and flourished wonderfully but only briefly, as management interpreted their success in an 'action management' and 'assertive behaviour' context, identifying and promoting (up the ladder) the 'high performers' who they see as being 'chiefly responsible' for the impressive economic results and the high team morale. If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When drivers on crowded freeways consciously 'co-create opportunity space' for each other, traffic flows well. Where dissonance erupts through 'driving independently', rational management responds by seeking to identify the 'causal agents' and eliminating or suppressing them (by rules and controls). Rules targeting individual behaviour ignore container-constituent relations and encourage 'rulees' to ignore how their actions transform opportunity space, thus inducing more dissonance. Rational theory is innately 'too small' to see 'container-constituent opportunity-space co-creation' as the overriding, 'natural solution', and a joyful rather than oppressive one.
Where dissonance emerges, the cultural reflex is typically 'action management' oriented, aimed at 'eliminating' or 'suppressing' the 'problem' and which ignores the 'inductive' influence of the shape of opportunity space. This reflex is pervasive not only in mainstream science but also in our local and global social management systems. In the curved space view however, 'the problem' is inevitably only the emergent symptom, like the storm in the biosphere. Organisations which form for the purpose of suppressing 'problems' seen in terms of 'bad behaviours' (e.g. of transnational corporations, biotechnology companies, the rich etc.) are like the management who 'kills' exceptional teams when they sprout up and blossom, in that they see the system dynamic solely in terms of 'assertive behaviours' (i.e. the view that 'someone, or something, must be responsible for the good things which happen and the bad things which happen'), and who are blind to the primacy of the 'inductive' over the 'assertive' and that every assertive action simultaneously, reciprocally transforms the shape of opportunity space. Just about everyone, rich or poor, transnational corporation or mom & pop corner store owner, biotechnologist or ecologist, believes that their efforts are going to a 'good cause', so conspiracy theory and the identifying of 'problem makers' simply induces more dissonance. 'Interventions' to suppress dissonance 'caused by bad practice and/or conspiracies' is a 'little story' view of how to manage emergent dissonance in social systems, and lead to the 'snake under the rug' effect (you keep trying to step on it and squash it, but it keeps re-emerging elsewhere). That is, dissonance emerges from assertive behaviour which doesn't address its own reciprocal inductive influence ('shape of opportunity space' influence) and 'intervention' is an assertive behaviour which is equally capable of engendering dissonance by such unconsciousness. The root problem is 'unconsciousness' cultivated by the cultural teaching that we are all 'individuals' in our own right and 'assertive behaviour' and its management is all we have to look at (i.e. space is a non-participant).
We have been using communications and media technology to 'technology-amplify' 'little story' rational management and problem solving to the point that our natural 'big story' mode of 'co-creating opportunity space' is being squeezed out. This forced abandonment of 'inclusionality' is inducing psychological disorders in the most sensitive of our fellows, the 'miner's canaries' of our society. It is not the 'canaries' that are defective, however, but the social container, and our natural sensibilities, if harnessed as 'Canary Force' rather than being suppressed by chemically lobotomizing drugs, can contribute to restoring harmony and inducing needed social transformation.
In general in our society, it appears that our cultural norm, putting 'rational view based action management' in the primacy over 'inclusional view based opportunity management' is a collective cognitive disorder, and that the rising incidence of 'affective disorders' (depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) in our society, induced in the more sensitive and deeply conscious of our fellows (the 'miner's canaries' of our society), are the result of our technology-amplification of this aberrant management approach. Since we are, at the same time, 'technology-amplifying' the suppression of this natural 'alarm signal' through tremendous increases in the prescribing of mind-numbing drugs, the alarm is effectively being 'shut off' while the fires of aberrance continue to build unabatedly. Those suffering from affective disorders stand out, not only on the basis of their sensitivity and 'abnormal behaviour', but also on the basis of their intuitive understanding of the upside-down primacy of rationality over inclusionality, and thus they represent an enormous potential force ('Canary Force') in restoring harmony in our society, if they are able to see through the bs message of the mainstream telling them that it is 'they' who are 'defective'.
Inclusionality is understood (implicitly, but not by this name) by emerging minorities in many disciplines but disciplinary jargon has been a barrier to any transdisciplinary growth synergies. Our small internet 'sharing circle' is trying to engender a 'holodisciplinary' 'description' of inclusionality. We are trying to come up with a 'logo' but it's difficult to depict in 2D.
Meanwhile, there are 'subcultures' in most 'disciplines' (scientific, artistic, humanistic) wherein the geometry of inclusionality-over-rationality is implicitly understood and advocated, though this understanding is articulated in the particular terms of the discipline which are often difficult to understand by those outside the discipline. Helping to share views of this geometry whilst overcoming the disciplinary jargon problem is the quest of a small internet 'sharing circle' in which I am a participating constituent and which is seeking to nurture the 'philosophy' of 'inclusionality' in a 'holodisciplinary' sense.
We are struggling to come up with a logo which depicts the geometry (it is tough to imply a relativistic (curved space-time) geometry when one is confined to a flat, two-dimensional euclidian plane), however, I include two 'artworks' which succeed rather well in this regard, by Sidney Mirsky (the colour painting) and by Alan Rayner (in black and white). The representational challenge, which involves having the mind of the observer re-arrange two dimensional patterns into an immersed impression of container-constituent-codynamics, is as follows; ... the geometry of relativity (inclusionality) is where all 'things' are 'inclusions' of space which jointly 'co-create the shape of space' and the 'shape of space' is what governs the opportunity for the constituents to 'act' and 'co-create'. When we act, whether we choose to be conscious of it or not, we are co-creating the shape of the containing 'opportunity space' within which we are all participating constituents. If we act 'unawarely' of this relativity, we, like the poor pool player, will inevitably induce dissonance in the form of involuntary 'snookering' (closing down of opportunity) for some and the opening up of disproportionate opportunity for others. The inclusionality philosophy thus seeks to 'upgrade' the perception of reality from the rational view (a 'little story' view of 'assertive behaviours') to the more natural and basic inclusional view (a 'bigger story' view of 'co-creating opportunity space by means of assertive behaviours').
This new (Jan, 2001) page, consistent with 'inclusionality', encapsulates older material in the manner of geological layers deposited on earth so you are invited to 'dig in' to earlier epochs if you'd like and/or to link to more on inclusionality.
Just as this is a new January, 2001 'geological layer' deposited concentrically over the previous 'geological layers' of this Good$hare website, more layers are anticipated to follow, as well as linked pages on the philosophy of inclusionality.
If you'd like to travel down into earlier geologic sequences, click on the following buttons;
click on this picture to
switch to Goodshare's
1995 - 1997 epoch
click on the picture on the right
to switch to Goodshare's
1997 - 2000 epoch and
the index of that vintage of essay.
And, if you would like to sample some of the most recent 'sediments', to get a flavour of how some of the current issues of our world can be visualized 'inclusionally', you could browse the 'talks' on the philosophical and governance aspects (by Ted Lumley and Martine Dodds-Taljaard) of 'Indigenous Wisdom and its Lessons for the Systems Sciences', a panel discussion-presentation at the World Congress of Systems Sciences in Toronto July 19, 2000, and/or my first essay of the 21st century (January 5th), 'From Strength to Nemesis?' which examines our 'use' (misuse?) of our evolved power of 'rationality'.
As in my earlier website documented epochs, ... I welcome you to tunnel right into this 'geologically layered wardrobe of collective thoughts' and 'try a few things on', ... if they 'fit' be sure to take them home with you, ... that's what they're here for.
To contact me (Ted Lumley), mailto:email@example.com
* * *
The Evolving Logos of 'Inclusionality'
The container-constituent relationships of 'river and whirlpool' (fluid-flow), 'cheese and holes' (Swiss cheese), 'configuration-shape and balls' (game of pool), 'soil and mole-hole' (burrowing/invaginating) and 'biosphere and el-niño' (weather in the earthsphere) are examples of the dynamical geometry of inclusionality as needs to be implied in a logo.
'Inclusionality' goes farther than 'rationality' in the same manner that 'biosphere' goes farther than 'el niño'; i.e. el niño 'is' the biosphere at the same time as it is an 'included assertive feature' within the biosphere. When el niño 'moves' kinetically in 'space and time', the space-time shape of the biosphere 'moves' transformationally. Thus in the relativistic 'inclusionary view, the 'inclusion' not only 'references to' the geometry which it 'co-creates' with its containing space, it 'is' a constituent of its own containing space, rather than having a detached 'existence in its own right'. This is what makes drawing an inclusionary 'logo' on a flat surface so difficult. If I were to try to draw a picture of 'inclusionality', I might use a configuration of balls on a pool table, but the challenge would be to have the observer think of the balls as if they were the inclusions (holes) in a Swiss cheese and to focus, reciprocally, on the 'shape of the cheese' and how this shape 'transforms' as the balls move. If the observer can visualize the transforming shape of the cheese, this not only gives him all the 'rational' information on the assertive movement of the holes, it also gives him information on the shape of the 'dynamic opportunity space' which envelopes the balls and inductively opens up to their assertive behaviours which invaginate and transform the geometry of the containing space as they move. Going beyond the rational view to an 'inclusionary consciousness' of how our actions shape our common containing 'opportunity space' is the message in the logo.
Alan Rayner's essay on inclusionality (click on his painting at the right to go there) illustrates how the 'creatures of the forest' tune naturally (inclusionally) to the volumetric shape of space. This 'tuning' taps the 'relational' 'space-time phase' information in light and sound which we humans 'rationally' reduce to 'intensity' to get flatspace 'snapshots', destroying volumetric container-constituent geometry in the process. Maintaining container-constituent 'coresonance', implicit in 'inclusionality' and nature, is what the 'creatures of the forest' continue to do while we humans are progressively suppressing this mode by technology-amplifying 'rationality' (rather than technology-amplifying 'inclusionality'). The quantum and relativity consistent communications theory of Dennis Gabor illuminates how the 'creatures' can key their behaviours directly to space-time phase information which cultivates container-constituent harmony, while we humans are increasingly keying our behaviours to explicit informational snapshots and sound-bites, which cultivate dissonance.
In his essay, 'Inclusionality - An Immersive Philosophy of Environmental Relationships', Alan Rayner shows how the 'creatures of the forest' make use of the informationally superior 'transforming shape of the cheese' which not only informs them of both assertive behaviours and the 'shape of opportunity space' into which they are asserting, but also allows their assertive behaviours to adapt on the basis of 'coresonance' in the reciprocal relationship between the two. The space-time phase information necessary for this 'container-constituent-coresonating' is innate in light and when one considers the collaborative harmonies in the creatures of the forest, one may start to question whether 'sight', which reduces relational space-time phase information necessary for immersed volumetric perception (holographic perception) to explicit 'intensity' necessary for building static imagery, ... is as often a curse as a blessing. In Denis Gabor's 1971 Nobel Prize in Physics (holography) award presentation, Eric Ingelstam notes that "Our five senses give us knowledge of our surroundings, and nature herself has many available resources. The most obvious is light which gives us the possibility to see and to be pleased by colour and shape. ... Light and sound are wave motions which give us information not only on the sources from which they originate, but also on the bodies through which they pass, and against which they are reflected or deflected. ... The photographic plate preserves for us a picture of a fleeting moment, ... And yet, important information about the object is missing in a photographic image. This is a problem which has been a key one for Dennis Gabor during his work on information theory. Because the image reproduces only the effect of the intensity of the incident wave-field, not its nature. The other characteristic quantity of the waves, phase, is lost and thereby the three dimensional geometry. The phase depends upon from which direction the wave is coming and how far it has travelled from the object to be imaged."
When we are in the flow of our immersed-in-space experience we conceive of things, including ourselves, as volume-ous forms or 'inclusions' within an enveloping 'space-shape' which we are also aware of. That is, in our immersed experience, we visualize not only the 'shape of things', but also the 'shape of the reciprocal containing space', as if the inclusions or 'material forms' were like the holes in Swiss cheese where we visualize the shape of the cheese at the same time as the shape of the inclusions, i.e. we visualize the' inclusional shape of space' which is, at the same time, the shape of inclusions, inclusor and their relative geometry. When we 'act' or 'move' in this 'inclusional' cognitive mode, we perceive the simultaneous motion of 'inclusor and inclusions', seeing the motion of 'inclusor' as continual transformation and of 'inclusions' as kinetic trajectories. That is, the shape of 'inclusor space' is common to all 'inclusions' because it is an unbounded enveloping space and, because it is unbounded, its motion is 'transform-motion' rather than curvilinear-sequential (kinetic trajectory). In other words, in our inclusional cognitive mode, our primary awareness is of the transforming space-time continuum in which we are an immersed inclusion and the 'shape of things' emerges reciprocally from this primary perception. For example, in our immersed freeway driving experience, our perception of the shape of space which envelopes us and other vehicle-inclusions and which opens up for us to move into and which simultaneously re-forms with our motion to open up (or close down) for other inclusions to move into is our 'primary perception' while the form of the inclusions themselves is reciprocal to this primary perception but 'referenced' relativistically to it. In freeway driving, when we move, we co-create the space into which we move and we do not stop to rationally calculate the 'assertive behaviours of independent causal agents' in terms of 'kinetic trajectories'.
Rational knowledge is increasingly coming to us from technology-amplified extensions to our visual faculty such as books, television, telescopes and microscopes, stripped of the space-time phase information needed to re-create the shape of 'inclusor-space' which gives us the volumetric relationships amongst things. As Johannes Kepler observed, the telescopic view of the trajectory of the planet mars plotted over the years 1580 - 1597, from an 'earth-centric' view, is pretzel-shaped because it does not account for volumetric space relationships associated with the self-referentiality of the solar system which manifests in 'container-constituent coresonance' (i.e. the shape of inclusor space is the more basic perceptual reference since it continuously accounts for transformation in the shape and volumetric relationship of the inclusions). A simplified way to think of this is in terms of a two-armed pendulum; i.e. if we as earth-observers are at the lower tip of the upper pendulum viewing the motion of the lower tip of the lower pendulum (Mars), it can appear to reverse itself during its cycle from our point of view but not from the vantage point of the harmonic center of the system (the upper hanging point of the double pendulum; i.e. the Sun). This is because both the earth and mars are involved in a simultaneous codynamic originating outside of their two-body relationship which makes the local discrete subject-object view radically incomplete and distorted relative to the more comprehensive 'inclusional' view which gives the containing, referencing context.
Space is, in this manner, a 'participant in physical phenomena', which renders self-centric and geo-centric cosmology and all purely 'rational' theory fundamentally exposed to distortion, unlike our immersed observations, where we use space-time phase information and imagination (bringing a multitude of experiences into connection in our mind) to image the 'shape of space' and use this 'inclusor geometry' as the prime reference for our inquiry and actions. For example, if we worked in a factory and made the inertial frame of the factory the prime reference for our lives, doing what the boss told us to do, and did this for five years, .... if those five years were 1939 - 1944 and the factory was in Hamburg, Germany, ... when the bombs started dropping we would be thinking along the lines of John Lennon, that we had been 'missing something' and that 'Life is something which happens to us while we're busy making other plans.' or the Ojibway, that 'Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind is bearing me across the sky.' When we 'reference to' inertial frames, as rational mode demands (it doesn't have the space-time phase information to do otherwise), we cut ourselves off from the unbounded context in which we are immersed participant-constituents (consciously or otherwise). Using inclusionality to tune-in to, and reference our actions to the unbounded shape of our enveloping space-time, as the creatures of the forest do, ... gives us the opportunity to participate in our own evolution and to co-create container-constituent-coresonance as in natural ecologies.
Gabor, who said he used to "... sneak over from the TH [Technische Hochschule Berlin] as often as possible to the University of Berlin, where physics at that time was at its apogee, with Einstein, Planck, Nernst and v. Laue." developed a 'relativity and quantum theory compliant' information theory that has implications for sound as well as light and his initial thought was of the reciprocity between assertive source and inductive receiver which leads to the 'experience' of 'immersion'. The acoustic form of 'container-constituent' reciprocity is well demonstrated in seismology as explained by Jon Claerbout and Joe Dellinger in Eisner's reciprocity paradox and its resolution (which leads us right back to the spherical space mathematics of Gabor). While we western humans may have been 'blinded' or 'mesmerized' by the explicit 'visual snapshots' and 'acoustic sound bites' of our technology-amplified communications media, the creatures of the forest, such as Alan Rayner's mycelia (see Alan Rayner's Bio*Art- illustrated talk on inclusional environmental relationships) remind us of how life-forms whose faculties have not been 'technology-extended' (McLuhan) tune directly to the space-time phase or 'container-constituent context' which allows their assertive behaviours to come into a natural coresonance with the holographic shaping of their inductive opportunity space.
Picture and 'Hole in the Mole' poem, by Alan Rayner
Flow creates Motion
Motion engenders Venturi
Venturi elicits Vacuum
Vacuum incorporates Diversity
Diversity complexes Form
Form equilibrates Spiral
Spiral emerges Vortex
Vortex invaginates Flow …
Painting and poem are by Sidney Mirsky