The following (50 minute) presentation, given at the Subtle Technologies Conference, is in two parts, ...the first part (Ted Lumley) aimed to provide the scientific framework for the 'inclusional' world view, and the second part (Jacques Rainville), a demonstration of experience-based 'inclusional thinking tools' which 'go deeper' than 'rational thinking tools' in perceiving, inquiring and responding to one's enveloping world.
Inclusionality is the 'relational science' of the 'included observer' which we have termed 'the science of living', as contrasted with the 'rational science' of the 'excluded observer' (voyeur of physical phenomena) which we have termed 'the science of describing'. While the 'voyeur' 'science of describing sees physical phenomena in terms of kinetic trajectories and transactions within empty, infinite and non-participating space, the 'immersive' 'science of living' sees physical phenomena in the terms of the immersed observer; i.e. in terms of inner-outer, volumetrically nesting configurations which seek dynamical balance. The fundamental difference between the two is that while the 'science of description' (mainstream science or 'masculine principle' science) ignores the over-riding role of the dynamic geometry of space, ... the 'opportunity-providing receptacle' for action ('feminine principle') whose transformation is the simultaneous reciprocal to the codynamic of the constituents of space, ... the 'science of living', on the other hand, 'references' relativistically to the 'participative' role of the dynamically transforming receptacle, a geometric receptacle which opens itself up or 'invaginates' as the constituents of space co-assert into it and whose transforming geometry of opening-up for the sustained assertive penetrations of the constituents is simultaneously reciprocal to the constituent codynamic. The principle of 'relativity' as established and validated by our immersed human experience, shows that the 'feminine principle' (the dynamic geometry of opportunity-to-act-space) is an 'inclusive informational archive' for continuing constituent codynamics, constituting a 'conservation of information' principle in parallel with the conservation of energy (wherein the 'potential energy field' acts as the 'energy archive' for 'constituent kinetic energy transactions'). While ignoring the over-riding role (as reference ground) of the 'feminine principle' and 'managing' our reality solely in 'masculine principle' terms infuses dissonance into the containing system space (i.e. community, nature), ... nature provides man with a 'community-constituent-coresonance' model wherein the masculine (assertive action) asserts so as to sustain dynamical inner-outer balance with its reciprocally transforming receptacle.
[Technical Note: In a technical sense, the 'science of describing' 'differentiates' (takes the derivative of the overall world dynamic) on the basis of the imposed framework of split-apart euclidian space and absolute time. While rationality and the 'science of living' say that we can (approximately) ignore the 'constant of integration' or overall 'configuration of dynamically transforming space' ('feminine principle') which 'drops out' in the 'time-based' differentiation which selectively 'excises' assertive kinetics (i.e. in the manner that the rational mind selects out the rock which falls down the mountainside at the same time ignoring the simultaneously transforming geometry of the mountain landscape - the transforming 'invisible valley' of Lao Tsu ), the deeper principle of relativity and the inclusional 'science of living' say that the opportunity-giving property of space (the 'feminine principle' or 'yin') cannot be 'ignored' since our experience confirms there is a simultaneous, reciprocal relationship between constituent kinetics and the transforming geometry of space which constitutes 'opportunity-for-kinesis'. In other words, one cannot understand 'mountains' and how they evolve by accounting solely for 'yang' material transactions (falling rocks) since the configuration of rocks (the 'mountain landscape') is the 'ground' which gives the rocks their opportunity-to-fall and the 'flip side' of the 'yang' view of 'rock kinetics' is 'transformation' of the over-riding geometry of opportunity furnished by the 'configuration of rocks' (mountain landscape). The mainstream 'science of describing' practice of acting on the basis of the limited 'yang-in-empty-infinite-non-participating space' view of the world infuses dissonance into the enveloping world in the manner of the poor pool player who considers the game of pool SOLELY in terms of 'yang' shot-making (kinetic trajectories and transactions) and ignores (i.e. 'hides' within the monodimensional concept of 'probability' or 'God throwing dice') that the movements of the balls simultaneously, reciprocally transform the geometry of the opportunity-giving receptacle of space which determines in an overriding way, the continuing patterns of 'yang kinetics'. The inner-outer opportunity-giving dynamic geometry of space ('feminine principle' or 'yin') is in a natural, yet inclusional primacy over the assertive codynamic of the constituents of space ('masculine principle' or 'yang') in the manner that the valley is in an inclusional primacy over the asserting mountain. That is, the 'dynamic geometry of space', the dynamical 'form' of the web-of-holes between things is the larger, historical information base upon the which our 'time-based' rationality 'operates' in the manner of taking space and time derivatives. While the space-and-time derivative operation of rationality and mainstream science purports to 'detach' the kinetic transactions and present them 'as if in their own right', their independence from their simultaneous coupling with the transformation of their containing space is no more than a cognitive illusion, ... a cognitive illusion which, if mistaken for 'reality' leads to the infusing of dissonance into the system. That is, according to relativity and as validated by our experience, the kinetic activity of the constituents of space is, at the same time, co-creative transformation of their opportunity-to-act; or, 'yang is, at the same time, the transformation of the enveloping yin which makes yang possible'; or, the 'shooting activity of the constituent balls in the game of pool is, at the same time, the transformation of the enveloping configuration of balls which makes shots possible.'
Darwinian theory, Dawkinsian theory, 'genetic theory' 'genetic algorithms' etc. assume that space is empty, infinite and non-participating ; i.e. they ignore the 'feminine principle' and assume that 'yang is all there is', ... they assume, in contradiction to our experience, that there is no simultaneous, reciprocal relationship between constituents' actions and their enveloping opportunity-to-act, ... an assumption which leads to the infusing of dissonance into our enveloping, opportunity-giving geometry of space in the manner of the poor pool player. As academia continues to teach these 'yang only' views of evolution to the upcoming generation of students and continues to prohibit the use of 'the feminine principle' in science, students equip themselves to apply these dissonance inducing yang-only models in an increasingly technology-amplified manner (and therefore in a dissonance-amplifying manner), as in genetics. For example, current university research programs, by referencing to the 'yang only' model, cite the false analogy between the 'breeding' of organisms (e.g. dogs) and manipulations at the genetic level. In the finite space of the global commons, as on the pool table, what 'we do' is reflected back on us in terms of the transformation of our ongoing opportunity-to-do, thus the creation and propagation of new species simultaneously transforms the ongoing geometry of opportunity for us and all species (i.e. for all 'constituents' faunal, floral and mineral). While the rational, yang worldview is one in which we 'cause' things to happen in the world, ... our experience, if we reflect on it, tells us that our actions are 'not in their own right' but instead must be seen in the deeper terms of 'interventions' into the continuing space-time transformation known as 'life'.
Our actions in disturbing the dynamical balance of atmosphere/hydrosphere/lithosphere, e.g. by the infusion of CO2 from automobiles and factories, ... cannot 'cause' global warming since our actions do not 'really' occur in empty, infinite non-participating space (the condition for causality to 'hold true') but must instead be seen in the context of an 'intervention' which transforms the continually evolving 'yin' of our finite, unbounded containing space. Man and his technology-amplified actions are merely 'inclusions' within the evolving containing space of the biosphere, a space which has been experiencing ongoing global warming and cooling of a magnitude greater than can be explained by the current activities of man. Meanwhile, man's dissonant intervention could certainly 'de-stabilize' the container-constituent-coresonance or dynamical 'health' of our containing space and perhaps lead it into a 'wobble' between the climactic extremes. ]
At the core of this presentation is the demonstration (by Jacques Rainville) of how, in 'real life', the inclusional view and inclusional thinking tools of the 'science of life' which recognize the natural, inclusionary primacy of the 'feminine principle' (as in the Native American tradition), overcome the dissonance-infusing effects of the 'yang only' 'science of describing' approach.
... first, the scientific framing, ...
Reality’ Joint Research Venture: Laboratory -
Bar des Pins, 3714 Avenue du Parc, Montréal
in relativistic non-linear curved space translates into the ‘dynamic geometry
the curved-space of the pool table, as in the curved-space of our biosphere, …
the unique subjectivity (dynamic geometry of opportunity) seen by the
constituent, which changes simultaneously with his or anyone’s movement,
unites the constituent with his containing space.
The ‘science of living’ (observer-included-inquiry) is innately ‘deeper’ than the ‘science of describing’ (observer-excluding-inquiry)
Inclusionality is close to the antithesis of ‘virtual reality’.
Virtual reality entails an observer sculpting a work without 'intruding'
into the space in which he is sculpting. It
is, in effect, ‘remote management’ which ignores the unique positioning and
interferential relationship with containing space of the 'immersed observer'.
The honey bees which produce highly optimized and aesthetic hexagonal cells in
real life, through their dynamic 'co-intrusion' into their containing space,
would lose this capability in a non-intrusive 'virtual reality'.
'Virtual reality' lacks the Fibonacci and golden mean aesthetic of the 'logic of
evolution'; ... symmetric growth of the constituent, ... asymmetric
container-based limits to growth, ... meta-symmetric growth (i.e. growth of the
Unum), ... since it is the space-consuming intrusion of the immersed constituent
sculptors of nature which provide, by their space-transforming codynamic, the
co-creative shaping of their own opportunity-to-sculpt.
“Our world is not Euclidian”, Albert Einstein, Leopold Enfield, ‘The Evolution of Physics’, … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” (Einstein)
Imagine these explorers ‘sailing the seas’ at the same speed as the upwellings and subductings of plate tectonics. As they ‘move’, so transforms the identity of their point of departure and their destination, as well as themselves (since all things are contextual ‘inclusions’ within the system). If neither the traveler nor his space has an enduring identity, what sense does the notion of ‘his’ or ‘its’ kinetic path’ have? … Motion cannot then be seen in terms of the kinetic trajectories and transactions of fixed identity objects, but must instead be seen in the terms of simultaneous relational transformation of the space-time Unum, where ‘time’ does not exist ‘in its own right’. The ‘evolutionary essence’, rather than being constituted by ‘things moving from starting points to destinations’ is where ‘constituent features of the pluribus of the Unum of space-time’ (think of ‘vortices’ or ‘the central ‘eye’ of coherencies’ nesting within space-time flow) is constituted instead, by dynamical transformation which deepens or shallows the coresonance between outer and inner space ‘in the continuously evolving ‘Now’.
While the ‘science of describing’ may say that we can safely approximate the material objects of the world as having ‘fixed identities’, … we cannot impose this approximation on nature and ‘the science of living’ since the evolving constituents of nature must deal with the continuous transformation of all identities (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle speaks to the mediational interplay between space (position or ‘Place’) and matter (material kinetics) and ‘make it work’ (i.e. the material constituent must be informed by a ‘mind’ which ‘references’ relativistically to the continuously transforming containing space of ‘Place’.
“For that former route --- from observations through the longest detours of geometry and arithmetic, through the ratios of spheres and the other things which must be learned first, down to the journeys which have been exhibited --- is too long for any natural instinct, for the sake of moving which it seems reasonable that the harmonies have been introduced. Therefore with everything reduced to one view, I concluded rightly that the true journeys of the planets through the ether should be dismissed, and that we should turn our eyes to the apparent diurnal arcs, according as they are all apparent, from one definite and marked place in the world --- namely, from the solar body itself, the source of movement of all the planets: and we must see, not how far away from the sun any one of the planets is, nor how much space it traverses in one day (for that is something for ratiocination and astronomy, not for instinct), but how great an angle the diurnal movement of each planet subtends in the solar body, or how great an arc it seems to traverse in one common circle described around the sun, such as the ecliptic, in order that these appearances, which were conveyed to the solar body by virtue of light, may be able to flow, together with the light, in a straight line into creatures, which are partakers of this instinct, as in Book IV we said the figure of the heavens flowed into the foetus by virtue of the rays." (Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’)
In discretising the world in terms of fixed identity 'things', the relational transformation of space is no longer a viewing option and the observer is forced to 'invent time' to deal with the 'motion of things' in place of 'transform-motion'. In this sense, 'Time is man’s invention imposed on (his view of) the world so that he won’t have to deal with everything happening at once” (i.e. so as to facilitate the notional fragmentation of space into independent ‘things’ and their kinetic trajectories and transactions within an empty, infinite and non-participating Euclidian space, avoiding the pre-conceptual experiencing of space as a simultaneous, transforming Unum).
Are nested female-male (container-constituent) relationships fully characterized by time progressions?, … ‘transactions’ that proceed from start to finish, like ‘waves which break on the fringing reef, then 'head for', and ‘end up’ on the beach’ or are they ‘more fully’ characterized by an inner-outer codynamical transformation, ... a coresonant coevolving in the continuing ‘Now’ which may intensify and de-intensify from time to time? When the seas and winds rage, and then become quiet, does this mean that the atmosphere and hydrosphere have ‘broken off’ their relationship, … or should the relationship be seen in terms of the Unum of the 'global commons' (containing space) which harbors and mediates inclusionarily nested inner-outer codynamics? If so, 'motion' is constituted by the 'transformation of space' and the notion of ‘progression in time’ is a cognitive artifact of perceiving reality in terms of discrete ‘things’ rather than in the more general and continuously dynamical sense of inner-space – outer-space coherencies.
is another framework we impose upon the world" . . . " . . . here the
mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand
that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could
not exist, they are not imposed on Nature." . . . "Euclidian geometry
is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is
simpler than a polynomial of the second degree." . . . "the space
revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of
geometry." . . . Henri Poincaré
"... an exact solution for three bodies exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind." (as Newton said after considering the dynamical relationships amongst multiple bodies in propositions 65 and 66 in ‘Principia’ and the codynamics of three or more mutually influencing bodies, as in the solar system. See footnote  which cites from Newton's comments in 'Principia' on the fact that while he can 'describe' the physics of the planetary trajectories, he is unable to explain the sustained 'community-constituent-coresonance' of the solar system and must therefore attribute it to God (while Kepler had asserted that 'geometry was God', ... i.e. that the self-shaping attribute of space, the 'Logos' of Heraclitus was God..
While the ‘science of description’ may say that we can safely approximate the material objects of the world as having ‘fixed identities’ within an empty, infinite, non-participating Euclidian space [left], … we cannot impose this approximation on nature, [nor on the faculties of its constituents] since the constituents of nature must, as a collective, deal with the continuous transformation of all identities (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and ‘make it work’ (i.e. the material constituent must be informed by a ‘mind’ which ‘references’ to the ‘ground’ of continuously transforming space [right], so that it can stay coordinated with the transformation, … co-creatively reshaping its containing space and being reshaped by it.). The community of constituents moving in crowded conditions (e.g. moving across a crowded terrace or on a crowded freeway) do not normally 'reference non-spontaneously' to the calculated positions and momenta of enveloping objects as suggested in the figure on the left, but, instead, reference spontaneously and relativistically to the 'dynamical shape of space. This allows the constituents to co-create, simultaneously, reciprocally, opportunity-to-act space which sustains their action, a ‘community-constituent-coresonant’ geometry which can be explained without resort to 'absolute time', in terms of the transforming Unum of space. Such a 'time-less' description clearly exceeds the descriptive capacity of models based on material objects and their kinetic paths and transactions in empty, infinite and non-participating Euclidian space. When the constituent allows his material being to be geometrically supportive of the co-created dynamic shape of space, the implicit ‘mind’ of the constituent is an inductive ‘tuning in’ to the collective conscious; i.e. while the ‘individual material bodies’ may be regarded as independent, the relational dynamics of the constituency of bodies are shaped by the collective mind, as in the case of the whirlpool in water flow. (‘It is our mind which creates the World’ - Buddhist proverb). The dynamic geometry of space is the collective consciousness of the constituents.
The implication of this manifest immersed-in-real-life experience wherein one responds spontaneously to the geometry of the enveloping multi-constituent dynamics [Kepler's comment 'geometry is God' can be seen in this context] is that, rather than there being a one-to-one relationship between the 'mind' and the material body, ... the mind can be seen as a relational coherency enveloping the inclusionarily nested material substrate of the body in the manner that the 'eye' of a whirlpool relates to the material water flow from which it emerges.
(Systems Sciences View, most ‘accessible’ to human ‘experts’ and control hierarchies.)
Ordering principle: Cause-and-effect, … management by control of causal actions
Systems contextual geometry: - linear hierarchy --- supersystem – system - subsystem
Inquiry: Up-and-back-down-again (synthetical) … Down-and-back-up-again (analytical).
Super-system System Subsystems
[Note: this 'flatspace' systems analysis sees things in the 'up', 'down', 'back' and 'forth' terms of feedback loops (time-dependent) (as opposed to 'inner-outer transformation' and ignores the mediating role of the enveloping space by which the three levels are coupled]
Information: Binary opposite states (true or false, zero or one).
Exclusional Thinking Tools: Rational models based on fixed identity objects, excluded middle logic, Euclidian space, absolute time.
Fault-Intolerance: Gödel’s Theorem exposure to ‘central committee’ infusing community-constituent-dissonance, … ‘the ‘supersystem’ which designs all those systems which cannot design themselves, cannot design itself, but cannot avoid doing so’.
There is no ultimate ‘supersystem’ when the ‘containing space’ is the generative source; i.e. as Aristotle suggested, ‘the physics of Place’ is in a natural primacy over ‘the physics of things’; -"the potency of place must be a marvelous thing, and take precedence of all other things. For that without nothing else can exist, while it can exist without the others, must needs be first; for place does not pass out of existence when the things in it are annihilated."
(Naturalistic (Ecological) Systems View, as manifestly accessible to all constituents of space);
Ordering principle: Community-constituent-coresonance (‘Container-constituent-coresonance’) - inner-outer dynamical balance
Systems contextual geometry: - inclusionarily nested volumetric (inner-outer community-constituent) hierarchies.
Inquiry: Outwards-and-back-in-again simultaneous with inwards-and-back-out-again. (assertive-action is recognized to be simultaneously, reciprocally related to dynamical shape of opportunity-to-act, through the mediating actions of the containing space).
Information: Self-referencing. (e.g. Gabor’s logons emerge from Heisenberg uncertainty between the identity of ‘Place’ (implicit-relational-position) versus ‘Thingness’ (explicit thing-movement), …“by departing from the rigid assumption of absolute independence of the data and allowing a limited amount of interference” (‘Theory of Communications’, Gabor 1944)). Vygotsky discusses the parallel tug-of-war between the identity of ‘Thought’ (implicit relational context) versus ‘Word’ (explicit content) in ‘Thought and Language’. The solution, in both cases is to avoid ‘constructions’ based on ‘fixed identities’ and to instead, to ‘image’ reality and thought by ‘bringing the relationships into coherent connection in the mind’ (equivalent to wavefield imaging.).Inclusional Thinking Tools (Jacques Rainville): To be shared via an inner-outer experiential dynamic (community-constituent-coresonance).
Fault Tolerance: The science of living recognizes the tendency in nature to put opportunity management in the primacy over action management. (nature's actions tend to cultivate balanced and sustained opportunity rather than 'snookering itself' by pursuing actions out of the context of their reciprocal transformation of opportunity-to-act, ... a snookering which man's 'yang only' 'management approaches' is producing at an escalating pace (as his assertive actions are amplified by his technology).
"Science of Describing" and "Science of Living: Systems Inquiry
['small circles' are the top of 'heads' and the little eyelashes represent their orientation ]
On the left, The 'science of describing's' search and debate for the 'objective pieces to the puzzle' which make up the mythical 'true reality'
On the right, The Sharing Circle of the 'science of living' --- acceptance of the multi-reality aspect of Nature which comes from each constituent of space being uniquely positioned within the containing opportunity landscape.
"Am I too busy to listen to others when they have something valid to say? If the answer is yes, look at your ideas of self-importance and see yourself as one part of the whole of Great Mystery. Seek humility. . . . The Talking Stick clearly points to every direction on the Medicine Wheel as being good and worthy of experiencing. . . . [It] also teaches us how to use communication skills from the Native American viewpoint, which is to share feelings, wisdom, teachings, customs and Traditions without seeing others as wrong because they hold different Points of View." . . . Jamie Sams (The Sacred Path)
[Technical Note: The little circular forms in the viewgraphs are intended as the heads of people as seen from above as indicated by their eyelashes. In the image on the left, the assumption is the 'science of describing' assumption that there is 'one true reality' and the person with the best description theory and equations must dominate (the 'expert view'), an assumption which derives from excluding information on 'the dynamic geometry of opportunity-to-act space' whose transformation is reciprocal to the actions of the constituents. When the unique positioning of the individual with respect to 'opportunity-to-act' is included (the 'science of living' view), the inquiry process leads away from debates on 'what is the true reality', and has each constituent present, as in the 'Sharing Circle' on the right, what he sees from his unique positioning immersed within the opportunity landscape and subsequently 'bring into connection in his mind', as he acts, the opportunity needs of his fellows; i.e. he puts his actions in the service of his consciousness that the constituents of space co-create their opportunity-to-act (in the manner that the skilled player of the game of pool ensures that each constituent ball which he moves, moves in such a way as to cultivate sustained 'opportunity-to-act' for himself and his fellows, ... a 'community-constituent-coresonant' seeking approach which becomes dissonant in the yang-only focus on 'shots' approach which ignores the simultaneous reciprocal transformation of the shape of opportunity. The jigsaw puzzle geometry on the left is the result, wherein those who are most vocal (have best access to 'the microphone') and those most powerful get the lion's share of the describing of the reality upon which actional responses will be based, denying the overriding importance of 'Place' and thus denying opportunity for constituents to restore 'opportunity management' (yin) into its natural primacy over 'action management' (yang).]
In the 'sharing circle' tradition of the indigenous tradition, it is accepted that people are uniquely situated within 'the opportunity landscape' and that reality is something which is 'implicitly understood' and which forms out of the relational view of the collective. Thus, the implicit view of the collective, analogous to the 'shape-over-shots' view of the pool player, is placed in the primacy over the individual (explicit) view, ... and the tradition calls for no debate, only open and honest sharing in the circle, as the talking stick is passed from one to the next. All debate and discussion concerning actional responses is regarded as 'secondary' to this collective, relational interference-based (i.e. holographic) view. In other words, the indigenous tradition uses the implicit view of the collective as the relativistic meaning-giving reference ground for staging kinetic response.
... and now for Jacques presentation, ...
Inclusional Thinking Tools, Jacques Rainville
Introduction: ... That name (Rainville) makes me a descendant of Paul De Rainville, immigrant to this land in 1655 as a paying Noble. Not at all a blue blood, but a person with enough cash to buy nobility and become the proud bearer of the prefix 'De'.
Some in the first family of Paul De Rainville liked it and continued to pay, and others , either too poor or sufficiently humble, just dropped it altogether and have since been named 'Rainville'.
My father Georges went 'one better', he married a native, Solomie Vétis dit Bélair, ... 'Vétis', meaning in the Abenaki language 'good natured', .. 'easy to get along with'. But this marriage makes me a 'half-breed' not a 'Métis'!, ... a half-breed with no official government status!
THAT'S ME, ... YOUR FRIEND! , ... I hope!
I have to admit that in my younger years, half of me would get mad at the other half when one would hear on the news; 'The indians are at it again and are demanding the impossible', .. or, ... 'The government has taken sacred land from the indians and did not negociate any compensation, etc., etc.
NOWADAYS IT IS NOT SO BAD!
Both sides negotiate better or at the very least are giving the 'prose' of negotiation a better chance.
SO BE IT!
As a young boy, until my seventh year, my mother had acute exzema, so my 'indian' grandmother took care of me a lot of the time and passed on to me a certain way of thinking. She must of done a lot of this or I'm a very slow learner because i am still working on sorting things out.
She'd come up with little 'sayings' like 'Fish is always fresh in its natural habitat' meaning; 'If we need more we can always come back' --- 'Pick berries carefully they are very, very precious and health-giving. Berries keep longer if unbruised etc. etc. Move with the lay of the land like the animals. This way you are less likely to hurt yourself and will be a better help to grandma! And, remember, ... if it takes more than a rainfall to erase your footsteps either you stayed too long or you did not move correctly!
I am sure that you already have the 'picture', ... just little 'sayings' but in astronomical numbers. Always in French or in English and NEVER IN ABENAKI, ..for a long time before her, the language had been abandoned.
The 'Warmup' Scenario:
A metaphor on the theme of personal experimentation, ... not really linear, ... not really inclusionary, .... more simultaneous than otherwise.
- A small swift river
-A swimmer moving with the flow of the river
- A witness, in a tree, on one of the river's banks.
-An Helicopter pilot slowing flying by.
-An astronaut in a space station way above and orbiting the earth.
A man in a tree can in no way tell the swimmer in the river that he is heading directly into and over a waterfall which immediately after the next riverbend. The man in the tree may shout but the swimmer in the river is too immersed in his milieu to hear the shouts and. The falls around the bend and is too low in the water to be aware of the inevitable catastrophe that is about to happen to him. In the sky above, a helicopter pilot is too far up and sees too big a part of the landscape, a typical/normal situation.
And what about the astronaut in the space station? His view takes on a proportion that even the river is too small to be seen. Plus, even if the astronaut could witness the drama that is about to unfold . . . TOO FAR, .. TOO FAST, ... TOO BAD situation!
The swimmer will inevitably go over the falls.
The man in the tree will witness the scene but because of his point of view, will most likely never know if the swimmer survived and will wonder in vain if the helicopter pilot saw what happened and succeeded in rescuing the swimmer.
In concluding this imaginary event, I say;
Always negotiate new rivers from an 'up the flow' direction so as to evaluate the consequences before suffering the inevitable!
First Inclusional Scenario:
Now, an exercise in 'taming the ego', ... tricking it so that it goes into a different pattern of understanding (being part of) space as a tool to facilitate: Reasoning, sorting out, finding a new path or a better answer to a given question (or better question to answer).
I think the ego tends to have us race blindly into a position of acceptance and therefore keeps us in a unique linear voyage.
The key word here is UNIQUE.
Because of addiction to uniqueness, the ego will readily accept a very personal, UNIQUE ANYTHING!, ...
So I (my 'self') present it with a unique bubble-sphere into which it (the ego) can think To imagine and shuffle ideas in any way necessary to attain a goal without being watched, judged, wished at or even applauded.
Ego is now safe and tamed and ready for an exercise which I shall call 'the mental sweat-tent'.
I imagine that I am occupying a SPACE into which I can move in all directions and look at things in a different viewpoint at will, rather than keep travelling blindly along a linear trajectory.
So here we go, let us start the GAME. (game was enacted and described through gestures etc.)
Now that the ego is tamed, I will call it the 'inclusive way' of looking at problems, personas, the environment etc. or the 'mental sweat tent'.
[N.B. While 'time' did not permit Jacques to present additional 'inclusionary thinking tools' such as the practice of imagining one is an 'immersed-in-space' grain of sand being transported by the enveloping flows of nature, ... these will be appended later to this file]
 Lao Tsu, ....... on the inclusional primacy of 'yin-over-yang'.
spirit of the valley never dies.
is called the mysterious woman.
gateway of the mysterious woman
called the root of heaven and earth
visible, it seems as it if were there,
use will never drain it. (VI)
keep the role of the female
be ravine to the Empire
the constant virtue will not desert you
you will again return to being a babe.”
Tsu, Tao Te Ching XXVIII)
 Citations from Newton's 'Principia' and related letter (to Bentley) indicating the difficulty with the harmonic/coresonant aspects of the solar system;
"... and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained ; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets ; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits ; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity ; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
That the ‘resonances’ manifest in celestial codynamics should emanate solely from the assertive behaviours of the ‘independent causal agents’ was an ‘absurdity’ in Newton’s view, and he left no doubt that he wanted to distance himself from such views in a letter to Richard Bentley (Cambridge Lecturer linking the Principia to Theology);
"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."
While Newton often alluded to a Divine source for the celestial 'harmony' regularities seeming to emanate from the containing space itself ( Kepler had overtly stated that the ‘geometry of space’ was the orchestrating source and that the geometry of space was ‘God himself’), he left the door open to a deepening of the scientific-philosophical understanding as in his following comment in the ‘Author’s Preface’ to the ‘Principia’;
"I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy."