Inclusional Research
Forum & Learning Space

MAIN MENU

The Formation and Transformation of 'Anti-culture': from 'survival of the fittest' to 'thrival of the fitting'

By Alan Rayner

SUMMARY

Anti-culture is a paradoxical organization, characteristic of disconcerted modern human societies, which is founded on the alienation and consequent denial of the creative togetherness of self and other. It is the product of rationalistic philosophies that unrealistically abstract spatial context out of material content. These illusory philosophies, which are inherent in neo-Darwinian interpretations of evolutionary processes, are enshrined mathematically in Euclidean geometry and discrete numbers, and scientifically in notions of objectivity and falsifiability. Their underlying anti-logic of one against other inevitably exacerbates conflict and so gives rise to profound environmental, social and psychological damage.

Reversing the detached perceptual objectification and consequent exclusion of other can bring about the transformation of anti-culture into an 'inclusional', co-creative 'co-culture' and associated 'pro-logic' of 'one with other'. This reversal can be achieved through the incorporation of an immersed way of seeing, familiar in childhood and obvious in aquatic contexts. Here, one and other are envisaged as interdependent embodiments of the same spatial pool, i.e. as co-creative identities attuned with their implicit, acoustic, inner and outer living space, rather than isolated, independent bodies or entities surrounded by explicit visual space.

Rationalistic thought has introduced a deeply paradoxical, 'Anti-culture' into human organizations. This Anti-culture is united only in its opposition to 'otherness', a 'unity in adversity' embodied in the notion that 'either you're with - i.e. 'on the same side' as - us/me or against us/me. By exacerbating rather than resolving conflict between the expression and suppression of individual identity, it gives rise to extraordinary inefficiency, suffering and environmental, social and psychological damage. On the one hand it sees itself as an independent whole, aspiring to perfection through the fully compliant co-operation of its internal members, regardless of their own identities and in opposition to whatever lies outside its boundaries. On the other hand, it views its members as independent wholes, aspiring to perfection through competition with one another. Belonging to this Anti-culture therefore necessitates denying any sense of belonging with other, at the same time as being required both competitively to assert and co-operatively to subsume individual identity. Anti-culture is against (anti) both what is within and outside itself, based on what can be thought of as its underlying anti-logic of one against other.

This Anti-cultural, anti-logical 'state of confusion' is most fundamentally, the product of a self-perpetuating vicious cycle of fear allowed to grow out of all proportion beyond its natural function in evading and negotiating sources of threat to individual survival. Intimidation and discouragement are therefore its primary tools of governance, used to purge and confine otherness, rather than love and encouragement of creative partnerships. In the long run, it is unsustainable because it undermines the very foundations and resources upon which it depends to bring about and respond to change in a vitally dynamic existence. But in the meantime, the costs it exacts in suffering are exorbitant.

Fear of 'other' may be enhanced by the natural inversion of perception that accompanies the evolutionary transition from aquatic to terrestrial habitats. In water, the inclusion of 'self' with 'other' in a common pool that extends both within and around organisms' boundaries, offering possibilities for movement that change in coupled reciprocity with every movement made, is obvious. On land, where ground seems like a fixture and the continuum of spatial context that actually unites one with other seems like a distancing nothingness between isolated forms, the tendency to regard 'other' objectively as 'outside' and hence alienated from self intensifies. This tendency may be enhanced further through the necessary rigidifying and sealing off of organism boundaries to give support and limit desiccation and accompanying oxidative stress ('burn out' of living cell matter).

Add to that the binocular-vision-assisted predatory and discriminatory capabilities of human beings to sort things out from one another, to be rewarded for these capabilities with successful resource capture, and the self-protection and control offered in being able to 'freeze-frame' others' movements. The addictive attraction of rationalistic abstraction of other from self, of context from content, becomes overwhelming. But the penalty for addiction is discontent, a hungering after some 'lost paradise' or 'holy grail' of loving relationship that becomes ever more distant the more we pursue it with rationalistic tools. We attempt to solve the problem we have in relating to one another and our living space with the very problematic perception that has severed our connections in the first place. We find fault, attribute blame, feel guilt and shame and so reinforce our sense of isolation, separating the inseparable, forever at war, trying to eradicate something vital to our self-identity: the vitality of our spatial togetherness, our reciprocal dynamic coupling of one with another.

So, how can we overcome the addiction of rationalistic abstraction? Here, I suggest this may be possible by recovering our immersed perception of inclusion with other, and creatively combining this with our detached perception to produce a much deeper, richer understanding of the dynamic involvement of nature and human nature. This understanding may take us beyond the self-limitations of adversarial, anti-logical 'survival of the fittest' thinking to an exploration of the realms of possibility accessible by attuning one with another in a co-creative 'thrival of the fitting'.

Rationalistic logic in western cultures surfaced in the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Parmenides, culminated in the 'Enlightenment' of Bacon and Descartes, and became enshrined in the 'clockwork universe' of Newtonian mechanics. It is founded primarily on the notion of the separateness and/or separability of things as discrete 'objects' isolated from one another by the 'nothingness' of 'space'. Correspondingly, it severs any connection there might be between what is 'inside' and what is 'outside' a thing, hence treating the boundaries of things as fixed limits, and things themselves as independent 'free agents' or Newtonian 'bodies'. This rationalistic severance of one from other has permeated not only western culture, but, increasingly, world-wide, contributing to a deep-seated sense of discontent and conflict. It affects not only our mathematical and scientific world-views, but also our whole way of relating to one another and other life forms in our common living space, in an enormous variety of ways.

Rationalism effectively 'abstracts' spatial context out of material content by imposing an unreal 'freeze frame' upon natural dynamic geometry. This abstraction is characteristic of the tenets of Euclidean geometry and 'natural numbers', upon which so much of our mathematics, and consequently our scientific concepts and practices have been founded. But, just a little imaginative thought quickly reveals what an extraordinary abstraction this is, flying counter not only to our everyday experience but also to the findings of all our scientific inquiries.

Imagine something less than three-dimensional, like Euclid's points, lines and planes. Any child would tell you that this is impossible, because however small you got, there would always be space both inside and around any thing. And our scientific inquiries confirm this intuition. The more we have searched for the solid, massy, indivisible atomic particles envisaged by Democritus and Newton, the less substance and the more space we have found. In order entirely to squeeze all the space outside matter, to arrive at some 'point-mass', we have physically to get down to a 'temperature' which we can approach asymptotically (in ever decreasing steps), but never reach: 'absolute zero'.

When it comes down to it, space is inseparable from matter, so to treat it as an infinite 'emptiness' outside of, but not within discrete, independent, material objects completely free from its influence makes no sense at all. And yet, such treatment of space as an infinite outsider, with no physical influence on the behaviour of the objects it surrounds but does not penetrate within, lies at the very foundation of mathematical quantification and scientific objectivity. It is the result of succumbing to the illusion of our superficial terrestrial 'visual' view in which space is the nothingness between us rather than acknowledging our deep-feeling 'acoustic' sounding of space as a labyrinthine pool that both includes and is included within us. Whereas 'visual space' appears rationalistically to disconnect rather than interconnect the explicit outsides of one thing from/to another, 'acoustic space' 'inclusionally intra-connects the implicit insides of one and other over all scales, from sub-atomic to universal.

The abstractive removal of space from substance, of context from content, of 'mind' from 'matter', to become an infinite outsider, is not only unrealistic, but also removes a vital component of our understanding of what it means to belong in a dynamic existence. It turns our priorities back-to-front and culminates in the paradoxical Anti-culture of uneasy modern human societies.

With space removed, everything breaks down, or can be broken down, into discrete, independent, numerical 'units' or 'entities' - Newtonian 'point-masses' or 'bodies'. As Newton himself admitted, there is no source of coherence to hold these bodies together and no place or places of entry through their fixed, sealed boundaries for energy to transfer from outside to inside or vice versa. Newtonian bodies can only be moved, or brought together, by the application of external force. Their movements are purely kinetic, neither influenced by, nor influencing the shape of the space through which they travel. Their existence is assumed primarily to be static and/or unchanging - a freeze-framed state of suspended animation, which, paradoxically, can only be shifted by intervention from the very outside from which it is supposedly isolated.

In this abstracted representation of nature, two contrasting mathematical approaches to predicting the outcomes of dynamic processes are available: deterministic and stochastic.

Deterministic approaches model behaviour in closed space or 'isolated' systems. They treat all motion as being confined within fully defined frames of reference with fixed boundary limits - there is no freedom for movement outside these limits. All future behaviour is therefore prescribed by a set of 'initial conditions' laid down before any movement begins. Provided these conditions are known exactly, then all future behaviour can be exactly predicted with absolute certainty.

Stochastic approaches model behaviour of isolated events or entities in open space or 'unbounded' systems. All events/entities are regarded as independent and hence distributed randomly, purely according to chance. The pattern of occurrence of these discrete events/entities is therefore uncertain. Nonetheless, although we may not know precisely when and where these events/entities will occur, we can calculate their most and least likely patterns of occurrence using statistical formulations based on probability distributions.

Although deterministic and stochastic approaches are often regarded as discrete alternatives vying with one another over which provides the 'better' model of natural processes, it is clear that each is as unrealistic as the other in ignoring the inner-outer connectedness of space. Moreover, each contains a view of the relation between space and substance that the other misses: one envisages absolute freedom of discretely bounded entities/events in boundless open space, the other envisages no freedom in fully bounded systems of closed space. The two approaches are therefore complementary, the one needing opening up, the other needing closing down, such that in combination they are capable of relating well to reality. Ways in which this combination can be made, and implicitly already has been made in aspects of relativity, non-linear and quantum theory, through inclusionally bringing together detached and immersed perspectives, will be reviewed later. But, such is the powerful grip that rational abstraction has on our thinking and relationships, that in the meantime we continue to perpetuate the Anti-culture it has given rise to.

As I have already indicated, there are many ways in which the influence of Anti-culture expresses itself in the way we human beings relate to one another and other life forms in our living space. And one of these symptoms is itself the way these symptoms tend to be regarded in isolation from one another, as discrete social/environmental concerns to be dealt with piecemeal, without acknowledging their common origin in our modes of philosophical and ultimately mathematical and scientific inquiry. So we end up 'fighting fire with fire', 'fear with fear', reacting to hostility with hostility (or passivity), rather than pausing to reflect on the contextual source of conflagration and finding ways to transform it.

To remove space outside of content, and so, in effect, outside of ourselves, is tantamount literally to removing our inner source of motivation, and believing in a primarily static existence that can only be moved by external force. Independence from space comes at the expense of transferring influence from inside to outside and so becoming dependent on external authority to govern all motion. In other words, freedom from the influence of space comes with the absolute loss of free will: the abandonment of self to the deterministic control of closed space or the stochastic capriciousness of open space. We leave our fate in the hands of God, Law, Natural Selection or Outrageous Fortune, all acting from outside, beyond our own influence. [Please note that in what follows, I do not wish to challenge sincere spiritual beliefs in and/or longing for an immanent deity or divinity - quite the contrary - but I do question the notion of an 'almighty' power detached from ourselves]

Having effectively disempowered our inner selves by regarding ourselves as independent entities at the mercy of external forces beyond our control, it is only too natural to feel lost. But, there is one way in which we can appear to regain influence and coherence in our lives - that is, to seek to wield external authority ourselves, or to be bound by that authority to obey whatever rules it happens to lay down. We generate hierarchical power structures with those nearest the top, closest to the 'almighty' in one way or another, laying down the 'Law' to increasing numbers of 'lesser' beings below.

Such hierarchical power structures continue to dominate all kinds of human communities as the self-perpetuating 'ordering' mechanism of Anti-culture. Even in the most benevolent, well-intentioned, hands, they are subject to impose the most extraordinary abuse on their subjects. This is because power administered from 'outside' or 'on high' or some 'remote centre' is inevitably dislocated from feeling the effects of its own influence - what it's actually like to be one of its subjects. Such power is equally unable, for the same reason, to respond to changes at the real place of creativity at the dynamic boundaries of the community it assumes governance over.

Hierarchical power structures implicitly presuppose that in the absence of their influence over 'independent' subjects, all would inevitably break down into an utterly incoherent 'anarchy'. To prevent this seeming 'disaster' they are therefore obliged to find and impose suitable 'rules' of conduct and administrative 'policies'. However, in the assumed absence of any kind of 'natural order' to relate these rules and policies to, much may depend on the personal positions and intentions of those in, or seeking power. It then becomes necessary to find ways of choosing which rules and policies to impose and follow.

Political choice-making in an hierarchical power structure is one of the mostly deeply divisive afflictions of Anti-cultural modern human societies. Even where the choice is offered 'democratically' to 'all the people', the outcome most emphatically never serves all the people and so becomes a focus for feelings of disempowerment and resentment. This is because although the electoral (choice) process might be democratic, the result of the election is not democratic governance, seeking to represent all viewpoints in a balanced way, but 'majority rule'. And majority rule, seen from the minority viewpoint, is nothing less than bullying - a requirement to live under the rule of others' opinions, which have no monopoly on truth.

The resulting tensions are exacerbated not only by the simplistic 'either/or' assumptions underlying the notion of 'choice' itself, but by the way an electorate is commonly asked to reduce a multiplicity of choices down to a choice between one 'side' (political party) or another. Instead of a bringing together of diverse perspectives to discover what common view can emerge amongst them, there is continual adversarial debate and entrenchment of disagreement. Such is the inertial state of adversarial governance throughout the world, in which there are currently no true democracies, only hegemonies.

Any form of governance by authority necessitates a means by which that authority makes their intention known to recipients, along with the basis upon which this intention can be executed. In other words, the authority has to instruct recipients by providing and communicating 'information'.

This notion of 'information' as something 'instructive' that can be transmitted assertively from authoritative source to subjugated receiver pervades Anti-cultural scientific, managerial and educational theory and practice. It is at the heart of the 'information theories' developed in the 1940s by Shannon and Wiener, from which modern 'information technologies' developed, and the neo-Darwinian interpretation of 'genetic information' as providing the 'blueprint' instructions for assembling diverse life forms and subjecting them to 'natural selection'.

For such transmission to work, the information needs to be reproduced exactly by the receiver. Any 'outside interference' that could corrupt or contaminate it is therefore seen as undesirable 'noise', needing to be eliminated. The authoritarian transmitter of information therefore does everything to eliminate 'outside interference' whilst noisily amplifying their own pre-determined message. In other words there is an amplification of 'self' accompanied by suppression of 'other', of the kind envisaged by the notion of 'survival of the fittest'. (S)he who shouts loudest is most heard. Listeners are not expected to answer back or talk amongst themselves. Anti-culture becomes ingrained, entrained, incapable of evolving or creating, only capable of reproducing more of the same.

Hegemonic governance seeks, by its very nature, to impose conformity on human societies as the one and only way of ensuring coherence. Although it may be recognized that individuals play diverse roles in the smooth running of the system, like the components of a clock, it seems important that these roles should be directed towards a specific overall objective and performed at a level matched to that objective. Moreover, there must be general agreement on working to a common purpose, be this the prosperity of a nation, a political party or a commercial company. Idiosyncrasies of ideology, skill or modes of working need therefore to be minimized. Individuality is suppressed. Errors are not tolerated.

The way in which this conformity of operation is imposed is through intimidation - disciplined schooling or 'training', often falsely described as 'education'. A prescriptive curriculum is set, standards are imposed, and the ability of individuals to meet these standards rigorously tested. Those who don't meet the standards are rejected as 'failures'. Acceptance - what may appear superficially as 'love' - is 'performance-related', dependent on 'success'.

Fear of failure, and being labelled as a failure, therefore greatly blight our chances of happiness in the Anti-culture. No success is everlasting. There is always another hurdle to jump and another pitfall to avoid. Fear of failure makes us fail to take on challenges, so that we miss out on living life to the full. We become protective of our seeming successes, warding off all possible sources of undermining and questioning of their reality. And when, at last, we are obliged to admit defeat, we feel lost, humiliated, powerless and resentful, desperate and despairing. Unloved and discouraged. Worse than worthless: hopeless. Unforgiving and unforgiven. Not good enough.

Breaking the Rules laid down by external Authority is viewed in religious terms as 'Sin' and in secular terms as 'Crime'. Both 'Sin' and 'Crime' are viewed as 'Bad', if not 'Evil', whereas abiding by the Rules is seen as 'Good'. But where do the Rules come from, and how realistic are they? Who judges Judges? Laying down Law in ways that violate the reality of nature and human nature actually creates rather than prevents Crime and the attendant need for Punishment as a means of deterrence and retribution. If people cannot abide by Rules, then maybe it's the Rules and their underlying cultural assumptions and conditions, rather than the people, who need to be put on trial and judged.

No human action is context-free. And the context of every action is unique. And the long-term implications of every action, whether for 'better' or for 'worse' are innately unpredictable. So to judge actions independently of context to suit the definitive requirements of universally applicable Laws of Right and Wrong is a violation both of reality and of those subjected to the Laws. So too is to create a context of disparity, deprivation, isolation and competition, which perpetuates cycles of fear in which people feel obliged to struggle for their very existence in whatever way they can, honestly or dishonestly.

Rules that violate ask to be violated.

Perhaps the most powerfully self-perpetuating abstraction of Anti-culture, which keeps the whole demoralizing cycle of abuse going, is that extraordinarily corruptible and corrupting, imposed system of values and valuations - money!

There can be no denying that money, increasingly, has become the predominant driving influence on human behaviour. But what is money? Is money valuable? Have we become enslaved by our own artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of 'market forces'? Do we have to be? Can we break our addiction?

Money is not a natural product - it does not grow on trees, gambol in pastures or collect in rock formations. Rather it is an abstract symbol for how much we value these natural products and our own efforts to harvest and convert them to our own use. Moreover it is an 'added value' symbol, in that it takes for granted, and so is inclined to treat as 'worthless', all that is 'already given' by way of the world we live in and its diverse inhabitants, including ourselves. Only when our pursuit of this 'added value' begins to damage what has been taken for granted and our natural relationships, do we pause to reflect on how much, say, a mountain means to us. And then, so entrapped have we become, that we even think we have to ascribe some monetary value to the mountain!

Money is also a symbol of our rationalistic concept of 'ownership', which comes with our severance of 'self' from 'other', and resultant mistrust of one another. How possessively we regard our 'time', 'space' and energy, fearful of giving away, or having taken away, too much that is 'rightfully ours'! So we rush for the security of a token system of checks and balances to ensure that credit is given where it's due and nobody gets short-changed, all wrapped up in legislative procedures to ensure Crime prevention. But the intended 'fair trade' quickly and easily gets subverted into 'unfair practice', as money becomes a source of power more and more remote from real values and subject to fashion and the impact of technology.

Seeing 'other' as 'adversary' precipitates conflict and the desire to 'win' competitions, debates, battles and wars. And 'victory' is generally regarded as its own justification - one of those desirable 'ends' that legitimates any 'means', making the conflict worthwhile. Yet such a view of victory is, by its very nature, extraordinarily one-sided. It ignores the cost to the victor in using up resources in conflict and vanquishing a potential ally whose stored up sense of loss may rise up vengefully in the future. It ignores all manner of 'collateral' damage to innocent bystanders and living space. And, of course it ignores the cost to the loser. History affirms that conflict perpetuates conflict and is never resolved for good by victory. But history, in an Anti-culture that ignores context, seems to teach us nothing.

To view 'the environment', as even Einstein did, as 'everything outside of ones' self - an infinite 'external surrounding' - is a recipe for abuse. From such a view, this 'infinite outsider' is all too readily regarded as an inexhaustible source of resources, a dumping ground and theatre of war that can be exploited, polluted and blasted without repercussion. Although we are more sensitive to it than we used to be, this abuse continues unabated, if not with more intensity, to this day, and we continue to set 'the needs of the environment' in opposition to human social and economic requirements, with these latter taking priority.

Notwithstanding Louis Pasteur's death-bed acknowledgement that 'the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything', we continue rationalistically to regard 'illness' and its 'causal agencies' as adversaries to be eradicated rather than as symptoms of an adverse context. We tend to focus on 'curing disease' rather than 'promoting health'. We wage war, developing surgical techniques and pharmaceutical weapons in the form of 'antibiotics' and 'magic bullets' guided precisely to 'take out' enemy agents and their sites of operation, but losing sight of the possibilities of collateral damage in the form of side effects. And the need to secure financial advantage sustains this war, and inhibits the honest and open discussion required to understand its context.

This eliminative process that we use to make ourselves better is taken to even greater extremes in the way we treat our cultivated plants and domestic animals. Ever on the look-out for ways to increase their productivity, we label anything that gets in the way as a pest, weed or pathogen, and set to work to remove them with pesticides, herbicides, bactericides and fungicides. Failing or in addition to that, we use selective breeding to improve performance and disease resistance, and nowadays there is also great interest in the possibility of directly modifying the genetic content of plants and animals by transferring DNA between widely differing organisms.

All these methods have the effect of abstracting life forms out of the context in which they have co-evolved, into a new and potentially highly unstable and unpredictable dynamic arena. Forms may be produced which are unattuned to natural conditions, and their mass production in monocultures reduces diversity and increases susceptibility to catastrophic losses. But once we have initiated this kind of production, we become dependent on it and so trapped in its powerful cycles. We become addicted.

We should also be wary of applying the same kind of eliminative logic to the enhancement of human populations. Although history has made some of us quake at the very mention of the word, 'eugenic' practices are never far from the surface of human Anti-culture.

Politicians often get very upset when no one 'bothers' to vote at an election. They are justifiably appalled when people seem to lose sight of their need and right to participate in and take responsibility for decisions that affect their lives. But in looking around for anyone and anything to blame for such 'apathy', they rarely examine the assumptions underlying their own political thinking and structures.

Anti-cultural political systems breed apathy because they remove responsibility and the ability to participate from all but the few selected to govern. And these select few, like the Pope in his bath, are prone to look down on the unemployed. Obsessed, as they are in an Anti-culture, with economic performance, they find value only in what people do rather than in their relationships.

Unemployment is therefore equated with worthlessness and waste of 'human resources', a terrible drain on the system, a kind of social parasitism. And with this political refrain ringing in their ears, not to mention the associated absence of monetary reward, people naturally come to fear unemployment like the plague. Employment is sought by one and all, at all costs. The most iniquitous of activities is justified because it provides employment. Relationships of all kinds are sacrificed to the needs of being demonstrably busy. And those who aren't busy lose all sense of self-esteem and involvement in the community.

And so, the relentless combined driving force and disempowerment of Anti-culture engenders a curious duality of busy employment and apathetic disengagement in which no one has time for one another and the activities that bring true well being and creativity.

The communal fear inherent in Anti-culture, the sense that life is under constant threat from other life, can only bring hatred for that other life and a desire to eliminate it to make things better. The vicious cycle that leads to genocide, homicide, suicide, religious persecution, civil war, international war, arms races, terrorism, tyranny, dishonesty and betrayal self-perpetuates, at terrible cost. And history teaches us nothing. We still ask, 'whose side are you on' and won't take 'neither' or 'both' for an answer.

Fortunately, human nature is not entirely rationalistic and anti-logical, and so the dissonant processes of Anti-culture have not, as yet, culminated in the total breakdown of community life. The detachment from otherness that underlies the anti-logic of Anti-culture has always been countered by our experiential knowledge that no one and no thing can be completely isolated and hence independent of any other: 'no man is an island'.

In addition to the detached way of seeing that severs subject from object, we are all capable of an immersed view in which we feel a strong sense of continuity between our reciprocally coupled inner and outer space. We know this sense as unconditional love for other, and it brings us joy in our knowledge of common identity. It is inspiring, making our spirits lift and, rather than disregard or succumb to pain and fear, to hold these sources of suffering tenderly in place as vital to life.

Although rationalistic anti-logic might suggest otherwise, there is every reason for such feelings because they are rooted in the reality of natural dynamic geometry. In fact it is rationality, with its implicit assumptions of isolation and independence, which unreasonably disconnects our intellect from our emotions.

By combining our detached view of where we are in relation to other, with our immersed view of inseparability from other, we can emerge 'beyond rationality' to the 'pro-logic' of 'inclusionality'. Inclusionality enables us to see all 'things', including ourselves, not as isolated, independent bodies, but rather as 'dynamic inclusions' - interdependent embodiments - that both include and are included in the continuum of space that connects inner and outer domains across all nested scales from sub-atomic to universal. By the same token, it enables us to see boundaries not as the fixed limits of discrete objects or 'entities', but rather as places of dynamic balancing relationship - 'dynamic fulcra' or 'inter-phases', which reciprocally couple inner and outer space phases. These boundaries are both co-created by and give identity to 'one another', making them distinct - recognizable - but not discrete - alone.

Inclusionality therefore leads to the bringing together in a reciprocal dynamic partnership or 'dance', rather than severance, of one and other, thinking and feeling, art and science, aesthetic and practical, assertive (male) and inductive (female). Thereby it can transform the paradoxical Anti-culture of one against other to the congruent co-culture of one with other - a dynamic threesome of inner phase, outer phase and inter-phase.

Inclusionality therefore calls for scientific and mathematical approaches that incorporate rather than exclude space, and that treat boundaries as dynamic and incomplete (non-isolating) rather than fixed and complete (isolating). In fact, such approaches are already well established, in theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and non-linearity (complexity). Nonetheless, since they have been developed against a continuing backdrop of assumed discreteness/independence of entities, these theories can seem paradoxical - one effect of anti-logic is to make pro-logic seem contradictory - and the way they implicitly include space in their equations is obscure.

As an illustrative 'model' of the kinds of behaviours that arise from the reciprocal dynamic coupling of inner and outer space phases mediated by an incomplete, moveable inter-phase boundary, think of a balloon, whose rubbery surface (skin) is full of holes. As 'air-space' is transferred from outside to inside the balloon, so the holes in its inflating surface enlarge and increasingly release the contained air-space. The boundary expands until, providing the rate of input is sustained, a balance is reached where output and input are equal and the surface is held stationary in dynamic equilibrium. This equilibrium state corresponds, in non-linear dynamical systems theory (see below), with what is known as a 'fixed point attractor' in 'phase space'. If, however, the air-space input exceeds a threshold value, then the counteraction between the tendency of the balloon to expand as it gains air-space and to contract as it loses air space through its enlarging holes, sets up a repetitive oscillation between alternative surface distributions. The cycling between these alternative states corresponds with what is known as a 'limit cycle attractor'. This oscillation increases in complexity as input is raised further, through what is known as a period-doubling cascade of bifurcations, until yet a further threshold is reached, whereby the surface distribution reconfigures unrepetitively (corresponding with what is known as a 'chaotic', 'fractal' or 'strange' attractor).

This model, as already implied, nicely illustrates the kinds of behaviour predicted by a relatively recently developed branch of mathematics, known as non-linear dynamical systems theory (which encompasses its more popularly known subset, 'chaos theory'). This theory is based on 'non-linear equations', which contain 'negative feedback' terms that restrict a trend for amplification to 'infinity' when the equations are repeatedly 'iterated' (i.e. when their solutions or 'outputs' are 'fed back' as 'inputs' to calculate a further output). In other words, these equations generally simulate the counteraction between a drive for expansion or 'growth' (resulting from iteration) coupled to an increasing tendency for resistance to or dissipation (letting go) of further input, much as in the leaky balloon.

A well-known, relatively simple example of a non-linear equation on these lines is the 'logistic difference equation'. This equation relates the actual number of entities (x) as a proportion of the maximum possible number (1) in a current population to the number of entities in the next generation (x_next) in terms of the net rate of reproduction (r) per head of population as follows:

x_next = rx - rx²

where x varies between zero and 1.

Here, the potential for increase in x, due to the reproductive drive, r, resulting from resource acquisition is countered by the negative feedback term, rx². When this equation is iterated (i.e. when the output x_next value is used repeatedly to input the next x value) from some low initial positive value (if initiated from exact zero it will remain zero for eternity), the rx² term increasingly constrains the increase in x. Ultimately, there is no net increase when x is equal to 1 - 1/r, representing the 'equilibrium population size' or 'carrying capacity' of the population.

For values of r between 1 and 3, the equilibrium population size ranges from zero to 2/3, and iteration of the equation from low values results in an initial increase in x. This increase either leads directly to attainment of the equilibrium value if r<2, or, if r>2 to a series of progressively smaller fluctuations (i.e. 'damped oscillations) above and below the equilibrium value. For values of r<1, x becomes zero. For values of r>3, however, the population is driven over a threshold where it becomes unstable, unable to attain a single equilibrium state, unless arriving by some infinitesimally small chance at exactly the requisite value of 1-1/r, and instead subdividing or 'bifurcating' into a series of alternative states. Here, as r is increased, x values come to oscillate around first two, then four, then eight …2n values in a so-called 'period doubling' cascade. At r = 3.57, deterministic 'chaos' first becomes evident, as x values vary unrepeatedly and at r = 4, all x values between 0 and 1 become possible.

Note here that the 'chaos' produced via the logistic equation is described as 'deterministic' because all the 'initial conditions' are fixed at the beginning and there is a pre-set limit that the system cannot get beyond. The system is effectively contained within a fixed boundary and its behaviour can be predicted with complete certainty so long as the initial conditions are known precisely. The fact that in reality the initial conditions cannot be known precisely, and even tiny changes in initial conditions can be amplified by feedback into huge changes in behaviour (the so-called 'butterfly effect'), makes the behaviour unpredictable in the longer term. But this unpredictability or uncertainty is not regarded as stochastic (due to randomness in 'open space') because the system is fully defined. But wait - isn't there an inconsistency here? In fact the system depends on the presence of open space because energy has to get from outside-in to drive the system and this energy can be dissipated through negative feedback (expanding holes in the balloon model). Space has got in through the back door - the supposed determinism is in the modelling assumptions using discrete numbers, not in the model itself. The non-linearity results from the inclusion of space. In fact that's what non-linearity most fundamentally implies - the inclusion of space. And in real systems such non-linearity is primary, not a secondary product of forcing a primarily linear system.

Moreover, the balloon model is both limited in itself and exposes the limitations in current non-linear mathematics, for three further reasons.

Firstly, as already mentioned, it starts with a 'given' set of 'initial conditions' - a fixed amount of 'material' in the balloon's skin, a fixed 'holeyness' of the skin and a fixed rate of input: in effect a self-contained, fixed set of 'Rules' imposed for all time. The story begins in an instant with no historical or future contextual influence. But what if more material can be added to the skin from outside-in as the balloon expands, or if its 'holeyness' can be altered as its circumstances change? We would then have a truly dynamically bounded or 'indeterminate' (not 'indeterministic') system of the kind widely found in real life, like a growing fungal hypha, tree, blood vessel or nerve cell.

Consider, as an example of a real life system, a fungal hypha growing in wood. This apically extending, tube-like structure effectively transfers wood substance from its 'outer space' through gaps to its inner space and thence to its boundary (holey cell wall and membrane). Moreover, there is good evidence to suggest that the holeyness of the hyphal boundary, and its associated deformability, permeability and discontinuity, changes in relation to the availability of reducing fuel ('food') and oxidizing power (support for combustion) in its living space. This holeyness increases where there is plenty, and closes down where there is shortage.

Like a river eroding its way into landscape and depositing sediment, the hypha opens, closes and follows paths of least resistance (spaces) in close attunement with its inseparable dynamic context. Branches form in this system whenever input exceeds throughput capacity to existing points of deformation on its informational boundary. These branches may form in a tributary-like pattern where they are formed at or near sites of input, or in a delta-like pattern where they are formed remote from these sites. Initially they are 'dendritic' (divergent from one another) and so linked 'in series', such that their internal (hydraulic) resistances to throughput (current) combine additively. But the branches can also fuse ('anastomose', self-integrate) when their self-created holey envelopes coincide, so converting a dendritic pattern into a parallel-distributing network with hugely increased internal conductivity. Now the system can, literally, 'mushroom', transcending its previous limitations and operating on a greatly amplified scale, like a river in flood or an erupting volcano supplied by anastomosed larva channels.

We see here, then, how the obviation of a fixed boundary limit enables a dynamic system to evolve, both changing and being changed by its dynamic context and scale of operation.

The second limitation of current non-linear mathematics exposed by the balloon model, is related to the first in that it concerns the problem of imposing a discrete time-scale, independent of space. This problem is implicit in the use of algebraic formulations based on an underlying system of discrete (independent) numbers. The simulated dynamics are then necessarily referenced to a sequential time scale (hence the term 'feedback'), even though it is clear from the balloon example that the reciprocal transformations in inner and outer space are simultaneous. As the surface informing inner and outer space moves in response to input or output, so both inner and outer space reconfigure.

The third limitation is that the balloon example concerns only one inner space, outer space and informational boundary. Yet in reality, as far as the human imaginative eye can see, it is clear that informational boundaries are nested in many-layers, essentially in triplicate (3-fold). Every inner space within an outer space is also an outer space enveloping an inner space of smaller scale, from sub-atomic to universal. We can't understand anything in isolation from the space it includes and is included within.

The inclusionally nested nature of reality relates to another aspect of non-linear mathematics, concerned not so much with the dynamics of variable patterns of behaviour per se (as described above, with reference to different kinds of attractors), but with the geometry to which such behaviour relates. Clearly this geometry cannot adequately be described in classical Euclidean terms of points and surfaces arrayed in integral dimensions of 0, 1, 2 and 3. This is because when inclusionally nested structures are examined more and more minutely, more and more informational surface comes into view, often in a 'self-similar' pattern, such that if a small part of the structure is magnified it looks similar to a larger part of the structure. The lengths, areas and volumes of such structures are therefore infinite when viewed at infinitesimal scales, even though they can be circumscribed within finite planes or volumes.

The problem of quantifying such structures is intractable if approached conventionally, using standard units of length, area, volume etc. It can be solved, however, by relinquishing the notion, arising from discretist thinking, that dimensions can have only integral values of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc, and allowing them also to have fractional (hence 'fractal') values (but note that fractions are also discrete - see below). The fractal dimension of a structure can be calculated from the equation:

M = kr^D

where M is the material 'content' of a portion of the structure, r is the radius of the field in which this portion of content is contained, and D is the dimension. D can readily be found from the relationship between the logarithms of M and r for different fields of view. If the structure is homogeneous, then D will have an integral value. If it is heterogeneous, D will be fractional.

A very useful feature of the fractal dimension is, then, that it indicates the relationship between an interphase boundary and the inner and outer space phases it configures. For example, on a flat surface a branching structure with predominantly radiately aligned axes has a fractal dimension close to 1, corresponding with wide coverage and very uneven density, whereas a structure with D close to 2 has relatively more tangential axes and hence a more even density.

Although these ideas coming from modern physics and mathematics therefore go some of the way to take us out of the traps of purely deterministic and stochastic treatments, they remain unrealistic and space-excluding through their implicit assumptions of fixed geometrical and numerical boundary limits. They are therefore internally inconsistent and paradoxical in their application, as was revealed by Kurt Godel's theorem of incompleteness. What is needed is not a 90 ^o turn out of rationalistic discretism, which still clings on to notions of fixity and independence, but a 180 ^o turn, which fully acknowledges the necessary incompleteness of all dynamic systems and gives priority to spatial context in the emergence of universal features. We need to move, inclusionally, beyond the limitations of binary (either/or) and unitary (isolated entity) anti-logic to a ternary pro-logic based on the coupled reciprocity (resonance) of inner phase and outer phase, mediated by inter-phase. Such logic is currently being developed by Nigerian mathematician, Lere Shakunle, in his new formulations of 'fluid numbers' and 'spiral geometry'. Watch this space….

The philosophical shift from rationalistic to inclusional logic is in many ways both small and subtle. It involves a simple inversion from content-first assertion to context-first reception, and thereby from fixed boundaries that make entities discrete to dynamic boundaries that make identities distinct. The ramifications from this shift are, however, extraordinarily deep and wide-ranging. They result in a radical transformation of our mathematical, scientific, artistic and social understanding and priorities. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong, 'a small step for a man may be a giant leap for humankind' - if only we can feel the difference it makes and not be afraid of it!

Below, I will try to describe how I think this small step can transform the diverse symptoms of Anti-culture into something more hopefully healthy.

By accepting that we are dynamic embodiments of space, we regain the power that Anti-culture would have most of us delegate elsewhere, which enables us to move ourselves, both emotionally and physically, in relation to other(s). We become inductive/assertive 'centres of attraction', both influencing and influenced by the shifting boundaries of our living space, rather than purely assertive 'centres of attention', objects to be pushed or push around. We are at liberty to be Our authentic Selves, going where we will, loving where we will, needing no acclamation or fame conferred from outside, enjoying the knowledge of our belonging where we are, caring and cared for. Holey Spirit is within us and amongst us. Life is a containment, death a release of holeyness, the one constructively closing down, the other destructively opening up spatial possibility, each reciprocating the other in a vital, co-creative dance of 'information' (putting space into form) and 'exformation' (taking space out of form).

Knowledge of our common spiritedness reminds us that our influence can only ever be partial - we cannot exercise absolute control over our own or others' destiny, we can only contribute. We need neither to be bullies nor victims. Due to the complex interdependence of content and context, no one can be singled out as solely responsible for any triumph or disaster, but each can make a unique contribution. Responsibility is therefore something to be shared - not something to shirk or assume an unfair share of. Uniqueness of identity and view is something to be cherished and incorporated into collective decision making, not squeezed out by the rule of authority or majority. All can and should have their say, especially those closest to the creative inter-phase where possibilities open up and close down.

Far from needing to be eliminated as undesirable 'noise', outside 'interference' is the very basis of inclusional modes of communication that enable 'source' and 'receiver' literally to correspond with one another, to engage reciprocally in a truly co-creative, mutually transformative dialogue. Here, common space provides connection, rather than separating distance, and boundaries are places of mediation - dynamic inter-phases - rather than places of delimitation between inner and outer domains. These dynamic inter-phases are hence the seat of co-creative information, which emerges in correspondence between inner and outer phases like the banks that couple a river's stream and catchment. Such inclusional information does not therefore come as pre-packaged entities, only to be reproduced in the receiver as more of the same, but as an ever-changeable, recreative informer of diverse identities. And, by bringing these diverse identities into correspondence, a representation of reality can emerge, which encompasses the rich complexity of relationship between relief and space in all the unique aspects of natural features.

This inclusional kind of communication through the recreation of information was, essentially, at the heart of the pro-logic of Dennis Gabor, inventor of holography. Gabor's communication theory, unlike his invention based upon this theory, was, however, largely ignored in favour of the transmissive theories of Shannon and Wiener, perhaps because these latter more readily fit with the deliberate exclusion of context by rationalistic anti-logic.

The holographic bringing together of diverse perspectives, each uniquely partial and hence both inadequate in itself but simultaneously a vital and special contribution to the overall picture, necessitates a radical change in styles of governance and education. Here, the emphasis shifts from intimidation and the imposition of standards to encouraging the development and expression of diverse individual (distinct but not discrete) identities. Learning becomes a process of recreative self-discovery facilitated by educators whose role is to provide guidance and an awareness of knowledge rather than to instil more of the same. Error is readily accommodated collectively, through complementation of individual differences, and can open up new possibilities for exploration. A sense of belonging and self-worth comes not from being like everyone else but from realizing the uniqueness and limitation of individual perspectives. Governance emerges 'self-integratively', from the expression and complex dynamic relationship of many viewpoints rather than the hegemonic imposition of one.

A sense of belonging, of caring for and being cared for by others, of being valued - loved - unconditionally for 'who you are' rather than conditionally for 'what you do or don't do', naturally obviates any inclinations towards antisocial behaviour. There is an immediate sense that by harming other, you harm yourself and that by valuing yourself, you value other. Equally, there is an immediate understanding of the context-dependence of all behaviour and the associated capacity of Anti-culture to exacerbate feelings of fear, anger and alienation. Moreover there is recognition of the vital role of deconstructive (exformational) and erratic processes in freeing up possibilities for movement and of the difficulty in discriminating between 'good' and 'bad' in terms of long-term outcome. Hence it may be recognized that infringement of rules laid down by Anti-culture is not only inevitable, but also not necessarily a 'bad' thing, and that obedience is not necessarily 'good'. Many of us feel a 'sneaking admiration' for the 'upstart' in ourselves and others and a distaste for the obedient 'goody-goody', which comes from an inclusional appreciation of the vitality of disruption in a dynamic, recreative existence. This appreciation is our protection from self-righteousness that claims ownership of territory - moral 'high ground' - independently from the needs and contributions of others. And this appreciation provides the basis not only for forgiving, but also for valuing, one another's trespasses.

Only human beings have found it necessary to invent money. All other life forms simply attune their patterns of behaviour to their immediate circumstances, giving and taking in response to needs and opportunity, entrusting their destiny to the flow of which they are dynamic embodiments.

For there is a natural current of supply and demand, which flows counter to the currency of Anti-cultural financial management. This current wastes nothing, because its inner space phase is reciprocally coupled with its outer space phase through its dynamic inter-phase. It differentiates expansively where there is plenty and condenses integratively where there is shortage. It creates the space into which it flows. It is non-hierarchical. It is not possessive, always ultimately yielding up whatever it takes in, and so does not need complex management structures to keep ahead of the competition. But what life, what diversity it generates along the way!

By easing out of Anti-cultural financial management it may be possible to ease ourselves back into this natural current, allowing it to take us where it will, trusting to its capacity to balance things out, intervening as and when we need to, to keep afloat or change direction. In this way we can live a richly rewarding emotional and spiritual life of diverse relationships without the impoverishing distraction of constantly having to stop and account for everything to ensure that we sequester as much as possible for ourselves and don't get hard done by. We can care and be cared for as and when need and opportunity arise, sure in the knowledge that by helping others we help ourselves.

The co-cultural letting go of ownership, the willingness to surrender to in the process of gaining from one another, rather than the will to win against other, removes the need for costly defence and attack strategies to preserve and expand self-identity in a state of adversarial Anti-culture. In the absence of assault, there is no need to win and hence no need for assault. The vicious circle is nullified.

When outside is understood to become inside, and vice versa, through dynamic intra-connections, it becomes impossible to ignore, and hence abuse living space. We care for one another through caring for the space we dynamically embody.

By caring for and attuning diversely with living space, we promote health and sustainability rather than seek to eradicate the disease and instability engendered by processes of eradication.

A sense of belonging, valuing and being valued for who we are, brings a sense of creative involvement and removes the need for employment at all costs.

Held tenderly in place, as the product of the incompleteness that makes us alive, and so vulnerable, fear is not an enemy, but a vital means of avoiding harm. But treated as an enemy, it becomes an enemy, growing out of proportion and potentially bringing about the very harm that it seeks to avoid. To love our enemy is to love and transform our fear, making our common vulnerability the very basis for a richly creative, richly relational life of dynamic balance between our inner and outer selves, reciprocally responding to one another.

Dancing gyroscopically.

HOT TOPICS

• Inclusional journal now available for download


• New article by Alan Rayner: "Educational Transformation"


• Poets' Corner now open


• "Twelve Starters for Inclusionality", downloadable presentation now available


• New article by Alan Rayner: "No objective outside"


• Upcoming Workshop by Steve Taylor