Inclusional Research
Forum & Learning Space
MAIN MENU |
|
|
Karen Tesson writes:
Inclusionality theory is a radical new approach that considers an understanding of the relationships between contents and contexts to be fundamental to understanding living systems. It contrasts most strongly with the Cartesian/Newtonian model, as it takes a systemic view, but also contrasts with the holistic notion of the absence of distinguishing boundaries. Inclusionality does have some aspects in common with the views of authors such as Goodwin and Capra (Goodwin, 1997; Capra, 1996, 2003 ) who both recognise the systemic significance of communicative dialogue and relationships between organisms and their environments. In contrast to inclusionality however, they often these relationship in terms of “feedback”, which effectively splits space and time across a divisive boundary. Unlike many conventional views, which are based on binary, or dualistic logic, the Inclusional view is based on ternary logic. Instead of looking to identify either-or relationships, an inclusional view permits things to be both-and. Not black or white, but both black and white; not inside or outside, but both inside and outside. This novel perspective therefore represents a significant shift from conventional dualistic thinking. Core to inclusionality is an understanding of the significance of space and its inseparability both from time and matter/energy. In other models, space is often either disregarded, eliminated, or seen merely as something that separates objects from their environments: in effect an “absence” of “presence”. In inclusional thinking however, space is highly significant as an inductive “presence of absence”, which permeates within, around, and through every thing, living or otherwise. It implicitly connects us with our environments, and with other beings within these environments. To illustrate: we might think that we are physically separated and distinct from this page that we are reading. However no matter is entirely solid, so both we and the page comprise molecules that are surrounded by and contain spaces; our skin may seem like a impenetrable barrier yet it is not, we have pores that allow gases to pass through, and the cells themselves are surrounded by “intercellular spaces”. So, the space that surrounds our bodies is also connected with the space inside them, and also inside every object around us. Space connects us with everything else. It is everywhere, literally. This shared nature of space means that we share a common medium with everything else around us. Space is this medium, in effect the ultimate fluid that pervades and communicates and so gives fluidity to all. When an object moves to fill a space, the space displaces reciprocally to accept it, and vice versa in a Universal application of Archimedes’ Principle. But actually the space was already there from the beginning! Hence, the inclusional relationship between space and object is a bit like Terry Pratchett’s observation on the speed of light: “Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” In inclusionality therefore, space is considered to have a reciprocal relationship with energy-matter. It is the communicative “presence of absence” or super-conductor (because it has zero resistance) that connects the insides and the outsides of “things”, because it inhabits both at the same time. Looked at from this perspective, the limitations of discretist and positivist views that seek to clearly define objects from their contexts, become clear. If space permeates through systems, connecting insides with outsides, it is simply not possible to sever that which is inside of something from that which is not. To return to an earlier metaphor, if one were to try to use imaginary scissors to separate an “object” from its context, one would have arbitrarily to divide the space along some imaginary line. And of course by doing this, one destroys one of the key features of the system – the implicit, and (often) invisible communication between the object’s inner context and its outer context, or environment. In Inclusional thinking, as they are in complexity theory, boundaries are key. Inclusional boundaries, like the boundaries in complexity theory are not finite linear entities. But unlike in complexity theory, where boundaries are viewed as specific locations where important phenomena occur, in inclusionality, boundaries are primarily considered to be manifestations of information both distinguishing and coupling inner contexts (contents) with outer environments. Importantly, inclusional boundaries are both permeable and dynamic. They are continual reflections of the reciprocity between inner and outer spaces, which in any real system is also dynamic. Inclusionality also has implications for the way we understand communication. As far as people are concerned, an Inclusional view of communication could relate to our dialogue, and to our actions with regards to other people, beings and environments. The same principles apply here as in other areas of inclusionality. Namely, a new view of space, an understanding of the reciprocal and fluid relationship between inner and outer contexts, and a need to recognise that permeable, dynamic boundaries are all-important. On to Part 8: References Back to Table of Contents |
| Web design by Karen Tesson | Site accessed 65258 times since 15/10/07 |