Inclusional arboriculture- from the top

[Giles Hill]

I'd say that my holes were not receptive...

 

Try a little foreplay.

[Mesterh]

I'm with Tony on this one. Would not want to water it down and dilute the message.

 

 

.

 

I'll come back to this thread when you do.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I really dont know if there is any more efficient,clear or prescise ways of delivery.

 

I guess i still have a lot of work to do on this side of things, it is frustrating to be unable to communicate this well.

 

Its all good though, evolving the language of inclusionality.

 

Tony, if you cant see it within that piece, then we are indeed a LONG WAY from having a hope of changing the elitist boundary orientated thinking of man.

 

There is so much more at stake here than the mere study of mycology or science or maths. The ideal is to transform the elite thinking, the individualistic approach and mentality to one of receptive co creativity.

 

To promote natural empathy, etc

 

and mestrh, your avatar, the answer to life the universe and everything is 0, not 42!

[Amelanchier]

You could make a good start by explaining what inclusionality can add to our understanding of the axiom of uniform stress as I mentioned earlier. In plain words and without referring to fungi!

 

Or if your feeling adventurous, redefine the elitist boundary led thinking of 1+1=2.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

You could make a good start by explaining what inclusionality can add to our understanding of the axiom of uniform stress as I mentioned earlier. In plain words and without referring to fungi!

 

Or if your feeling adventurous, redefine the elitist boundary led thinking of 1+1=2.

 

inclusionality and the axiom are different things are they not?

 

the axiom is defined by abiotic forces.

 

as for the elitest 1+1=2 I shall go and get someone from the transfigural math department, and be back as fast as possible with an answer that is as good as youll ever likley get!

 

math is not my department im afraid:blushing:

 

Note, no fungi references!

[Mesterh]

and mestrh, your avatar, the answer to life the universe and everything is 0, not 42!

 

Bugger! I am going to have to change the way I see things and run my life from now on.

 

In referring to my earlier post I think that unless someone is REALLY interested in fungi there not going to read that doc.

 

TBH I have no clue on what this thread is about mate.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Bugger! I am going to have to change the way I see things and run my life from now on.

 

In referring to my earlier post I think that unless someone is REALLY interested in fungi there not going to read that doc.

 

TBH I have no clue on what this thread is about mate.

 

Have you not read that piece?

 

why not?

 

are you not on an arb forum? are you not even remotley interested in how we might change our views toward life, enhance our natural empathy and live and work in a more sustainable way?

 

or shall we just keep on keeping on?

[Mesterh]

Have you not read that piece? Nope hence my first post.

 

why not? See my first post.

 

are you not on an arb forum? are you not even remotley interested in how we might change our views toward life, enhance our natural empathy and live and work in a more sustainable way? Is the document the answer to life, the universe and everything?

 

or shall we just keep on keeping on? Thats not for me to answer

 

BTW I'm not trying to upset you mate so please dont take any offence at what I say.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

 

Or if your feeling adventurous, redefine the elitist boundary led thinking of 1+1=2.

 

Natural Inclusion 8.doc

 

Ah, now that's easy!

 

Please find attached a chapter from 'Natural Inclusion'.

 

Note especially the following:

 

"This imagery corresponds with the patterns predicted by what are known as

non-linear equations, at the heart of which can be found the loophole of

interrelated paradoxes that I mentioned earlier. The first of these

paradoxes concerns the aloneness of the singularity that we call 'one'. 'One

is one and all alone and ever more shall be so' - in the words of the

traditional song, 'Green Grow the Rushes, O'. So, by what magic or sleight

of hand, can two lonely ones ever make two?

 

 

 

'One' is primarily a number dislocated from its spatial relationship with

other - its neighbourhood - and so 'isolated' as a fully discrete,

independent unit or whole. This dislocation becomes apparent when we

multiply it by itself and get the same as what we started with. No matter

how many times we multiply it by itself all we get is a reproduction, a

clone - more and more of the same. No other numbers behave in this way, even

though we regard them as being composed entirely/purely of ones. Two, for

example makes four when multiplied by itself, implying that it is in some

way more than just two ones - i.e. a couple, not isolated by but pooled

together in space. This is known as an 'emergent property' of 'two',

contrary to the linear 'law of superposition', which states that a function

of a plus a function of b should equal the same function of a+b.

 

 

 

There is a profound inconsistency here. It is as though a one-way filter has

been inserted between one and all the other numbers, as well as between

progressively larger numbers, such as 2 and 3, 3 and 4 etc, when these too

are treated as independent wholes isolated by rather than pooled together in

space. Through the imposed closure arising from the fallacy of the excluded

middle, 'one' has been deprived of its common space or neighbourhood in

which it relates with others. 'One', in other words, has been

de-contextualized. A world consisting entirely of independent 'ones' can

therefore only be utterly incoherent or random unless ordered by some

externally imposed force. This is the root of the fallacy that unless

individuals are subjected to some form of 'Law and Order' imposed by a

governing body, the result will be anarchy.

 

 

 

In this estranged, de-contextualized world of abstract singularities, only

material content counts. Conventional numbers, then, are figures isolated

from their common ground, a representation of pure material content, strung

out along a linear scale from the very small to the very large and both

positive and negative on either side of the 'absence of presence' known as

'zero'. At the very small and very large ends of this scale are some very

weird constructions known as infinitesimality and infinity, which make no

sense at all in relation to the finite entities found elsewhere along the

scale. Infinitesimality is the limit to which finite content can be

subdivided, but is smaller than the smallest finite number that can be

counted. Infinity is limitless content, larger than the largest finite

number that can be counted. Both infinitesimality and infinity are, however,

inventions made necessary to jump the gap of the exclusion zone constructed

around 'one' by assuming it to be alone."

 

 

 

-------------------

 

 

 

Warmest

 

 

 

Alan

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

BTW I'm not trying to upset you mate so please dont take any offence at what I say.

 

Why does everyone on here think im going to get upset and implode! LMAO:lol:

 

no worries Mestrh, I guess if you cant be bothered to read it though there is litle point in being here!

 

Not your kinda thing? its cool.