Talk:Natural Inclusion

Inclusion or Inclusionality?

In some contexts the word used is Inclusion and sometimes it is Inclusionality. What are the specific rules for using one word rather than the other? --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, what is the correct capitalization of the term? Is it Natural Inclusion, Natural inclusion, or natural inclusion? --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

AR Answers: Briefly 'Natural Inclusion' is the evolutionary process/situation and 'Natural Inclusionality' is the awareness/philosophy.

British or American English?

Some of the major contributors to this course are British, others are American. Should the text use British or American spellings of words? The Wikipedia policy on this is given at: National varieties of English. But I am not sure how that helps. I plan to use American English when editing. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a sensible question, Lee. I have often thought about the validity of imposing 'uniformity' on languageItalic text, particularly when describing 'Natural Inclusion(ality!)'. I consider expressive creativity symbolically representative of the flow logic (floetry) that is intrinsic to 'Natural Inclusion(ality!)'. That said, considering dialect/colloquial variations and the need for consistency in this presentational context, I accept we do need to decide one way or another. Perhaps it is necessary to introduce ‘Language and Linguistics’ earlier on in the course to ensure students grasp the difficulties of language and the implications to NI? --Mabushell (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Open Democracy

Research and understand connections between NI and Democracy. Include this in the section on Putting Natural Inclusionality into Practice. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be addressed by adding a subsection under the existing section on Putting Natural Inclusionality into Practice, called "Government" with the following text:

Various forms of government, proposed and in practice, that seek to increase the involvement of more people in understanding issues, dialoging on concerns, proposing solutions, and making decisions are consistent with the general concepts of Natural Inclusion. Various forms of democracy, especially including direct democracy, and participatory democracy, are examples. What do you think? Thanks --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All those paths!!

The section "choosing your path" includes many empty sections each named "A xxx's Path" These are invitations to people from those various backgrounds to describe how they made the mental transition from the traditional practice of their discipline to an understanding of the core concepts of NI, and how it influenced their later practice of their own discipline. I am currently writing "An Engineer's Journey" and plan to link it in when I am done. We need various collaborates to write their stories to fill in the various paths. Obviously the specific roles listed here are only examples, write what you know. Thanks to the collaborator who suggested this.--Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Are the contributions attributed to User Mabushell intentional?

Edits completed 20:48, 2 March 2013‎ attributed to User Mabushell seem unusual. The user page does not exist. These edits were made an essentially the same time as a major edit of mine. Is the result correct, or did our edits overwrite each other? --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely at these they seem fine. Sorry for my alarm, I am not used to such active collaboration on Wikiversity!.--Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Establishing complete definitions of the core concept terms

The very end of the section Natural_Inclusion#Principles lists the terms: energy, space, flow, boundaries, dispersions, and flow-forms and gives a very brief definition of each. It would be helpful if a page were dedicated to each of these terms, providing an in-depth definition and explanation of each term, as it is used in this course. These pages could then be linked to as the terms are used throughout the course. I can certainly get each page started, but I'm not crystal clear what more to say on each page. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Glossary Added

I began a glossary of terms at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Natural_Inclusion/glossary_of_terms

Please add terms to this as they are used in this course. Please work to keep the terms in alphabetical order, and the definitions consistent, unambiguous, accurate, and unique. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page getting too long

The main page is getting too long. We need to find some natural way to structure this into sub-pages, perhaps with a navigation box. This was done well in the What Matters course and the Virtues course. Perhaps these can give us an idea how best to proceed. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Figure becomes Ground

I prepared the following to be included in the "Becoming Receptive" section of the course, however I was unable to get the image Sky_and_Water_I image to appear. I have posted my question on the help desk.

Figure becomes Ground

Traditionally we think of foreground as primary, background as secondary, and each as distinct from the other. But these distinctions often reflect only our particular choice of priority, salience, and focus. When standing in a large crowd I may think of people close to me as foreground and those in the distance, near you, as the background. Your perception of figure and ground will be the reverse of mine. Identification of figure as opposed to ground may reflect only a point of view.

Assignment

Study this woodcut print by M.C. Escher and answer the following questions.

1. Scanning from top to bottom, when does the bird complete the transition from figure to ground? When does that transition begin?
2. Where in the figure does the fish first emerge?
3. Is the foreground or the background the region of creation and birth?
4. Is the foreground or the background the region of disappearance and death?

--Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a pipe

I want to add the image "This is not a pipe" to the section on language, using the caption "the symbol is not the object." Unfortunately the image seems restricted and I can't get it to appear. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Some comments and suggestions

There are several parts that are vague or incomprehensible, for instance the sentence "Natural Inclusion is a radically new way of understanding evolutionary becoming as a process of cumulative energetic transformation or natural energy flow". What is the reader supposed to make of that? This resource appears to suffer badly for its abuse of nominalized adjectives and verbs, e.g. "inclusion". Try to imagine how you'd rewrite this resource without using such words. I imagine it would be much clearer. I generally try to avoid nominals in my writing. Here's another example I pointed out to the author of that resource. Their sentence "Yet, their social capacities, shared goals, and common knowledge resulted in a level of community resilience that facilitated effective recovery efforts" can be rewritten in a much clearer form "The community recovered quickly because of its social capacities, shared goals, and common knowledge" and I feel that this resource may be similarly improved, though conversely it's not clear to me in this case what you mean by the sentence I quoted, so I'm unable to suggest a specific replacement. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)