{"id":12900,"date":"2011-06-13T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2011-06-13T11:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=12900"},"modified":"2011-06-12T15:07:21","modified_gmt":"2011-06-12T14:07:21","slug":"reframing-the-dynamics-of-engaging-with-otherness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2011\/06\/reframing-the-dynamics-of-engaging-with-otherness\/","title":{"rendered":"Reframing the Dynamics of Engaging with Otherness"},"content":{"rendered":"

Triadic Correspondences between Topology, Kama Sutra and I Ching <\/em><\/p>\n

Produced on the occasion of the open solicitation for proposals for the The Metaphor Program<\/a> of the US Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity<\/a> with participation of the US Army Research Laboratory<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The challenge of engaging with “others” and their “otherness” is fundamental to the difficulties of governance at every level of society — from the global to the individual. One extreme approach is to argue for mutual tolerance between diverse worldviews, as in the Dialogue among Civilizations<\/a> adopted as the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations (2001). The other is to assert that you’re either with us, or against us<\/a>, as was central to US foreign policy from 2001, and discussed separately (Us and Them: Relating to Challenging Others<\/em><\/a>, 2009). There would seem to be few clues to more fruitful approaches, despite the many group dynamics proposals made by various parties over decades.<\/p>\n

There is therefore a case for more radical exploration of ways of reframing the engagement with others — however speculative the endeavour. In fact it possibly the case that a more radical approach is essential since conventional approaches have proven to be so inadequate. The approach which follows takes three extremely different ways of framing the dynamics of “relationships” — if not maximally different ways — and speculates on the possibility of fruitful equivalences between them. This follows from previous arguments for seeking ways of engaging with the improbable (Engaging with the Inexplicable, the Incomprehensible and the Unexpected<\/em><\/a>, 2010). In selecting them, one criterion is that they should be, to a degree, mutually “alienating”.<\/p>\n

The three selected are:<\/p>\n