From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 1 00:05:04 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Dec 1 00:07:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm quotes on Self
In-Reply-To: <4750830D.000001.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <00bd01c8338c$81e33bd0$b676480c@HOME>
<4750830D.000001.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <AACE8B26-9E3C-4BCA-8887-FFC53E060C8A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
C'mon man. When are you going to publish your novel/
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 21:39, william wrote:
> >...We really don't have to think of ourself as an "image" or
> "thing" to think of ourself
> >at all. When I am aware of myself and use my imagination in
> conjunction with self
> >the "self" I am aware of is something more like a feeling tone.
> There's no image of
> >self at all, no fixed body, no fixed "anything" just a feeling of
> presence and the
> >awareness of being conscious.
>
> Or the feeling of hurt.
> He: "I didn't say anything".
> She: "You don't have to say anything. It's the way you don't speak.
> It's the way you don't look. It's the way you don't hear my tears
> when you're not there."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/166ec8b4/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 1 00:22:14 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Dec 1 00:24:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <008701c83399$83c444f0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk><1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<E510AA81-6A9C-4496-BCB9-1F1ABDD06F6A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<008701c83399$83c444f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <75EE5D84-2432-4267-8BA6-4CC26398C0CB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I never implied that any of these people were insane. But I may have
implied that anyone who takes these ideas and separates them from
their context which includes the time that these ideas were
expressed, and then writes about them as if they are The Truth.- that
feels insane to me. I do know that Bohm used to treat new ideas by
taking them up as fullly as possible and then from the vantage point
of an "insider" he was able to see their limitations and criticize
them with deep insight. But this approach did tend to get him into
trouble. He was one of the last American intellectuals to give up on
the Soviet experiment. He still wanted to believe that it represented
a new kind of culture and that its excesses were only the result of
it still being in the early stages of its adolescence. He also wrote
a text book about physics from the point of view of the Copenhagen or
standard model. The book was a great success and it was used for many
years by students in American universities, But he wrote it in order
to be able to better understand its weaknesses. and that was what was
important to him. And that didn't do him much good either. This is
not to demean him. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that his
ideas were pointing in a very valuable direction. And of course, I
had no vested interests that need protecting. But one thing that he
made clear was that we should not believe him, or treat his proposals
as truths, scientific or otherwise. He used to say that he professed
nothing, that he only made proposals that he hoped people would
inquire into. For me, they have given me a lot to think about, and I
have learned a lot. but I don't take them as gospel. I work with them
in hopes that they might open a door to the next room in the palace
of understanding. That's the sort of thing that he wanted,
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 21:39, Don Lay wrote:
> But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to
> anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got?
> -- df
>
> Again, my interest is in exploring the meaning of db/thought, and
> presently the meaning of db/thought regarding self image and the
> significance of quantum discoveries for the way language and
> thought functions.
>
> Maybe Bohm's ideas language, self, actuality, etc, are worth
> exploring, worth talking about. There are lots of people seem to
> feel that way.
>
> If you are claiming that Bohm was the victim of depression,
> insanity, etc., what you say might be worth exploring also.
> However, the quotes regarding self and territory appear to be the
> understanding of someone having given attention to, e.g., Korzybski.
>
> Is it also claimed that Korzybski is also insane? Bohm gives
> attention to other serious thinkers -- Piaget for example. Were
> they all insane? -- dl
>
>
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
>
>> "Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder,
>> spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human
>> spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
>
> Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it
> says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered
> pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is
> necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego,
> that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value
> him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty
> miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't
> help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a
> concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a
> territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For
> instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to
> have accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people
> who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he
> also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to
> time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit
> different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing -
> that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and
> is thus spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and
> no stable relationship with the explicate world which is where
> acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean, that would
> seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego
> trip.
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/0ecee5ce/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 1 00:49:36 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 1 00:52:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
>I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear
normal'
>if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
You cannot, but i don't think that is what he wants anyway. Perhaps he has
read something about Nirvana, or Wu Wei, or something like that and fancies
himself as an enlightened Zen master. Many of these selfless super-modest
masters (who are invariably one with the universe) take a great delight in
not being recognized as such by us ordinary mortals. I have done this myself
for a while. I think i know what he is talking about. I know that feeling of
"deep peace in deep awareness". I know what it is like to be one with the
universe. I have managed to escape from this nonsense, but apparently he
still doesn't realize the trap. You are justified about being worried about
him. He is probably one step away from suicide. He is a longing for death.
But he is not going to do it. He is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may have
lost his mind when he was with the military, but he is a survivor.
Eventually, some intelligence will perculate back into his mind. I know he
hates this, but the best way to get him out of this "deep" sleep is to get
personal with him; confront him directly as a person (as i am doing now).
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 23:21:45
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal
if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep".
This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense of
experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more fundamental
than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic actuality ...
maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
(1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings
true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they
guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness
or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or
one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is
usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won
t help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept
that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what
have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a
very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great
odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of
course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to
time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different
from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning
and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly
over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the
explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business.
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/7bfbcb7d/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 00:58:27 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 01:00:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
<4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890711301558u69deff19v241cfd113c49326e@mail.gmail.com>
. But he is not going to do it. He is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may
have lost his mind when he was with the military, but he is a survivor.
I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the
trap. Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then
what?
On Nov 30, 2007 6:49 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/ed62abdd/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 1 01:11:25 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 1 01:14:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <75EE5D84-2432-4267-8BA6-4CC26398C0CB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4750A6AC.000007.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
That's how i know Bohm too. He would hate it when someone says "Bohm said...
. He was changing his views all the time anyway so quoting Bohm is pretty
useless unless the quote is dated. He was changing views the same way an
artist would change style over time. In fact, it is perhaps not entirely
wrong to think of him as a kind of artist.
-------Original Message-------
From: Don Factor
Date: 01.12.2007 00:22:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I never implied that any of these people were insane. But I may have implied
that anyone who takes these ideas and separates them from their context
which includes the time that these ideas were expressed, and then writes
about them as if they are The Truth.- that feels insane to me. I do know
that Bohm used to treat new ideas by taking them up as fullly as possible
and then from the vantage point of an "insider" he was able to see their
limitations and criticize them with deep insight. But this approach did tend
to get him into trouble. He was one of the last American intellectuals to
give up on the Soviet experiment. He still wanted to believe that it
represented a new kind of culture and that its excesses were only the result
of it still being in the early stages of its adolescence. He also wrote a
text book about physics from the point of view of the Copenhagen or standard
model. The book was a great success and it was used for many years by
students in American universities, But he wrote it in order to be able to
better understand its weaknesses. and that was what was important to him.
And that didn't do him much good either. This is not to demean him. I wouldn
t be here if I didn't think that his ideas were pointing in a very valuable
direction. And of course, I had no vested interests that need protecting.
But one thing that he made clear was that we should not believe him, or
treat his proposals as truths, scientific or otherwise. He used to say that
he professed nothing, that he only made proposals that he hoped people would
inquire into. For me, they have given me a lot to think about, and I have
learned a lot. but I don't take them as gospel. I work with them in hopes
that they might open a door to the next room in the palace of understanding.
That's the sort of thing that he wanted,
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 21:39, Don Lay wrote:
But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything
real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? -- df
Again, my interest is in exploring the meaning of db/thought, and presently
the meaning of db/thought regarding self image and the significance of
quantum discoveries for the way language and thought functions.
Maybe Bohm's ideas language, self, actuality, etc, are worth exploring,
worth talking about. There are lots of people seem to feel that way.
If you are claiming that Bohm was the victim of depression, insanity, etc.,
what you say might be worth exploring also. However, the quotes regarding
self and territory appear to be the understanding of someone having given
attention to, e.g., Korzybski.
Is it also claimed that Korzybski is also insane? Bohm gives attention to
other serious thinkers -- Piaget for example. Were they all insane? -- dl
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
(1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings
true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they
guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness
or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or
one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is
usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won
t help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept
that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what
have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a
very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great
odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of
course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to
time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different
from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning
and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly
over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the
explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business.
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/d90d6480/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 1 01:17:27 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 1 01:20:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301558u69deff19v241cfd113c49326e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4750A816.000009.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will
face the confrontation. Wait and see...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/49b3df07/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 01:26:57 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 01:29:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301558u69deff19v241cfd113c49326e@mail.gmail.com>
<4750A816.000009.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <00d701c833b0$e22eaeb0$b5c16018@DL01>
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/b835f94e/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 1 02:04:17 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sat Dec 1 02:06:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <00d701c833b0$e22eaeb0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <567140.36127.qm@web57413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) } v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) } What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/a2f5118b/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 1 02:29:55 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Dec 1 02:32:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
<4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal'
>if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
You cannot, but i don't think that is what he wants anyway. Perhaps he has read something about Nirvana, or Wu Wei, or something like that and fancies himself as an enlightened Zen master. Many of these selfless super-modest masters (who are invariably one with the universe) take a great delight in not being recognized as such by us ordinary mortals. I have done this myself for a while. I think i know what he is talking about. I know that feeling of "deep peace in deep awareness". I know what it is like to be one with the universe. I have managed to escape from this nonsense, but apparently he still doesn't realize the trap. You are justified about being worried about him. He is probably one step away from suicide. He is a longing for death. But he is not going to do it. He is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may have lost his mind when he was with the military, but he is a survivor. Eventually, some intelligence will perculate back into his mind. I know he hates this, but the best way to get him out of this "deep" sleep is to get personal with him; confront him directly as a person (as i am doing now).
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 23:21:45
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal' if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep". This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense of experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more fundamental than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic actuality ... maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
don
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/07dc8d5a/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 02:59:23 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 03:01:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
<013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal'
>if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
You cannot, but i don't think that is what he wants anyway. Perhaps he has read something about Nirvana, or Wu Wei, or something like that and fancies himself as an enlightened Zen master. Many of these selfless super-modest masters (who are invariably one with the universe) take a great delight in not being recognized as such by us ordinary mortals. I have done this myself for a while. I think i know what he is talking about. I know that feeling of "deep peace in deep awareness". I know what it is like to be one with the universe. I have managed to escape from this nonsense, but apparently he still doesn't realize the trap. You are justified about being worried about him. He is probably one step away from suicide. He is a longing for death. But he is not going to do it. He is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may have lost his mind when he was with the military, but he is a survivor. Eventually, some intelligence will perculate back into his mind. I know he hates this, but the best way to get him out of this "deep" sleep is to get personal with him; confront him directly as a person (as i am doing now).
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 23:21:45
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal' if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep". This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense of experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more fundamental than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic actuality ... maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
don
--
Irene
----------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/b1c3b326/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 03:07:03 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 03:09:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <567140.36127.qm@web57413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004801c833be$dd8653f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/964f538f/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 1 03:43:48 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Dec 1 03:46:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
<002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/0d05182c/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 03:58:39 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 04:01:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/62660e24/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 1 04:28:50 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Dec 1 04:31:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
<007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/fbc20e06/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 04:34:51 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 04:37:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
<018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. -- Susan
I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else, could it? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/a9e9d1af/attachment.html
From obsolete_idiom at hotmail.com Sat Dec 1 07:13:02 2007
From: obsolete_idiom at hotmail.com (eric scott nelson)
Date: Sat Dec 1 07:15:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
<018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BLU108-W366284002ABDA169E25593FF720@phx.gbl>
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation.
"...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about
anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an
empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and
free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.
(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does
not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it
assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will
come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that
you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them,
nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or
bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible.
(Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might
otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he
will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas in the conversation.
(The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of
the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
My guess is they are simply getting
desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. --
Susan
I think you're right. Why do
you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as
phony and fucked up as everyone else, could it? -- dl
From:
Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28
PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm
quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't
take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty
strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty
strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your
insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on
them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply
mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but
of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide,
that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around
for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate
in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From:
Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58
PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random
Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong
and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of
insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about
self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or
suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity,
Korzybski's map, etc? --
dl
From:
Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43
PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random
Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I
think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he
seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to
be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your
well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own
imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each
other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always
bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are
"necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of
the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's
also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks.
Both of those things make him a favorite of
mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From:
Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007
6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random
Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised
that what you say is in the direction of the true and real.
Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the
point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about
W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of
henchman or
henchwench
or df-groupie, but I could have been
wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be
again.
What I don't understand is this talk
about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote
about self and self-image drove him,
Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears
insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the
writings of Bohm regarding self and
self-identity?
Why? What possible reason
can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by
exploring Bohm's proposals regarding
self and self-imagery?
Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk
of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking
people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a
sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my
interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and
the meaning of Bohm's thought as
a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007
8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]
Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're
getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here
William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in
life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has
been part of this group and saying these same things for years.
I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it
"ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
"normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds
ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if
that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary
and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the
fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we
can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well.
Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
fragmentation.
dl has never said he has
no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that
most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of
dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the
deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
recognize.
Susan
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/b1b3b841/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 14:33:58 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 14:36:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME><008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
<BLU108-W366284002ABDA169E25593FF720@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <004201c8341e$d42a8a00$b5c16018@DL01>
i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry. -- Eric [ highlights added]
Welcome Eric.
Just what is "suspending personal judgment"? Is it talking about one's personal self? Is it acting and pretending a role, e.g., acting and pretending to have been therapized by a Fromian Analyst and therefore qualified to diagnose a fellow dialogue participant insane and suicidal?
Does "suspending personal judgment" mean making judgments about another?
Just exactly what is meant by personal? What is the personal similar to and different from. -- dl
From: eric scott nelson
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:13 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. -- Susan
I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else, could it? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/d87690f4/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 15:17:01 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 15:18:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Message-ID: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken
as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and
different angles and not "truths." And since they are different and only
fragments they will seem to be in conflict with one another. So when we
hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with one another
and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we are
fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
"simply telling us the way things are." Seeing these thoughts as truths
is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis
of the Bohmian Dialogue model. But before such suspension is possible,
these felt "truths" that we are fighting so innocently and nobly for,
need to be seen as assumptions because as "truths" they are not
suspendable.
Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension
of the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening
in what we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are
"truths" is the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But
suspension of the assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree
is to the tree. Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk
is typical talk.
-- funny
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson
<obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested
in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am
sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to
any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and
free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.
(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does
not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it
assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will
come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you
neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do
you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On
Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual
has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group
because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this
conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are
far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get
you to write something new. -- Susan
I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else,
could it? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember,
William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to
have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of
us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so
many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think.
And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is
what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When
it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for
me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is
they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write
something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for
exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and
self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm
wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in
regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think
he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said
with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with
our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with
each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always
bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are
"necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the
biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest
and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things
make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the
direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems
fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could
have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him,
Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires
into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide
by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless
you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm
wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas
about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in
life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of
this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any
problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants
to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list
who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if
that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal
are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us
are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal
and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you
step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function
and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even
deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned
to recognize.
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/ae872ca3/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 15:49:48 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 15:52:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01>
What's the difference between self and personal self?
Is it a difference that makes a difference?
Maybe we say the personal self, deriving from the Greek and Latin words for actor's mask necessarily implies acting and pretending.
Webster's Dictionary notes presents the word self itself as being both a noun and a transitive verb: the transitive verb, "self: 1: INBREED 2: to polinate with the same pollen from flower or plant ~ vi : to undergo self-pollination".
Maybe the personal self, listed as pronoun (not as noun!!) becomes a transitive verb when people "self-polinate or inbreed" in the sense that they create a purely imaginary self which would be accurately described by the Korzybski/Bohm notion of the "self as a map without a territory".
So what! So, with awareness of selfing, awareness of using language to create self-imagery that we act and pretend is actuality until we have to go to the nuthouse -- then that awareness or proprioception ITSELF would suspend the identity movement when it was not needed or useful.
Therefore awareness of the nominal idea of the noun/pronoun, personal self becoming a transitive verb becomes important.
Why? In culture we all promote our self-image, good or bad it seems we all must do this to survive in culture and society.
Does it not seem clear that if we talk about this and are then aware of what we are doing with language, we can also be aware of tas does the same thing "in there", in systematic thought ... as db/thought says?
This is hard to formulate, but I believe the above is getting closer. Anyone else see the importance of the distinction between the nominal self and the transitive verb self? Does the awareness of this not equal proprioception of thought? -- dl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/2ca81aca/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 16:01:20 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:04:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <004d01c8342b$0d7998d0$b5c16018@DL01>
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. -- Susan
Is it possible that people all over the Earth are desperate because tas "in there" is telling them they are localized, imaginary, noun-thingKs instead of telling them that the whole is wonderfully indivisible and reasonable and meaningful, and that tas and language are finite and limited systems having only finite and limited meaning? -- dl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/939e0c56/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 16:03:33 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:06:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <005701c8342b$57de8ca0$b5c16018@DL01>
This seems to say it very well. -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different angles and not "truths." And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in conflict with one another. So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as "simply telling us the way things are." Seeing these thoughts as truths is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of the Bohmian Dialogue model. But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because as "truths" they are not suspendable.
Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree. Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
-- funny
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. -- Susan
I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else, could it? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/0c6e7449/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 16:12:36 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:15:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010712h3036c1ben408c9d2808a5bbac@mail.gmail.com>
Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
the assumptions.
I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
thought.
On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken
> as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> angles and not "truths."
>
> And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
> conflict with one another.
>
And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context of
the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
> So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
> one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
> are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
> "simply telling us the way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as truths
> is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
>
> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
> the Bohmian Dialogue model.
>
> But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
> fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
> as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>
It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <
> obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
> thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
> have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
> Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
>
> straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
>
> *1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
> conversation.* "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
> to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
> have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
> conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free"
> (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
>
> *2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.*(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not
> attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and
> as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is
> called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them
> out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them;
> you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
>
> *3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
> as honest and transparent as possible.* (Specifically, if the individual
> has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because
> it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
>
> *4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
> ideas in the conversation.* (The group often comes up with ideas that are
> far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
> conversation began.)
>
> is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
>
> -esn
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
>
> My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you
> to write something new. -- Susan
>
> I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
>
> It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else,
> could it? -- dl
>
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember,
> William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have
> her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have
> problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years
> without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't
> insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call
> insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of
> suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been
> around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting
> desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
>
> But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for
> exploring ... quoting db remarks about *self and self-image and
> self-identity*?
>
> You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm
> wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards
> to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his
> remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for
> your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination
> when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is
> simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties"
> that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William
> is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge
> heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he
> thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction
> of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate
> and to the point. Thanks again.
>
> However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
> above the position of *henchman* or *henchwench* or *df-groupie,* but I
> could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be
> again.
>
> What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
> Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about *self and self-image* drove him,
> Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
>
> Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires
> into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding *self and self-identity*?
>
> Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by
> exploring Bohm's proposals regarding *self* and *self-imagery*? Unless
> you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
>
> As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
> less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
>
> Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring *what Bohm
> wrote*, and *the meaning* of *Bohm's thought* as a* *quantum theorist. --
> dl
>
>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
> dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life.
> That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group
> and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his
> thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
> "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or
> "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would
> say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck
> in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal"
> doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite
> well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
> the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
> fragmentation.
>
> dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
> recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
> purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
> the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
> recognize.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!<http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/192c02ac/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 16:14:50 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:17:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712010712h3036c1ben408c9d2808a5bbac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712010712h3036c1ben408c9d2808a5bbac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010714o4c85be49i4112b7feee1bda81@mail.gmail.com>
ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments below
if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that more
accurately conveys your meaning.
On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions.
>
> I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
> dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
> thought.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken
> > as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> > angles and not "truths."
> >
>
>
> > And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
> > conflict with one another.
> >
>
> And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context
> of the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
>
>
> > So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
> > one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
> > are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
> > "simply telling us the way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as
> > truths is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
> >
> > Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis
> > of the Bohmian Dialogue model.
> >
>
>
> > But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
> > fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
> > as "truths" they are not suspendable.
> >
>
> It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
> true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>
> >
> > Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> > dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> > the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> > we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> > the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> > assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> > Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <
> > obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
> > thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
> > have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
> > Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
> >
> > straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
> >
> > *1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
> > conversation.* "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
> > to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
> > have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
> > conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free"
> > (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
> >
> > *2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.*(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not
> > attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and
> > as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is
> > called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them
> > out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them;
> > you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
> >
> > *3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously
> > are as honest and transparent as possible.* (Specifically, if the
> > individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the
> > group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this
> > conversation.)
> >
> > *4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
> > ideas in the conversation.* (The group often comes up with ideas that
> > are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
> > conversation began.)
> >
> > is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
> >
> > -esn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: donlay@knology.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
> >
> > My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get
> > you to write something new. -- Susan
> >
> > I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
> >
> > It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else,
> > could it? -- dl
> >
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember,
> > William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have
> > her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have
> > problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years
> > without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't
> > insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call
> > insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of
> > suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been
> > around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting
> > desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
> >
> > But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for
> > exploring ... quoting db remarks about *self and self-image and
> > self-identity*?
> >
> > You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm
> > wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in
> > regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he
> > meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with
> > concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own
> > imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other.
> > William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the
> > "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience
> > of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and
> > has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say
> > what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the
> > direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly
> > accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
> >
> > However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
> > above the position of *henchman* or *henchwench* or *df-groupie,* but I
> > could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be
> > again.
> >
> > What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
> > Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about *self and self-image* drove
> > him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
> >
> > Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he
> > inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding *self and
> > self-identity*?
> >
> > Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide
> > by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding *self* and *self-imagery*?
> > Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of
> > suicide?
> >
> > As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
> > less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
> >
> > Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring *what Bohm
> > wrote*, and *the meaning* of *Bohm's thought* as a* *quantum theorist.
> > -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas
> > about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in
> > life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of
> > this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem
> > with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be
> > ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds
> > ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that
> > happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the
> > ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not
> > ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and
> > ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step
> > outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the
> > more you step away from fragmentation.
> >
> > dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that
> > he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
> > purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
> > the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
> > recognize.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!<http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/c195489b/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 16:24:37 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:27:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
In-Reply-To: <002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
<4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
<013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
<002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
<007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
<018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
<002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010724q2741909cgde435d2ca0634b80@mail.gmail.com>
I: Way down.
On Dec 1, 2007 9:49 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> What's the difference between *self* and *personal self*?
>
> Is it a difference that makes a difference?
>
> Maybe we say the *personal self*, deriving from the Greek and Latin words
> for *actor's mask* necessarily implies *acting and pretending*.
>
> Webster's Dictionary notes presents the word *self itself* as being both a
> noun and a transitive verb: the transitive verb, *"self: 1: INBREED 2: to
> polinate with the same pollen from flower or plant ~ vi *: to undergo
> self-pollination".
>
> Maybe the *personal self*, listed as pronoun (*not as noun!!*) becomes a
> transitive verb when people "self-polinate or *inbreed"* in the sense that
> they create a purely *imaginary self* which would be accurately described
> by the Korzybski/Bohm notion of the "self as a map without a territory".
>
> So what! So, with awareness of *selfing*, awareness of using language to
> create *self-imagery that we act and pretend* is *actuality *until we have
> to go to the nuthouse -- *then that awareness or proprioception ITSELF
> would suspend* the *identity movement* when it was not needed or useful.*
> *
>
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or
focus on self?
> **
>
> Therefore *awareness of *the nominal idea of the noun/pronoun, *personal
> self* becoming a *transitive verb* becomes important.
>
> Why? In culture we all promote our *self-image*, good or bad it seems we
> all must do this to survive in culture and society.
>
I: Not sure about 'promote'. Others certainly form an image of us which,
often, is at odds with who we are. Yes, we do have a self image. I think
'promote' is the key word.
>
> Does it not seem clear that if we talk about this and are then aware of *what
> we are doing with language*, we can also be aware of *tas does the same
> thing "in there", in systematic thought ...* as db/thought says?
>
I: This, too, seems reasonable. Whether or not it hooks into tas in the
way you describe, it's valuable. And talking about it makes it more
accessible.
>
> This is hard to formulate, but I believe the above is getting closer.
> Anyone else see the importance of the distinction between the *nominal
> self* and the *transitive verb* self? Does the *awareness of this* not
> equal *proprioception of thought?* -- dl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/c5127f0a/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 16:39:59 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:42:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <008901c83430$6ee90a60$b5c16018@DL01>
Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of the assumptions. -- funny
I'm seeing the meaning to be that when people object to db/thought, they are unaware that the idea of DBD ONLINE is to "... inquire together into David Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to
explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt to find out how we might proceed from where he left off".
That is, the basis of being here is to explore db/thought, and not just to promote our personal ideas. Maybe when people object, they could advance their reasoning, or show how db/thought compromises reason and meaning. -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different angles and not "truths." And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in conflict with one another. So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as "simply telling us the way things are." Seeing these thoughts as truths is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of the Bohmian Dialogue model. But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because as "truths" they are not suspendable.
Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree. Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
-- funny
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new. -- Susan
I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else, could it? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember, William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for exploring ... quoting db remarks about self and self-image and self-identity?
You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties" that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/d33e69cf/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 16:44:04 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:46:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME><008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01><002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712010724q2741909cgde435d2ca0634b80@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009d01c83431$009d9bb0$b5c16018@DL01>
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or focus on self?
It's unclear because I'm exploring this, proposing that it may be what db/thought says is pollution, maybe also what many others address under the rubrics: alienation, estrangement, fragmentation, etc. --dl
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
I: Way down.
On Dec 1, 2007 9:49 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What's the difference between self and personal self?
Is it a difference that makes a difference?
Maybe we say the personal self, deriving from the Greek and Latin words for actor's mask necessarily implies acting and pretending.
Webster's Dictionary notes presents the word self itself as being both a noun and a transitive verb: the transitive verb, "self: 1: INBREED 2: to polinate with the same pollen from flower or plant ~ vi : to undergo self-pollination".
Maybe the personal self, listed as pronoun (not as noun!!) becomes a transitive verb when people "self-polinate or inbreed" in the sense that they create a purely imaginary self which would be accurately described by the Korzybski/Bohm notion of the "self as a map without a territory".
So what! So, with awareness of selfing, awareness of using language to create self-imagery that we act and pretend is actuality until we have to go to the nuthouse -- then that awareness or proprioception ITSELF would suspend the identity movement when it was not needed or useful.
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or focus on self?
Therefore awareness of the nominal idea of the noun/pronoun, personal self becoming a transitive verb becomes important.
Why? In culture we all promote our self-image, good or bad it seems we all must do this to survive in culture and society.
I: Not sure about 'promote'. Others certainly form an image of us which, often, is at odds with who we are. Yes, we do have a self image. I think 'promote' is the key word.
Does it not seem clear that if we talk about this and are then aware of what we are doing with language, we can also be aware of tas does the same thing "in there", in systematic thought ... as db/thought says?
I: This, too, seems reasonable. Whether or not it hooks into tas in the way you describe, it's valuable. And talking about it makes it more accessible.
This is hard to formulate, but I believe the above is getting closer. Anyone else see the importance of the distinction between the nominal self and the transitive verb self? Does the awareness of this not equal proprioception of thought? -- dl
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/f1962628/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 16:51:04 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 16:53:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME><008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01><002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712010724q2741909cgde435d2ca0634b80@mail.gmail.com>
<009d01c83431$009d9bb0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00ac01c83431$fb1aab50$b5c16018@DL01>
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or focus on self?
Maybe what is needed is the awareness that self, itself, may be necessity but personal identity itself is not necessity (as per Bohm). -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or focus on self?
It's unclear because I'm exploring this, proposing that it may be what db/thought says is pollution, maybe also what many others address under the rubrics: alienation, estrangement, fragmentation, etc. --dl
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
I: Way down.
On Dec 1, 2007 9:49 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What's the difference between self and personal self?
Is it a difference that makes a difference?
Maybe we say the personal self, deriving from the Greek and Latin words for actor's mask necessarily implies acting and pretending.
Webster's Dictionary notes presents the word self itself as being both a noun and a transitive verb: the transitive verb, "self: 1: INBREED 2: to polinate with the same pollen from flower or plant ~ vi : to undergo self-pollination".
Maybe the personal self, listed as pronoun (not as noun!!) becomes a transitive verb when people "self-polinate or inbreed" in the sense that they create a purely imaginary self which would be accurately described by the Korzybski/Bohm notion of the "self as a map without a territory".
So what! So, with awareness of selfing, awareness of using language to create self-imagery that we act and pretend is actuality until we have to go to the nuthouse -- then that awareness or proprioception ITSELF would suspend the identity movement when it was not needed or useful.
I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or focus on self?
Therefore awareness of the nominal idea of the noun/pronoun, personal self becoming a transitive verb becomes important.
Why? In culture we all promote our self-image, good or bad it seems we all must do this to survive in culture and society.
I: Not sure about 'promote'. Others certainly form an image of us which, often, is at odds with who we are. Yes, we do have a self image. I think 'promote' is the key word.
Does it not seem clear that if we talk about this and are then aware of what we are doing with language, we can also be aware of tas does the same thing "in there", in systematic thought ... as db/thought says?
I: This, too, seems reasonable. Whether or not it hooks into tas in the way you describe, it's valuable. And talking about it makes it more accessible.
This is hard to formulate, but I believe the above is getting closer. Anyone else see the importance of the distinction between the nominal self and the transitive verb self? Does the awareness of this not equal proprioception of thought? -- dl
--
Irene
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/8b38d5d3/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 16:58:27 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:01:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
In-Reply-To: <009d01c83431$009d9bb0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
<013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
<002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
<007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
<018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
<002501c83429$6bc6e700$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712010724q2741909cgde435d2ca0634b80@mail.gmail.com>
<009d01c83431$009d9bb0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010758i3219f482rbf85ad9bed0ed711@mail.gmail.com>
I: I see. I have nothing to contribute there. At least atm. Will be
interesting to see how you develop this. Well. what about parts of self
that may be polluted, and other parts that aren't? Maybe we have to define
'pollution' in context of 'self'. Caution - not to confuse it with original
sin. There's a difference between making mistakes, and being polluted, it
seems to me.
On Dec 1, 2007 10:44 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or
> focus on self?
> It's unclear because I'm exploring this, proposing that it may be what
> db/thought says is pollution, maybe also what many others address under the
> rubrics: *alienation, estrangement, fragmentation*, etc. --dl
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self and Personal Self, verb and noun
>
> I: Way down.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 9:49 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between *self* and *personal self*?
> >
> > Is it a difference that makes a difference?
> >
> > Maybe we say the *personal self*, deriving from the Greek and Latin
> > words for *actor's mask* necessarily implies *acting and pretending*.
> >
> > Webster's Dictionary notes presents the word *self itself* as being both
> > a noun and a transitive verb: the transitive verb, *"self: 1: INBREED
> > 2: to polinate with the same pollen from flower or plant ~ vi *: to
> > undergo self-pollination".
> >
> > Maybe the *personal self*, listed as pronoun (*not as noun!!*) becomes a
> > transitive verb when people "self-polinate or *inbreed"* in the sense
> > that they create a purely *imaginary self* which would be accurately
> > described by the Korzybski/Bohm notion of the "self as a map without a
> > territory".
> >
> > So what! So, with awareness of *selfing*, awareness of using language
> > to create *self-imagery that we act and pretend* is *actuality *until we
> > have to go to the nuthouse -- *then that awareness or proprioception
> > ITSELF would suspend* the *identity movement* when it was not needed or
> > useful.* *
> >
>
> I: Maybe. When is 'self' not needed or useful? Do you mean 'self', or
> focus on self?
>
> > **
> >
> > Therefore *awareness of *the nominal idea of the noun/pronoun, *personal
> > self* becoming a *transitive verb* becomes important.
> >
> > Why? In culture we all promote our *self-image*, good or bad it seems
> > we all must do this to survive in culture and society.
> >
> I: Not sure about 'promote'. Others certainly form an image of us which,
> often, is at odds with who we are. Yes, we do have a self image. I think
> 'promote' is the key word.
>
> >
> > Does it not seem clear that if we talk about this and are then aware of
> > *what we are doing with language*, we can also be aware of *tas does the
> > same thing "in there", in systematic thought ...* as db/thought says?
> >
>
> I: This, too, seems reasonable. Whether or not it hooks into tas in the
> way you describe, it's valuable. And talking about it makes it more
> accessible.
>
> >
> > This is hard to formulate, but I believe the above is getting closer.
> > Anyone else see the importance of the distinction between the *nominal
> > self* and the *transitive verb* self? Does the *awareness of this* not
> > equal *proprioception of thought?* -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/b0f0f70a/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 1 17:01:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:04:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com><4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F><013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME><002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01><015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME><007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01><018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME><008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
<BLU108-W366284002ABDA169E25593FF720@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <006401c83433$70f72280$1877480c@HOME>
Hi Eric and welcome. It's really nice to see a fresh perspective in the group. My own experience has been that this group can feel quite chaotic at times. But that seems to be the nature of dialogue. Spontaneity is not only allowed but encouraged. The active participants here are a fairly small group, smaller than Bohm had originally felt was optimum for dialogue. Which means that we can get fairly insular and not have the kind of stimulus you get from a larger group with a large variety of perspectives. It seems that areas of conflict help to bring assumptions out where they can be seen. So if we get too much into a groove of everyday conversation William likes to throw something fairly shocking out into the conversation to see if he can get us stirred up enough to bring some of our assumptions out into the open. I'm guessing this is one of those times.
There's also a difference of opinion on what the purpose of an online dialogue is. Since Bohm designed dialogue for face to face groups of 20 or more people when Don F. and William started the group they originally thought it would simply be for the purpose of inquiring into Bohm's ideas "in the spirit of dialogue" because they didn't think it would be possible to have an actually dialogue in cyber space. Some people like that and simply want to inquire into Bohm's ideas. Some of the rest of us think it's very possible to have an actual dialogue and so we experiment with that.
So this group is really a great big experiment to see what we can do with these ideas and to find out the nature of dialogue in cyber space. I hope you'll decide to stay and participate. We really could use a new perspective around here.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: eric scott nelson
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended. Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
-esn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/d836b617/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 17:09:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:12:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <008901c83430$6ee90a60$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071201.091824.2428.96.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<008901c83430$6ee90a60$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010809u94ed576tcf5b865779645770@mail.gmail.com>
Maybe when people object, they could advance *their* reasoning, or show how
db/thought compromises *reason and meaning*.
I: That certainly sounds reasonable. It may not appear in the original
objection, but it seems that it could/should emerge in the
suspension-reflection stage.
For instance, I have asked Pat to clarify and respond to my objections to
her statement. I will be very happy to hear and respond to them as best I
can. She has stated how she feels thought has compromised anyone's thinking
that leads to a critique of anything Bohm said, which was almost a decade
ago. I don't feel that's reasonable because science has added new ideas
Bohm would certainly have examined and thought creatively about, plus he,
himself asked us to critique what he left us. Further, I have left an
opening for the possibility that I have misunderstood her, and asked for
further clarification. So if I have lft anything out of the process, please
clue me in.
On Dec 1, 2007 10:39 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions. -- funny
>
> I'm seeing the meaning to be that when people object to db/thought, they
> are unaware that the idea of DBD ONLINE is to "... inquire together into
> David Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness
> and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to
> explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt to
> find out how we might proceed from where he left off".
>
> That is, the basis of being here is to explore db/thought, and not just to
> promote our personal ideas. Maybe when people object, they could advance
> *their* reasoning, or show how db/thought compromises *reason and meaning*.
> -- dl
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:17 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as
> "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> angles and not "truths." And since they are different and only fragments
> they will seem to be in conflict with one another. So when we hear other
> perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with one another and we will
> argue and we will fight and we will think that we are fighting for the
> "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as "simply telling us the
> way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as truths is a recipe for endless
> conflict among people.
>
> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
> the Bohmian Dialogue model. But before such suspension is possible, these
> felt "truths" that we are fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be
> seen as assumptions because as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <
> obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
> thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
> have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
> Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
>
> straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
>
> *1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
> conversation.* "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
> to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
> have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
> conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free"
> (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
>
> *2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.*(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not
> attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and
> as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is
> called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them
> out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them;
> you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
>
> *3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
> as honest and transparent as possible.* (Specifically, if the individual
> has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because
> it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
>
> *4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
> ideas in the conversation.* (The group often comes up with ideas that are
> far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
> conversation began.)
>
> is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
>
> -esn
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:34:51 -0500
>
> My guess is they are simply getting desperate in their attempts to get you
> to write something new. -- Susan
>
> I think you're right. Why do you suppose they're so bothered?
>
> It couldn't be because they are as phony and fucked up as everyone else,
> could it? -- dl
>
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Hahaha! Well, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously dl. Remember,
> William has some pretty strong ideas about the brain. Irene seems to have
> her own set of pretty strong ideas. And you well know that all of us have
> problems with your insistence on repeating the same ideas for so many years
> without expanding on them which pretty much covers df I think. And doesn't
> insanity simply mean "not normal"? Like I said, normal is what I would call
> insane but of course, that's just my preference. When it comes to ideas of
> suicide, that seemed to come out of left field for me. But I haven't been
> around for a while so don't know. My guess is they are simply getting
> desperate in their attempts to get you to write something new.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> It doesn't bother me to have been wrong and I believe you understand.
>
> But tell me please ... whence this talk of insanity and suicide for
> exploring ... quoting db remarks about *self and self-image and
> self-identity*?
>
> You see any danger of insanity or suicide about inquiring into what Bohm
> wrote about self, identity, Korzybski's map, etc? -- dl
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 9:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Hahaha! Well dl, I think you could be making a similar mistake in regards
> to William that he seems to be making about you. I don't think he meant his
> remarks to be those of a henchman. I think they were said with concern for
> your well being. But we all seem to get caught up with our own imagination
> when it comes to others and our communications with each other. William is
> simply a very direct person and doesn't always bother with the "niceties"
> that many of us have been taught are "necessary". My experience of William
> is that he's actually one of the biggest softies on this list and has a huge
> heart. He's also very honest and direct and isn't afraid to say what he
> thinks. Both of those things make him a favorite of mine.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 6:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction
> of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate
> and to the point. Thanks again.
>
> However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
> above the position of *henchman* or *henchwench* or *df-groupie,* but I
> could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be
> again.
>
> What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
> Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about *self and self-image* drove him,
> Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
>
> Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires
> into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding *self and self-identity*?
>
> Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by
> exploring Bohm's proposals regarding *self* and *self-imagery*? Unless
> you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
>
> As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
> less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
>
> Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring *what Bohm
> wrote*, and *the meaning* of *Bohm's thought* as a* *quantum theorist. --
> dl
>
>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
> dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life.
> That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group
> and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his
> thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
> "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or
> "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would
> say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck
> in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal"
> doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite
> well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
> the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
> fragmentation.
>
> dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
> recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
> purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
> the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
> recognize.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/ef277dea/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 17:14:00 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:16:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <006401c83433$70f72280$1877480c@HOME>
References: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
<4750A18F.000005.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
<013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
<002f01c833bd$ccf939e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<015001c833c4$0083e6b0$b676480c@HOME>
<007501c833c6$13278f40$b5c16018@DL01>
<018301c833ca$4b24ea60$b676480c@HOME>
<008901c833cb$21c6e640$b5c16018@DL01>
<BLU108-W366284002ABDA169E25593FF720@phx.gbl>
<006401c83433$70f72280$1877480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010814n1a4c901ct180c7f061ae80834@mail.gmail.com>
I: And I'd like to add that you might get a better idea if you go to the
archives and read them. You can't really get an idea of what BD is in
practice unless you stay with it for a while. Theory is one thing, practice
is another. Or, as many are fond of saying here - the map isn't the
territory.
On Dec 1, 2007 11:01 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hi Eric and welcome. It's really nice to see a fresh perspective in the
> group. My own experience has been that this group can feel quite chaotic at
> times. But that seems to be the nature of dialogue. Spontaneity is not
> only allowed but encouraged. The active participants here are a fairly
> small group, smaller than Bohm had originally felt was optimum for
> dialogue. Which means that we can get fairly insular and not have the kind
> of stimulus you get from a larger group with a large variety of
> perspectives. It seems that areas of conflict help to bring assumptions out
> where they can be seen. So if we get too much into a groove of everyday
> conversation William likes to throw something fairly shocking out into the
> conversation to see if he can get us stirred up enough to bring some of our
> assumptions out into the open. I'm guessing this is one of those times.
>
> There's also a difference of opinion on what the purpose of an online
> dialogue is. Since Bohm designed dialogue for face to face groups of 20 or
> more people when Don F. and William started the group they originally
> thought it would simply be for the purpose of inquiring into Bohm's ideas
> "in the spirit of dialogue" because they didn't think it would be possible
> to have an actually dialogue in cyber space. Some people like that and
> simply want to inquire into Bohm's ideas. Some of the rest of us think it's
> very possible to have an actual dialogue and so we experiment with that.
>
> So this group is really a great big experiment to see what we can do with
> these ideas and to find out the nature of dialogue in cyber space. I hope
> you'll decide to stay and participate. We really could use a new
> perspective around here.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* eric scott nelson <obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 11:13 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
>
> i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
> thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
> have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
> Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
>
> straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
>
> *1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
> conversation.* "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
> to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
> have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
> conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free"
> (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
>
> *2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.*(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not
> attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and
> as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is
> called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them
> out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them;
> you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
>
> *3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
> as honest and transparent as possible.* (Specifically, if the individual
> has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because
> it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
>
> *4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
> ideas in the conversation.* (The group often comes up with ideas that are
> far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
> conversation began.)
>
> is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
>
> -esn
>
>
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/4bd0797c/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Dec 1 17:16:43 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:19:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712010714o4c85be49i4112b7feee1bda81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C376D6FB.F591%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the suspension of
the assumptions). That seems to me quite accurate, at least when the
assumptions are mine (I have no problem with other people?s assumptions
being suspended, all in favor). Suspending my assumptions can be hard,
sometimes painful, and I just don?t want to do it (and it may not even get
that far ? I can balk at even taking certain of my truths to be
?assumptions? ). And I think this is a universal, human response. I do
know that when I do this, my life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun!
(no pun intended, Pat ? I think.)
Lynne
On 12/1/07 8:14 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments below
> if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that more
> accurately conveys your meaning.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
>> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
>> the assumptions.
>>
>> I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
>> dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
>> thought.
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as
>>> "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
>>> angles and not "truths."
>>
>>> And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
>>> conflict with one another.
>>
>> And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context of
>> the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
>>
>>> So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with one
>>> another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we are
>>> fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as "simply
>>> telling us the way things are." Seeing these thoughts as truths is a recipe
>>> for endless conflict among people.
>>>
>>> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
>>> the Bohmian Dialogue model.
>>
>>> But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
>>> fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
>>> as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>>
>> It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
>> true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>>>
>>> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
>>> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
>>> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
>>> we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
>>> the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
>>> assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
>>> Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
>>>
>>> -- funny
>>>
>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson
>>> <obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
>>>> thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
>>>> have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
>>>> Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
>>>>
>>>> straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
>>>>
>>>>> 1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
>>>>> conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to
>>>>> do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
>>>>> have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to
>>>>> any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and
>>>>> free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
>>>>> 2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.
>>>>> (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does
>>>>> not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it
>>>>> assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will
>>>>> come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you
>>>>> neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do
>>>>> you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On
>>>>> Dialogue", p. 22.)"
>>>>> 3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
>>>>> as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual
>>>>> has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because
>>>>> it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
>>>>> 4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals ideas
>>>>> in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far
>>>>> beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
>>>>> conversation began.)
>>>>>
>>>>> is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
>>>>>
>>>>> -esn
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/bea63a7b/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 1 17:24:00 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:26:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <47518AA0.000003.01604@VAIO-584793128F>
>Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
dl here William?
Yes, i got a bit carried away. I was just having some fun doing a bit of
psycho-fiction. Don't take it too literally.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/2f029ec0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 17:26:21 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:29:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <C376D6FB.F591%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <c47283890712010714o4c85be49i4112b7feee1bda81@mail.gmail.com>
<C376D6FB.F591%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010826i334cb0e7m9e42d8e798ee7c0b@mail.gmail.com>
I: Interesting example of how language can confuse rather than clarify. I
have certain assumptions (meaning values and meanings) that I see no reason
to change. For instance, Hitler's actions, slavery, original sin, the
body-mind split, a few of the things that have contributed to the present
state of society's chaos. If someone could give me a good reason, may I
would, but I doubt a good reason could be found. However, aside from such
things, all else is much more open to examination.
I think we have to be very careful in assuming anything is a universal,
human response. It can get into the 'one size fits all' way of thinking.
On Dec 1, 2007 11:16 AM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
> I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the suspension
> of the assumptions). That seems to me quite accurate, at least when the
> assumptions are mine (I have no problem with other people's assumptions
> being suspended, all in favor). Suspending my assumptions can be hard,
> sometimes painful, and I just don't want to do it (and it may not even get
> that far ? I can balk at even taking certain of my truths to be
> "assumptions" ). And I think this is a universal, human response. I do
> know that when I do this, my life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun!
> (no pun intended, Pat ? I think.)
>
> Lynne
> On 12/1/07 8:14 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments
> below if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that
> more accurately conveys your meaning.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions.
>
> I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
> dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
> thought.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as
> "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> angles and not "truths."
>
>
> And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
> conflict with one another.
>
>
> And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context
> of the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
>
>
> So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
> one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
> are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
> "simply telling us the way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as truths
> is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
>
> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
> the Bohmian Dialogue model.
>
>
> But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
> fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
> as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>
>
> It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
> true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:13:02 +0900 eric scott nelson <
> obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> i don't know much about anything. i just joined this list serve. i am
> thinking of unsubscribing though. it sounds like you are all interested in
> have arguments and debates and personal judgement is not suspended.
> Although by even saying this i am passing judgement. for that i am sorry.
>
>
> straight off of wikipedia (quotes from "On Dialogue"):
>
> *1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the
> conversation.* "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what
> to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must
> have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any
> conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free"
> (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"
> *2. Each individual agrees suspend judgement in the conversation.*(Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not
> attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and
> as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is
> called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them
> out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them;
> you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"
> *3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are
> as honest and transparent as possible.* (Specifically, if the individual
> has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because
> it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
> *4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals
> ideas in the conversation.* (The group often comes up with ideas that are
> far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the
> conversation began.)
>
> is there room for spontaneity in an online forum of dialogue?
>
> -esn
>
>
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/b18e81b7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 17:32:32 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:35:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <567140.36127.qm@web57413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <00d701c833b0$e22eaeb0$b5c16018@DL01>
<567140.36127.qm@web57413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010832g3d79f64em98cd848e60547b78@mail.gmail.com>
I: Hello, Alfred. Welcome. Sorry if we seem to have ignored your email.
Hope you're still with us.
On Nov 30, 2007 8:04 PM, Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi fellow listserv-members -
> I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought
> me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and
> want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum
> over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level
> from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any
> progress in this quest? Thank you.
> AL
>
>
> *Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>* wrote:
>
> What horseshit!
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* william <w@david-bohm.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> >I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the
> trap.
> >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
>
> Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will
> face the confrontation. Wait and see...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/9740517e/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 17:34:36 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 17:37:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <47518AA0.000003.01604@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <013201c833b9$b1b98170$b676480c@HOME>
<47518AA0.000003.01604@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010834n7cf618b8wd02b71ba7d9f7ce9@mail.gmail.com>
I: William, I can't seem to find the email you quote from below. Which one
was it?
On Dec 1, 2007 11:24 AM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> >Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas
> about dl here William?
>
> Yes, i got a bit carried away. I was just having some fun doing a bit of
> psycho-fiction. Don't take it too literally.
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/feaeda36/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:10:53 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] disguises and masquerades and imaginary existences
and personal identities
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.103.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Maybe what is needed is the awareness that self, itself, may be necessity
but personal identity itself is not necessity (as per Bohm). -- dl
"We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in
our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others,
and for this purpose we desire to shine. We labour unceasingly to adorn
and preserve this imaginary existence, and neglect the real. And if we
possess calmness or generosity or truthfulness, we are eager to make them
known so as to attach these virtues to
that imaginary existence." (Pascal)
"Finally, the mind of man is so constructed that it is taken far more
with disguises than with realities." (Erasmus)
"It is very necessary that a man should be appraised early in life that
it is a masquerade in which he finds himself, for otherwise, there are
many things which he will fail to understand." (Schopenhauer)
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/cf636f07/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:24:22 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.108.ae.dropper@juno.com>
We all experience our selves as our selves. We all share this.
The questions that come up here are about the wording of the nature
of that experience. In general it is a question about the wording
of the nature of "experience" itself. -- funny
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:08:10 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
>"I am not an illusion or a delusion, on the contrary; I am the proof."
How could it
>be otherwise? Sometimes I fake--but I am still the one that fakes. And
I know I
>fake. Sometimes I don't tell the truth but it is I that is not telling
the truth. When I
>realize I'm "Talking as a System" not only is it I talking but it is I
who know I'm talking.
>I am real. I exist. I can touch myself. I can hear myself. Is that an
illusion? D
No, i don't think it's an illusion. But don't forget, illusions are real
things also. Illusions can be important. They have a very important role.
Just as a lie can save your life (under certain extreme circumstances) so
also illusions can save your life. Hallucinations can be life-saving
devices. Things don't always have to be true or real. For instance, my
Dutch step-father survived a german concentration camp by means of
hallucinations. By the end of the war (WWII) the concentration camps were
no longer receiving food supplies and consequently the prisoners were not
getting any food anymore. My (step)father only talked to me about it one
single time in his life; he said "I wasn't feeling hungry, I could smell
food, I could taste it, I could see it, and I lived on it". When the
Americans finally came, the Germans guards opened the prison cells before
they fled, but by that time the prisoners were to weak to carry their own
body weight; they could even crawl out through that open door. He was one
of those "living skeletons" you may have seen in the pictures. They
weren't always Jews as they sometimes seem to make you want to believe.
After the war, my father got a job as a prison guard. The medieval castle
of Hoensbroek was temporarily turned into an internment camp. He was in
charge of the prison camp that kept socalled "collaborators". Those
collaborators were Dutch people who had sympathized with the Germans and
obeyed orders from the authorities installed by the Germans. After the
war they were arrrested and put into this castle. Anyway, every evening
my father (being responsbile for the well-being of those prisoners)
would personally make the rounds to ensure that have had enough to eat.
This had become his obsession; to have something to eat. He continued
doing this until he eventually got fired on suspiscion that he was
sympatizing with the collaborators.
I didn't mean to expand on this too much, but it goes to show that there
is more to reality than you might think: Hallucinations and illusions are
part of it. Objectivity is simply too limited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/9e9271b0/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:23:33 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.107.ae.dropper@juno.com>
He had a great capacity to listen, to look into the dark and starry
vastness of his mind; to consider, to take all of the time necessary for
seeing the inevitable application of what he is hearing from another. He
would not sacrifice the consequences of such consideration for any short
term thrill of objection,
because the consequence of the specific inability to hear is the general
inability to hear. -- funny
Bohm never ruled out anything. I remember talking to him one day in
Cortona, Italy. It was during a week-long event, a long time ago,
organized by the university of Z?rich. For some mysterious reason, I
don't know why, i was allowed to attend. One evening I invited him to my
friend's house in Cortona nearby, and baked a homemade pizza for us. It
was not my house, but the house of a friend who had shortly after
committed suicide for humanitarian reasons (but that is another story).
While the glow of the fire was baking the pizza we got involved in a
conversation about relativity theory and the speed of light, etc. I was
questioning the assumptions underlying Einstein's notion that nothing
could be faster than light. You must know that i have never studied
anything, not even physics, let alone the theory of relativity. But, in
his presence, nothing seemed to matter, least of all one's own ignorance.
Bohm was one of those rare persons (actually the only person i had ever
known) who could make you feel that what you had to say was just as
significant as what anybody else had to say. Anyway, i can still hear
myself talking about all kind of things that could be faster than light.
Of course, i was just having fun about science fiction fantasies, not
taking anything seriously. I knew Dave was a fan of Einstein and i didn't
expect him to agree with anything i said, but to my surprise he listened
carefully, thought about it, and finally said "Yes, I suppose lots of
things could be faster than light". The shock was tantalizing. I was in
"shock and awe", as they say these days. But he just looked at me with
that magical smile that only people know who have seen it with their own
eyes, and nothing has been the same ever since.
Needless to say the pizza was burned black at the buttom, but somehow it
didn't matter in the least.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/b784e435/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:17:02 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts as "realities."
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.104.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It can be noticed how the thoughts are not taken for thoughts but for
"realities." The "realities" are the most potent thoughts of all
in terms of obscuring the continual unfolding of what is.
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:17:50 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.105.ae.dropper@juno.com>
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
less. (dl)
Two or three months ago I promised to send Self. Society, and
Proprioception.
It will be coming soon. Rajath had offered to buy software for his
scanner and scan it
for me at that time. I told him my friend would scan it.
My friend was finally able to scan it for me. This is a heads up
so that you can capture it for your website dl. I think I snail mailed it
to you a few years ago
and you had trouble getting it on your website in that form.
-- funny
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:23 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the
direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems
fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could
have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him,
Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires
into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide
by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless
you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm
wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas
about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in
life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of
this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any
problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants
to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list
who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if
that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal
are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us
are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal
and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you
step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function
and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even
deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned
to recognize.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear
'normal'
>if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
You cannot, but i don't think that is what he wants anyway. Perhaps he
has read something about Nirvana, or Wu Wei, or something like that and
fancies himself as an enlightened Zen master. Many of these selfless
super-modest masters (who are invariably one with the universe) take a
great delight in not being recognized as such by us ordinary mortals. I
have done this myself for a while. I think i know what he is talking
about. I know that feeling of "deep peace in deep awareness". I know what
it is like to be one with the universe. I have managed to escape from
this nonsense, but apparently he still doesn't realize the trap. You are
justified about being worried about him. He is probably one step away
from suicide. He is a longing for death. But he is not going to do it. He
is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may have lost his mind when he was
with the military, but he is a survivor. Eventually, some intelligence
will perculate back into his mind. I know he hates this, but the best way
to get him out of this "deep" sleep is to get personal with him; confront
him directly as a person (as i am doing now).
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 23:21:45
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear
'normal' if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep".
This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense
of experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more
fundamental than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic
actuality ... maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
(1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says
rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much
as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind
of happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is
either overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get
anywhere in life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and
pretending in the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the
whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a
map without a territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For
instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to have
accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people who counted
in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a
cyclical disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his
life work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as
something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value
fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over time
and space with no center and no stable relationship with the explicate
world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean,
that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme
ego trip.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/9b72eb95/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:22:53 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] opening
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.106.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thought abstracts from thought's rendering of what is [as an
interpretation of what is]
and argues with the interpretation by saying it shouldn't be. This absurd
conflict in thought
is the basis of all of the painful conflict in the world. And it is
highly likely that it is occurring
right now in thought's immediate [unsuspended] objection to its
interpretation of this formula.
If this movement can be seen as the mechanical movement that it is, seen
without moral
objection [anymore than there would be moral objection to the automatic
movement observed
in any mechanism] such observation will make possible an opening in this
veil of frenzied
and desperate motion.
This opening, however tiny it is, changes everything. And we know it. And
we pretend not to know it,
while almost imperceptibly preparing ourselves for the fearful
inevitability of total change, So we put
off this seeing, this opening, until we are certain of being "ready" but
such certainty never comes.
So when fortune has its way with us, we are indiscriminately stricken
with this opening and with
this seeing - "ready" or not.
-- funny
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 1 18:24:54 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:25:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
Message-ID: <20071201.122601.2428.109.ae.dropper@juno.com>
But it is misleading when it [thought] claims to be telling me who or
what this person I am meeting, is. (funny)
I: What does 'is' mean in this specific context?
"Identical." ("Is" here means: the thought and the person claimed as
identical). -- funny
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:43:21 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
But it is misleading when it claims to be telling me who or what this
person I am meeting, is.
I: What does 'is' mean in this specific context?
On Nov 27, 2007 12:26 PM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Seems that all thought [of type A] these days makes an implicit claim of
objectivity. (It is built into thought of type B - or what thought thinks
about thought of type A's function). "Objective thought" would seem to be
the same as "Literal thought" [thought simply telling me the way things
are], which all thought, which is participatory by nature [and not really
objective or literal], claims to be.
Objective thought, or Literal thought, is a useful tool when applied to
things objectifiable. It does sufficiently match up to its claim of
"telling me the way things are" when applied to manufactured goods and so
it's invaluable in their manufacture and in their repair. Literal or
objective thought is also very useful for purposes of meeting someone at
a particular time and place.
But it is misleading when it claims to be telling me who or what this
person I am meeting, is.
-- funny
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:07:12 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Maybe that's why so many scientists like to treat their views as
objective. -- df
Someone said the meaning of objective is what two or more subjects
decided or agreed upon, and in this sense, the objective would be
arbitrary. It is certain that Webster's definition is arbitrary. Then
the question, What really is ... really real? Or, what actually is?
It appears the reason db/thought goes to the Greek is that they sought
answers to such questions.
When the quantum discoveries and formulations suggested that what
everything is made of is unknown, then that question raises the issue of
what actually is. For years, possibly millennia, people have acted and
pretended that everything was made of solid sort of things like atoms,
that atoms made up everything like bricks and mortar might make up a
building.
Not necessarily so, says quantum science. Still, we habitually act as if
that is so. And so the question, what is really real? Is the really
real what two or more subjects say is objective -- i.e., is actuality
arbitrary, determined by arbitrary edict?
There's the view expressed in Greek thought of the union of subject and
object, and this idea may be most coherent. It asks what actually is
really real, the Greek ontos on, instead of acting and pretending that
"reality" is simply what is arbitrarily decided.
Obviously this points to the logos character of the universe, the
reasonable and meaningful character of the whole, and to the logic of
using such a notion as dia logos to inquire and explore via dialogue. --
dl
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
Normally, the term is category, or logical category. Tree is a category
in the plant kingdom. A pine is a category in the tree kingdom, etc. A
person is a category in the human kingdom. These are generic terms.
Images are something else. If Bohm used the word image he was using it in
the sense that Krishnamurti was using it - eg. "self image". Each of us
may have a self-image or a lot of self-images but if we recognize
somebody else, that is another logical category. We might use "friend or
foe or stranger, or celebrity, and so on. But these are just ways of
considering our behavior or our perception. They are third person points
of view - not the sort of third person btw who appears in the trinity -
and not first person even if we do it ourselves. We stand back and make
assumptions about what another might see. Even a self-image might be
understood as a kind of quasi third person point of view. "This is what I
look like to an outside observer". Or, "this is what I want to look like
to such an observer." Of course, just as Bohm suggested that that the
name of God - I am - might color our own self image, the third person of
the trinity might also color our imagination of what power the third
person (or so-called objective point of view) has. Maybe that's why so
many scientists like to treat their views as objective.
don
On 27 Nov 2007, at 13:22, Don Lay wrote:
I don't think I ever said anything about the word image. -- Susan
"A word is an image" ... Bohm. One thing this means is that a written
word is used as if it is identical with "the image" in the mind of
users. The word tree is used as if a common kind of image obtains in
everyone's awareness -- otherwise, how can anyone know the meaning of
words used? It seems we assume this word/image/identity.
DB indicates imagination use must be limited to the power to create
images. Evidently any use of the idea of image, imagination, etc.,
relates to the Platonic ideas of form and to the Analogy of the Cave.
Maybe identity and language itself need serious scrutiny. Certainly
language is problematic. Look at how we assume, if not act and pretend,
language to be "substantially adequate" (db's phrase).
It is said that words, language constructs a scenario which is accepted
as re-presenting what actually is. But is the re-presentation ever what
actually is? Is the first language presentation what actually is? Words
may be viewed as measures of experience such that the measuring itself is
an alteration of what actually is. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
I don't think I ever said anything about the word image. Using
imagination is not the same as simply creating an image. imagination
includes feelings, sound, smells, tastes....and images. And, as I said,
I don't think there can be such a thing as identity without
"imagination".
It seems to me that the phrase....identity "with" the whole would simply
be referring to a connection that identity has with the whole. But that
says nothing about what identity is, only about what it is connected to.
I would also say that the whole has an identity of it's own. It would
simply be an identity that can not be limited. Which is also true of an
identity created from the imagination.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
I would say that you can't have identity without imagination. It seems
to me that the imagination is the mechanism that allows the identity to
form itself to begin with. -- Susan
Then the question, what would identity with virtual reality be like. If
identity means use of image, what would be the mechanics of identity
without identity with an image?
I have liked the idea of identity with the whole, but what might that
mean since no image is possible? Maybe identity the idea of sameness
does not require an image. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
I would say that you can't have identity without imagination. It seems
to me that the imagination is the mechanism that allows the identity to
form itself to begin with. But I would think that subtle self would work
just as well as virtual self and I would agree that the word spiritual
has too many religious connotations for many people to be able to
understand your meaning with that word.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
Think of it (spiritual identity) as virtual identity William. Even a
virtual identity has something like a region/area that it exists within
by virtue of it's own borders creating a background that it emerges from.
The area it exists within would be something like a region of the
universe. Makes perfect sense to me. -- Susan
What you say makes loads of sense, regarding both virtual identity and
Spiritual identity, and especially following the views of Maturana
regarding the identity emerging from background.
Incidentally, this appears to be the same as the Greek notion of
existence as emerging and standing out of essence as Being or wholeness.
It might be useful to consider the virtual identity as following the idea
of a no longer tenable, Spiritual identity just because of the spooky
notions of a separated god and spiritual identity as belonging to that.
However, the idea of subtle identity might also work well for the purpose
of directing attention to the subtle, even to quantum systems, and away
from the gross nature of identity with the imagination. -- dl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/f51c26cf/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 18:29:46 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:32:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
In-Reply-To: <20071201.122601.2428.109.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071201.122601.2428.109.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010929l2ec979adl5a6d6a6b3644e105@mail.gmail.com>
I: Thanks for answering. Yes, I agree that is reasonable some of the
time. There are degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy, no?
On Dec 1, 2007 12:24 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> But it is misleading when it [thought] claims to be telling me who or
> what this person I am meeting, *is. (funny)*
> **
> *I: What does 'is' mean in this specific context?*
> **
> "Identical." ("Is" here means: the thought and the person claimed
> as identical). -- funny
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:43:21 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> But it is misleading when it claims to be telling me who or what this
> person I am meeting, *is.
>
> I: What does 'is' mean in this specific context?
> *
> On Nov 27, 2007 12:26 PM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Seems that all thought [of type A] these days makes an implicit claim
> > of objectivity. (It is built into thought of type B - or what thought thinks
> > about thought of type A's function). "Objective thought" would seem to be
> > the same as "Literal thought" [thought simply telling me the way things
> > are], which all thought, which is participatory by nature [and not really
> > objective or literal], claims to be.
> >
> > Objective thought, or Literal thought, is a useful tool when applied to
> > things objectifiable. It does sufficiently match up to its claim of "telling
> > me the way things are" when applied to manufactured goods and so it's
> > invaluable in their manufacture and in their repair. Literal or objective
> > thought is also very useful for purposes of meeting someone at a particular
> > time and place.
> >
> > But it is misleading when it claims to be telling me who or what this
> > person I am meeting, *is. *
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:07:12 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net>
> > writes:
> >
> > Maybe that's why so many scientists like to treat their views as
> > objective. -- df
> >
> > Someone said the *meaning* of *objective* is what two or more *subjects
> > *decided or agreed upon, and in this sense, the *objective* would be
> > arbitrary. It is certain that Webster's definition is arbitrary. Then the
> > question, *What really is ... really real*? Or, *what actually is*?
> >
> > It appears the reason db/thought goes to the Greek is that they sought
> > answers to such questions.
> >
> > When the quantum discoveries and formulations suggested that what
> > everything is made of is *unknown*, then that question raises the issue
> > of *what actually is*. For years, possibly millennia, people have acted
> > and pretended that everything was made of solid sort of things like atoms,
> > that atoms made up everything like bricks and mortar might make up a
> > building.
> >
> > Not *necessarily* so, says quantum science. Still, we habitually act as
> > if that is so. And so the question, what is *really real*? Is the *really
> > real* what two or more *subjects* say is *objective* -- i.e., is *actuality
> > **arbitrary*, determined by arbitrary edict?
> >
> > There's the *view* expressed in Greek thought of *the union of subject
> > and object*, and this idea may be most coherent. It asks what *actually
> > is really real, *the Greek* ontos on*, instead of acting and
> > pretending that "reality" is simply what is arbitrarily decided.
> >
> > Obviously this points to the *logos character* of the universe, the *reasonable
> > and meaningful character* of the whole, and to the logic of using such a
> > notion as *dia logos* to inquire and explore via dialogue. -- dl
> >
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:36 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
> >
> > Normally, the term is category, or logical category. Tree is a category
> > in the plant kingdom. A pine is a category in the tree kingdom, etc. A
> > person is a category in the human kingdom. These are generic terms. Images
> > are something else. If Bohm used the word image he was using it in the sense
> > that Krishnamurti was using it - eg. "self image". Each of us may have a
> > self-image or a lot of self-images but if we recognize somebody else, that
> > is another logical category. We might use "friend or foe or stranger, or
> > celebrity, and so on. But these are just ways of considering our behavior or
> > our perception. *They are third person points of view *- not the sort of
> > third person btw who appears in the trinity - and not first person even if
> > we do it ourselves. We stand back and make assumptions about what another
> > might see. Even a self-image might be understood as a kind of quasi third
> > person point of view. "This is what I look like to an outside observer". Or,
> > "this is what I want to look like to such an observer." Of course, just as
> > Bohm suggested that that the name of God - I am - might color our own self
> > image, the third person of the trinity might also color our imagination of
> > what power the third person (or so-called objective point of view) has.
> > Maybe that's why so many scientists like to treat their views as objective.
> > don
> >
> >
> > On 27 Nov 2007, at 13:22, Don Lay wrote:
> >
> > I don't think I ever said anything about the word image. -- Susan
> >
> > "A word is an image" ... Bohm. One thing this means is that a *written
> > word* is used as if it is identical with "the image" in the mind of
> > users. The word tree is used as if a common kind of *image* obtains in
> > everyone's awareness -- otherwise, how can anyone know the meaning of words
> > used? It seems we assume this *word/image/identity*.
> >
> > DB indicates *imagination* use must be limited to the power to create
> > images. Evidently any use of the idea of image, imagination, etc., relates
> > to the Platonic ideas of form and to the *Analogy of the Cave*.
> >
> > Maybe identity and language itself need serious scrutiny. Certainly
> > language is problematic. Look at how we assume, if not *act and pretend
> > *, language to be "substantially adequate" (db's phrase).
> >
> > It is said that words, language constructs a scenario which is accepted
> > as re-presenting what actually is. But is the re-presentation ever
> > what actually is? Is the first language presentation what actually is?
> > Words may be viewed as measures of experience such that the measuring itself
> > is an alteration of what actually is. -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2007 10:35 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
> >
> > I don't think I ever said anything about the word image. Using
> > imagination is not the same as simply creating an image. imagination
> > includes feelings, sound, smells, tastes....and images. And, as I said, I
> > don't think there can be such a thing as identity without "imagination".
> >
> > It seems to me that the phrase....identity "with" the whole would simply
> > be referring to a connection that identity has with the whole. But that
> > says nothing about what identity is, only about what it is connected to. I
> > would also say that the whole has an identity of it's own. It would simply
> > be an identity that can not be limited. Which is also true of an identity
> > created from the imagination.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2007 7:07 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
> >
> > I would say that you can't have identity without imagination. It seems
> > to me that the imagination is the mechanism that allows the identity to form
> > itself to begin with. -- Susan
> >
> > Then the question, what would *identity with virtual reality* be like.
> > If identity *means* use of *image**, *what would be the mechanics of
> > identity without *identity with an **image*?
> >
> > I have liked the idea of *identity with the whole*, but what might that
> > mean since no *image* is possible? Maybe identity the idea of *sameness
> > * does not require an *image*. -- dl
> >
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2007 7:09 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
> >
> > I would say that you can't have identity without imagination. It seems
> > to me that the imagination is the mechanism that allows the identity to form
> > itself to begin with. But I would think that subtle self would work just as
> > well as virtual self and I would agree that the word spiritual has too many
> > religious connotations for many people to be able to understand your meaning
> > with that word.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2007 2:44 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] David Peat and non negotiable assumptions
> >
> > Think of it (spiritual identity) as virtual identity William. Even a
> > virtual identity has something like a region/area that it exists within by
> > virtue of it's own borders creating a background that it emerges from. The
> > area it exists within would be something like a region of the universe.
> > Makes perfect sense to me. -- Susan
> >
> > What you say makes loads of sense, regarding both virtual identity and
> > Spiritual identity, and especially following the views of Maturana regarding
> > the identity *emerging from background*.
> >
> > Incidentally, this appears to be the same as the Greek notion of *
> > existence* *as emerging and standing out* of *essence as Being or
> > wholeness.*
> >
> > It might be useful to consider the virtual identity as following the
> > idea of a *no longer tenable, Spiritual identity* just because of the
> > spooky notions of a *separated god* and spiritual identity as belonging
> > to that.
> >
> > However, the idea of *subtle identity* might also work well for the
> > purpose of directing attention to the *subtle, even to quantum systems,* and
> > away from the gross nature of *identity with* the *imagination*. -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/f1492044/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 18:32:22 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:35:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] opening
In-Reply-To: <20071201.122601.2428.106.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071201.122601.2428.106.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712010932xe5dd83ct601a0a5945cddb53@mail.gmail.com>
I: Do we not need to first assess whether this is actually happening,
rather than assume it is?
On Dec 1, 2007 12:22 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Thought abstracts from thought's rendering of what is [as an
> interpretation of what is]
> and argues with the interpretation by saying it shouldn't be. This absurd
> conflict in thought
> is the basis of all of the painful conflict in the world. And it is
> highly likely that it is occurring
> right now in thought's immediate [unsuspended] objection to its
> interpretation of this formula.
>
> If this movement can be seen as the mechanical movement that it is, seen
> without moral
> objection [anymore than there would be moral objection to the automatic
> movement observed
> in any mechanism] such observation will make possible an opening in this
> veil of frenzied
> and desperate motion.
>
> This opening, however tiny it is, changes everything. And we know it. And
> we pretend not to know it,
> while almost imperceptibly preparing ourselves for the fearful
> inevitability of total change, So we put
> off this seeing, this opening, until we are certain of being "ready" but
> such certainty never comes.
> So when fortune has its way with us, we are indiscriminately stricken
> with this opening and with
> this seeing - "ready" or not.
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/216e137c/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 18:51:24 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:54:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <20071201.122601.2428.105.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <010301c83442$cacfa1b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Thanks funny. Please help me not miss it because I need it the website. -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. (dl)
Two or three months ago I promised to send Self. Society, and Proprioception.
It will be coming soon. Rajath had offered to buy software for his scanner and scan it
for me at that time. I told him my friend would scan it.
My friend was finally able to scan it for me. This is a heads up
so that you can capture it for your website dl. I think I snail mailed it to you a few years ago
and you had trouble getting it on your website in that form.
-- funny
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:23 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal'
>if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
You cannot, but i don't think that is what he wants anyway. Perhaps he has read something about Nirvana, or Wu Wei, or something like that and fancies himself as an enlightened Zen master. Many of these selfless super-modest masters (who are invariably one with the universe) take a great delight in not being recognized as such by us ordinary mortals. I have done this myself for a while. I think i know what he is talking about. I know that feeling of "deep peace in deep awareness". I know what it is like to be one with the universe. I have managed to escape from this nonsense, but apparently he still doesn't realize the trap. You are justified about being worried about him. He is probably one step away from suicide. He is a longing for death. But he is not going to do it. He is an ex-marine and a fighter. His may have lost his mind when he was with the military, but he is a survivor. Eventually, some intelligence will perculate back into his mind. I know he hates this, but the best way to get him out of this "deep" sleep is to get personal with him; confront him directly as a person (as i am doing now).
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 23:21:45
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear 'normal' if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep". This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense of experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more fundamental than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic actuality ... maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
don
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/44062006/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 1 18:55:38 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 1 18:59:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890712010834n7cf618b8wd02b71ba7d9f7ce9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4751A01A.000001.03100@VAIO-584793128F>
>I: William, I can't seem to find the email you quote from below. Which
one was it?
-------Original Message-------
From: Susan Clemons
Date: 01.12.2007 02:30:09
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life.
That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group
and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his
thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or
normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say
that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in
fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal"
doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite
well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
recognize.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/27833014/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 19:02:24 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 19:05:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <010301c83442$cacfa1b0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071201.122601.2428.105.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<010301c83442$cacfa1b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712011002q6a266101h789409c3a26ac277@mail.gmail.com>
I: Would you please post the url for your website again? I'd like to
access the 'homework' part, also what Pat sends you for posting. thanks
On Dec 1, 2007 12:51 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> Thanks funny. Please help me not miss it because I need it the website.
> -- dl
>
>
> *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
> less. (dl)
>
> Two or three months ago I promised to send Self. Society, and
> Proprioception.
> It will be coming soon. Rajath had offered to buy software for his scanner
> and scan it
> for me at that time. I told him my friend would scan it.
>
> My friend was finally able to scan it for me. This is a heads up
> so that you can capture it for your website dl. I think I snail mailed it
> to you a few years ago
> and you had trouble getting it on your website in that form.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:23 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
>
> Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction
> of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate
> and to the point. Thanks again.
>
> However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches
> above the position of *henchman* or *henchwench* or *df-groupie,* but I
> could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be
> again.
>
> What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is
> Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about *self and self-image* drove him,
> Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
>
> Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires
> into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding *self and self-identity*?
>
> Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by
> exploring Bohm's proposals regarding *self* and *self-imagery*? Unless
> you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
>
> As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care
> less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
>
> Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring *what Bohm
> wrote*, and *the meaning* of *Bohm's thought* as a* *quantum theorist. --
> dl
>
>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
> dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life.
> That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group
> and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his
> thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
> "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or
> "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would
> say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck
> in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal"
> doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite
> well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
> the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
> fragmentation.
>
> dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
> recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
> purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
> the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
> recognize.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* william <w@david-bohm.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/e43b94a6/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 19:03:42 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 19:06:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <4751A01A.000001.03100@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <c47283890712010834n7cf618b8wd02b71ba7d9f7ce9@mail.gmail.com>
<4751A01A.000001.03100@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890712011003i205f1893k64647fbd1f6cb64c@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks.
On Dec 1, 2007 12:55 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> >I: William, I can't seem to find the email you quote from below.
> Which one was it?
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *Date:* 01.12.2007 02:30:09
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about
> dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life.
> That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group
> and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his
> thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or
> "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or
> "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would
> say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck
> in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal"
> doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite
> well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal
> the better you are able to function and the more you step away from
> fragmentation.
>
> dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he
> recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the
> purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny
> the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to
> recognize.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/0beb89d9/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 1 19:13:00 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 1 19:15:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <20071201.122601.2428.105.ae.dropper@juno.com><010301c83442$cacfa1b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712011002q6a266101h789409c3a26ac277@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01bf01c83445$cf2f4af0$b5c16018@DL01>
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: Would you please post the url for your website again? I'd like to access the 'homework' part, also what Pat sends you for posting. thanks
On Dec 1, 2007 12:51 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Thanks funny. Please help me not miss it because I need it the website. -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. (dl)
Two or three months ago I promised to send Self. Society, and Proprioception.
It will be coming soon. Rajath had offered to buy software for his scanner and scan it
for me at that time. I told him my friend would scan it.
My friend was finally able to scan it for me. This is a heads up
so that you can capture it for your website dl. I think I snail mailed it to you a few years ago
and you had trouble getting it on your website in that form.
-- funny
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:23 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Susan, I confess not being surprised that what you say is in the direction of the true and real. Thanks. Further, what you say seems fairly accurate and to the point. Thanks again.
However, I confess erring about W. I had him at more than a few notches above the position of henchman or henchwench or df-groupie, but I could have been wrong. No problem, I 've being wrong before and will be again.
What I don't understand is this talk about insanity and suicide. Is Factor saying that what Bohm wrote about self and self-image drove him, Bohm, insane? Or drove df insane?
Or is he saying that he, df, fears insanity and/or suicide if he inquires into and explores the writings of Bohm regarding self and self-identity?
Why? What possible reason can there be for fearing insanity or suicide by exploring Bohm's proposals regarding self and self-imagery? Unless you are saying that it drove him insane. Did he ever talk of suicide?
As for Bohm liking or not liking people quoting him, I couldn't care less. My view is that only a sicky would even think of that.
Again, for the umpteenth time, my interest is in exploring what Bohm wrote, and the meaning of Bohm's thought as a quantum theorist. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your ideas about dl here William? Lots of people pursue deep spiritual meaning in life. That doesn't mean they are close to suicide. dl has been part of this group and saying these same things for years. I don't see any problem with his thinking. Is it "ordinary? God, I hope not. Who wants to be ordinary or "normal"? I don't know a single person on this list who sounds ordinary or "normal". I think I would run like the plague if that happened. I would say that the people who sound ordinary and normal are the ones who are stuck in fragmentation. But the fact that any of us are not ordinary or "normal" doesn't mean that we can't recognize normal and ordinary and function quite well. Actually I would say the more you step outside of ordinary and normal the better you are able to function and the more you step away from fragmentation.
dl has never said he has no self or identity. He has simply said that he recognizes that most ideas of self are frozen images constructed for the purpose of dealing with social reality that ignore, or sometimes even deny the deeper sense of self that many of us on this list have learned to recognize.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/18b2ddd3/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Dec 1 20:00:09 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sat Dec 1 20:02:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712010826i334cb0e7m9e42d8e798ee7c0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C376FD49.F5AC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
My understanding (assumption?) is that recognizing and suspending an
assumption does not require changing one?s mind, just a willingness to
examine it and listen to other opinions. Which is to say, I then see my
opinion as something I have, not something I am (even if I continue to hold
and value it).
Lynne
By the way, welcome, Scot, and thanks for sending us off in this direction
(which is sort of how this all seems to work).
On 12/1/07 9:26 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I: Interesting example of how language can confuse rather than clarify. I
> have certain assumptions (meaning values and meanings) that I see no reason to
> change. For instance, Hitler's actions, slavery, original sin, the body-mind
> split, a few of the things that have contributed to the present state of
> society's chaos. If someone could give me a good reason, may I would, but I
> doubt a good reason could be found. However, aside from such things, all else
> is much more open to examination.
>
> I think we have to be very careful in assuming anything is a universal, human
> response. It can get into the 'one size fits all' way of thinking.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 11:16 AM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>> I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the suspension of
>> the assumptions). That seems to me quite accurate, at least when the
>> assumptions are mine (I have no problem with other people's assumptions being
>> suspended, all in favor). Suspending my assumptions can be hard, sometimes
>> painful, and I just don't want to do it (and it may not even get that far ? I
>> can balk at even taking certain of my truths to be "assumptions" ). And I
>> think this is a universal, human response. I do know that when I do this, my
>> life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun! (no pun intended, Pat ? I
>> think.)
>>
>> Lynne
>>
>> On 12/1/07 8:14 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments below
>>> if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that more
>>> accurately conveys your meaning.
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
>>>> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
>>>> the assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
>>>> dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as
>>>>> "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
>>>>> angles and not "truths."
>>>>
>>>>> And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
>>>>> conflict with one another.
>>>>
>>>> And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context of
>>>> the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
>>>>
>>>>> So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
>>>>> one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
>>>>> are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
>>>>> "simply telling us the way things are." Seeing these thoughts as truths is
>>>>> a recipe for endless conflict among people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
>>>>> the Bohmian Dialogue model.
>>>>
>>>>> But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
>>>>> fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions
>>>>> because as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>>>>
>>>> It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
>>>> true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
>>>>> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
>>>>> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in
>>>>> what we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are
>>>>> "truths" is the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But
>>>>> suspension of the assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree
>>>>> is to the tree. Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is
>>>>> typical talk.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- funny
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/7a658620/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 21:20:00 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 21:22:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <C376FD49.F5AC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <c47283890712010826i334cb0e7m9e42d8e798ee7c0b@mail.gmail.com>
<C376FD49.F5AC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712011220t7e2d7520yb59227d472dc046f@mail.gmail.com>
I: Yes, that's my understanding, too. However, consider this:
Fragmentation arises when an attempt is made to impose divisions in an
arbitrary fashion, without any regard for a wider context, even to the point
of ignoring essential connections to the rest of the world. SO&C 15
On Hitler:
The possibility of our thinking is somehow in the DNA; as is the possibility
that the thinking could go wrong, given a set of circumstances which will
condition it to go wrong. And somehow in the history of the human race that
has happened...It's the incoherence in the system as a whole which produced
a Hitler. p 60
You can see the power of alll this imagination and fantasy. Throughout all
the world that sort of thing ha produced effects like that. There was
Hitler, and there have been all sorts of other people. And we haven't
resolved this question. TAS 164
The only reason I could see to opening such questions is to learn from them
where society went wrong, and allowed this to happen. And I, personally,
have done a lot of that. On all the topics I mentioned, actually. There
were lessons to be learned which, unfortunately, weren't. But Hitler's
values and actions to be emulated? I don't think so.
I have often commented that many BDers seem to think that noone ever thought
before they encountered dialogue, so that a newcomer is full of pollution.
And that's a really erroneous assumption.
On Dec 1, 2007 2:00 PM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
> My understanding (assumption?) is that recognizing and suspending an
> assumption does not require changing one's mind, just a willingness to
> examine it and listen to other opinions. Which is to say, I then see my
> opinion as something I have, not something I am (even if I continue to hold
> and value it).
>
> Lynne
>
> By the way, welcome, Scot, and thanks for sending us off in this direction
> (which is sort of how this all seems to work).
>
> On 12/1/07 9:26 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I: Interesting example of how language can confuse rather than clarify.
> I have certain assumptions (meaning values and meanings) that I see no
> reason to change. For instance, Hitler's actions, slavery, original sin,
> the body-mind split, a few of the things that have contributed to the
> present state of society's chaos. If someone could give me a good reason,
> may I would, but I doubt a good reason could be found. However, aside from
> such things, all else is much more open to examination.
>
> I think we have to be very careful in assuming anything is a universal,
> human response. It can get into the 'one size fits all' way of thinking.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 11:16 AM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
> wrote:
>
> I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the suspension
> of the assumptions). That seems to me quite accurate, at least when the
> assumptions are mine (I have no problem with other people's assumptions
> being suspended, all in favor). Suspending my assumptions can be hard,
> sometimes painful, and I just don't want to do it (and it may not even get
> that far ? I can balk at even taking certain of my truths to be
> "assumptions" ). And I think this is a universal, human response. I do
> know that when I do this, my life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun!
> (no pun intended, Pat ? I think.)
>
> Lynne
>
> On 12/1/07 8:14 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments
> below if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that
> more accurately conveys your meaning.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions.
>
> I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
> dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
> thought.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken as
> "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> angles and not "truths."
>
>
> And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
> conflict with one another.
>
>
> And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context
> of the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
>
>
> So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
> one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
> are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
> "simply telling us the way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as truths
> is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
>
> Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis of
> the Bohmian Dialogue model.
>
>
> But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
> fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
> as "truths" they are not suspendable.
>
>
> It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
> true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
>
>
> Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/a2daa48c/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 21:43:17 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 1 21:46:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712011220t7e2d7520yb59227d472dc046f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712010826i334cb0e7m9e42d8e798ee7c0b@mail.gmail.com>
<C376FD49.F5AC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<c47283890712011220t7e2d7520yb59227d472dc046f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712011243t6bf8cbc9ue1659dcb7a7c25ce@mail.gmail.com>
I More clarification.
We all have 'pollution' to clear up, but we don't all have the same
pollution to clear up, and it won't necessarily follow the blueprint in
TAS. That's where creative thinking has to take over. That's why I see the
ideas in On Creativity and SO&C so important to fleshing out and balancing
TAS.
Nor am I saying I wouldn't enter and continue a dialogue on the Hitler, etc
subjects if it seemed to bear any fruit. And yes, I reserve the right to
call that play. There are so many other topics i need to work on, and so
little time left in life. My perspective at 72 is not that of people much
younger than I. DF lived through the world events I did. And we have lived
many things that we don't have in common. Sharing the content of the
differences leads to good things. How many others here are in our age
bracket?
And no, I'm not saying that only old people have anything to offer. I'm
saying the younger you are, the more time you think you have; the less
urgent things seem. But I do want to mention in passing, that many cultures
at least recognize that some kind of wisdom can come with age. And there is
a whole set of qualifying conditions to accompany that last statement, as
well. I KNOW this from having experienced consequences. I'm just not going
to write a longer essay on the topic now.
On Dec 1, 2007 3:20 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I: Yes, that's my understanding, too. However, consider this:
>
> Fragmentation arises when an attempt is made to impose divisions in an
> arbitrary fashion, without any regard for a wider context, even to the point
> of ignoring essential connections to the rest of the world. SO&C 15
>
> On Hitler:
>
> The possibility of our thinking is somehow in the DNA; as is the
> possibility that the thinking could go wrong, given a set of circumstances
> which will condition it to go wrong. And somehow in the history of the
> human race that has happened...It's the incoherence in the system as a whole
> which produced a Hitler. p 60
>
> You can see the power of alll this imagination and fantasy. Throughout
> all the world that sort of thing ha produced effects like that. There was
> Hitler, and there have been all sorts of other people. And we haven't
> resolved this question. TAS 164
>
> The only reason I could see to opening such questions is to learn from
> them where society went wrong, and allowed this to happen. And I,
> personally, have done a lot of that. On all the topics I mentioned,
> actually. There were lessons to be learned which, unfortunately, weren't.
> But Hitler's values and actions to be emulated? I don't think so.
>
> I have often commented that many BDers seem to think that noone ever
> thought before they encountered dialogue, so that a newcomer is full of
> pollution. And that's a really erroneous assumption.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 2:00 PM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>
> > My understanding (assumption?) is that recognizing and suspending an
> > assumption does not require changing one's mind, just a willingness to
> > examine it and listen to other opinions. Which is to say, I then see my
> > opinion as something I have, not something I am (even if I continue to hold
> > and value it).
> >
> > Lynne
> >
> > By the way, welcome, Scot, and thanks for sending us off in this
> > direction (which is sort of how this all seems to work).
> >
> > On 12/1/07 9:26 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I: Interesting example of how language can confuse rather than clarify.
> > I have certain assumptions (meaning values and meanings) that I see no
> > reason to change. For instance, Hitler's actions, slavery, original sin,
> > the body-mind split, a few of the things that have contributed to the
> > present state of society's chaos. If someone could give me a good reason,
> > may I would, but I doubt a good reason could be found. However, aside from
> > such things, all else is much more open to examination.
> >
> > I think we have to be very careful in assuming anything is a universal,
> > human response. It can get into the 'one size fits all' way of thinking.
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2007 11:16 AM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the
> > suspension of the assumptions). That seems to me quite accurate, at least
> > when the assumptions are mine (I have no problem with other people's
> > assumptions being suspended, all in favor). Suspending my assumptions can
> > be hard, sometimes painful, and I just don't want to do it (and it may not
> > even get that far ? I can balk at even taking certain of my truths to be
> > "assumptions" ). And I think this is a universal, human response. I do
> > know that when I do this, my life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun!
> > (no pun intended, Pat ? I think.)
> >
> > Lynne
> >
> > On 12/1/07 8:14 AM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ADDENDUM - I'm reading 'objections' as critique. Forgive the comments
> > below if I've understood incorrectly. Perhaps you could supply a word that
> > more accurately conveys your meaning.
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2007 10:12 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> > dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> > the assumptions.
> >
> > I: Sorry, Pat. I think you're WAY off base here. It almost sounds
> > dogmatic. Fundamentalist. I wonder if you've suspended and examined that
> > thought.
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2007 9:17 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Before we discover that our thoughts are not "the truth" they are taken
> > as "the truth." But they only represent different perspectives and different
> > angles and not "truths."
> >
> >
> > And since they are different and only fragments they will seem to be in
> > conflict with one another.
> >
> >
> > And here. My objection is the word 'will'. Particularly in the context
> > of the other comments. What about "can", or 'may', or "the proposal is"?
> >
> >
> > So when we hear other perspectives we feel like we are in conflict with
> > one another and we will argue and we will fight and we will think that we
> > are fighting for the "truth" because we see our thoughts as "truths," as
> > "simply telling us the way things *are*." Seeing these thoughts as
> > truths is a recipe for endless conflict among people.
> >
> > Suspension of the thoughts is the bohmian antidote, the brilliant basis
> > of the Bohmian Dialogue model.
> >
> >
> > But before such suspension is possible, these felt "truths" that we are
> > fighting so innocently and nobly for, need to be seen as assumptions because
> > as "truths" they are not suspendable.
> >
> >
> > It's quite possible to suspend and reflect-examine thoughts we think are
> > true. Even if we do it on a "what if" basis.
> >
> >
> > Whether directly or indirectly, objections to Bohm's work on thought and
> > dialogue are objections to the very basis of it which is the suspension of
> > the assumptions. We see no good reason at all for finding an opening in what
> > we believe are "truths." This belief that our assumptions are "truths" is
> > the initial assumption that we see no need to suspend. But suspension of the
> > assumptions is to Bohm Dialogue as the seed of the tree is to the tree.
> > Without that dialogical seed of suspension all our talk is typical talk.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/6afdb93b/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 1 23:15:34 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sat Dec 1 23:18:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004801c833be$dd8653f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) } v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) } What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/a526f5a6/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Dec 1 23:43:38 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sat Dec 1 23:46:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712011243t6bf8cbc9ue1659dcb7a7c25ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C37731AA.F5B2%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Thanks for the clarification, Irene. I don?t always get from where I?m
thinking to where you?re thinking (or other people, for that matter ? the
perennial communication problem). There are plenty of assumptions I have
that I don?t feel any pressing need to examine (not that I might not at some
point). I think the ones that matter most are the ones I don?t yet know
about. I agree with Pat that this work is a wonderful way to unearth those.
And if we?re checking age brackets, I?ll be 66 in a couple of weeks. It
does help to have the time to think about these things. My kids are too
busy trying to pay the bills and raise the little ones.
Lynne
On 12/1/07 1:43 PM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I More clarification.
>
> We all have 'pollution' to clear up, but we don't all have the same pollution
> to clear up, and it won't necessarily follow the blueprint in TAS. That's
> where creative thinking has to take over. That's why I see the ideas in On
> Creativity and SO&C so important to fleshing out and balancing TAS.
>
> Nor am I saying I wouldn't enter and continue a dialogue on the Hitler, etc
> subjects if it seemed to bear any fruit. And yes, I reserve the right to call
> that play. There are so many other topics i need to work on, and so little
> time left in life. My perspective at 72 is not that of people much younger
> than I. DF lived through the world events I did. And we have lived many
> things that we don't have in common. Sharing the content of the differences
> leads to good things. How many others here are in our age bracket?
>
> And no, I'm not saying that only old people have anything to offer. I'm
> saying the younger you are, the more time you think you have; the less urgent
> things seem. But I do want to mention in passing, that many cultures at least
> recognize that some kind of wisdom can come with age. And there is a whole
> set of qualifying conditions to accompany that last statement, as well. I
> KNOW this from having experienced consequences. I'm just not going to write a
> longer essay on the topic now.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 3:20 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I: Yes, that's my understanding, too. However, consider this:
>>
>> Fragmentation arises when an attempt is made to impose divisions in an
>> arbitrary fashion, without any regard for a wider context, even to the point
>> of ignoring essential connections to the rest of the world. SO&C 15
>>
>> On Hitler:
>>
>> The possibility of our thinking is somehow in the DNA; as is the possibility
>> that the thinking could go wrong, given a set of circumstances which will
>> condition it to go wrong. And somehow in the history of the human race that
>> has happened...It's the incoherence in the system as a whole which produced a
>> Hitler. p 60
>>
>> You can see the power of alll this imagination and fantasy. Throughout all
>> the world that sort of thing ha produced effects like that. There was
>> Hitler, and there have been all sorts of other people. And we haven't
>> resolved this question. TAS 164
>>
>> The only reason I could see to opening such questions is to learn from them
>> where society went wrong, and allowed this to happen. And I, personally,
>> have done a lot of that. On all the topics I mentioned, actually. There
>> were lessons to be learned which, unfortunately, weren't. But Hitler's
>> values and actions to be emulated? I don't think so.
>>
>> I have often commented that many BDers seem to think that noone ever thought
>> before they encountered dialogue, so that a newcomer is full of pollution.
>> And that's a really erroneous assumption.
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2007 2:00 PM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>>> My understanding (assumption?) is that recognizing and suspending an
>>> assumption does not require changing one's mind, just a willingness to
>>> examine it and listen to other opinions. Which is to say, I then see my
>>> opinion as something I have, not something I am (even if I continue to hold
>>> and value it).
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>>
>>> By the way, welcome, Scot, and thanks for sending us off in this direction
>>> (which is sort of how this all seems to work).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/07a98a0f/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 23:59:01 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sun Dec 2 00:01:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <C37731AA.F5B2%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <c47283890712011243t6bf8cbc9ue1659dcb7a7c25ce@mail.gmail.com>
<C37731AA.F5B2%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712011459t365887d3v25ddd3171a99868b@mail.gmail.com>
I: down
On Dec 1, 2007 5:43 PM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Irene. I don't always get from where I'm
> thinking to where you're thinking (or other people, for that matter ? the
> perennial communication problem).
>
Yes, communication. And this is where the language limitations come in.
Plus, life's necessities force us to deal with certain issues that may not
be "my" issues.
> There are plenty of assumptions I have that I don't feel any pressing need
> to examine (not that I might not at some point).
>
> I think the ones that matter most are the ones I don't yet know about.
>
I: Maybe, may not. When you begin to see how your children have been
affected by assumptions and issues, and realize that you also have been
affected and unwillingly and unknowingly passed them on, you turn around and
face them square on. Because it has to stop. And those may be different
for everybody.
> I agree with Pat that this work is a wonderful way to unearth those.
>
I: Yes, it is. As long as a 'one size fits all' approach isn't used, and
the creative as well as the TAS pitfall aspect are seen as a whole. I see
Coyote Thought being used as a rationalization to ignore secondary
incoherence. Lip service isn't enough. And where do you go from there in a
dialogue?
>
>
> And if we're checking age brackets, I'll be 66 in a couple of weeks. It
> does help to have the time to think about these things. My kids are too
> busy trying to pay the bills and raise the little ones.
>
I: Yes, time and luck. I was introduced to Bohm creative thinking by an
incredible NYU professor who is now deceased. Her goal was to get it into
the knowledge and assumption bank of all the future teachers she came in
contact with. So it became part of my job when I was feeding the little
ones.
>
>
> Lynne
>
> On 12/1/07 1:43 PM, "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I More clarification.
>
> We all have 'pollution' to clear up, but we don't all have the same
> pollution to clear up, and it won't necessarily follow the blueprint in TAS.
> That's where creative thinking has to take over. That's why I see the
> ideas in On Creativity and SO&C so important to fleshing out and balancing
> TAS.
>
> Nor am I saying I wouldn't enter and continue a dialogue on the Hitler,
> etc subjects if it seemed to bear any fruit. And yes, I reserve the right
> to call that play. There are so many other topics i need to work on, and so
> little time left in life. My perspective at 72 is not that of people much
> younger than I. DF lived through the world events I did. And we have lived
> many things that we don't have in common. Sharing the content of the
> differences leads to good things. How many others here are in our age
> bracket?
>
> And no, I'm not saying that only old people have anything to offer. I'm
> saying the younger you are, the more time you think you have; the less
> urgent things seem. But I do want to mention in passing, that many cultures
> at least recognize that some kind of wisdom can come with age. And there is
> a whole set of qualifying conditions to accompany that last statement, as
> well. I KNOW this from having experienced consequences. I'm just not going
> to write a longer essay on the topic now.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 3:20 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I: Yes, that's my understanding, too. However, consider this:
>
> Fragmentation arises when an attempt is made to impose divisions in an
> arbitrary fashion, without any regard for a wider context, even to the point
> of ignoring essential connections to the rest of the world. SO&C 15
>
> On Hitler:
>
> The possibility of our thinking is somehow in the DNA; as is the
> possibility that the thinking could go wrong, given a set of circumstances
> which will condition it to go wrong. And somehow in the history of the
> human race that has happened...It's the incoherence in the system as a whole
> which produced a Hitler. p 60
>
> You can see the power of alll this imagination and fantasy. Throughout
> all the world that sort of thing ha produced effects like that. There was
> Hitler, and there have been all sorts of other people. And we haven't
> resolved this question. TAS 164
>
> The only reason I could see to opening such questions is to learn from
> them where society went wrong, and allowed this to happen. And I,
> personally, have done a lot of that. On all the topics I mentioned,
> actually. There were lessons to be learned which, unfortunately, weren't.
> But Hitler's values and actions to be emulated? I don't think so.
>
> I have often commented that many BDers seem to think that noone ever
> thought before they encountered dialogue, so that a newcomer is full of
> pollution. And that's a really erroneous assumption.
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 2:00 PM, Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>
> My understanding (assumption?) is that recognizing and suspending an
> assumption does not require changing one's mind, just a willingness to
> examine it and listen to other opinions. Which is to say, I then see my
> opinion as something I have, not something I am (even if I continue to hold
> and value it).
>
> Lynne
>
> By the way, welcome, Scot, and thanks for sending us off in this direction
> (which is sort of how this all seems to work).
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071201/96784fb2/attachment.html